Nice walking in the Roman villa in Piazza Armerina

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc9t-MhVd30

Against restoration:

[url:2fpjnqul]http://www.unipa.it/monumentodocumento/villadelcasale/conservazione_minissi_en.html[/url]

Petition against the restoration:

[url:2fpjnqul]http://www.unipa.it/monumentodocumento/villadelcasale/appello_sottoscrizione.html[/url]

Pro restoration: add your sites

Valete,

[Memmia]

Salve Daniele,

The proposed 'reconstruction' supported by Sgarbi will indeed destroy the real villa.
The Minissi design should be preserved.
I just missed out on the chance to see the villa for myself a few years ago, however we are planning a future visit and would like to appreciate it in it's 'original' form'.
A reconstruction is all fair and well, but why can't they build the reconstruction near to the original site whilst still preserving the original stones ? It's all down to money I suppose.... :evil:
In fact, why not just create a 3D computer generated 'virtual villa' that visitors could see after viewing the ruins ? That would be a lot cheaper, and far less destructive.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Ciao Joanne,

I could agree with you if it were not for the difficulty of maintenance and the "ray-tracing shadows" problem. Wrong materials, concrete, iron and transparent plastic used in the Minissi's work, damaged the structure with rust, deformations and a "yellow" light caused by the old plastic panels make the wonderful colors "flat". Wood and glass, without plastic at all, could be better for a transparent structure, even if they can do nothing at the same to avoid the bad ray-tracing shadows on the mosaics.

Shelters, made of absolutely modern materials and contemporary design on ancient remains, never convinced me totally, but I have to admit my difficulties to choose what the best way be. Perhaps the best it's to decide different solutions as the case may be and not just using one method for any case. Some points of the Sgarbi proposal are good, my fear is that an original project can change dozen of times till its realization, so it can totally slip out of good sense hands. Especially in Sicily, where lot of cultivated people often can nothing against the arrogance of the various powers and the impact of the succulent 25 millions budget.

Sgarbi is not a bad guy, he has a good taste about Art and Architecture, he'd like mainly to make an opaque roof instead of the transparent one, because it should let a better view of the mosaics, moreover he'd reconsider the volumes of the villa in its original look, not approving the Minissi's vision of them.

Yes, a 3D recostruction is a way, just, I have to think what people see in Italy about the roman remains often just walls of bricks only readable by experts. Common people don't imagine how the things once were, getting often a wrong impression, nor the 3D can convince totally them about the real splendour and the luxurious beauty of a real roman villa or palace.
Like the present reenactment, not perfect, often far from the real, is the "best" so far to give the nearest "impression" about that world was, at the same the reconstructions, if well done and partial, can help.

Who is right? What is really better for the villa?

Vale,

[Memmia]

Salve Daniele,

Wood and glass maybe would be the better option, I have seen rust damage done to monuments here. What differences would there be in costs and maintenance compared with iron and plastic though, would it be a lot more expensive and higher maintenance ? Is there anything that could be done about the bad ray tracing/ reflections ?
I don't know much about these things.

my fear is that an original project can change dozen of times till its realization, so it can totally slip out of good sense hands.

This is the cruncher. Near to where I live there is a multi million pound 'regeneration' project going on, and what started out as a pretty impressive plan has ended up as something that is going to look worse than the original unimproved town as they have run into problems, others have got involved etc it is a mess, and the ever trusting residents are stuck with it.
With the second design, I am concerned that the original villa will be consumed by the new design, and that the new design may end up historically innaccurate and maybe an eyesore even, or 'commercial' and this image would be the one the public will see.
This is why I approve of the original design, even though it is made of modern materials. it doesn't 'replace' the original villa, only shelters it. Although this is only my opinion

Who is right? What is really better for the villa?

Let's just hope whatever happens or whoever takes over the project has good sense and does what is best for the site and aims to preserve and protect it as much as possible.

[Conal]

I was there last Wednesday and the colours were not as clar as I had expected, the mosaics looked faded. Stilll spectacular but in need of some attention , which they were getting from workers but it is a BIG job!!

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Oh, lucky man!

Vale,

[Memmia]

I was there last Wednesday and the colours were not as clar as I had expected, the mosaics looked faded. Stilll spectacular but in need of some attention , which they were getting from workers but it is a BIG job!!

Salve Conal, I've heard that photographers sometimes spray a little water onto mosaics before taking commercial pictures .This is a cheap and easy way of making the colours appear brighter, so when visitors visit these sites they appear duller compared with a postcard or a photograph in a book

Did you get to see all of the mosaics ?
Lucky you!

[Tertius Mummius]

I am a little bit torn about this subject - when I visited Piazza Armerina in late February this year, I was not impressed by the perspex superstructures. They provided a hot, damp climate even though it wasn't that hot at this time of the year, there was rust, the windows needed cleaning, they sheltered the tourists rather than the mosaics which still were dirty and dusty. Something needs to be done about that.

One the other hand, a - in any shape whatsoever - reconstruction is, imho, out of the question; as it establishes structures which cannot be regarded "authentical" as long as the damage done to it (and to the bar to further research done by it). The Saalburg http://www.saalburgmuseum.de/english/home_engl.htm is an example of this philosophy - establishing the picture of a Roman fort rather than its true likeness.

Why not go for something like they did for the great baths at Xanten: http://www.archaeologischer-park-xanten ... +heute.htm
(I_m sorry this site is available in German only) structures that shelter and leave open at the same time. And shelter has to be provided, as the mosaics are to be protected from too much sunlight - they've never been and never been intended to be exposed to full glare, the photochemical effects are not to b e underestimated.

[Conal]

Did you get to see all of the mosaics ?
Lucky you!

I did get to see the majority though some were covered over or had patches on them. I went mainly for the experience as I have seen most of the pieces on the web and was very impressed by the size of the place and got a very good impression of how magificent it must have looked in its day.

I agree with what Jan said about the roofing. I could not see that it helped unless it was filtering out ultraviolet rays. It was 41c when i went so the place was like a greenhouse and the scafoilding was too hot to touch.

[Robert Vermaat]

Why not go for something like they did for the great baths at Xanten: http://www.archaeologischer-park-xanten ... +heute.htm
(I_m sorry this site is available in German only) structures that shelter and leave open at the same time.

I agree! This looks like a solid structure from a distance, but it's all steel and glass from the inside: