1.1 THE SYNTHESIS MADE BY THE SURVEY AND 
BY REPRESENTATION 
To the survey are so asked non 
predefinite synthesis and this let us see 
an aspect that can seems to be 
contradictory: the deviance from the norm 
becomes the rule with which the object 
of the analysis can be read. The analysis 
is extended in the meanders of the 
building and the cognitive analysis is 
the point of departure of the 
intervention and this must be joined with 
the contribution of the other historical, 
scientific, physical disciplines... 
The panorama becomes bigger also in 
function of the technical-scientific 
progress that grows up inside each of 
these disciplines. 
The number of relationships increases 
towards the infinite; on the other hand 
we can say that much more is the level of 
knowledge, much more is the possibility 
to reduce in a responsible way the 
intervent to a "minimum" absolutely 
necessary. 
For this reason a syntesis is need, that 
has the difficult task to make possible 
the field of intervention using of these 
elements and that will never be 
exhaustive. 
The survey becomes the privileged place 
of this synthesis (Brumana R., Crippa B., 
Vassena G., 1990). From the traditional 
meaning of survey as a group of symbols 
and marks, partially already  decoded, 
during the act of surveing and during the 
real representation; from the meaning of 
survey as trasposition and translation on 
a drawing of the measurements to obtain 
the shape and the geometry; we arrive to 
a bigger interpretation where the survey 
is the location of marks still to be 
decoded and where can be added new 
contributions cognitive as a big 
collecting pot (as a catalogation 
following historical, artistic and 
geografic attributes). 
A second aspect regards the drawing, that 
is the representation: the drawing with 
lines, even if it comes from different 
metodologies of survey, synthetizes only 
some aspects. For this reason the 
   
philosophical and ideological systems 
that have an univocal and restrictive 
interpretation of the modality of 
intervention: the relativity between the 
points of view is placed at the centre of 
our attention. In this way are recognized 
all the values, relationships and 
interpretations that can result from the 
texture of the building. All this 
represents the best and inalienable 
centre for the comunication, the reading 
and the trasmission of that small, but 
unreproduceability piece of history 
‘tranche de vie’: so every removal is a 
loose of informations, of documentation 
and of culture. 
The revalutation of the material aspect 
extend the object of conservation not 
only at the emergency period, the 
monument in its nineteenth-century 
conception, but the notion of good as an 
unreproduceability resource. 
From these theoric preambles and from 
these considerations derive two elements. 
On one hand we have the redefinition of 
the purposes inherent to the intervention 
of conservation that for this reason 
involves all the disciplines here 
afferent and on the other hand the growth 
of the effort of catalogation. 
The role of those disciplines which, from 
the techical and actuative point of view 
intervene in the conservative process 
becomes redefined and more clear 
(Matteini M., Moles A.,1984): first of 
all the importance of the 
interdisciplinary character that means to 
have a contribution of different 
disciplines that help to the knowledge 
and to the individuation of the 
methodology of working. The centralness 
of the object, the consciousness of its 
uniqueness make possible that cannot be 
accepted rules of interpretation fixed in 
advance. The different disciplines care 
this aspect, renewing the relationship 
with the technics, the instruments and 
the metodologies themselves. In this 
scenery comes out, in the top, the 
survey.