In the nineteenth century, architectural heritage preservation was dominated by two opposing philosophies. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc championed 'stylistic restoration,' arguing that to restore a building is not to maintain or repair it, but to reinstate it to a state of completeness that may never have existed at any given time. He frequently replaced degraded medieval structures with idealized versions. Conversely, John Ruskin advocated for absolute conservation in *The Seven Lamps of Architecture*. Ruskin viewed historic buildings as organic entities whose natural decay was part of their aesthetic and historical integrity. For Ruskin, restoration was a lie; he believed we had no right to alter the work of past builders, and that we should instead support decaying walls with timber and iron props to prolong their natural life rather than try to recreate them.
Based on the passage, which of the following statements best describes the primary difference between Viollet-le-Duc's and Ruskin's approaches to historical buildings?
- Viollet-le-Duc favored actively replacing decayed elements to achieve an idealized completeness, whereas Ruskin believed decay should be accepted and structurally supported to preserve historical integrity.Answer
- BViollet-le-Duc sought to preserve buildings in their exact state of ruin, whereas Ruskin wanted to completely rebuild structures to their original design.
- CViollet-le-Duc believed that a building's decay enhanced its aesthetic value, whereas Ruskin argued that decay was a structural defect requiring total restoration.
- DViollet-le-Duc focused on upgrading the functional utilities of ancient structures, while Ruskin focused exclusively on the spiritual dimensions of modern homes.