Uploaded by Dan Octavian Paul

2010 Italy and the history of preventive conservation

Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Conservation, exposition, Restauration d'Objets d'Art
1 | 2010 :
EGG-2010 - Horizons
Italy and the history of preventive
English Français
Italy is a point of reference for the conservation community worldwide, but it has yet to make a
definitive leap towards preventive conservation. This paper examines some of the reasons to explain
this, in the hope that this may be useful for other countries. After a brief look at the history of
preventive conservation from Antiquity to the Second World War, two seldom-discussed Italian
initiatives are presented: The Franceschini Commission (1964) and the Pilot plan for the
programmed conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (1976).
L’Italie est une reference mondiale dans le domaine de la conservation-restauration, cependant, elle
n’a toujours pas adopté la conservation préventive de façon définitive. Cet essai tente d’examiner
quelques raisons pouvant expliquer ce fait, dans l’espoir que ces informations pourront être utiles
pour d’autres pays. Après un survol de l’histoire de la conservation préventive de l’Antiquité à la
Seconde Guerre Mondiale, deux initiatives peu connues sont présentées, à savoir: la Commission
Franceschini (1964) et le Plan pilote pour la conservation programmée des biens culturels en
Ombrie (1976).
Entrées d’index
Mots­clés : histoire, conservation préventive, environnement, Italie, ICR
Keywords : history, preventive conservation, environment, Italy, ICR
Notes de la rédaction
Università di Urbino – Contact : Bruno Zanardi
Texte intégral
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Preventive conservation encompasses “all measures and actions aimed at avoiding and
minimizing future deterioration or loss” (ICOM-CC 2008). Contrary to conservation
treatments that target single objects, preventive conservation focuses on entire collections
and their surrounding environment. Above and beyond technical prescriptions for climate,
light and handling, preventive conservation is a conceptual approach to conservation
(Caple 1994) that implies a mental shift – a change in thinking from how to why things are
conserved (de Guichen 1995). What determines this shift and why does country like Italy,
that prides itself so much on its cultural heritage, currently lack a cultural heritage
protection strategy that encompasses a holistic, long-term vision?
This paper examines two key moments in recent history when Italy was presented with
opportunities to integrate preventive conservation into cultural heritage policy but did not
succeed in doing so. These are the Franceschini Commission (1964) and the Pilot plan for
the programmed conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (1976). An historical
overview of the development of preventive conservation is offered to contextualize these
initiatives. Italy’s failed attempts can be instructive to other countries seeking to raise
public awareness for the importance of long-term planning for cultural heritage protection
and allocate resources effectively.
Tracing the origins of preventive
The desire to minimize deterioration and loss of cultural heritage is universal. This
sentiment permeates through many European treatises from Antiquity, the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance. The highly codified artistic production techniques and instructions
for maintenance indicate that these societies valued their contemporary artistic production
and took great care in ensuring it would be transmitted to posterity. Over thousands of
years, there is impressive continuity in prescriptions for the protection of buildings,
sculptures and painted works from fire, insects, mould, earthquakes, rainwater and
excessive humidity (Cagiano de Azevedo 1952; Koller 1994).
Several examples from around the seventeenth century also reveal a preoccupation for
protecting cultural heritage from the past from further damage. The well-documented
conservation projects of Raphael’s frescoes in Rome (1659 and 1702), for instance,
included preventive measures to stop water infiltration, reduce the accumulation of dust,
and limit copyists from staining the paintings with their oil-drenched tracing papers
(Zanardi 2007).
Some conservation professionals also showed an awareness of the potential harm caused
by treatments themselves. Nearly a century later Pietro Edwards, Director of the
Restoration of the Public Pictures of Venice and the Rialto, warned painting restorers and
inspectors to limit overly invasive interventions (Edwards 1777) and advocated for the
creation of preventive care regiments focusing on entire collections (Edwards 1798).
An early example of preventive conservation applied to collections can be found in
Museographia, a guide to the museums, galleries and libraries of Europe written by
Hamburg scholar and merchant Caspar F. Neickel. In his guide, the author gives
instructions on how to avoid moisture problems by displaying objects in rooms with southwesterly orientation, how libraries should constantly monitor insect pests, and how to
avoid damage to displays through careful design (Neickel 1727, 378, 247). He also lists 25
rules of conduct for museumgoers, reminiscent of modern collections care guidelines,
which include instructions on object handling and theft prevention (Neickel 1727, 401403).
