national » reviews, features & interviews
Ethical Principles and Critical Thinking in Conservation
By andrea kirsh
June 7, 2011 · 6 Comments
At the largest annual meeting of the American Institute for the Conservatiom of Historic and Artistic Works in 20 years, 1100 conservators met in Philadelphia during the first week in June to discuss ethical principles and critical thinking in conservation. Traveling from as far as Japan, they included staff of major museums (the National Gallery of Art, British Museum), conservators in private practice, and many students in training. They compared standards historically, across different types of artifact and from one country to another. The meeting included conservation scientists, who analyze materials of artworks and historical artifacts, and conservators specializing in paintings, archives, books, maps, video art, historical computer hardware, artifacts of contemporary performance art, ethnographic work that retains ceremonial use, architecture, fountains, historical toys and even boats.
A farmer's trousers repaired for further wear by his wife
At the opening session, philosopher James Janowski received a lively response to his discussion of what to do about the Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban. All of the fragments were recovered and are being cataloged, but an attempt to reconstruct them from the remains would be a long and extremely costly project, and of questionable value. The Buddhas had both religious and historical value; Janowski suggested that their religious value might be restored, but their historical value was irreparably lost. As a model for the decision he suggested Dresden’s Frauenkirche; largely destroyed by Allied bombing during WWII, the remains stood as a ruin for 40 years before the church was restored. He believed the rebuilding successfully revived the church’s iconic, religious importance to Dresden, but was concerned that over time the repairs would become indistinguishable from what remained of the original, distorting the historical record.
In considering Janowski’s example, it may be worth considering that the Japanese have different standards of originality for historic buildings. Since their temples were built of wood, which rots, every piece of the original construction has been replaced, perhaps several times during the history of an old temple. The Japanese accord originality to continuity of function rather than materials. Another possible route for the Bamyian Buddahs is the one taken in Berlin with the Gedächtniskirche, also bombed during WWII. It remains as an eternal ruin. Having lost its religious value, it stands as a sobering memorial of the war.
traditional bookbinfing tools displayed by Bindery Tools, LLC
Deborah Bede, a textile conservator, raised the question of the status of previous repairs to an object; were they part of the historical evidence that should be retained during treatment? These might be repairs done by amateurs as well as those by previous conservators. The context usually directs the decision. Works owned by art museums are valued for their beauty, so unsightly or intrusive earlier repairs would probably be removed (although the Harvard University Art Museums own a self portrait of Van Gogh which the artist had given to his friend Gauguin; the crude repair of a tear was retained when the museum determined that it had been made by Gauguin). A history museum might be more likely to retain repairs, especially if they were performed as part of the artifact’s original use. As example, she showed a pair of farmer’s work pants (above), repaired by his wife to extend their wear. Given the nature of the garment, significant for its history of use rather than aesthetic function or rarity, the home-made patches would surely be retained. In another session Jane Klinger, conservator at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, raised the problems posed by her museum’s collection, where objects had layers of meaning. As artifacts of trauma, their damage might suggest the romantic interpretation of the objects themselves as victims.
traditional tools and modern conservation tools and materials at Talas' display
Several sessions addressed conservation questions around digitization of archival and library collections. Works scanned for digitization must be in condition to tolerate a certain amount of handling. Books and bound archives may have folded leaves or be bound through text, so scanning necessitates unbinding; this means loss of the original stitching, although the books themselves will receive less handling once digital copies are available. Staff at the Wilson Library of the University of North Carolina also described the challenge of scale – specifically, the 2 million manuscripts in the Southern Historical Collection that the library is currently digitizing, which has forced a reconsideration of how much treatment each document would receive.
One of the basic tenets of modern conservation is retention of all the remains of the original artifact, and there will always be debates as to how much loss compensation (e.g. filling-in missing areas or replacing missing or damaged parts) is acceptable before an artifact becomes a recreation; this would be unacceptable within modern museum standards, although private collectors may have other desires for treating their badly-damaged objects. I wonder, however, whether the strict retention of the non-working remains of, say, a 19th century music box, doesn’t risk turning it into a relic – important, perhaps, because it was made by the greatest of craftsmen, but no longer able to produce the music that was its raison d’etre. Relics (but not reliquaries) are specifically outside the categories of objects that art museums collect. And what can the non-working carapace of a music box mean to museum visitors?
Tags: aic, american institute for conservation of historic and artistic works, bamyian buddhas, conserrvation, deborah bede, digitization, frauenkirche, gedächniskirche, james janowski, jane klinger, loss compensation, southern historical collection, u. s. holocaust memorial museum, wilson library southern historical collection, wilson library university of north carolina
ETHICS OF CONSERVATION IN PAKISTAN
A search for direction with special reference to the preservation of Moenjodaro Site.
By Ali Hyder GADHI
Programme Officer (Conservation)
Master Plan for Rehabilitation and Cultural Tourism, Moenjodaro.SINDH PAKISTAN
The spirit of preservation of monuments in a broad sense is deeply rooted in earlier cultures and was considered an important social concern. In Egypt from 3rd millennium B.C onwards steps were taken to ensure the oldest buildings (Temples) preserved and enhanced such as at Luxur, Karank etc, similarly in other oldest urban civilizations old sites and temples were rebuilt continuously upon the rubble of their predecessors. However methodical approaches to the preservation and protection of cultural monuments and sites did not develop until 1789. The history of preservation and restoration, therefore, is but a part of the great history of the relationship between man, time and space. Both reason and sentiment influence man’s attitude towards the past and towards those objects through which it was made manifested. For this highest ideals man alternately discovers preserve, and protect cultural property using the most refined techniques available.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) charter for the conservation of historic tombs and monuments laid emphasis on a coherent policy of economic and social development and of urban and regional planning while UNESCO shows concern for the loss of authenticity. In the case of Pakistan one is more concerned with improving of quality of life than preserving authenticity. In England, and consequently in Pakistan the bias is however, towards scientific restoration succinctly contained in the advice that “It is better to consolidate than repair, better to repair than restore, better to restore than to rebuild, better to rebuild than to embellish; in no case must anything be added , and above all, nothing should be removed”.
In 1882 the British Parliament passed the Historic Monuments Protection Act institutionalizing the English bias in favour of preservation exemplified by Ruskins advice that “When care will preserve it no longer, Let it perish inch by inch rather than retouch it”. The same was introduced in India by Lord Curzon in 1902 which was absorbed in the philosophy of the Archaeological Survey of India.
Today we believe that our point of view for the necessity of preserving and protecting monuments and sites is justified. Therefore, we condemn those of our predecessors, whose understandings were based on some other ideals in contrast with our own way of thinking and interpretation of the concept and values of restoration. If we condemn what was done one hundred or even thirty to twenty years ago, what grounds we have for believing that our own values and attitudes will be endorsed in fifty years later time.
In the beginning of 19th century two distinct theories of Super romanticism of John Ruskin (1819-1900) and rigid Scientifics of Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879) and George Gilbert Scott who advocate stylistic restoration instated of scientific restoration of had massive followers amongst the idealistic and realistic. Ruskin and his followers has anti-restorations moto, while Viollet-le-Duc and his followers advocated restoration and put forwarded plausible and consistent theory, known as the “Purity of style” school of restoration. Ironically later he was bitterly criticized for his restoration of famous cathedral of Notre dame in Paris, the fortress city of Carcassoune and Emperor’s stronghold at Pierre fond. He was accused of disregarding and distorting the original elements.
In 1900 A.D a new theory of restoration was discussed on the occasion of the first German congress for the care of monuments held in Dresden. It was laid down that all works, either of repairs, restoration, or addition, should be the most scrupulous piety towards the ancient fabric in all its parts. The forms, the material, the methods of technical treatment and of construction, must follow as exactly as possible the old models, and it was expressly stated that in any new portions there was to be avoided even the very slightest expression of the artistic individuality of the architect in charge. Thus the turn of the century witness a change in conservation principles, different from that of Viollet-le-Duc, Camillo Boito and John Ruskin.
The theory of restoration and the principal of conservation, was subjected to unsparing criticism and resulted in yet another change in conservation principles were defined for the first time in the “Athens Charter of 1931” and examined in order to make a thorough study in the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, which met in Venice from 25th to 31st May 1964. Here we may like reproducing a few concerned articles of the charter of this congress known as “Charter of Venice” and approved by UNESCO.
The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins and in this case any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monuments.
ARTICLE-12
Replacement of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.
ARTICLE-15
All reconstruction work should however, be ruled out a priori. Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.”
The original pieces are reassembled as they were in the original building. This anastylosis method was first worked out in dealing with the Propylaea of the Acropolis at Athens, the Temple of Athena Nike and the side of the Parthenon which was destroyed by explosion in 1687.
Thus the present principles of conservation are quite different from the one adopted in the beginning of this century and who knows about another change in the principles in a decade or so.
Here we would like to briefly discuss the principles of conservation followed in our country before and after partition.
A “Conservation Manual” was published in 1938 which deals in detail about the principles of Conservation, Account, financial powers and other related problems.
In this manual the theory of restoration approved in Dresden in 1900 A.D, was advocated. But soon after that one can easily detect a change in conservation principals carried out at the Archaeological Sites at Taxila, Jamal Garhi, Takht-Bhai and many other sites in the pre -partition days under the guidance of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Dikshit. Distinction was made between the original and conserved fabric by introducing date and cemented line between the two, this can still be seen at Taxila, Takht-Bhai and today one can differentiate between the original and restored part of the structure.
After partition dating continued for quite some time but drawing lines etc. were abandoned. Later in the sixties in most cases dating the restored parts was also discontinued and efforts were accelerated to make the restored parts match the original with the obvious intention that no body except the restorer should be able to differentiate between the original and restoration.
Now coming to the conservation of Moenjodaro, We would go through the restoration of two decades at the site. In these two decades efforts of the department were mostly of large scale repairs to the remains. If one carefully sees D.k, S.D, V.S & H.R areas at Moenjodaro almost 75% walls have been renewed. Here we don’t agree to the statement that the most recently conserved works were only criticized. The criticism was due to the fact that we are following the early 20th Century conservation principles, which have been discarded in most countries since two to three decades, but still followed here.
We remember a highly critical report of Mr. Curial in the middle sixties who also criticized our way of conservation due in process at Shahdara and other places .Still it can be witnessed continuous replacement of outer face of inlay works engraved in red sand stone slabs. However, the credit goes to the seniors who trained the young offices of the department and what they learnt from them including conservation is yet following now. The principles of conservation i.e copying of the original or for that matter older architectural feature were followed in early two to three decades. Today this practice is meant as a deliberate taking intended to deceive the public. In Pakistan we divide the archaeological monuments in two kinds .These includes.
1. Standing monuments.
2. Excavated sites.
Similarly the Madrid Congress of Architects, 1904 ancient monuments have divided for conservation into two classes; Dead monuments i.e those belonging to past civilization only like Moenjodaro, Banbhore etc and living monuments i.e those which continue to serve its original purpose, like Mosques, i.e Wazir Khan & Khuda Abad mosques etc.
The dead monument is only to be preserved, and is purely a cultural task, where as the living monuments may be treated differently, keeping public interest in view to a great extent. This orthodox theory has been rejected by the “Athens Charter of 1931” and “Venice Chart of 1964” also approved by UNESCO. It is mandatory that a conservator of an excavated site should be fully aware of the site, its various periods, stratigraphy etc, which he can well understand from the reports, published and unpublished. In case of an excavated site precise documentation in the form of analytical and critical reports, well illustrated with drawing and photographs, daily diaries of the excavators are easily available and are always useful in conservation. So in case of an archaeological site the conservator need to study the intrinsic and extrinsic causes of decay and deterioration only before a careful selection of suitable remedies.
While in case of a monuments the conservator has to study the intrinsic and extrinsic material for the knowledge of the building, such as date exhibited by the monuments itself;
2- Data deduced from the monument through the study of Graphic surveys.
3- Published literature.
4- Manuscripts and ancient graphical documentation, such “anatomy” has the purpose of supplying us with complete knowledge of the monument, builders, social conditions, environment and climatic conditions.
The conservator then has to detect the diseases, causes of diseases and remedies. We must say that in case of excavated site the work of conservator is only to find out the diseases and its remedies, while in case of a historical building, he has to collect a lot of information himself and then decide his line of action.
Therefore it is more difficult to conserve a historical building than an archaeological site .There are five fundamental technical measures must be followed However, we may say that detailed conservation notes are prepared after thorough discussions on the site. Photographic and graphic records are prepared and maintained.
