Jim,
You always seem to take us into ethical and philosophical journeys - into the
Heart of Darnkess as it were.
However much I enjoy your well-expressed points of view I must beg to differ
on several important points.
We as professional conservators are also charged to preserve "original
intent" or "artistic intent" along with preserving the actual physical and material
integrity of an object or artifact. So, if the "original intent" of a
functional object, let's say a clock, is for it to keep time - and that is what the
owner or custodian of the object desires, then it is perfectly ethical and
reasonable for you Jim, as a horological conservator, to preserve that
functionality as much as the various materials that comprise the clock itself. It could be
argued that to go to the extremes of preservation - to place the clock in a
sealed case, purged of oxygen, and keeping it cold and in the dark, so that it
can last 5,000 years, is depriving the clock of it's "original intent" - which
is to keep time and to be visually and audibly available to the observer. But
on the other hand, to run the clock incessantly, and to handle it every day,
and to put it out in a mantle above a working fireplace with the light from a
window blasting it every day, would leave only a few years of life before it
became on of those well-worn "shadow" objects of history.
Museums are charged with the dual roles of preservation and access to the
collections in their care. There is an inherent tension in this duality which
most people on this list are more than familiar with. I feel that as long as
there is a reasonable balance between the two roles that the universe won't
collapse and life will remain pretty much as we know it.
What does that entail? It means having a specific knowledge of the condition
of the objects or artifacts in your collections and any potential problems or
threats to them. It means being aggressive in the practice of preventive
conservation - and that doesn't necessarily involve lots of $$$$ - mostly acquiring
good information, training, and acting on it. It also means taking the time
to actually "see" your collection on a regular basis, and how your collection
is stored or exhibited (a very good way to fend off the 20th meeting of the
week!). It also means that in giving the public greater access or by making some
decision about the "look" of an historic site or function of a gallery that
you can affect the collections in sometimes unexpected ways. Placing galleries
or collections storage underground is one thing that I have seen that is often
regrettable -water does indeed seek the lowest level. Placing paintings and
furniture where people can easily touch them, or dodge behind a rope barrier,
and then laying off some of your museum guards the following year can have its
price - and I'm thinking one occasion, a couple of years ago, where a visitor
actually sat in a chair on display and it snapped and collapsed beneath them. I
have also seen decisions where sand was spread all over the byways in front
of historic houses in a town for "ambiance" and it was thus tracked right
indoors and whole sections of flooring in historic houses were being replaced and
the level of dust and abrasion to the collections in the houses was
tremendously elevated. Once the problems were pointed out and meetings were held the
"real" rationale came out - it seems that the steel horseshoes on the horses that
were giving carriage rides wore down the asphalt streets, so sand was spread
as an "authentic" solution. Nobody even thought to look into what that sand
might do to the surrounding historic structures and collections before
implementing their "asphalt-preservation" program.
Jim, we also must admit that conservation is a young profession - the
science is only 50 some odd years old. There is still much to understand about the
agents and mechanisms of deterioration and also on the practice of conservation
- hence those cleaning controversies that arise just about every year -
usually involving a guy named Michaelangleo! So we must be reasonable and not fall
into the trap of being absolutionists.
The answer - it seems to me, if first that there needs to be greater
interchange of information between conservation and the museum studies training
programs - we each can benefit so much more from more knowledge of our various
disciplines. There also needs to be greater collaboration and communication between
us so as to take advantage of the strengths of our perspectives. I also think
that those collaborations are most productive when they take place before
certain decisions are made - whether it is in the planning of an exhibit or of a
new building or gallery. In speaking for myself - I hate to constantly have to
come in after the fact and to raise issues about preservation "problems". I
would vastly much prefer to work with colleagues on creative ideas to prevent
"problems" in the first place.
I also think that we should be doing so much more to attend and present
papers and workshops at each other's professional conferences - perhaps the profess
ional organizations can work on facilitating this.
If an attitude of open communication and reasonableness on all sides is
practiced then that healthy balance between preservation and access can be achieved.
Cheers!
Dave
David Harvey
Artifacts
2930 South Birch Street
Denver, CO 80222
303-300-5257
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