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
After more or less sporadic cases, a cohesive body of knowledge known as
“housekeeping” emerged in sixteenth-century England. Housekeeping practices, which
consisted in practical advice for the maintenance and management staff in estate homes,
were handed down in diaries, manuals, letters and paintings. These guidelines included
recommendations for controlling humidity, heat, light, insects, dust and damage from
abrasion (Abey-Koch 2006).
Cultural heritage protection has often materialized in planned activities that include
regular monitoring and maintenance. A consciousness for the need to prevent the loss of
cultural materials due to constant, cumulative damage has existed for thousands of years.
War and the immediacy of threats
Although the concept of continuous prevention was arguably already engrained in
everyday practice, it sometimes took total loss – or the threat of total loss – to awaken the
need for highly structured preventive conservation activities. The progressive integration
of scientific methods into the cultural heritage sector also provided new methods to those
entrusted with the protection of collections.
The conservation community is well aware of the securing and evacuation of collections
in the months leading up to the first air raids of the First World War, both at the British
Museum (Caygill 1992) and at the National Gallery (Saunders 1992) (Figure 1).
Fig. 1 Objects from the British Museum in the London Underground, 1918
Credits: from Caygill, 1992
The resulting damage to the British Museum’s collection due to improper storage
conditions, and the creation of its museum laboratory, eventually led to the migration of
science to the museum world (Plenderleith 1978). Slowly, prevention and the study of
deterioration mechanisms were added to the traditional activities of restoration workshops
(Plenderleith and Philippot 1960).
During the Second World War, the use of air raids was intensified and cultural heritage
was intentionally pillaged and plundered. As threats changed, the British Museum’s
collections were moved several times (Plenderleith 1978; Caygill 1992). At the National
Gallery, staff had received special emergency training, allowing its entire collection to be
evacuated just three days before war was declared (Saunders 1992). The works were later
moved to underground climate-controlled slate quarries in Wales (Rawlins 1946).
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Fig. 2 Paintings stored in the Manod quarry, Wales.
Credits: from Saunders, 1992
In Italy, a less-known operation of sizeable proportions was conducted to protect
immovable and movable cultural heritage under the leadership of Education Minister
Bottai of the Fascist regime. When the war erupted, it is said that the majority of Italy’s
cultural heritage had been made “invulnerable” to damage (Lazzari 1942, vi.)
Fig. 3 Protection of the Antonine Column in Rome.
Credits: from Lazzari, 1942
Fig. 4 Protection of the Ara Pacis in Rome.
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Credits: from Lazzari, 1942
Throughout the peninsula, historic buildings and monuments were protected
structurally with scaffolding, supporting walls, buttresses and pilasters. Decorated surfaces
were covered with sandbags, and other systems for the more fragile and delicate elements
(Lazzari 1942). The Istituto Centrale del Restauro (ICR) in Rome, which opened in 1939,
created a Technical Council responsible for verifying the suitability of environmental
conditions for artworks throughout the war (Lazzari 1942). Movable works from the most
important artistic centres were transferred to hundreds of repositories, far from any
military target (Lambert 2008).
With the experiences of the Wars, an important evidence base was emerging to justify
increasing expenditure on protecting entire collections rather than repairing individual
objects. In the face of urgent, catastrophic and generalized threats, Italy had planned and
implemented an operation of singular proportions. After the war, the country’s challenges
shifted to the protection of cultural heritage against the slow and continuous threats of
degradation, abandonment and neglect.
The Franceschini Commission: Italy’s
first opportunity
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
In the sixties and seventies, Italy had several occasions to adopt preventive conservation,
but those attempts failed at theimplementation stage. After the Second World War,
economic prosperity in the Allied countries stimulated rapid industrial and technological
growth and the expansion of the construction industry. Outcries of disapproval were felt in
the international cultural heritage sector. The International Council of Museums (ICOM
1962, res 4) resolved to protect natural and cultural heritage from rapid industrialization
and the “mechanical age.” Similarly, the International Council of Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) expressed its desire to protect built heritage from unbridled and disharmonious
development (Gazzola 1964).
