report of the president of icomos, raymond lemaire 1975 -...

6
Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About three months ago. the Chairman of ICOMOS asked me to compose preparatory notes for a history of the first twenty years of ICOMOS. dating back from the negotiations concerning its foundation until the end of my own Chairmanship in 1981. Unaware of the scale of the task, I naively accepted. Now that I am actually doing it. I realize that it is impossible to carry it out in a satisfactory manner. Looking back for nearly a third of a century is a challenge to the memory, for what does one remember? Only the most pleasant or unpleasant things, and those which tend to glorify your own role! All these memories can only deform and tarnish the historical truth. A return to the archives could probably bring a bit of order, structure and truth into the narrative. Unfortunately, I currently have neither the leisure nor (dare I admit it?) the courage to dive back into the several cubic metres of paper, stored in both Paris and Louvain, which form the material references concerning this long and extremely active period. For lack of any thing better, then, we shall try for memories alone, searching for outstanding facts, key persons, basic concepts, but with the obvious risk of forgetting the essential ones. The sense ot historical criticism which my school masters tried to inculcate in me more than fifty years ago may help me to be not too unfair, although I run the risk of being conclusively proscribed from the field from their point of view! Let us start with a few memories about the origins of ICOMOS. Piero Gazzola was undeniably the main driving force behind the creation oi'ICOMOS. He had felt the need for it since the time when, working as a specialist at UNESCO, he was confronted with many problems of protecting monuments which were subject to the demands of the new international organization. Better than anyone else, he realized the void formed at the time by the lack of a broad professional organization to protect these monuments. This void was particularly perceptible during the vast salvage operation for the temples of Abu Simbel. Moreover, he had seen how collaboration with ICOM. the organization grouping museum specialists, had made many phases of this gigantic and delicate operation much easier. When the Venice Congress was first being organized in 1962, a structure similar to ICOM was therefore proposed for specialists in the protection of monuments. A proportion of its future tasks had hitherto been fulfilled by ICOM, and some of its managers, such as Stanislas Lorentz, were therefore associated with the preliminary planning. Most of them remained faithful supporters of ICOMOS to the end. Prof. Guilhelmode Angelis d'Ossat, Italy's Director of Fine Arts and the leading protector of the congress to be held, was also one of the founding lathers of ICOMOS. as was the architect Carlo Ceschi, then Superintendent of Monuments in Rome. This small group of friends laid the foundations of our organization. We met repeatedly in Rome, which I used to visit regularly, as I used to give lectures at the "Scuola per lo studio del monumenti", founded by de Angelis in the faculty of architecture of which he was Dean at the time. I have a happy memory of an informal luncheon meeting, held at Rosati's. at which we defined the general outlines of the organization as we intended to present them at the congress, and where the name "ICOMOS" was invented somewhere between an expresso and a grappa, after many dead-end proposals. Which reasons pushed us to found this organization? The generation after ours would have trouble imagining the isolation in which those responsible for conserving and restoring historical monuments worked, in most countries. Some countries had organizations to group them, such as France, Italy, Germany, or Austria, but this was not the rule. In every case, there was no mechanism for international contacts. Colleagues in other countries, and sometimes even one's own country, were unknown. Names read at the foot of an article or on the flyleaf of a book could rarely be given faces. Organized in 1957 by the corporation of chief architects of historical monuments, and by Maurice Berry in particular (subsequently the first treasurer of ICOMOS) the international congress in Paris was the first to be held in our field, providing an opportunity to meet each other, a factor which some

Upload: others

Post on 02-Nov-2020

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981

About three months ago. the Chairman of ICOMOS asked meto compose preparatory notes for a history of the first twentyyears of ICOMOS. dating back from the negotiationsconcerning its foundation unti l the end of my ownChairmanship in 1981. Unaware of the scale of the task, Inaively accepted. Now that I am actually doing it. I realize thatit is impossible to carry it out in a satisfactory manner.

Looking back for nearly a third of a century is a challengeto the memory, for what does one remember? Only the mostpleasant or unpleasant things, and those which tend to glorifyyour own role! All these memories can only deform andtarnish the historical truth. A return to the archives couldprobably bring a bit of order, structure and truth into thenarrative. Unfortunately, I currently have neither the leisurenor (dare I admit it?) the courage to dive back into the severalcubic metres of paper, stored in both Paris and Louvain, whichform the material references concerning this long and extremelyactive period.

