BEAUTY IS POWER: THE SUBJECTIVITY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Historic preservation is governed by hegemonic regulatory structures that use arbitrary definitions of significance to perpetuate nationalism. In the US, as in England, decisions are made by government agencies in conjunction with private trusts which attempt to justify preservation on the basis of subjective value. From these criteria, a national identity is constructed in association with that which is being preserved, further enforcing an authoritative understanding of significance and aesthetic. In order to solidify power, the government codifies this constructed sense of value into regulatory acts which determine the next round of designations. Once the designation process is complete, the entity in question becomes inalienable and requires certain maintenance. Because of this, historic status starts to engulf identity, making future changes to the entity nearly impossible. Not only is its spatiality controlled but who engages with it and how also becomes class-based and authoritative. This perpetuates inequality and inaccessibility, starting with regulations and percolating into socio-spatial ramifications that enforce the impenetrable cycle of the industrial preservation complex.
In order to understand the preservation process, it is imperative to reference John Ruskin, Viollet-Le-Duc, and William Morris, a triad of European scholars whose works in the mid to late 1800’s preceded and influenced the preservation movement. Ruskin rejected change, insisting that we wouldn’t remember our pasts without the presence of historic, national architecture; he thought we ought to “build forever.” His reverence towards preservation as a means of respecting the past and using memory to articulate societal identity corresponds fundamentally with the National Trust in England and in the US, as articulated in each of their slogans, Forever for Everyone and Save the Past, Enrich the Future. Viollet-Le-Duc’s approach encouraged restoration through fixing and beautifying because he believed that this provided us an opportunity to glamorize our past and “replace [decay] with better materials and in a stronger and more perfect way,” a decision determined by a societal understanding of material and aesthetic perfection. He also asserted that we should rely on “trustworthy landmarks to guide us in our discovery of the past,” as if, without tangible remnants we would lose complete understanding of history. This idea resonated with elites who feared being forgotten and losing clout, a phenomenon that continues to drive preservation today. Morris advocated for a practice of steady maintenance (protection over restoration) in order to avoid losing authenticity. He proposed that “anything which [could] be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial, over which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue at all” was worth protecting. This was an early articulation of value which developed into the criteria of “significance” that are now used as justification. These scholars discussed nationalism under the guise of architectural technique, laying the groundwork for a cultural shift towards preservation as a means to protect identity. Their ideals are still referenced through preservation processes today even though the cultural context of the time when these works were written and the regulations were passed has vastly changed. This steadfastness keeps, virtually, the same peoples (and opinions) in power.
In order to make sense of why this system has persisted, we must reiterate that the notion to preserve is inherent. In order to validate our identities and memories, we rely on preservation to protect heritage. As Lowenthal writes, we view the past as the “foundation of a communal identity, cherished as a precious and endangered resource,” relying on it to immortalize our identity. This desire is not intrinsically problematic, seeing as it’s a human response to fear change, but the aspect worth unpacking is the danger of how and why we choose to preserve our past and who and what we abuse in the process. As per the legal languation of the regulations, much of what we preserve is based on natural beauty, taste and authenticity. Not only are these concepts subjective but they directly correlate with power and propagate exclusive agendas. Wilson would argue that beauty and power are inseparable because our society cares so much about what's beautiful that we allow it to manipulate us into focusing only on facade, failing to seek meaning. Bourdieu explained that taste, and our assertions of it, is “predisposed to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences” and will always perpetuate power manipulation. Authenticity, described by Pine and Gilmore, is rendered in order to convince us to understand our spatial surroundings in a particular way, as per the desires of certain parties. The influence of these three concepts over the preservation field problematizes the validity of the designation process because interpretations differ drastically. Since decisions are ultimately made by a review board of preservationists and historians who romanticize the past, certain trends persist, despite irrationality. Babcock would call this an abuse of power because it denies future generations the right to newly interpret aesthetics and significance. Consequentially, often these aesthetic arguments disguise deeper discussions of systematic power. In focusing on what we “see” instead of meaning, the system allows preservationists to amend history and create a past that reflects them most positively; a phenomenon that Lowenthal describes as altering of the tangible past to make history conform with memory and perpetuate particular identity. But, as Woodward questions, isn’t identity essentially acquired and not inherited?
In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the system is the inescapable subjectivity; it is because of this that certain peoples are excluded from narratives and spaces. Despite the government's attempts to make regulations appear logical, in reality, the field revolves around processes of management and manipulation and provide no explanation for significance because it is indeterminable. Thus, capricious “significances” are continuously misconstrued as “standards”, allowing preservation to go unquestioned and uncriticized. Despite this all, the system prevails.
Read more about Critical Conservation and its graduates here.