Three-dimensionalreconstructionwithinthecrypto-historyofarchitecture, forthehistorical-cultural(re)interpretationofarchitecturalheritagein Portugal
EduardoAntunes1 ,PedroJanuário2 &PauloPereira3
CIAUD,LisbonSchoolofArchitecture,UniversidadedeLisboa,Lisbon,Portugal
1 ORCID:0000-0001-8330-287X
2 ORCID:0000-0002-8363-461X
3 ORCID:0000-0002-9480-6376
ABSTRACT:Thesystematicstrategiesforarchitecturalheritagepreservationhavebeensparseofanevolving knowledgeofitsdesignprocess.Thisresultsfromapplyinginterventioncriteriathatessentiallyvalueformal aspects,neglectingitsprinciplesandcontext.Byconsideringtheconceptualiconologicalaspectsofadisappeared workofart,Crypto-Historyallowsustounderstanditssymbols’pastorigin,whoseideologicalbasisdoes nothavethesameculturalrecognitionnowadays.Appliedtoarchitecture,webelievethatamethodologythat exploresthecrypto-historicalprocessinidentifyingthedesigncriteriaofhistoricalworks,integratedwiththe researchpossibilitiesprovidedbythree-dimensionalvirtualrepresentationtools,willallowtheidentificationof theoriginalstylisticconceptions’meaningand,thus,contributetoanintegrated(re)interpretationofthecurrent architecturalheritageinPortugal.
Keywords:ArchitecturalHeritage;Crypto-History;Architecture;Three-dimensionalreconstruction
1INTRODUCTION
ArtHistorycanbeunderstoodasafieldofknowledgethatusesmultidisciplinarybases,theoreticaland methodological,andoperationalinstrumentsinconstantrenewal,tounderstandagivenperiodandits evolution(Serrão2017,pp.10–11).Inthatsense,more thanencompassingthedescriptionofprinciplesand achievements,itisessentialthatitsresearchinstead focusesonstudyingandinterpretingfactstobuilda clearerunderstandingoftheeventsthatgaveriseto them.
Historyisnotaboutobjects[…].Whatisessentialto understandingarchitectureisthementality,themental structureofanygivenperiod.Thehistorian’staskis torecreatetheintellectualcontextofawork.(Tafuri 1995,p.97).
Consideringthatheritageconservation’smain objectiveistoanalyze,study,identify,preserve,and recognizetheworksthatassumeitsplaceasbenchmarksinhumanity’sevolutionovertime(Serrão2001, p.11).Theperpetuityofagivenculturalvalueinthe currentarchitecturalparadigmdepends,inlargepart, onthewaysofrepresentingitsinherentidentity,which, inarchitecture,ismainlyrelatedtoform(Choay2013, pp.17–18;Jorge2003,p.13).Moreover,despitebeing renewableandconstantlyenriching,itisknownthat
culturalheritagetendstobeneglectedinfavorof(often superficial)economiccriteria.Moreover,thatdespises itsculturalvalueswhileevenmisunderstandingitand ignoringitsusefulness(Serrão2014,p.35).Nowadays,theattributionofmeaningtoanarchitectural workhasfollowedanessentiallyrepresentativebase, justifiedbyhistoricalreasonsthatneglectthecultural contextinwhichitwasinitiallyinserted.Thisculturalcontextconceptmustbeunderstoodinabroader sense.Thishasoftenled,overtime,totheinevitable destructionortheabandonmentofworksofpatrimonialinterest(Serrão2017,p.11).Asemphasizedin theConventionfortheProtectionofWorld,Cultural, andNaturalHeritage:
(…)theculturalheritageandthenaturalheritageare increasinglythreatenedwithdestructionnotonlyby thetraditionalcausesofdecaybutalsobychanging socialandeconomicconditions,whichaggravatethe situationwithevenmoreformidablephenomenaof damageordestruction(UNESCO1972,p.1).
Consideringthisfact,itbecomesoftheutmost urgencytoworkonaheritagevalorizationstrategy capableofcontinuouschanges.Sincetheentireculturalheritageisatestimony,atonetimeoranother,of aphaseofthesocietyinwhichitwasintegrated,and oftenlacksascientific-analyticalprocessthatsupports theevaluationofafadedmemory(Serrão2017,p.10).
Heritageinformationisrequiredtoacquireknowledge,understandmeaningandvalues,promotethe interestandinvolvementofpeople,permitinformed management,andensurelong-termmaintenanceand conservationofheritageplaces.Itmayalsobeconsideredasakindofinsurancepolicyagainstlossand asaposterityrecordforfuturegenerations.(Letellier; Schmid;LeBlanc2007,p.xvii).
Thus,theaimistoworkonastrategyto(re)interpret thearchitecturalheritage,consideringthecommunities’identityvalue,expressedthroughasimultaneouslyhistoricalandsymptomaticcharacter.Forthis reason,theHistoryofArchitecturemustnotbestagnantinitsapproach:theinterpretationofthehistorical factsthatconstituteanauthenticculturalheritage mustundergoatransformationsinceheritagehasan inherentlyunintelligiblecharacterassociatedwiththe feelingofbelongingofalonggonepast.Thatiswhy differentapproachmethodologiesshouldbeconsideredtoforeseesituationswheretheusualmeansno longerenablethenecessaryunderstandingofthispast.
Inthiscontext,SerrãodescribesCrypto-History asbeingatransversalandessentialsub-disciplineto ArtHistorybecauseittakesintoaccounttherole that“dead”and/orfragmentaryworksofarthavefor thehistorical,iconological,political,ideologicaland, inherenttoallthis,aestheticscharacterizationofa givenperiodinHistory(Serrão2001,p.11;Serrão 2017,p.16).Thissub-disciplinehasbeenessentialin identifyingtheessenceintheconceptionofworksof art.However,itcanalsobeappliedtothecontextof Architectureandcontributetoastrategyofintegrated valorizationofitsheritagetoguaranteeitsperpetuity intime.
wouldlaterbringconsequencestothewaywelook atandvaluearchitectureand,specifically,thebuilt heritage.
2.1 Theuprootingofarchitecturalmeaning
AccordingtowhatPérez-Gómezpointsoutinhis introductiontothe1993editionof Ordonnance (…), itisthecontradictionspresentinPerrault’sreasoningthat,toacertainextent,canbepointedoutasa justificationforthepresent(de)valorizationofheritageasagivenhistoricalperiod’stestimony.Inthe lightofthenewhumanistscientifictheoriesatthe time,hisdetailedquestioningofthedivinizationof theoldarchitecturalprecepts–whosenarrativemirroredMan’spositionconcerningreligionandsociety–opensthewayforreasoningthatisstillpresenttoday, evenifunconsciously.
Perrault,fromthe17thcenturyonwards,allowsfor theinsertionofarchitecturalproportionsaccordingto amythicnarrative–whichuntilthengovernedthe designofClassicalArchitecture)–tobeundoneatthe expenseofitsrationalization.Thisendeavorattempts tocreatearuleofproportionsbasedontheoldmodels, butwithouttheirdivinizationorthe“irregularities”of artisanpractice,consideredundesirableortheproofof alowskill(Pérez-Gómez1993,p.22).Throughthis logic,theseelementsbecamemereaestheticandartisticelements,separatedfromthearchitecturalworktrue meaning.
2ARCHITECTURALHERITAGEIN
MODERNITY
WiththemaritimeexpansionofEuropebetweenthe fifteenthandseventeenthcenturies,inthediscovery andcontactwithdiversecommunities,whosecultural principlesweredifferentfromtheEuropeanones–andreflectingtheseinthearchitectureitself-,began tounderstandthedifficultythatthegeneralization oftheidealsinstitutedsincethe1stcenturybythe RomanarchitectVitruviusledtothetheorizationof architectureanditspractice.Thesecouldnolongerbe consideredabsoluteorapplicabletothewholeworld becausetheirmeaningisnotsharedinthesameway bydifferentcultures.
HereiswhytheFrencharchitectClaudePerrault (1613–1688)beganhimselftoquestionthelegacyof theAntiquityteachings,moreparticularlythrougha newtranslationandcriticismofVitruvius’sclassic treatise Dearchitecturalibridecem,inhisworkentitled Ordonnancedescinqespècesdecolonnesselon laméthodedesanciens (1683).Thisparticularwork
However,ifPerrault,ontheonehand,advocated fortherationalizationofarchitecture,ontheother,his aestheticjudgmenthadbecomesubjective,noteven dependentontheuseofthosesameproportionsbut onotherfactors,whichimmediatelypavedtheway forapurelyformal,arbitraryandrelativeappreciation ofarchitecture.Architecturehassincebecomescientific,quantifiable,butitsvalorizationisdependenton thetasteofthemomentandtherelationshipbetween objectandsubject(Pérez-Gómez1993,pp.32–33).