For lack of any thing better, then, we shall try for memoriesalone, searching for outstanding facts, key persons, basicconcepts, but with the obvious risk of forgetting the essentialones. The sense ot historical criticism which my school masterstried to inculcate in me more than fifty years ago may help meto be not too unfair, although I run the risk of being conclusivelyproscribed from the field from their point of view!

Let us start with a few memories about the origins ofICOMOS. Piero Gazzola was undeniably the main drivingforce behind the creation oi'ICOMOS. He had felt the need forit since the time when, working as a specialist at UNESCO,he was confronted with many problems of protectingmonuments which were subject to the demands of the newinternational organization. Better than anyone else, he realizedthe void formed at the time by the lack of a broad professionalorganization to protect these monuments. This void wasparticularly perceptible during the vast salvage operation forthe temples of Abu Simbel. Moreover, he had seen howcollaboration with ICOM. the organization grouping museumspecialists, had made many phases of this gigantic and

delicate operation much easier.When the Venice Congress was first being organized in

1962, a structure similar to ICOM was therefore proposed forspecialists in the protection of monuments. A proportion of itsfuture tasks had hitherto been fulfilled by ICOM, and some ofits managers, such as Stanislas Lorentz, were thereforeassociated with the preliminary planning. Most of themremained faithful supporters of ICOMOS to the end. Prof.Guilhelmode Angelis d'Ossat, Italy's Director of Fine Artsand the leading protector of the congress to be held, was alsoone of the founding lathers of ICOMOS. as was the architectCarlo Ceschi, then Superintendent of Monuments in Rome.This small group of friends laid the foundations of ourorganization. We met repeatedly in Rome, which I used tovisit regularly, as I used to give lectures at the "Scuola per lostudio del monumenti", founded by de Angelis in the facultyof architecture of which he was Dean at the time. I have ahappy memory of an informal luncheon meeting, held atRosati's. at which we defined the general outlines of theorganization as we intended to present them at the congress,and where the name "ICOMOS" was invented somewherebetween an expresso and a grappa, after many dead-endproposals.

Which reasons pushed us to found this organization? Thegeneration after ours would have trouble imagining theisolation in which those responsible for conserving andrestoring historical monuments worked, in most countries.Some countries had organizations to group them, such asFrance, Italy, Germany, or Austria, but this was not the rule.In every case, there was no mechanism for internationalcontacts. Colleagues in other countries, and sometimes evenone's own country, were unknown. Names read at the foot ofan article or on the flyleaf of a book could rarely be givenfaces. Organized in 1957 by the corporation of chief architectsof historical monuments, and by Maurice Berry in particular(subsequently the first treasurer of ICOMOS) the internationalcongress in Paris was the first to be held in our field, providingan opportunity to meet each other, a factor which some

Page 2: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Raymond Lemaire

Fig. 1. Executive and Advisory Committee Meeting in the Ceremony Hall of the XVth century Gothic Town Hall Bruges, 9thDecember 1976 /Reunion des Comites Executifet ConsultatifSalle d'Honneur. Hotelde VilleGothique(XVemesiecle) Brugesle 9 decembre 1976

considered even more important than its scientific aspect.Almost all the participants considered a repetition of theexperiment to be more than desirable, and felt that it would beideal to hold a congress every three years. Without beingexplicitly expressed, the idea of ICOMOS itself had comeinto being. It was minutely examined in Venice by acommitteeelected for the purpose. The main outlines of the articles ofassociation of the future international organization weredefined, based on those of ICOM. The keen collaboration ofJan van der Haegen, in charge of the heritage department ofUNESCO, and of Paul-Henri Riviere, founder and generalsecretary of ICOM, made the negotiations and discussionseasier. A ten-member provisional committee was formed,with Piero Gazzola as Chairman and myself as Secretarygeneral. Its main task was to prepare the articles of associationfor a future constitutional meeting, already planned for 1965in Warsaw, at the invitation of the Polish authorities, promptedby Stanislas Lorentz and Jan Zachwatowitz. The articles ofassociation were conclusively defined during several meetingsof the committee, most of which took place in the Paris officesof Jean-Pierre Paquet, chief architect of historical monuments.

The threat of schism appeared as soon as the Venicemeeting was held. A few people, disappointed that theircandidatures had not been fulfilled by the secret ballots,decided to form a parallel organization whose access wouldbe strictly reserved to architects and engineers specializing in

the field of conservation and restoration, whereas by principleand conviction, the doors of ICOMOS were open to everydiscipline involved in the protection of monuments. CharlesPeterson and Albert Degand were the pillars of this initiative.Named "Icarmo", the project did not last long. However,during the early days of ICOMOS, it led to regrettableconfusion, and the first leaders of our organization had to savethe situation on many occasions.

