Skip to main content

The Legacy of Alois Riegl: Material Authenticity of the Monument in the Digital Age

Abstract

The Austrian art historian Alois Riegl (1858–1905) revolutionised the European concept of the monument and paved the way towards the codification of the historicity of artefacts at the international level. Today, conservation work and relevant terminology still build upon the principles first outlined in his work Der moderne Denkmalkultus (1903) more than a hundred years ago. And yet, modern information/communication technologies have long challenged the idea of ‘age value’ (Alterswert), of a monument possessing value simply because it shows ‘signs of age’ (Altersspuren), through their ability to digitally recreate historical architecture in its original form and thereby to transcend the boundaries of time and space. This paper discusses the challenges and opportunities for monument preservation in the 21st century in the light of Riegl’s thoughts on how to perceive (‘visualise’) the past. It investigates the validity of Riegl’s theories in the context of today’s virtual reality/ies at a theoretical level, and their potential for advancement in preservation theory, expanding on historical thoughts rooted in 18th and 19th century preservation theories. By analysing Riegl’s commemorative values, stratigraphic picturing of history’s material debris, and fear of formlessness, this paper explores digitisation as the driving force for change in attitude from traditional, restrictive thinking to a modern way of thinking which is receptive to new technological developments, including, for example, exploring augmented and virtual realities as a means of achieving the sensory aesthetic experience required by age value.

References

  1. Arjones Fernández, Aurora. 2007. Alois Riegl: El Culto Moderno de los Monumentos, su Carácter y sus Orígenes. Sevilla: Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. Bacher, Ernst. ed. 1995. Kunstwerk oder Denkmal? Alois Riegls Schriften zur Denkmalpflege. Vienna: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brodey, Sigrun. 2008. Ruined by Design: Shaping Novels and Gardens in the Culture of Sensibility. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Falser, Michael. 2005. “Zum 100. Todesjahr von Alois Riegl.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Denkmalpflege 59 (3/4): 298–311.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Falser, Michael, Wilfried Lipp, and Andrzej Tomaszewski. eds. 2010. Conservation and Preservation: Interactions between Theory and Practice—In Memoriam Alois Riegl (1858–1905). Firenze: Polistampa.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. 1816. “Italienische Reise.” Translated by A. J. Morrison. New England Review 33 (1): 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gubser, Michael. 2005. “Time and History in Alois Riegl’s Theory of Perception.” Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (3): 451–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris, Eduard et al., eds. 1993. Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heim, Michael. 1993. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. Accessed April 1 2017. www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf

  10. Lamprakos, Michele. 2014. “Riegl’s ‘Modern Cult of Monuments’ and The Problem of Value.” Change Over Time 4 (2): 418–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lehne, Andreas. 2010. “Georg Dehio, Alois Riegl, Max Dvorak—A Threshold in Theory Development.” In Conservation and Preservation: Interactions between Theory and Practice—In Memoriam Alois Riegl (1858–1905), edited by Michael Falser et al.: 69–81. Firenze: Polistampa.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lukacher, Brian. 2006. Joseph Gandy: An Architectural Visionary in Georgian England. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Naginski, Erika. 2001. “Riegl, Archaeology, and the Periodization of Culture.” Anthropology and Aesthetics 40: 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Olin, Margaret. 1985. “The Cult of Monuments as a State Religion in Late 19th-century Austria.” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 38: 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Petzet, Michael. 2004. “Principles of Conservation: An Introduction to the International Charters for Conservation and Restoration 40 years after the Venice Charter.” Monuments and Sites 1: 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pinto, John. 2012. Speaking Ruins: Piranesi, Architects and Antiquity in 18th Century Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Riegl, Alois. 1893. Stilfragen: Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik. Berlin: George Siemens.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Riegl, Alois. 1992. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament. Translated by Evelyn Kain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Riegl, Alois. 1903. Der moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Riegl, Alois. 1996. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development.” Translated by Karin Bruckner and Karen Williams. In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley-Price et al.: 69–83. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ruskin, John. 1849. Seven Lamps of Architecture. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Reprint 1989. New York: Dover.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Scarrocchia, Sandro, ed. 1995. Alois Riegl: Teoria e Prassi della Conservazione dei Monumenti: Antologia di Scritti, Discorsi, Rapporti 1898–1905. Bologna: Clueb.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Spurr, David. 2007. “Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Figures of Ruin and Restoration.” Chora 5: 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. 1964. The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Venice, Italy. Adopted by ICOMOS in 1965. Accessed April 1 2017. http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf

  25. Wendort, Richard. 2001. “Piranesi’s Double Ruin.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 34 (2): 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wood, Christopher, ed. 2000. The Vienna School Reader: Politics and Art Historical Method in the 1930s. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wu Hong. 2012. A Story of Ruins: Presence and Absence in Chinese Art and Visual Culture. London: Reaktion.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zerner, Henri. 1976. “Alois Riegl: Art, Value, and Historicism.” Daedalus 105 (1): 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Harrer.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrer, A. The Legacy of Alois Riegl: Material Authenticity of the Monument in the Digital Age. Built Heritage 1, 29–40 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03545661

Download citation

Keywords

  • Alois Riegl
  • Austrian (Habsburg) Empire
  • modern conservation theory
  • material authenticity
  • age value (Alterswert)
  • digital environment
  • virtual reality/ies
  • aesthetic experience
  • stratigraphic picturing
  • conjectural recovery