ThesecontradictionsinPerrault’sworkderivefrom thedisparitiesbetweenhispracticeasanarchitectand hisconceptualideas,intheuseofvariousstylistic elementsofclassicalantiquityarchitectureasaway tojustifyhistheorywithout,however,supportinghis unquestionedveneration(Pérez-Gómez1993,p.27). Hisassessmentoftheroleandculturalandsymbolic valueofarchitectureand,thus,oftheclassicheritage heanalyzed.Itwasmademerelybasedontheformalismsofthestyleinwhichitwasbuilt,rejectingthe relevanceofthemeaningplacedonthearchitectural design.Thiscompletelyignoredthepossibilityofan in-depthanalysisofhowthisheritagewasconstituted asatestimonytoagivenknowledgeandasawayof thinking,specifictoitstimeandplace.
Therefore,Perraultinitiatedaprofoundrupturewith ClassicalAntiquity,bringingtotheforegroundall theincongruitiesthatstillimprintModernArchitectureandtheperpetuityoftheprecedingarchitectural
heritage.Theappreciationandvalorizationofheritage are,fromthenon,merelybasedonthearchitectural object’sstylisticrepresentation(Pérez-Gómez1993, p.36),thusdetachedfromitscontextualizationin thesocietyinwhichitaroseandfromtheunderlying culturalmeaningthatheritagerepresents.
2.2 Theperpetuityofarchitecturalheritage
Itispreciselyinthisapparentirrelevanceofthevalorizationofbuiltheritageasanillustrationofthe culturalvaluesofagivenperiod,insteadofpraising itasaphysicalobjectrepresentativeofitshistoricity, thattheworkofFrançoiseChoay(1992)laterrevealed andclarifiedthecontextandevolutionoftheconcept ofheritage.Itwasimmediatelyapparentthattheterms heritageandhistoricalheritagedifferinherwork, interpreteddifferentlyineachcommunity’sheritage conservationpracticesandpolicies,andaccordingto theirculture.
Whatisfirstalludedtoisthat,nowadays,thereferenceto(architectural)heritageisindicativeofthe historicalheritage,whichessentiallyincludesthesocalledhistoricalmonuments.However,thedefinition ofarchitecturalheritageshouldencompasssomething more,incontinuousevolutionandexpansionofthe term(Choay2014,p.11;Vecco2010,pp.321–323). Whilethehistoricalheritagenecessarilyreferstoa mentalityencompassingadiversityofartisticobjects commonlybelongingtothepast–resultingfrom Perrault’sthesis–,theconceptofheritageisbroader, encompassingthemeaningsofeverythingthatbelongs toaculturallyacceptedheritage(Jorge2003,p11; Vecco2010,p.323).
Giventhevariedargumentsinfavorofanapparent needforcontinuousinnovation(Choay,2014,p.15), onlyafteranexpansionoftheideaofhistoricalheritage –whichemergedinEuropeduringthe19thcentury–didheritageconservationstrategiesstarttoreconsider architecturalheritageasaculturalexpressionofhistorical,artistic,technical/scientific,social,urbanand aestheticvaluesofthesocietiesthatthisheritageisa testimonyof(Choay2014,p.16;Jorge2003,p.13). Morethananartifactofthepasttowhichwedonot haveaccess.
Weshallstrivetoachievetherebirthofhistoricbuildingsandhistoricareas,whichgiveusafeelingof continuity[…],onlyderivedfromthefamiliarand theloved(GBDepartmentoftheEnvironment1975, p.xii).
2.3 Criteriaforitsintegrated(re)valorization
Inthehistoryofhumanknowledge,therehasalways beenanalmostbiologicaldesireforHumankindto inheritthepastknowledgetopassitontofuturegenerations.Inthiscontext,architectureendsupbeing anexpressionandtestimonyofthatheritage,whose
valuedetermineswhatisconsideredheritagewhen culturallyrecognized(Jorge2003,p.11).
Forthisreason,thein-depthstudyofarchitectural workshasbeenrelevantforensuringthepreservation oftheheritageconceptthatChoaypretendedtotransmit.Inthisregard,wecanalsorefer,forexample,to thestudiescarriedoutinthe15thcenturybyAlberti, whosesearchforunderstandingtheconceptionand valorizationcriteriaofantiqueworks(Alarcão2018, p.22;Alberti1966)aimedtoapplythosesamecriteriatothepresentreality,withoutjeopardizingthe preservationofthoseworks.
Oneoftheironiesofarchitecturaltrainingisthatit hasbeenonthestudyofoldbuildings,buthasseldom bredarespectforthem.(Fawcett1976,p.8).
However,giventhecircumstancesdescribedabove, architecture’scurrentpracticeconsidersarchitectural heritageexclusivelybyitshistoricalcharacter.Italso seesthesearchitecturalworksasthesubstancefornew interventionswithoutlookingatitsoriginalcharacter. Thisvisionisgenerallyjustifiedbecausewenolonger haveaccesstotheoriginalconceptualizationprinciples.Thisdoesnotmeanthatatightconservation strategywithoutadaptationtonewculturalcircumstancesshouldbeadopted.Nonetheless,neithershould ulteriorinterestsorsecondaryagendasbeplacedabove acarefulvalorizationofthatheritage,whichtendsto happenwhenwestudytheoldcityjustforitscurrent image(Rossa2002,p.196).
Architecturalheritageisbuilteverydaythrough newexistencesand,necessarily,thelossofother works.However,therenewalandenrichmentofthe builtlandscapedonothavetobemarkedbywavesof destructionandabandonmentwithoutcriteria(Serrão 2014,p.30).Intherenovationofpatrimony,wecan lookatthebuiltheritage,inaway,asaresourcethat oftenseemsuselessand,therefore,maybediscarded (Jorge2003,p.13).However,itsreuseforotherfunctionsmayleadtotherenovationorreassessmentof itsculturalvalue.Forthisreason,itisnotonlyamatterof“reinserting”itintoanewsocialandeconomic reality,butrathertakingintoaccountitsconfrontation withthescientificandculturalvaluesunderlyingthe preservationofthatheritage,sothatthepatrimonial (re)valorizationisnotinconfrontationwiththelogic ofthepast(Alarcão,2018,p.17).
2.4 ThePortuguesecontext
InPortugal,thechallengeforanewpreservation strategyofthearchitecturalheritageanditsinherent materialsbecomesevenmoreurgentgiventhatthe currentstrategiesofvalorizationandinterventionare scarceofanevolvingknowledgeofitsdesignprocess. Thattendstomakearchitectureadepositofvisual memory,givingittheunwantedstatusofsettingnew andsupposedlymoredevelopedwaysoflife(Correia
2018,p.70).Inthissense,Portugal’sarchitecturalheritagemustbeunderstoodbeyondtheideaofisolated historicalmonuments.Instead,itshouldencompass theconceptofhistoricalheritagedescribedbyChoay:a representativetestimonyoftheheritageevolutionand thehistorical-culturalcharacterizationofitscontext (Lopes1995,p.17;Serrão2014,p.15).
Attheendofthe20thcentury,theLisbonRegional Directorate,fromDirecçãoGeraldoPatrimónioCultural(DGPC),elaboratedasynthesisofthevarious activitiesforthearchitecturalheritagevalorizationand conservationtounderstandnewpossibilitiesforfuture classificationactions.Inthis,theneedtosafeguardthe heritagetotransmitthereferencesofaspecificperiod tothenewgenerationsishighlighted,astestimonyand awarenessofPortugal’sculturalidentity(Lopes1995, p.19;Serrão2014,p.39).
2.5 CacelaVelha’sculturalheritage
Itiswiththisreasoninginmindthatourdoctoral researchwillaimtodevelopacrypto-historicalstudy dedicatedtotheCacelaVelhafortress,locatedin themunicipalityofVilaRealdeSantoAntónio,in Algarve,Portugal.WithintheboundariesoftheNature ParkofRiaFormosaandRedeNatura2000sectorial plan,theCacelaVelhafortresswasincludedintheSpecialProtectionZoneofCacelaVelhaanddesignated asSítiodeInteresseComunitário(CommunitySiteof Interest)forRiaFormosaandCastroMarim.
Thisfortress,whosecurrentstructurewasbuilt between1770and1794,hasseveralarchitecturalculturesinitsgenesis.Theprimitivefortificationinwhich thisbuildingwasbuiltonwasaMoorishcastlebefore theIberianPeninsulaChristianReconquest(“Reconquista”),andthefortification,alreadyinruins,was thenrebuiltinthe16thcentury.Itwaslaterdestroyed bythe1755earthquakeandremainedassuchuntil itscurrentreconstruction.Thus,thefortress’scryptohistoricalstudywillallowustoreconstructthevarious historicalperiodsthebuildingwentthrough.Assuch, wewillstrivetocontributetothevalorizationof theintangibleculturalheritageunderlyingCacela’s builtheritage,morethanthematerialheritageexisting today.