In the end we may suggest our line of action at Moenjodaro.
1. The early 20th century conservation principles of exact copying of the older works should be abandoned. The Venice Charter of 1964, which more than codify general principles should be followed. Necessary change in the Conservation Manual 1938 should be made.
2. Moenjodaro is Dead Monument” It should be preserved in the light of extrinsic and intrinsic causes of decay and deterioration which are mostly known.
3. The short term preservation measures incorporated in the approved preservation scheme of MPRCT may be followed till the International Community or UNESCO gives us scientific solution for neutralizing the harmful effects of ground salts which is a one of the main sources of causes of decay of Moenjodaro site.
4. Last but not the least suggestion is to divert full efforts to
i. Structural consolidation of the ruins and
ii. Anastylosis.
In the end we must say conservation and restoration is always amenable to improvement, and is not static.
[...] Read the full post of Ethical Principles and Critical Thinking in Conservation by Andrea Kirsh in her June 7, 2011 post on theArtBlog [...]
In response to your thoughts about the ethics of reconstruction [among other things] I’d be interested in your thoughts about the Barnes Foundation. Specifically, do you see it as I do: the move of the Barnes paintings, even if the building were to be “exactly recreated” in downtown Philadelphia, would make it into a pretense, in part since part of the Barnes is its placement among the decorative gardens. And, in part, because, for example, were the Statue of Liberty moved to the mainland, it would have lost a major portion of its true being, its historical suchness.
Re the Barnes: so far I’ve not expressed an opinion for public consumption, although it has been the subject of many lively conversations. I think that a number of paintings in Barnes’ collection are more important than Alfred Barnes’ ownership or his eccentric hanging, and have always been difficult to see because of his choices.
Having looked at the collection for more decades than I care to reveal, I have not been able find any ideas behind the hanging of the paintings other than symmetry on each wall (a horizontal painting left and right…). Since the Barnes Foundation lacked funds to keep it as Barnes wanted, I think the judge could have decided to make the art works available to the public according to more generally-accepted museum standards.
I would love to see the paintings released from Barnes’ clutches, so that Matisse’s “Joi de Vivre,” Cezanne’s large “Bathers” and the large Seurat, in particular, could be hung in good light at a reasonable viewing distance. A few of the galleries could be hung as they were by Barnes and the rest recorded with video, so interested visitors could go through them virtually; current technology makes this readily possible. As to the works on paper,it has been damaging and irresponsible to have them on continuous view all these years and I am curious to see what the new administration will do.
Since I don’t think retaining Barnes’ collection in toto is so very important, I’ve not paid much attention to the significance of divorcing the art from the garden. Part of Barnes’ choice in locating the collection and choosing custodians for the estate was made to thumb his nose at Philadelphia society, which he felt had snubbed him. Times have changed, and having wealth is now sufficient to gain social entre, so that Barnes would likely be a welcome member of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s current board. He might even enjoy the irony that his collection is moving to the parkway with significant funding from the Annenberg Foundation, and I’m sure that Walter Annenberg’s father, Moe, who was more or less Barnes’ contemporary, was equally (if not more) excluded from blue-blooded homes.
great little essay on the Barnes, Andrea! I love your pro-art orientation and what you say about the snobbish spurning of new money by old money in Barnes’ times and how that has changed.
Cultural heritage conservation helps a community not only protect economically valuable physical assets, but also preserve its practices, history, and environment, and a sense of continuity and identity. Cultural property may be more at risk from the secondary effects of a disaster than from the disaster itself,therefore quick action will be needed. Built vernacular heritage offers a record of a society’s continuous adaptation to social and environmental challenges, including extreme events, such as past disasters. This record can often be drawn on to design mitigation strategies for new construction or retrofitting. Communities should prioritize which cultural assets to preserve, considering both cultural meaning and livelihood implications, although reaching a consensus may be difficult. Cultural heritage conservation plans are best designed before a disaster, but, in their absence, heritage authorities can and should collaborate to develop effective post-disaster heritage conservation strategies. Because vernacular cultural properties are sometimes capable of withstanding local climate conditions, they may serve as safe havens where surrounding communities can temporarily relocate.