ABSTRACT

This article extends the concept of the term ‘material culture’ and addresses the production and use of artificial materials and imitative techniques as a phenomenon, defined here as ‘Imitative Material Culture’. It includes consideration of social, economic, technological, historical, and artistic aspects of this culture. While extensive literature exists on specific imitative crafts, perceiving these crafts as a part of one’s culture has not been studied. Its rejection by William Morris, Augustus Pugin and John Ruskin, who promoted conservation in England, left a gap without a clear methodological and philosophical approach towards conservation of this cultural heritage. Its origins have been traced to the age of antiquity; however, imitative material culture reached its zenith between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries. The utilisation of marble imitations such as scagliola, marmorino and marezzo increased significantly during this period, most notably in Bavaria, and was later warmly embraced by the Georgians in the UK. Conservation of imitative material culture challenges our perceptions regarding authenticity, as there is an evident philosophical paradox between authentic imitations and authentic conservation within this heritage. Thus, the study provides a platform for choosing an appropriate conservation approach for historic artificial materials and imitative techniques.

摘要

本文扩展了“物质文化”一词的概念，并将人造材料和模仿技术的生产和使用视为一种现象，在此定义为“模仿物质文化”。它包括考虑这种文化的社会、经济、技术、历史和艺术方面。虽然存在大量关于特定模仿手工艺品的文献，但尚未研究将这些手工艺品视为一个人文化的一部分。它被在英格兰促进保护的威廉莫里斯、奥古斯都普金和约翰拉斯金拒绝，留下了一个空白，没有明确的方法和哲学方法来保护这一文化遗产。它的起源可以追溯到古代。然而，模仿物质文化在 17 世纪和 19 世纪之间达到了顶峰。在此期间，大理石仿制品（如 scagliola、marmorino 和 marezzo）的使用显着增加，尤其是在巴伐利亚州，后来在英国受到格鲁吉亚人的热烈欢迎。对模仿性物质文化的保护挑战了我们对真实性的看法，因为在这一遗产中真实的模仿和真实的保护之间存在明显的哲学悖论。因此，该研究为为历史人造材料和模仿技术选择适当的保护方法提供了一个平台。因为在这一遗产中真实的模仿和真实的保护之间存在明显的哲学悖论。因此，该研究为为历史人造材料和模仿技术选择适当的保护方法提供了一个平台。因为在这一遗产中真实的模仿和真实的保护之间存在明显的哲学悖论。因此，该研究为为历史人造材料和模仿技术选择适当的保护方法提供了一个平台。