Richard;
 
I take a bit of offense at the notion that preservationists want to leave
things in the dark and never have them exhibited.  Preservation is the
future of conservation in the sense that it is more cost-effective to
prevent damage than repair it.  The preservationist also recognizes the
fact that a lot of damage *is* preventable.  This damage is preventable
not by locking things away all the time, but by educatating staff, setting
limits on exhibition, improving climate controls, improving housing and
storage materials, etc.  Preservation is the first and primary obligation
of the conservator.
 
The unfortunate part is that preventing damage is not glamourous.  Taking
an object that is falling apart and making it look pristine is much more
so.  The good news is that, because of dwindling budgets, the curatorial
and exhibition staff are beginning to see the value of preservation,
preventive conservation, or what you will.  I can clearly see the day
coming when it is as important to cultural instututions to store, handle
and use objects safely as to repair them when they break.
 
Yours,
 
Loren C. Pigniolo                                 | voice/fax: 415/665-1827
Photographic Preservation Specialist              | voice: 800/484-9808 x7841
Photographic Preservation Services                | i/net: [log in to unmask]
1044 Judah Street #1 San Francisco, CA 94122-2052 | Please call before faxing
 
Documents on photographic preservation and a list of our services are
available via anonymous ftp to netcom.com in the directory pub/PPS-info
 
 
 
On Wed, 16 Feb 1994, _Richard Efthim wrote:
 
> Regarding Jessica's comment on Conservators, there's a need to draw a
> distinction between preservationist and conservationist.  A preservationist
> wants things left alone..."in the dark" forever.  There is a place for that.
> Conservationists, or more correctly, conservators must look at how to
> mitigate the inevitable loss of information as the objects are "used up"
> by people who want to study them.  An example comomon in museums is the
> problem of how to light objects on display so that they can be viewed (used)
> by the public with the least amount of damage to the objects.  Filters,
> dim lighting, etc. help to control the damaging effects but the objects
> are still going to deteriorate faster over time than in a more protected
> environment.  The cost/benefit is what causes the friction between
> educators, researchers, collections folks and conservators.  They all have
> different break even points...An educator may feel that an object that lasts
> 10 years and teaches 5,000 students is a valid use of an object.  A researcher
> may feel that only qualified researchers with very defined purposes may
> have access to the object and that no amount of public access is defensable.
> And a few conservators may wish that the access to an object be even more
> limited in order to allow the object to last as long as humanly possible.
>
> _Richard Efthim, Naturalist Center
> _National Museum of Natural History
> _Washington, DC 20560
> _(202)357-1503   fax:(202)786-2778   [log in to unmask]
>