Bearingthisinmind,morethanvaluingthiswork fortheirrepresentativenessofagivenarchitectural cultureorstylisticdesign,wefinditmorepertinent toconsiderthemasencompassingagivenknowledge,evidentinthebuildersandmasons’practices thatcontributedtothedesignandconstructionofthese works.
Giventheneedforaclearunderstandingofthecontextinwhichthesepracticesemerged,whicharebased onpastprinciplesandsymbolsthatwenolongerhave accessto,Crypto-Historycanallowustoreachsuch principlesandcontextstosomeextent,throughthe interpretationoftheirhistorical-culturalfactors(Serrão2001,p.11).Crypto-Historyhasalsoallowed
obtaininginformationwithsufficientdetailtocriticallyjustifythisinterpretationbyunderstandingthe (social,political,cultural)circumstancesofitsoriginalarchitecturaldesignappliedtoitspresentstudy needs.
3THECRYPTO-HISTORICALAPPROACH
Crypto-Historyisarelativelyrecentconceptthat emergedasanencompassingandtransversalbranchof ArtHistory,inthefaceofidentifyingthevastnumber ofartisticworksthatdidnotsurviveduetonaturalor humanactionsofdestructionoralteration.Thus,what acrypto-historicalstudyallowsisanunderstanding ofthesedisappearedworks,throughtheinterpretationoftheirhistorical,political,ideological,and,onits basis,aestheticfactors,whichcontributetotheunderstandingoftheconditionsatthetime(Serrão2001, p.11)
TheconceptpresentedbySerrãotodescribethis typeofhistoriographicresearchintendstoincorporate thestudyofthedisappearedheritageinthecurrent ArtHistorymethodology.Thesedimentationofthe conceptallowsabetterframingofitsorganizedand consistentpractice(Serrão2001,p.12)tobringthe necessaryobjectivitytotheseworksstudy.
TheiconologicalstudydefinedbyPanofsky(1995; 1976)allowedtheunderstandingofthevaluessystem behindtheculturalcodethatjustifiedthecontentfrom agivenartisticwork.Similarly,throughthiscryptohistoricalapproach,wecananalyzethecodesand signs’meaningwhilelookingatallworksofart(Serrão 2001,p.13),includingthosethathavesincedisappeared.Inthisway,wewillreacha(re)interpretation modeloftheseworksbyaclarifiedunderstandingof theirconceptionprecepts,insteadofmerelyapreliminaryanddecontextualizedanalysisoftheexisting records.Toavoidthis,itisnecessarytobroadenthe theoreticalandmethodologicalbasesoftheresearch onwhichtheHistoryofArtandArchitectureoperates byworkingtransdisciplinarytounderstandarchitecturalworksofheritageinterest.
Inthatsense,ourmethodologywillfirstevaluate themethodsusedinvariouscrypto-historicalreconstructionworks,usingdigitaltoolsofrepresentation and3dmodeling,tounderstandtheproceduresunderlyingeachinvestigationitsdevelopment.Fromthen on,inourunderstandingofitsgreaterorlesserconformitywiththecrypto-historicalresearchapproaches thatSerrãodefinedforhistoricalresearch,wewill understandtheirrelevancefordefiningwhatwecall Crypto-HistoryofArchitecture.
3.1 Historical-cultural(re)interpretation
Weusedthewordreinterpretationasamottoforour investigation,asaseriesofpracticalandinterpretive proceduresaimedattheobject’shistoricalandcultural contextualization.Whileanalyzingtheworkofthe
Three-dimensionalreconstructionwithinthecrypto-historyofarchitecture
architectandhistorianJean-ClaudeGolvin,wefound somefundamentaldefinitionswhendealingwiththe representationofhistoricalarchitecturalelementsthat donotexist(2003,p.39)asajustificationforour work.Whattheauthorintendsisadifferentiationof threecoreconcepts:
Restitution –asthereconstitutionofawork’s specificimageataspecificmomentin(its)history; Reconstitution –ascombiningtheknownelements oftheworkinanorderrelevanttotheirjoint understanding;
Restoration–astheimprovementofabuildingconditions,foritsconservation,andabetterunderstanding ofitspertinentimage.
