Ethical debate: Conservation
Alterations, additions and partial destruction of an artefact can tell us much about that object's historical significance and social and cultural context.
Conservation can also reveal important information about the object's original conception and intended use. Should museums ever restore an object to its original state?
It is never possible to restore an object to its true 'original state'. What the museum can potentially do is to return an object to a close visual interpretation of its original state by removing surface dirt, corrosion and later interventions and reinstating losses.
Restoring to the 'original state' can elucidate original use, reinstate original concepts of aesthetic beauty and value, re-emphasis craftsmanship and original design, re-focus on the original artists intent.
Determining whether restoration to the 'original' or a 'former' state is appropriate requires detailed research, to contextualise the object and its historic significance and to determine what remains of the original.
If there is art historical evidence, or comparable objects to indicate original appearance, and if restoration can be undertaken with minimal risks to the object (ie the conservators have the appropriate skills, the materials used have good long term ageing properties and restorations can be reversed) restoration may be appropriate, if supported by extensive documentation and analysis.
Some museum objects cannot be returned to their original state, for others it is not appropriate, but the process of restoration can make an object more culturally relevant, more inspirational and more understandable to the museum visitor.
Sandra Smith, Head of Conservation, V&A
Yes. An object should be restored to its original condition (as much as possible, that is) given three conditions:
a) the original state of the object is considered more appropriately meaningful for present observers than other, non-original states; or, in other words, the meaning of the object in its original state is preferred over the meanings of that same object in any other, non-original state;
b) the meanings that the restoration process obliterates forever are not expected to be worth enough for future observers; and
c)presenting the object in its original state is worth the loss of historical information embedded in the object (pollen, digital imprints, remnants of aged glues, fibers, etc.) it will cause.
Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Head of Paper Conservation, Conservation Institute, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia
Conservation can also reveal important information about the object's original conception and intended use. Should museums ever restore an object to its original state?
It is never possible to restore an object to its true 'original state'. What the museum can potentially do is to return an object to a close visual interpretation of its original state by removing surface dirt, corrosion and later interventions and reinstating losses.
Restoring to the 'original state' can elucidate original use, reinstate original concepts of aesthetic beauty and value, re-emphasis craftsmanship and original design, re-focus on the original artists intent.
Determining whether restoration to the 'original' or a 'former' state is appropriate requires detailed research, to contextualise the object and its historic significance and to determine what remains of the original.
If there is art historical evidence, or comparable objects to indicate original appearance, and if restoration can be undertaken with minimal risks to the object (ie the conservators have the appropriate skills, the materials used have good long term ageing properties and restorations can be reversed) restoration may be appropriate, if supported by extensive documentation and analysis.
Some museum objects cannot be returned to their original state, for others it is not appropriate, but the process of restoration can make an object more culturally relevant, more inspirational and more understandable to the museum visitor.
Sandra Smith, Head of Conservation, V&A
Yes. An object should be restored to its original condition (as much as possible, that is) given three conditions:
a) the original state of the object is considered more appropriately meaningful for present observers than other, non-original states; or, in other words, the meaning of the object in its original state is preferred over the meanings of that same object in any other, non-original state;
b) the meanings that the restoration process obliterates forever are not expected to be worth enough for future observers; and
c)presenting the object in its original state is worth the loss of historical information embedded in the object (pollen, digital imprints, remnants of aged glues, fibers, etc.) it will cause.
Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Head of Paper Conservation, Conservation Institute, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia
