This is not necessarily a rebuttal per se, because I agree with the
principles from which Paul speaks.  These are simply a few thoughts on the
points he raised, based on my 16 years of working in museums.  -HBC

(Paul Messier writes:)
>
>A few of points:
>
>First: I wonder if the roles of the conservator and curator are
>inherently adversarial.

No, they're not.  I think there is the perception because conservators and
curators may, at times, disagree.  I don't think they're "inherently
adversarial."  By comparison, conservators and directors may disagree, but
that is not to mean there is an adversarial relationship there either.

>While curators deal with art and artifacts
>within a cultural context, conservators are trained to understand art
>from the standpoint of materials.  While overly simplified, curators
>perceive "ideas" while conservators see "matter."

Not necessarily true.  The statement assumes that curators are primarily
academically trained.  Most curators of my generation (I'm 36) are formally
trained in proper museum methods of collection management are most
assuredly aware of the "matter" of objects as well as their context.  I was
a Registrar for nine years before becoming a curator.  My training and
experience cuts across all aspects of museum collections from handling and
environment to collecting theory to contextual placement and exhibition.  I
would venture to guess that while not all curators are former registrars,
most of us are capable of addressing and dealing with collections in the
context of their "matter" as well as their cultural and artistic paradigms.


Furthermore, I've known many conservators who are also trained artists, and
are quite capable of seeing and understanding objects within their cultural
or artistic context.  The best conservators and curators are those who can
see the importance of both matter and context.

I have never been at odds with a conservator.  A good deal of my early
museum training was in the confines of a conservation lab, under the
direction of two of the most respected conservators in the business.  I
don't know a single curator who does not have a high degree of respect for
the conservation profession, nor do I know a single conservator who holds
contempt for curators.  There are differences of opinion, yet that is part
of the learning process.  Curators and conservators (and registrars) learn
what we know partly through the questioning of procedures we might not
fully understand.  It only helps make is better professionals.  Differences
of opinion do not mean that there exists an "adversarial" relationship.

>This issue becomes most profound when control over a museum collection is at
>stake.  Using
>color photographs as an example, a conservator might argue that cold
>storage is essential for the preservation of the object, while a
>curator might have an equal imperative to use the photograph for an
>exhibit.  Obviously, a balance must be struck and this adversarial
>relationship overcome if a museum is to fulfill its mission to both
>preserve and promote culture.  All conservators understand this
>compromise.

Curators also understand the need to compromise for the sake of the
collection.  It is not a matter of control over the object, but control
over the environmental forces which act upon its physical state.
Technology and improved exhibit techniques have made the compromise easier
so that objects can be exhibited without placing undue risk upon them.

>Second: Conservators should be paid for their services like any other
>professional, no question.  Within limits, however,  most conservators
>give telephone advice at no cost.  In my experience, when a private
>individual or institution needs to make a decision that will affect the
>preservation of a collection, conservators will offer their advice in
>the interest of the collection.  I would recommend that curators never
>hesitate to call a conservator for advice.

Here, here.  I agree.  Never hesitate to call a conservator.  I don't know
any conservator who is not paid for their work, whether they are in public
or private practice, just like the rest of us who work in museums for a
living.  I, too give free advice over the phone, but I am compensated when
I go out and do field consultations.  It's like a physician who gives
advice over the phone for free, but will charge for in person physical
analysis.

>Third: Art conservation is a mature discipline.  There are accepted
>techniques and standards of practice that apply to the treatment of
>works of art.

As you know, the conservation profession is not limited to art.
Conservation as a whole is a mature discipline, just like registration,
curation, and risk management are.  We are ALL in mature disciplines.  We
work together as equals to help insure a longer, healthier life for our
collections.  That's what museums are for.

>It is a fact that responsible care for collections will,
>at times, require the advice or services of a conservator.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that when the advice of a professional
in the field is needed, such advice should be sought.  That is why we have
an AAM Directory, a Registrar's Committee directory, and an AIC directory.
My copies are all well worn from continual use.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Henry B. Crawford                                       v
Curator of History                                       v
Museum of Texas Tech University               v
Box 43191                                                   v
Lubbock, TX  79409-3191                         v
806/742-2442                                          v
FAX 742-1136                                            v
[log in to unmask]                                     V
All opinions expressed are mine                   v
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<