For what it's worth (so to speak), I'd thought I'd offer another perspective
from a conservator on the value of artifacts and their conservation. This
might be stating the obvious, but it seems rediculous to me to spend a
fortune conserving or restoring broken artifacts that do not have the current
value that warrants treatment.
Our code of ethics (AIC) states that we professional conservators treat
objects with the same standards regardless of their monetary value. But
this is different from deciding on what gets treated in the first place. In
a museum, my experience has been that generally curators decide on what gets
treated after consulting with a conservator on what treatment is necessary
for stabilization or for aesthetic compensation.
As for collecting sherds, this seems to be a possible candidate for a study
type collection. I am not an expert in collections management, but the
museums I've worked at (The J. Paul Getty Museum, Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, Asian Art Museum) have collections policies that allow for different
categories of collections each of which may have different levels of care and
use associated with them. One might not want to have sherds in a permanent
collection where the highest level of conservation is required. But this
should be determined after taking into consideration the type of museum and
collection into which the sherds will be going, their use, value in relation
to the existing collection and in relation to other collections, as well as
several other consederations of which I am not the expert.
As for when objects breaks... we had this problem in the Loma Prieta
Earthquake. Some pieces were restored by conservators while others were
basically a write off since the monetary value of the object was too low to
warrant restoration. Often the value of an object hinges on the fact that
is has no previous damage or breakage and once the artifact is broken,
looking for a replacement might be the better option. These are all
decisions, however, that I think should be made prior to coming to a
conservator for repair.
I often get the question, "is this worth restoring?" from private art owners,
too. I generally advise them to get an appraisal from an appraiser and then
get a treatment proposal and cost estimate (or two or three) from a
conservator and then make their own decision on wheter or not to have the
piece treated. People usually understand when I use the analogy of how an
insurance company works after their automobile is damaged in an accident.
When a car is "totalled", it may be repairable, but basically that just
means that the cost of repair is more than the worth of the car. The car
owner can still have the car repaired if he/she chooses for sentimental or
other reasons, but generally that's a choice that the owner needs to make.
About alll we conservators can do is try to help guide the owner into make
an educated decision.
Katharine Untch, M.A., C.A.S.
Conservation of Fine Art Objects
and Sculpture
San Francisco, CA
KtUntch@aolcom
|