In the following text I provide my response to the three reviewers of my book titled “Reviewing the Past. The Presence of Ruins”. First I list a few elements that all the reviewers highlighted. Then, I answer the insightful comments and detailed observations brought forward by them, organised in thematic structures. In this part I start with the three main criteria and the agency of Nature in ruination. Then I investigate the issues regarding the so-called “contemporary ruins”. Ruins’ environmental character, (...) context and sitedness are put into focus in the next section, to finally arrive to the equally inspiring questions of picturesque, sublime and to the issues of representation. (shrink)

In the following text I provide my response to the three reviewers of my book titled “Reviewing the Past. The Presence of Ruins”. First I list a few elements that all the reviewers highlighted. Then, I answer the insightful comments and detailed observations brought forward by them, organised in thematic structures. In this part I start with the three main criteria and the agency of Nature in ruination. Then I investigate the issues regarding the so-called “contemporary ruins”. Ruins’ environmental character, (...) context and sitedness are put into focus in the next section, to finally arrive to the equally inspiring questions of picturesque, sublime and to the issues of representation. (shrink)

The appreciation, conservation, and reconstruction of ruins, deteriorating buildings, and archaeological sites of historical, religious or cultural value, as well as their safeguarding, lead to a complex set of issues and considerations. This brief paper suggests that a deeper understanding of the various models of heritage management can enhance acceptance of the different practices of heritage care. The fragility of heritage sites and of heritage models urges us to look for viable answers to global ethical and aesthetic questions regarding the (...) management of heritage sites. *. (shrink)

Zoltán Somhegyi’s Reviewing the Past: The Presence of Ruins takes the reader on a captivating journey through the phenomenon of ruins. It is a remarkable achievement that, I believe, only someone like Somhegyi--a philosophical aesthetician as well as an art historian, and one who has studied ruins on a global scale--could pull off so brilliantly.What I focus on in this essay, however, is on the side of ruins that I believe gets shorter shrift in this book, namely, the environmental side. (...) First, I take up some difficult cases for Somhegyi’s ontology of ruins, which I believe his account handles quite well, namely, the phenomenon of contemporary industrial and commercial ruins and the case of so-called ruins brought about through the destruction of war. Next, I turn to my main criticism of his treatment of ruins: that he looks at them predominantly through the lens of art, and not enough through the lens of nature. I suggest that Somhegyi is not sufficiently alive to consequences of the ruin’s artistic/natural hybridity; more specifically, I think he neglects some of the consequences of nature being a co-creator of the ruin. Finally, I propose further attention to the environmental views embodied in the change from the picturesque to the sublime treatment of ruins in art. (shrink)

Ironies are implicit in the title of Zoltan Somhegyi’s book Reviewing the Past: The Presence of Ruins, and this is in keeping with ruins’ own paradoxical character as manifesting endurance and fragility, presence and absence, vivid physicality and an import that is almost entirely reflective. By inviting readers to take a desultory approach to the sequence of the book’s chapters, the author positions them to be active co-explorers of ruins who are reflective about their responses. Somhegyi analyzes various threats to (...) the survival of ruins as structures and aesthetic objects but nevertheless finds bases for some optimism. He ends the book with a chapter on a topic that seems far afield from ruins: museums that make the process of remembering thematic. This somewhat abrupt conclusion forces the reader to draw connections between his remarks on such museums and the topic of ruins. This provocation of the reader’s own reflections encourages a stance akin to that involved in the aesthetic appreciation of ruins and draws attention to their open-endedness. (shrink)