Ruins As Cultural Heritage. Ethical and Aesthetic Considerations

If, for Georg Simmel, ruins manifest a tension between spirit and nature (culture/matter; human will/brutal force) since the art of architecture is the element of the spirit, of culture, that nature throws down by the force of gravity and the mechanical forces that compose it, then Simmel would not consider the remnants of war ruins (aesthetically contemplable), as they result from intentional devastation, or spirit against spirit. This is the point of departure of this essay. Ruins can be seens as nature’s way of letting us know that its time is of a different scale altogether, claiming the work of architecture and generating a new form, a new unity from those elements that are, at their base, natural materials, reminding us that our presence is transitory, brief. Therefore, the maintenance of ruins is a cultural heritage ethical and aesthetic obligation, not the least for their important educational role—through them we learn our history and culture—and for inscribing us in temporality. However, should we preserve war derelicts to keep present the horrors of war, to remember and honour the grief and those lost? Can war wreckage be considered cultural heritage? On the other hand, it can be argued that, in time, war devastation becomes ruins: nature adds, so to say, a harmonious layer covering the architectonic remnant, creating a “unity” with its surroundings. If so, does the aesthetic delight of such a place constitutes and or brings forth an ethical dilemma?