The importance of architectural documentation for Restoration

the experience of Camillo Boito

Abstract

In the current literature on Restoration Theory, the experiences of Camillo Boito in Italy in the second half of 19^th century are considered by many authors one of the first alternatives to the main paradigms of Restoration created at the same time by John Ruskin and Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-Le-Duc. However, his reflections has been seen reduced and anacronically, with little emphasis on the rich controversy established at the end of 19th century about the problem of ornament to the industry and the survey of ancient works of art and architecture. Hasty studies leave aside his values associated with the classical instruments of study and analysis of historical architecture: the architectural documentation. This article proposes to review the problem of “philological method” for Restoration, involving connected (and inseparable) fields of Camillo Boito's work in Italy: the history and teaching of architecture. Based on primary sources and drawings in association with recent available research, it is sought to affirm how after Boito’s theory, documentation as applied to the acknowledgment of buildings’ materials became a central instrument of monument’s critical investigation for Restoration development.