오래된 건물을 정직하게 복원하는 문제에 관한 패널

의견과 태도

1. b) In what sense a much-repaired building remains the same buildingInes는 심하게 수리된 건물이 어떤 의미에서 여전히 같은 건물인지 묻습니다.
2. b) He has held and argued this view for many years그는 그 질문이 수십 년 동안 자신을 사로잡아 왔음을 암시합니다.
3. a) Skilful hidden repair destroys evidence of the wall's history그는 균열은 증거이며, 그것을 눈에 띄지 않게 메우는 것은 장식을 위해 기록 문서를 파괴하는 것이라고 말합니다.
4. b) It is fine in theory but impractical for buildings that must stay in use그녀는 사용 중인 건물은 계속 수리가 필요하므로 그의 규칙은 비용이 많이 들고 비현실적이라는 뜻입니다.
5. a) A ruin is at least honest about its condition그는 그녀의 비꼬는 말을 뒤집어, 위장된 수리보다 정직한 쇠락을 선호한다고 말합니다.
6. c) Repair marked so that new work can be told from old그는 새 목재를 쓰고 거기에 날짜를 새겨 새로운 작업이 눈에 띄게 하겠다고 합니다.
7. a) Visible repairs can make a building look like a patchwork그녀는 모든 수리를 알리는 건물은 누더기가 되며 시선을 분산시킬 수 있다고 말합니다.
8. c) Priya finds it reassuring, but Quentin thinks it is a false argumentPriya는 정체성이 돌봄의 연속성에 있다고 말하고, Quentin은 그것을 궤변이라 부르며 계승은 생존이 아니라고 말합니다.

핵심 세부 사항

1. forgery그는 그것이 아무리 보기 좋아도 위조품이라고 부릅니다.
2. sacks그녀는 그것이 자루에 비가 닿지 않게 하려고 지어졌다고 말합니다.
3. two hundred / 200그녀는 그것이 200년 동안 이어져 왔다고 말합니다.
4. date그는 들보에 날짜를 새기라고 말합니다.
5. lawn그는 눈이 잔디밭에서 쉴 수 있다고 말합니다.
6. survival그는 계승은 생존이 아니라고 말하며 끝맺습니다.

Ines: Good evening. One question tonight: when a historic building has been repaired so often that little of the original remains, in what sense is it still the same building? My guests are Quentin Baird, a conservator who has spent his career preserving old stonework, and Doctor Priya Nair, an architect who restores buildings for modern use. Quentin, you look as though you've been waiting for this.

Quentin: I've been waiting since about nineteen ninety. My position is simple. A building is a record, and a record that has been rewritten is a forgery, however handsome. If a medieval wall has a crack in it, the crack is evidence of what happened to the wall. Fill it so skilfully that nobody can tell, and you have destroyed a document in order to produce a decoration.

Priya: That is a wonderful argument for a museum and a rather expensive one for a town hall. Buildings are not records. They are tools that happen to be beautiful. The grain exchange I'm working on now was never meant to be admired. It was meant to keep rain off sacks, and it has carried on doing that for two hundred years only because somebody kept replacing the bits that rotted. If we had followed Quentin's rule, it would be a very distinguished heap.

Quentin: I would point out that a distinguished heap tells the truth.

Priya: So does a bus timetable, and nobody wants to live in one.

Ines: Quentin, is there any repair you would accept?

Quentin: Of course. Repair that is honest. If a beam has to be replaced, use new timber and cut the date into it, so that a visitor in the next century can see exactly what is old and what is ours. What I object to is the quiet substitution, where new work is dressed up to look ancient, and everybody is invited to admire a joke that nobody admits to making.

Priya: On that I'm with him, though I'd add something he won't enjoy. Honesty has a price. A building that announces every repair becomes a patchwork, and some visitors find it distracting. There is a case for letting the eye rest.

Quentin: The eye can rest on a lawn.

Ines: Let me raise the cost, since someone always does.

Quentin: Someone always does, and it is usually the person who will not be paying. Neglect is also expensive; it merely sends the invoice to the next generation.

Ines: There's an old puzzle about a ship whose planks are replaced one by one until none is original. Does either of you find it useful?

Priya: I find it comforting. It suggests that identity lies in continuity of care rather than in material.

Quentin: I find it a sophism. The ship has not been preserved. It has been succeeded. And succession, however loving, is not the same thing as survival.

Ines: Neither of you has convinced the other, which I take as the sign of a good discussion. Thank you both.