Whatbecomesparticularlyinterestinginourcase studyisthatweaimtointegratethesethreedifferentbasicapproaches.Whatinitiallyaimsat restoring (three-dimensional)theimagefromdifferentperiods ofthesameworkwillnecessarilygothroughthe reconstruction oftheknown(andunknown)elementsofthe architecturalobjectinquestion.Theultimateobjective willbethe(re)interpretationandideationoftheheritagethatthearchitectureofthatworkencompasses and,potentially,forits restoration inavisionofits contextualizedmeaning’sperpetuity.
3.2 (Three-dimensional)crypto-historical reconstruction
Currently,three-dimensionalrepresentationandmodelingareprimarilyconsideredasatoolforpreviewing results.However,itspotentialasaresearchtoolhas beendevelopingsincetheendofthe20thcentury.The rigorandprecisioninherenttothethree-dimensional reconstructiontoolsallowforacomparativeinterpretationofanyselectedarchitecturalworksformal,morphological,structural,decorative,compositional,and programmaticelements(Januário2008,pp.677–692).
Masuch,Freudenberg,Ludowici,Kreiker,& Strothotte(1999)exposedearlyonthesedigitaltools possibilitiesintheircontinuouslyevolvinginvestigativeprocess.Throughtheirversatilityofuseand interactivity,theyrevealdeficienciesinthereconstructiveworkthat,bytraditionalmeans,wouldnotbeso quicklyrevealed.
Duringthefirstdecadeofthe21stcentury,withthe acceleratedprogressofcomputationaltechniques,the possibilitiesofferedbythree-dimensionalreconstructioninthefieldofhistoriographywereincreasingly praised.Realizingthevariouslimitationsoftheexistingmeansbywhichthisdisciplinewasorientedand thepossibleprecariousnessorinconsistenciesexisting inthedataused,thesedigitaltoolshavebecomeuseful methodstoovercometheseweaknesses.
“[…]acomputerreconstructiondemandsspecificdecisionsandforcesonetodealwiththe contradictions.Insearchofanunderstandingofthe culturalimportance[…],oneisconfrontedwithvery
diverseprimarysources,and,aboveall,withinconsistentandevenunrealisticinterpretationsoflater researchers.Acomputermodelcanhelptoreconcile thesourcesandtodeterminewhichinterpretationsare plausible”(vanDeinsen&DePaepe2017,p.49).
Inthethree-dimensionalreconstructionprocess,the necessaryredesignofanyexistingiconographicelementsusingCADtoolsunveilsaninevitablelackof objectivityandcoherencebetweendrawings.
Thismaybeduetosomelackofprecisionofthe originaltoolsorotherfactorsthatchangetheiconographystatethroughouttheirlifetime.Thus,amediation systemwillalwaysbenecessary,whichwillallow thetransitionfromtheoriginaltraditionalmeansto themoreaccuratecomputationalmethodsthrougha certainproportionalcoherence(Guidi&Russo2011, pp.373–374;Guidietal.2013,p.103;Januário,2008, p.672).
Simultaneously,wheninthepresenceofarchaeologicalremains,anyinconsistenciescanbeavoided bycomparingtheactualmeasurementstothecorrespondingonesrepresentedvirtually.Moreover,inthe absenceofsufficienticonographyfortheintendedrepresentation,thereisaneedfortheprocessitselfto bebasedonlocalconstructivelogicsanditsinherent culture,incomparisonwithformalrulesofanarchitecturalvocabularycommontootherexampleswithin thesametypology(Guidi&Russo2011,p.374;Guidi etal.2013,pp.103–104).
Therefore,theprocessofthethree-dimensional reconstructionofanarchaeologicalsiteendsupcreatingtheneedforadiachronicandintegratedapproach, basedonthedocumentationofexistingremainsand progressiverefinementofthereconstructivehypothesiswiththeincorporationoficonographicelements (Guidietal.2013,pp.99,102;DePaepe2010,p.32).
Thus,theobjectiveofourinvestigationwillbeto contributetotheunderstandingoftheculturalmeaningevidentinthestylisticconceptionofagivenwork ofarchitectureby(re)contextualizingthesametypeof toolsthatPerraultintendedtocarryoverfromantiquity,andyetwithoutfallingintoapassiveviewof heritage,disconnectedfromitsmeaningandcultural context.
Inturn,thismakesitpossibletointerpret,inatransdisciplinaryway,theoccurrenceofcertainphenomena,whichinArchitecturearedescribedatitsvarious scalesofapproach,ateachmomentandinaspecific place.Inthissense,thethree-dimensionalmodeling andrepresentation(ideate)processescancontribute totheintegratedvalorizationofarchitecturalheritage throughahistorical-cultural(re)interpretationofits contextualdesign.