Welcomed favourably by Rene Maheu, Director Generalof UNESCO, ICOMOS was immediately admitted as acategory B advisory and collaborative organization, and wasupgraded to category A two years later.

The objectives of ICOMOS were clearly defined inVenice:

to group specialists from every discipline involved inthe protection of the monumental and urban heritageof every country, in order to establish ties of friendshipand collaboration between them,to be represented in as many countries as possiblethrough the formation of national committees,to make the knowledge and experience of each memberavailable to all by encouraging publications and everyform of collaboration, contact and confrontation, and(among other things) by forming international scientificcommittees to organize, plan and encourage national

94

Page 3: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Report of the President of ICOMOS. Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981

and international initiatives.to promote research in every field useful forconservation.to provide scientific advice to any public or privateorganization which so requests.to regularly debate the major problems posed by theprotection of the monumental and urban heritage bothnationally and internationally.to promote the training of specialists in every fieldapplicable to conservation.

The inaugural General Meeting, held in Warsaw in 1965,sanctioned these objectives, and officially brought ourorganization into being. The first General Assembly, whichtook place in the royal palace in Cracow over the next fewdays, elected its first directors: Piero Gazzola was electedChairman; Raymond Lemaire, Secretary General; MauriceBerry, Treasurer. The first Vice-Chairmen were Bob Garvey,Vladimir Ivanov and D. Almagro, while Stanislaw Lorentzbecame Chairman of the Advisory Committee.

Our main concern and responsibility was obviously thedefinition and implementation of policy.

Our initial objectives were to provide a roof for ICOMOS,and the financial resources essential for its operation. At thebeginning, we only had our faith and good intentions, as wellas a few dollars which the founders had paid into the accounts,which were initially perfectly blank.

Gazzola and I had sent out feelers even before the Warsawmeeting, and there seemed to be hope of being accommodatedin Italy, Belgium or Switzerland. However, there were nofirm promises, just a degree of openness to a concrete request.France finally came to the rescue: the inaugural meetingreceived a telegram from Andre Malraux, France's Ministerof Culture, offering a head office which fitted the objectivesof the organization, as well as regular financial assistance forthe secretariat. This was apparently the result of discreetapproaches by our French colleagues. The Cracow meetingcommissioned the Chairman and the Secretary General tonegotiate with the French authorities. This was soon done,with the result that the Ministry of Culture made a historicalbuilding, specially restored for the purpose, available toICOMOS in the Marais district of Paris. After three years ofaccommodation on the premises of the Museum of HistoricalMonuments, ICOMOS took possession of the left wing of theHotel Saint-Aignan, one of the most majestic historic apartmentblocks in the Marais, entirely restored and fitted for our needsunder the direction of Maurice Berry. At the time, we coulduse the entire building, whose furnishings and technicalequipment were provided free of charge by UNESCO. MissPascale Gervaise, now Mrs. Gremont, was employed assecretary on a part-time basis. Working with Inna Calegari,the personal secretary of Piero Gazzola, and with Marie-Jeanne Geerts, my own personal secretary, they very effectivelyand harmoniously dealt with all the correspondence ofICOMOS and a vital proportion of its organization during thefirst few years, despite the distance which separated them.Without their dynamism and devotion, the elected executiveswould have been unable to work effectively. After a fewyears, it became possible to further fill out our administration

with permanent employees, who often carried out arduoustasks under the leadership of Piers Rogers, recruited from theBank of England to manage the secretariat, a task which hefulfilled skilfully until the beginning of the 1980's.

The second point in the priority programme was to rapidlyform the greatest possible number of national committees inorder to make ICOMOS credible. This was easier thananticipated. The enthusiasm which prevailed at the VeniceCongress had made it possible to convince a large number ofcolleagues to take steps in this direction as soon as theyreturned to their respective countries. The aim was to be ableto announce in Warsaw which countries were firmly committedto the operation. Twenty-three countries had given anaffirmative response: fifteen European countries, one Africancountry, four countries in the Americas, and three in Asia. Thecontinuation of the operation was mainly based on the personalcontacts of the elected executives of ICOMOS, particularlywithin their own linguistic spheres. Within just a few years,the number of national committees approached fifty, reachingsixty when I withdrew from the Chairmanship during theGeneral Meeting in Rome in 1981.

The third priority was the initiation of scientific activities.This was in fact the most important point in the programme.It was also the most difficult to achieve, in view of our extremepoverty. In this field, we were completely dependent on theinitiatives and generosity of our national committees. Thefirst proposal came from the Hungarian committee, whichthree months before the Venice meeting proposed to bringtogether an international group of experts to analyse anddiscuss the recent restoration work carried out in Hungary. Atthe time, Hungary stood out because of its modernisticrestoration operations, and caused a sensation in this field atthe Venice meeting. The examples shown evoked interest andeven enthusiasm from some, and questions and concern fromothers. Direct field examination of the operations thus becamean even more interesting intellectual and ethical exercise, asit illustrated one of the more progressive points in the VeniceCharter.

The second conference was organized in Brussels by theBelgian national committee, in collaboration with Belgium'sroyal artistic heritage institute. This conference was the firstto be held under the official patronage of ICOMOS, whichhad only been founded shortly before. Its aim was to localizespecialists, assess the knowledge and research in the field, anduse this analysis as a basis to prepare a programme of futureprojects for ICOMOS, particularly as regards coordinationand dissemination. One of the immediate results of thismeeting was the founding of the international committeespecializing in the weathering of stone, which was thus thefirst committee to be established. On this occasion, an importantdecision (now almost forgotten) was taken to invite theworld's best specialists to sit on the scientific committees ofICOMOS, irrespective of whether they were members of theorganization or not. The aim was to ensure that the mostcompetent specialists took part in our research, and to clearlyassert that the aim of ICOMOS was to promote internationalscientific collaboration within its field at the highest level,ratherthanenclosingour intended collaborators in institutionalshackles.

Page 4: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Raymond Lemaire

The example of Brussels was soon followed. During ameeting held in Caceres and Trujillo, Extramadura, theSpanish committee took the initiative of an initial meetingdedicated to the inadequately explored problems of protectinghistoric towns. The participants will never forget Palm Sunday,the festival of the famous monastery of Yusto, where theghost of Charles V of Spain still walks, and where they all tookpart in the procession of monks, led by their Chairman,carrying large palm leaves. A fantastic and deeply movingleap into a past which is still alive and topical!

Shortly afterwards, the subject was examined again by theTunisian national committee, which at that time was the onlyone in Africa. It was dedicated to the specific problem oftraditional Islamic towns, and was the first to deal with thisdelicate and difficult subject. The projects developed at thetime for the Kasbah of Tunis lay at the centre of the debate.

I will not linger further on details of the conferences dueto the initiatives of ICOMOS or organized under its patronage.Entire books could be written about them. On average, aboutsix were held every year during the first twenty years ofICOMOS. Many of the reports of proceedings were subject tocomplete or partial publication. The Board attached thegreatest importance to this type of activity, due to its potentialto disseminate and share knowledge and experience, but alsobecause it contributed greatly to establishing constructive andfriendly relations between members. We have alwaysconsidered that one of the main roles of ICOMOS, apart fromits scientific, technical and professional objectives, was topromote personal and friendly contacts between its members.

As early as the Warsaw conference, we announced thefoundation of an international scientific publication. Aninitial issue (blank!) was even presented. Named"Monumentum", its purpose was to publish every quarterbackground articles, as well as a chronicle of facts and eventsthroughout the world in the field of conservation, and an up-to-date bibliography. The project resulted from an initiativeof the Belgian national committee, which also financed it, butit proved to be far more hazardous than expected. Thei nternational editorial committee had expected the very activecollaboration of ICOMOS members in providing articles ofahigh scientific standard, and in providing information for thechronicle and bibliography. Furthermore, although the initialfunding was provided by an annual subsidy from the BelgianMinistry of Culture, the more distant future of the magazinewas progressively to depend on a sufficient number ofsubscriptions. This project must be acknowledged as a failure.The good qualities of the publication were admired by all assoon as the first issue was published: good articles, some ofwhich were innovative, high-quality paper and printing,numerous illustrations some in colour when required forcomprehension, an abundant bibliography, etc. However, themagazine lacked a firm, competent and permanentmanagement. We did not have enough money to finance afull-time management staff. It was therefore difficult if notimpossible to ensure that the magazine appeared regularly.The limited number of subscriptions (which never exceededone thousand, although twice that number would have beenrequired to achieve financial stability), difficulties in obtainingthe promised articles and news in good time, the

discouragement of subscribers in view of the irregular issuesdue to the causes listed above, finally caused the operation togo bankrupt. The first issue appeared in 1967, and the lastthirteen years later. There were twenty-four issues in all. Theattempt was repeated in a more modest form in 1982, underthe leadership of Derek Linstrum, who was chief editor. A fewyears later, it met with the same fate. This repeated negativeexperience was to inspire serious thought about the nature ofthe needs and means of ICOMOS international in terms ofregular publications.

Contacts with members were established by means of aquarterly bilingual newsletter which reported the mostimportant activities of both the national committees andinternational organization. It was edited, published anddistributed by the secretariat.

In the same field, a last initiative was the publication of anannual "Bulletin", mostly dedicated to the protection ofmonuments in a specific country. The idea came from theAmerican committee, and initially aimed to lighten theoverheads of "Monumentum" by dedicating a complete issueto a country which would cover the costs. Six issues werepublished, with the first dedicated to the United States. Theinitiative was repeated by Sweden, the Soviet Union andHungary, among others. It also failed, due to a lack ofcommitment and possible funding rather than to indifference,as thesepublications were much appreciated. The internationaleconomic and financial recession played a role in thisdevelopment, as the progressive restriction of budgets inmany countries made it moredifficult for national committeesto find the help needed for this type of operation.

The dissemination of the Charter of Venice was one of theleading concerns of ICOMOS. This was defined at thecongress in 1964. Piero Gazzola, our first Chairman, was themotive force behind it. It is now thirty years old, and remainsthe fundamental expression of our philosophy in theconservation of monuments, despite its age and failings.Today, it is the inspiration behind conservation measures inmost of the world's countries. Some lawmakers haveincorporated it into their national legislation. Majorinternational organizations such as UNESCO and the Councilof Europe have adopted and propagated its doctrine.

A number of doctrinal ormethodological documents havebeen prepared by the specialized international committees ofICOMOS, based on the Charter of Venice, in order to applyit properly to specific fields. These include the Charter ofHistorical Gardens, known as the Charter of Florence (a resultof Rene Pechere's dynamism), or the Charter of culturaltourism, adopted in Brussels under the aegis of Arthur Haulot;finally, many years later, the Charter of historic cities, usuallycalled the Charter of Toledo. In each case, the initiative andimplementation were the responsibility of the internationalcommittee specializing in the field. Furthermore, culturalregions or countries have tried to redefine its principles in aform and language appropriate to their particularities.

During its first decade of existence, weaknesses andfailings had already become evident in the Charter. Changesin thinking, in the perception of cultural differences, and newexperience, specifically relating to the protection of historictowns, have led some of us to believe that the text should be

96

Page 5: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Report of the President of 1COMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981

revised without betraying its spirit. This problem became oneof the main themes of debate within ICOMOS, particularlyduring the 1970's. The question was placed on the agenda forthe General Assembly in Moscow in 1978. The nationalcommittees were invited to state theiropinions and proposals,and a sizeable dossier on this theme was subject to a long andimpassioned meeting of experts held in the admirable statelyhome at Ditchley in England. Agreement was not reached,despite several days of impassioned and arduous debate. TheGeneral Assembly in Moscow decided to keep the Charterunchanged. The question came up again nine years later inLausanne, with the same result. The problem still remains inabeyance, despite its fundamental nature.

The dissemination of knowledge requires appropriatemeans, of which publications are the most conventional. Theydo not seem sufficient to satisfy the considerable needs in thefield. For this reason, it was decided, during the firstChairmanship, to create from scratch an internationaldocumentation centre specializing in our disciplines. Thiswas a vast and daring enterprise.

The Austrian and American national committees wereextremely interested in the project. They each delegated arecognized specialist in the field to study the project. Thesewere Milton Lord, the highly-skilled Director of the BostonUniversity Library, and Hans Foramitti, Directorof the photogrammetry department of the AustrianBundesdenkmalamt. Together, sharing unbounded enthusiasmand devotion, they developed a superb project, after havingexamined existing or planned centres in similar organizations,such as UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOM. Furthermore, thesecond floor of the headquarters on the rue du Temple in Pariswas consolidated during restoration in order to make itcapable of supporting the weight of a large amount ofdocumentation. The scientific and technical structure of thecentre was remarkably researched. The use of the mostmodern means of the time was planned, including computers.The project would have been financially possible and viableonly if various organizations, and ICCROM and ICOM inparticular, joined our effort and "put all their eggs in the samebasket". This was not possible. ICOMOS was trying to joinin a serenade which had already been partially written by theother two partners, and in a different language to boot. A verybeautiful project, well-researched and carefully planned hadto be scrapped. A return to more modest and conventionalconcepts was called for, which is the form of the documentationcentre which exists and operates today. It is regrettable thatthe ideas of Mr. Foramitti and Mr. Lord did not meet with amore favourable reception at the time. If it had, we would nowhave an instrument for research and work even richer andmore effective than the one currently available.

