Abstract EN:

Myths or realities, monuments exist through their visible and invisible representations. However, recording vestiges "exactly as they appear" is of primary importance in archaeology. This image-making process does not simply mean capturing, transposing and representing the archaeological conception of a monument according to the Vitruvian values of "solidity, convenience, beauty". It also implies such notions as time and alteration. Does this representation work as a mirror or a mask ? It must reveal the historical and architectural value of the monument, ranging from its most delicate to its most uneven aspects and subtleties, to constitute its scientific record. The history of traditionnal, photogrammetric and digital surveys shows that different forms of accuracy - corresponding to different types of subjectivity - are at work. The scientific approach of monuments is in fact inseparable from artistic, philosophic and poetic views and from their representations. Indeed, images convoke the perceiving subject just as much as the perceived object. So-called objective techniques can never be devoid of some degree of subjectivity. The objectivity of a monument's representation can only be achieved through the combination of complementary perceptions aided by techniques that range from the most rudimentary to the most sophisticated ones : so the image is necessary plural. In the process of identifying, understanding, indexing, publishing, conserving or restoring monuments, such an approach would enable archaeologists and architects who are in charge of the representation of monuments to have a really "detached" perception and reflection.