4FINALCONSIDERATIONS
Nowadays,architecturalheritagelacksastrategy thatguaranteestheperpetuityoftheknowledgeand
teachingspatentinitsconceptionandshouldbeunderstoodaboveallforitsculturalsignificanceandnot onlyforitshistoriccharacter.Therefore,aheritage approachthatunderstandstheculturalcontextinwhich itsvaluewasrecognized,aswellasthereasonswhyits temporalperpetuitywasorwasnotguaranteed,should beadopted.
Takingthisintoaccount,ourresearchaimsto developacrypto-historicalreconstructionofCacela Velha’sstudycase,takingintoaccountthepersisting builtelements,butalsoalltheinformationregardingtheknowledgeofthebuildersbehinditsdifferent historicalperiods,andthepreceptsbehinditsarchitecturalandstylisticconception,sinceitdepended,in largepart,ontheinherentcultureofthetime(Aguiar 2008).
However,thistypeofstudyrequirescollecting, inventory,andcompatibilityofsparseinformation, whoseapproachisessentiallyiconological,although groundediniconographicandphilologicalaspects. Theiconologicalinterpretationofagivenarchitectural work’sconceptionismadeinthelightofinformationregardingitstime,nationality,traditions,among otheraspects,andwhichwillalsoinformusabouta setofotherworkswiththesameculturalbackground (Panofsky1976,p.49).Thus,theperceptionofthe entireculturalcontextualizationofagivenarchitecturalworkthat,meanwhile,hasdisappearedwillallow reconstructingcertainaspectsnolongeravailable,if aidedbyanin-depthcrypto-artisticunderstandingof itsconception;thusleadingtoaneventualvalorization oftheworkasatestamentofitstime.
Sinceagivenarchitecturalculturewasbasedon theevolutionofpreviousstylisticmodelsandthatthe learningandteachingofarchitecturalpracticewere donethroughthestudyofthosesamemodels,there willbeformal,morphological,structural,decorative, compositional,andprogrammaticelementscommon amongsimilarworks.Ontheotherhand,wewill studytherespectiveconceptionnormsandtradition ofexecution(withgreaterorlessercontinuitywiththe establishedstylisticmodels).So,therigorandprecisioninherentinthethree-dimensionalreconstruction toolswillallowacomparativeinterpretationofthese elementsand,therefore,enrichtheunderstandingof theculturalmeaningevidentinitsstylisticconception.
Tothisextent,thethree-dimensionalreconstructionwillcontributetotheintegratedvalorization ofthearchitecturalheritageunderlyingthecase studythroughanintelligibleandtransdisciplinary (re)interpretationofthehistorical-culturalcontextof itsarchitecturalconception,descriptiveandabovea meaningfulcriticismoftheproblem.Inthisway,we believethatthebenefitsofacrypto-historicalstudy relatedtoarchitecturegobeyondtheintrinsicvalue ofknowledgeanddeepeningofworksthathavesince disappearedbutarepartofourmemoryandrespectiveculturalheritage.Thus,itwillcontributeequally totheconstantmaintenanceofourlookattheheritage
thatiscontinuouslyatargetoftransformationwithout criteria.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ThischapterhadthefinancialsupportofCIAUD throughthestrategicprojectsponsoredbyFCT (UIDB/04008/2020).
REFERENCES
Aguiar,J.(2008). Patrimónioculturaleosparadigmasda conservaçãoedareabilitação:ontém! [PowerPointpresentation].Availablein:www.oasrn.org/3R/conteudos/ areareservada/areareservada6/3R-S1-C1-Aguiar.pdf Alarcão,p.(2018). ConstruirnaRuína,EntreaReconstituiçãoeaReabilitação.Lisbon:EdiçõesAfrontamento. Alberti,L.(1966). L’Architettura[Dereaeificatoria].Milan: EdizioniIlPolifilo.
Choay,F.(2014). AlegoriadoPatrimónio.Lisbon: Edições70.
Choay,F.(2013).Àproposdeculteetdemonuments.InA., Riegl. LeCulteModernedesMonuments.Sonessenceet sagenèse (pp.7–20).Paris:ÉditionsduSeuil.
DePaepe,T.(2010).Hownewtechnologiescancontribute toourunderstandingofseventeenth-andeighteenthcenturydrama:anAntwerpcasestudy.In JournalofDutch Literature,1(1).28–54.