Oneof the main problems for ICOMOS since the beginningis toensure the balanced representation of the various continentsand cultures within its executive organs (our organization isnot the only one in this position). Policy actions in this fieldhave always been delicate and difficult. There are severalreasons for this. The first is that western nations, and Europeancountries in particular, have acquired a considerable advanceover other parts of the world during the last 150 years, in termsot doctrine as well as methods and techniques. Without tear

of contradiction, it can be stated that the modern protection ofmonuments is a European contribution to contemporaryculture. One ofthe consequences is that western nations, andEuropean countries in particular, have a broader range ofspecializations than most countries on other continents, andthat they have more knowledge and experience. Anothereffect of this situation is the preponderance of western conceptsof protection over traditional ways of doing things in othercultures. European concepts, of which the Charter of Veniceis a typical example, have predominated everywhere to thedetriment of other value systems inspired by differentphilosophies and ethics. The consequence is that in manycases non-western conservation specialists have converted towestern concepts and no longer truly represent their culture oforigin within the organization. Furthermore, they have inmany cases not made much effort to find and highlight theconcepts of their own cultures, as the other culture, erroneouslyreferred to as "universal" seems the only appropriate one fora scientific methodology to conservation problems. It isobvious that under these conditions a conventionallydemocratic approach to the composition of the executiveorgans of ICOMOS could not result in a balance which wouldconform to both the articles (which have a bearing on thisfield) and acceptable to UNESCO, our "guardian angel",which is a stickler as far as the balanced representation ofvarious cultures in category A organizations are concerned.ICOMOS was admitted to category A shortly after theconstitutional meeting, after having spent a few months in the"ante-chamber" of category B. As a result, elections atGeneral Assemblies have always been preceded by discreetdiscussions and negotiations with the Chairmen ofthe nationalcommittees in order to obtain, the day after the election,officers and an executive council which conforms to the legalrequirements and also represents the cultural and politicaldiversity of member countries in an acceptable way.

When talking about memories, I cannot conclude withoutsaying a few words about my dearest memory: the friendshipand cordiality which held sway among all those who bore theresponsibilities of ICOMOS. Since the very earliest days,Piero and I, long linked by adeep and faithful friendship, wereconvinced that the new organization would depend for itseffectiveness on the quality ofthe ties which could be createdbetween its members, and more particularly those among itsexecutives. We were aware of what we owed, even on aprofessional level, to the friendship and confidence betweenus, and we thought that ties of the same quality could alsoenrich others. How is it possible to work effectively withothers without acknowledging them, without respecting theiridentities and differences, without appreciating what thesecould bring to others, to all. We therefore tried to promotesuch sentiments. I must say that this wasn't very difficult, asmost of the members appreciated the atmosphere we weretrying to create, and helped foster it. Isn't it extraordinary tobe able to note that in two decades ot presence at the wheel ofICOMOS, there were never any arguments, or differences ofopinion which could not be resolved by a frank and cleardiscussion ofthe problem in question? This was unarguablythe merit of those who shared power with me after thedeparture of Piero Gazzola due to illness, the year after his

97

Page 6: Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/in-memoriam/lemaire... · Report of the President of ICOMOS, Raymond Lemaire 1975 - 1981 About

Raymond Lemaire

royal re-election at the unforgettable General Assemblyorganized in Budapest by our Hungarian colleagues in 1972.I share happy memories with Maurice Berry, Stanislas Lorentz,Wladimirlvanov, Jean Salusse, Alfred Schmidt, Bob Garvey,Ernest Connally and his assistant Ann Smith, Jorge Gazaneoand so many others, but particularly with Piero Gazzola, who

all fought to found ICOMOS and make it successful, andmade such a considerable contribution to the development offriendly and fraternal ties which at the time prevailed amongits many members, and no doubt still does. Quite rightly, inmy opinion, we judge this to have been one of the mostprecious treasures of our organization.

10 July 1995

98