Week 6: The Parallels of Historic Preservation

The two articles explored the changes that have occurred in historic preservation. Nolan and Buckman examined two distinct preservation sites, Monticello and Montpelier. In their investigation, they addressed two philosophies in the preservation movement: the postmodern (preservation of the existing structure) and the restoration approach (or “humanism”). The restoration approach taken at Monticello lacked multiplicity in interpretation, focusing only on Jefferson’s time in the house (257). The focus on the house and Jefferson as one element defined the concept of “humanism.” Though the humanism present at Monticello represented a past approach to preservation, it seemed to be an ideal, in a way. In their “Discussion” portion, Nolan and Buckman noted factors that were important in deciding the approach: the period in which the house was acquired, the amount of work required to restore or preserve the structure, and the finances available (263-264). Even though restoration has been overshadowed by a postmodern approach, would the preservationists attempt to fully restore the area and structures of Montpelier to Madison’s version if they had the same resources?

Their exploration of the change from the restoration and humanism phases to the postmodern approach paralleled the two distinct phases of preservation described by Lindgren. From the articles, the relationship between to the personalism of early preservation and the approach taken at Monticello is apparent. Early preservation focused on human attachment to the building, as was done at Monticello (44). Similarly, the postmodern approach related closely to the professionalism Lindgren discussed. Though the history of personalism to professionalism seemed to correspond with a transfer of influence in historical preservation from women to men, Lindgren pointed out the importance of professionalism as a specific movement. Rather than historical preservation being a local, personal movement, it “would increasingly be constructed along corporate lines, be business-minded in its dealings, and advocate so-called scientific principles” (53). Lindgren argued for a balance between the approaches (55).

The articles interestingly pointed out the similarities between the approaches toward historical preservation and historical scholarship and presentation. The progression of preservation from personalism to professionalism, as well as from restoration to postmodernism, reflected changes in public history. As we have seen in past readings, public history has progressed from single narratives on public figures to multiplicity in the narratives and complex issues. The differences in approaches between Montpelier and Monticello exemplified this shift in historical approaches. Monticello celebrated the life and accomplishments of Jefferson by making the house about him. Instead of ignoring other owners and changes to the structure, Montpelier represented the life of the building and rejected the undemocratic approaches of Monticello (Nolan and Buckman 260).