Before the Second World War, Italy had been principally rural and economically
underdeveloped. Afterwards, it became industrialized rapidly with the inflow of
international funding for reconstruction. New infrastructures were developed, industry
flourished and the population began to move out of historic city centres towards the newly
constructed suburbs. This important socio-economic shift is thought to be responsible for
initiating Italy’s slow urban deterioration and environmental neglect (Zanardi 1999).
In response to the imminent threat of unregulated development in Italy, a public inquiry
was opened in 1964. Commonly called the ‘Franceschini’ Commission after the minister
who presided over it, this group was composed of 16 members of parliament and 11 experts
in art history, archaeology, law and library science. The Commission was responsible for
revising the current legislation, administrative framework and funding mechanisms for
cultural heritage protection. Following an in-depth analysis of the situation, 84
declarations were produced. These were synthesized in nine recommendations for urgent
action, clearly indicating of a growing desire for social change:
Establish a security service to protect cultural heritage.
Call for a moratorium on projects concerning areas of monumental, archaeological
or environmental interest.
Begin a systematic inventory of Italy’s cultural heritage.
Make publicly accessible historic buildings now used by the State for administrative
Eliminate unacceptable interventions/treatments on cultural heritage.
Establish headquarters for research, conservation, restoration and documentation
institutes, and for the national scientific institutions.
Train scientific and technical staff responsible for the autonomous administration
of cultural heritage.
Promote contemporary artistic production.
Raise public awareness on the importance of respecting cultural heritage through a
national campaign [author’s translation] (CITVPSAAP 1967, 133-139).
As a direct result of the third recommendation, the Central Office for Cataloguing and
Documentation (Ufficio Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione) was established in
1969. Two further Commissions followed: the ‘Papaldo’ I (1968) and II (1970). Their aim
was to extract from the Franceschini Commission’s declarations and recommendations all
that could be transformed and implemented into legislation. Regrettably, nothing ever
materialized from this work and the recommendations were never again examined by
Parliament (Condemi 1993).
Conservation historian Bruno Zanardi (1999) has argued that the Franceschini and
Papaldo commissions were inconclusive for three main reasons. First, the real estate
investment lobby, firmly anchored within government, intentionally obstructed the work
of the commissions. Second, Italian bureaucracy was notoriously slow and ineffective.
Third, in 1968 the priority in Europe shifted towards addressing the violence, revolutions
and democratization of universities.
Though rarely mentioned, the economic implications of these recommendations may
have been considerable, as it called for significant increases in funding allocations for
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
culture (Urbani 1977). Regrettably, it would be several years before the idea of holistic
cultural heritage protection would be taken up again.
Giovanni Urbani: Italy’s second
From specific to holistic
Although the work of the Franceschini, Papaldo I and Papaldo II commissions was
inconclusive, on some level there was a growing public awareness of the precarious
relationship between natural and cultural heritage. In 1966, the floods in Florence and
Venice were a violent reminder of this fragility (UNESCO 1967). That same year, a massive
landslide occurred in Agrigento, Sicily, showing the severe consequences of unregulated
urban expansion in the Valley of the Temples (Erbani 2006). In the early seventies, the
time was ripe in Italy to examine once again what could be done concretely to address
these issues and prevent future disasters.
In a radio interview, Giovanni Urbani, art historian, conservator and future Director of
the ICR (1973-1983), expressed his view that the essence of the problem of conservation in
Italy lied in the ability to merge the protection of nature and culture in one single plan
(Urbani 1971). Urbani believed that like works of art, which lose their meaning when decontextualized from art history as a whole, the protection of cultural heritage should be
tackled globally and integrated with the protection of natural heritage.
Though Urbani was himself a trained conservator, he was highly sceptical of the aims of
his profession. He once observed that from 1967 to 1976, public expenditure on
‘restoration’ (i.e. single-object treatments of aesthetic nature) had increased ten-fold, with
no observable improvement in the overall condition of Italy’s cultural heritage (Urbani
1977, 113).
Urbani advocated something radically different from treatment-oriented conservation:
preventive conservation. He argued that science had an important role to play in
conservation (Urbani 1973), but only if it was applied to large samples (i.e. collections) –
and not individual objects (Urbani 1968). By merging the conservation of nature with that
of cultural heritage, and guiding decisions using a strong scientific evidence base, he could
give his integrated vision of conservation a tangible form.
‘Programmed conservation’ and the Pilot plan for
It has been said – though the same applies to other countries – that Italian cultural
heritage is a unique case because of the importance of the context in which it was
produced, of the extent of its geographical distribution, of its stratification and continuity
over millennia, and of its sheer quantity (Zanardi 1999; Settis 2005). In 1976, Urbani
presented the Italian Ministry of Culture with the Pilot plan for the programmed
conservation of cultural heritage in Umbria (ICR 1976), a project strongly rooted in this
Once implemented, this plan would give Italy a deeper understanding of the
vulnerability of its movable and immovable cultural heritage and its exposure to several
deterioration factors: geological, seismic and meteorological risk, air pollution, and
depopulation. It would allow the Ministry of Culture to make systematic, evidence-based
conservation decisions within a forward planning framework.
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Fig. 5 Map from the Pilot Plan showing the distribution of seismic events from year 0 to 1969.
Credits: from ICR 1976
As a first step, data would be gathered in the region of Umbria, where the new tools for
risk management and training would be tested. Afterwards, a plan for the entire country
would be developed, taking into account the cultural specificity of each region (Urbani
Around this time, the term ‘preventive conservation’ had emerged in the museum sector
(Thomson 1977; G. de Guichen, pers. comm.). Instead, Urbani used the term ‘programmed
conservation,’ presumably because the tool he sought to develop would help target
maintenance activities at specific time intervals. According to Urbani himself,
programmed conservation was a “technique” that included “all periodic measures taken to
maintain and lower the rate of deterioration of ancient materials as much as possible”
[author’s translation] (Urbani 1976, 109). While Brandi’s (1963) ‘preventive restoration’
had been a theoretical abstraction (Lambert 2008), Urbani’s programmed conservation
depended on concrete actions and measurable results.
The Pilot plan had three main objectives:
To evaluate the effects of selected agents of deterioration on the condition of
cultural heritage in Umbria.
To define the techniques to be used for documentation and treatments, and
establish cultural heritage maintenance programmes.
To describe the nature and dimensions of a regional hub where monitoring and
treatment programmes would be defined [author’s translation] (Urbani 1976, 105).
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
In a preliminary phase, data had already been collected in Umbria to understand the
composition and regional distribution of cultural heritage and of the selected agents of
deterioration. Inventory forms for various types of heritage were developed and several
regional maps indicating the location and concentration of the agents were produced
(Urbani 1976) (Figure 5).
Training was a central element of the project. Urbani firmly believed that instead of
training restorers, Italy should train technicians capable of delivering programmed
conservation to a variety of materials and types of cultural heritage (Urbani 1977). For this
purpose, didactic manuals called ‘DIMOS’ (Course on the maintenance of wall paintings,
mosaics and stucco) were published from 1978 to 1979 (ICR 1979). In Italy, the DIMOS
manuals (now out of print) are still used today by several art conservation programmes.
In a distant future, after programmed conservation had been integrated into
government policy, Urbani believed that Italy would need new and innovative legislation
for the protection of cultural heritage. He was convinced that the Ministry of Cultural
Heritage should also increase its regional presence by decentralizing its power and initiate
collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Education and with
regional government (Zanardi 2006). Unfortunately, none of this would ever happen.
The failure of the Pilot plan
In the months following the publication of Urbani’s Pilot plan a controversy emerged, of
which Perrotta (2004) has provided an overview. It appears the ICR was criticized severely
for having assigned to the private sector work that should have remained in the public
sector. In short, the Pilot plan grew out of collaboration with TECNECO, a subsidiary of
ENI (Italy’s energy provider). Further disapproval came from the Republican party (then
in power) who claimed that with his plan Urbani sought to override the role of regional
government. This caused great upheaval in the Umbrian Superintendencies, who opposed
the project categorically. Roberto Abbondanza, then regional inspector for cultural
heritage in Umbria, commented in national newspapers that his role was being usurped
and that the Pilot plan should be entirely re-written. Furthermore, the Communist party
claimed that Urbani was making ENI profit from the correction of its mistakes because the
project focused on deterioration associated with industrial pollution. The Communist
party also accused the project of being antidemocratic by promoting the privatization of
cultural heritage management.
