A new Rem Koolhaas curated exhibit at The New Museum in New York explores the real complexity of historic preservation, a complexity to which we are often blinded by the self-righteous assuredness with which those in support of it often state their case. Historic preservation is so inherently flavoured with death-denial and dipped in political agenda it is surprising that so many take at such face-value. Or is that surprising?
Don't get me wrong. Historical preservation has its place, but it should by no means be such a knee-jerk reaction as it so often is. The world becomes laden with so many Pioneer Villages and Colonial Williamsburgs. Give me a Norman Foster British Museum or Reichstag renovation any day.
For more on Koolhaas's perspectives on historical preservation, see the lecture he gave a few years ago at the GSD, here.
I agree that there is a knee-jerk reaction to historical preservation, and the issue is much more complicated that we generally perceive it to be. But I am confused on what _you_ mean by historical preservation? The examples you give, in my opinion, are historical recreations not examples of historical preservation. By conflating the two, don't you confuse the matter? Have you not just forced the archives out into a public history event? AS for the Norman Foster BM and the Reichstag, these two, in time, will become historical. Will you be less of an advocate then? Is your opinion or taste so temporally decided? I find this confusing.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if your knee is not itself jerking against an outlook that you consider unsophisticated and passé?
And finally, have you considered the logical inconsistency of an exhibit--a form of expression that seems to be trying to plant an idea in the cultural memory so that it be preserved--that also wishes to condemn historical preservation? I wonder if this last point is off the mark.
gp