Fawcett,J.(Ed.).(1976). TheFutureofthePast.Attitudesto Conservation,1147–1974.London:ThamesandHudson.
Golvin,J.C.(2003).Larestitutiondel’imagedesvilles antiques:leproblèmedelareprésentationdespartiesnon visibles.InR.Vergnieux,C.Delevoie,J.Leclant(Ed.). VirtualRetrospect.ActesduColloqueInternationalde Biarritz (pp.39–43).Bordeaux:Ausonius.
Guidi,G.,&Russo,M.(2011).Diachronic3Dreconstructionforlostculturalheritage.In Int.Arch.Photogramm.RemoteSens.SpatialInf.Sci.,XXXVIII-5/ W16,371–376.https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchivesXXXVIII-5-W16-371-2011
Guidi,G.,Russo,M.,&Angheleddu,D.(2013).Digital reconstructionofanarchaeologicalsitebasedontheintegrationof3Ddataandhistoricalsources.In Int.Arch. Photogramm.RemoteSens.SpatialInf.Sci.,XL-5/W1, 99–105.https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W199-2013
Januário,p.(2008). TeatrorealdelaÓperadelTajo1752 1755:Investigaciónsobreunteatrodeóperaalaitaliana, paraunaposiblereconstituciónconjectural,basadaen elementosiconográficosyfuentesdocumentales (Vol.1). Madrid:ETSAM/UPM.
Jorge,J.(2003).AMatériadoPatrimónio.InM.Ramos (Coord.). AMatériadoPatrimónio–MemóriaseIdentidades (pp.11–16).Lisbon:EdiçõesColibri.
Letellier,R.,Schmid,W.,&LeBlanc,F.(2007). Recording,Documentation,andInformationManagementforthe ConservationofHeritagePlaces:GuidingPrinciples.Los Angeles:TheGettyConservationInstitute.
Lopes,F.(Coord.).(1995). PatrimónioArquitectónico. CritériosparaFuturasClassificações.Lisbon:Instituto PortuguêsdoPatrimónioArquitectónico.
Masuch,M.,Freudenberg,B.,Ludowici,B.,Kreiker,S.,& Strothotte,T.(1999).“VirtualReconstructionofMedieval
Architecture.”In ProceedingsofEUROGRAPHICS’99, ShortPapers (pp.87–90).http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/egs. 19991037
Panofsky,E.(1976).Iconografiaeiconologiaumaintrodução aoestudodaartedarenascença.In Significadonasartes visuais (pp.47–87).SãoPaulo:Perspectiva.
Panofsky,E(1995). EstudosdeIconologia–temashumanísticosnaartedorenascimento.Lisbon:EditorialEstampa. Pérez-Gómez,A.(1993).Introduction.InPerrault,Claude, OrdonnancefortheFiveKindsofColumnsafterthe MethodoftheAncients (pp.1–44).SantaMonica:The GettyCenterfortheHistoryofArtandtheHumanities. Rossa,W.(2002).ACidadePortuguesa.In AUrbeeoTraço: umadécadadeestudossobreourbanismoportuguês (pp.193–359).Lisbon:Almedina.
Serrão,V.(2001). ACripto-HistóriadeArte.AnálisedeObras deArteInexistentes.Lisbon:LivrosHorizonte.
Serrão,V.(2014).Portugalemruínas.Umahistóriacriptoartísticadopatrimónioconstruído.InG.Silva. PortugalemRuínas (pp.7–46).Lisbon:FundaçãoFrancisco ManueldosSantos.
Serrão,V.(2017).IconoclastiaeCripto-HistóriadaArte. CasosdeEstudoeAcertosTeórico-Metodológicosno PatrimónioArtísticoPortuguês.In ARTisON,5,8–24. Tafuri,M.(1995).Thereisnocriticism,onlyhistory (R.Ingersoll,interview1986).In Casabella, LIX (619–620),96–99.
UNESCO(1972). ConventionconcerningtheProtectionof theWorldCulturalandNaturalHeritage.Paris.Available in:whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf vanDeinsen,L.,&DePaepe,T.(2017).Visualising literaryheritage:Aviableapproach?Thecaseofthe PanpoëticonBatavûm(1772–1780).In DigitalApplicationsinArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage,4.49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2016.11.003 Vecco,M.(2010).Adefinitionofculturalheritage:Fromthe tangibletotheintangible.In JournalofCulturalHeritage, 11(3),321–324.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010. 01.006