Zanardi (1999, 224), a student of Urbani’s at ICR, believes this controversy over the Pilot
plan was fuelled intentionally by ministerial bureaucracy, by superintendents and by
university professors who were unqualified to comment on the technical and scientific
content of the project. This occurred, he argues, because they all stood to lose their
managerial control if the plan were ever implemented.
Giorgio Torraca (2004), a close friend and colleague of Urbani, explains that Urbani
despised obstacles, and although he was a public servant himself, Urbani had never
accepted the principles of Italian public administration. Although the collaboration with
TECNECO had initially been suggested to Urbani by Social-democratic minister Matteotti,
also a friend of Urbani, working with them meant bypassing the usual bureaucratic
channels and exposing the project to oppositions. After a series of quarrels with the
Ministry of Cultural Heritage about these and other issues, Urbani eventually resigned
from his post as Director of the ICR in 1983.
One of the few concrete results of the Pilot plan came several years later. The Italian
Risk Map project began in 1987 under the direction of Pio Baldi, an architect employed at
the ICR. It focused on a single aspect of the Pilot plan: the mapping of cultural heritage
distribution and the intensity of agents of deterioration. Urbani, though he was not
consulted on the project, looked favourably upon it:
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
A map like this allows work to be organized based on something that is defined, analyzed,
and time­bound. Today, superintendents do not have any of this. And no one ever speaks
of maintenance. From the technical point of view, a real strategy for cultural heritage
protection could emerge from this [author’s translation] (Urbani 1990).
It has long been said that the Risk Map would be a tool used for conservation
management nationwide (ICR 1987; Bartoli, Palazzo and Urbisci 2003; Accardo 2004).
Yet, 20 years later, it has yet to fully deliver on its promises.
As was the case at the time of the Franceschini Commmission, building without
planning permissions and speculation in the construction industry are still important
problems today (Tosatti 2003; GIU 2010), which continue to have a negative impact on
cultural heritage conservation in Italy (Deliperi 2010).
In a country with such a strong bureaucratic tradition, which is often difficult to
reconcile with the requirements of the private sector, one is left to wonder whether the fate
of the Pilot plan could have been different if Urbani had put aside his personal convictions
and played by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage’s rules. Admittedly, it is probable that
without TECNECO’s support, this document would never have been published at all.
Though anecdotal evidence and controversies may help to contextualize the events
leading up to the failure of the Pilot plan, the economic and moral dimensions should be
further emphasised. In 1976, annual public expenditure on restoration for publicly and
privately owned monuments, galleries and archaeological sites was approximately 35
billion lire (Urbani 1977). Implementing the Pilot plan, would have cost only about 1.4
billion lire (excluding staff time), or 4 % of this amount (ICR 1976). This raises a question
that is central to the very notion of preventive conservation. How much money was Italian
public administration willing to invest in 1976, for benefits that would be reaped by future
generations? Contrary to restoration, preventive conservation has no visible results, so
adopting it requires a significant mental shift.
Michalski (2008, 755) recently used the concept of social discount rate (SDR) to
investigate conservation decision making. As he paraphrased it, SDR is “the interest that
people are willing to pay (…) to get something now ‘on credit.’”When applied to the two
major initiatives discussed in this paper, Italy was operating on a high SDR. In other
words, by failing to invest then on achieving long-term conservation objectives, it has
actually magnified the losses for which that generation is now accountable. It is
worthwhile noting that at present, the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities
(MiBAC) still focuses on single-work restoration projects with high visibility and
marketability, as displayed prominently on its website.
One of the few (if not the only) successfully implemented national conservation action
plans is the oft-cited Deltaplan in the Netherlands. Instead of originating from
conservation professionals, the impetus for this plan came from a 1987 report issued by
the Court of Audit, highlighting how public funds were being misspent to care for the
nation’s collections. To develop the plan, the concerned institutions were consulted
systematically, establishing a two-way exchange between them and central government
(Talley 1999). Valuable lessons can be learnt from this on the importance of stakeholder
consultations to ensure the buy-in process for preventive conservation and on the
importance of making a strong financial case to justify its implementation.
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
History has shown that although the concept of continuous preventive conservation may
be intrinsic to many societies, large-scale strategies are often adopted in times of
emergency, or in the aftermath of disasters to avoid the repetition of errors in planning. In
the late sixties and seventies, Italy seemed to be ideally positioned to launch a national
preventive conservation strategy for cultural heritage, but failed at both attempts.
In Italy, most cultural heritage matters are governed by the State and prevention and
maintenance are legally inscribed in the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape
(MiBAC 2004, art. 29). Though structures are in place to facilitate the implementation of a
national cultural heritage protection strategy, these laws have not yet materialized into an
action plan. If a stitch in time really does save nine, preventive conservation is the most
long-term cost-effective solution for Italy. This is especially true, now that public spending
on the protection and promotion of cultural heritage in Italy has been reduced by 35 %
since 2007 (MiBAC 2009, 27).
Recently, Roberto Cecchi, Director General of historic, artistic and ethnoanthropological heritage for the Italian Ministry of Culture and Activities, commented on
Rome’s crumbling archaeological sites in the New York Times: “We must set down
methods and rules. We must start to think ahead, not just respond when crises happen”
(Kimmelman 2010). A formal commitment from central government is now needed to
initiate this mental shift – sooner rather than later.
Abey-Koch, M. (2006). History of housekeeping. In The National Trust manual of housekeeping.
The care of collections in historic houses open to the public, ed. K. Lithgow, H. Lloyd, J. Parry, S.
Staniforth, and N. Seeley. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 21-33.
Accardo, G. (2004). Sullo stato di conservazione. Bollettino ICR ­ nuova serie (8-9): 4-22.
Bartoli, N. C., M. Palazzo, and S. Urbisci. (2003). Carta del rischio del patrimonio culturale. Il polo
regionale della Lombardia. Bollettino ICR ­ nuova serie (6-7): 4-25.
Brandi, C. (1963). Il restauro preventivo. In Teoria del restauro, ed. L. Borrelli Vlad, J. Raspi Serra
and G. Urbani. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 81-89.
Cagiano de Azevedo, M. (1952). Conservazione e restauro presso i greci e i romani. Bollettino
dell'Istituto Centrale del Restauro (9-10): 53-60.
Caple, C. (1994). Preventive conservation within conservation training programmes. In Preventive
conservation practice, theory and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa congress,
12­16 September 1994, ed. A. Roy, and P. Smith, London: IIC, 65-68.
Caygill, M. L. (1992). The protection of national treasures at the British Museum during the First and
Second World Wars. In Materials issues in art and archaeology III. Symposium held April 27 ­ May
1, 1992, San Francisco, CA, USA, ed. P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheeler, and I.C. Freestone.
Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 29-40.
CITVPSAAP. See Commissione d’indagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico,
archeologico, artistico e del paesaggio.
Commissione d’indagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico, archeologico,
artistico e del paesaggio. (1967). Per la salvezza dei beni culturali in Italia. v. 1-3. Rome: Colombo.
Condemi, S. (2003). La salvaguardia dei beni culturali. Lineamenti di storia della tutela. Florence:
Palazzo Spinelli.
De Guichen, G. (1995). La conservation préventive: un changement profond de mentalité. In Study
Deliperi, S. (2010). Stop alla speculazione edilizia a Villa Rey (Castiadas)! Gruppo d’Intervento
Giuridico e Amici della Terra. http://www.patrimoniosos.it/rsol.php?op=getcomunicato&id=3984.
Edwards, P. (1777). Decalogo del restauratore. In Dal decalogo Edwards alla carta del Restauro.
Pratiche e principi del restauro dei dipinti, ed. V. Tiozzo. Padua: Il prato, 2001.
Edwards, P. (1798). Ristretto delle cose principali da prendersi in considerazione per la custodia
delle pubbliche pitture. Commissione 1o giugno 1798.
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Erbani. (2006). La frana che sconvolse l’Italia. La Repubblica extra (14 July 2006): 54.
Gazzola, P. (1964). Foreword. In The Monument for the man: Proceedings of the 2nd international
congress of architects and technicians of historical monuments, Venice, 25­31 May 1964.
GIU. See Gruppo d’Intervento Giuridico.
ICOM. See International Council of Museums.
ICOM-CC. See International Council of Museums – Committee for Conservation.
International Council of Museums – Conservation Committee. (2008). ICOM­CC Resolution on
Terminology – English. http://www.icom-cc.org/54/document/icom-cc-resolution-terminologyenglish/?id=744.
ICR. See Istituto Centrale del Restauro.
International Council of Museums. (1962). Resolutions adopted by ICOM's General Assembly 1962.
Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1976). Piano pilota per la conservazione programmata dei beni
culturali in Umbria. Progetto esecutivo. Allegati I e II.Rome: TECNECO.
Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1979). DIMOS. Fattori di deterioramento. Rome: ICR.
Istituto Centrale del Restauro. (1987). Per una carta del rischio del patrimonio culturale. Rome:
Bonifica italeco.
Kimmelman, M. (2010). As Rome modernizes, its past quietly crumbles. The New York Times (6
Koller, M. (1994). Learning from the history of preventive conservation. In Preventive conservation
practice, theory and research. Preprints of the contributions to the Ottawa congress, 12­16
September 1994, ed. A. Roy, and P. Smith. London: IIC, 1-7.
Lambert, S. (2008). Storia della conservazione preventiva. La formazione di una coscienza
collettiva (thesis). University of Urbino.
Lazzari, M. (1942). La protezione delle opere d'arte durante la guerra. In La protezione del
patrimonio artistico nazionale dalle offese della guerra aerea. Florence: Felice Le Monnier, v-x.
MiBAC. See Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali.
Michalski, S. (2008). Social discount rate: modelling collection value to future generations, and
understanding the difference between short-term and long-term preservation actions. In ICOM­CC
15th Triennial Conference, New Delhi, 22­26 September 2008 Preprints II, ed. J. Bridgland. New
Delhi: Allied Publishers, 751-758.
Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali. (2004). Il Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio. Rome:
Ministry of Culture and Activities. http://www.beniculturali.it/mibac/export/MiBAC/sitoMiBAC/MenuPrincipale/Normativa/Norme/index.html.
Neickel, C. F. (1727). Museographia oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff un nützlicher Anlegung der
Museorum, oder Raritären­Kammern [Museography or instructions for creating correct and useful
displays for museums or cabinets of curiosities], trans. (Italian) E. Giovannini, ed. M. Pigozzi, E.
Giuliani and A. Huber. Bologna: CLUEB, 2005.
Perrotta, A. (2004). Giovanni Urbani storico dell’arte e direttore dell’Istituto Centrale del Restauro.
Un profilo biografico e bibliografico (thesis). University of Naples, 181-190.
Plenderleith, H.J. (1978). Dr. Harold Plenderleith - his involvement in the field of art conservation.
170 pp. handwritten. (C. L. Sitwell, Interviewer) FAIC Oral History File, Winterthur Museum,
Library, and Archives.
Plenderleith, H.J. and P. Philippot. (1960). Climatology and conservation in museums. Museum
XIII(4): 242-289.
Rawlins, F.I.G. (1946). La conservation des tableaux dans les abris pendant la guerre. Quelques
aspects scientifiques du problème. Mouseion 55-56(1-2): 35-49.
Saunders, D. (1992). The National Gallery at war. In Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III.
Symposium held April 27 ­ May 1, 1992, San Francisco, CA, USA, ed. P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik,
G.S. Wheeler and I.C. Freestone. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society, 101-110.
Settis, S. (2005). Battaglie senza eroi. I beni culturali tra istituzioni e profitto. Milan: Mondadori
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Talley, K.Jr. (1999). The Delta Plan: a nationwide rescue operation. Museum International 51(1), 1115.
DOI : 10.1111/1468-0033.00185
Thomson, G. (1971). Conservation in the museums of the United Kingdom. Museum XXIII(2): 134139.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1468-0033.1971.tb01761.x
Torraca, G. (2004). Intervista a Giorgio Torraca. gennaio 2004. In Perrotta, A. Giovanni Urbani
storico dell’arte e direttore dell’Istituto Centrale del Restauro. Un profilo biografico e bibliografico
(thesis). University of Naples, 181-190.
Tosatti, V. (2003). I diversi tipi ti abusivismo edilizio. Corriere della Sera (25 September 2003).
UNESCO. (1967). Florence and Venice: Unesco opens world campaign – Special issue. The Unesco
Courier (20).
Urbani, G. (1968). Il restauro e la storia dell'arte. In Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan:
Skira. 2000, 15-18.
Urbani, G. (1971). Conservazione della natura e conservazione dell’uomo. In Giornale dell'Arte, ed.
B. Zanardi (2007). (266): 44-45.
Urbani, G. (1973). Problemi di conservazione. In Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira.
2000, 25-29.
Urbani, G. (1976). Piano pilota per la conservazione programmata dei beni culturali dell'Umbria. In
Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira. 2000, 103-112.
Urbani, G. (1977). Per un nuovo rapporto tra Istituto centrale del restauro e Soprintendenze. In
Intorno al restauro, ed. B. Zanardi. Milan: Skira. 2000, 113-119.
Urbani, G. (1990). La Carta: un inedito di Urbani. Il Sole 24 Ore, ed. A. Detheridge (29 June 1997):
Zanardi, B. (1999). Introduzione. Le attività di tutela dopo il 1963. In B. Zanardi, Conservazione,
restauro e tutela. 24 dialoghi. Milan: Skira, 9-52.
Zanardi, B. (2006). Conservazione programmata: bellissimo, ma è un'utopia? Una conversazione tra
Bruno Zanardi e Rita Cassano. Il Giornale dell'Arte/dell'Architettura: Il rapporto Restauro 2006: 34.
Zanardi, B. (2007). Bellori, Maratti, Bottari e Crespi intorno al restauro. Modelli antichi e pratica di
lavoro nel cantiere di Raffaello alla Farnesina. Rendiconti, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei XVIII(2):
Table des illustrations
Titre Fig. 1 Objects from the British Museum in the London Underground, 1918
Crédits Credits: from Caygill, 1992
Fichier image/jpeg, 124k
Titre Fig. 2 Paintings stored in the Manod quarry, Wales.
Crédits Credits: from Saunders, 1992
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
Titre Fig. 3 Protection of the Antonine Column in Rome.
Crédits Credits: from Lazzari, 1942
Fichier image/jpeg, 108k
Titre Fig. 4 Protection of the Ara Pacis in Rome.
Crédits Credits: from Lazzari, 1942
Fichier image/jpeg, 220k
Italy and the history of preventive conservation
Titre Fig. 5 Map from the Pilot Plan showing the distribution of seismic events from
year 0 to 1969.
Crédits Credits: from ICR 1976
URL http://ceroart.revues.org/docannexe/image/1707/img­5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 152k
Pour citer cet article
Référence électronique
Simon Lambert, « Italy and the history of preventive conservation », CeROArt [En ligne], 1 | 2010,
mis en ligne le 18 novembre 2010, consulté le 03 février 2017. URL : http://ceroart.revues.org/1707
Simon Lambert
Simon Lambert received his MSc in the Care of Collections (Cardiff University, United Kindgom) with
a dissertation on the carbon footprint of museum loans. He has a BA in Art History and Italian
literature (McGill University, Canada) and a Laurea in Paintings Conservation (University of Urbino,
Italy). Simon is currently engaged as a consultant for the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome (ICCROM). Contact:
Articles du même auteur
The Early History of Preventive Conservation in Great Britain and the United States (1850–
1950) [Texte intégral]
Paru dans CeROArt, 9 | 2014
RE­ORG: A methodology for reorganizing museum storage developed by ICCROM and
UNESCO [Texte intégral]
Paru dans CeROArt, 6 | 2011
Droits d’auteur
CeROArt – Conservation, exposition, restauration d'objets d'arts est mis à disposition selon les
termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution ­ Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale ­ Pas de
Modification 4.0 International.