Pushing Back: The Conservator's Fetish
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Dennis Piechota
Jun 9, 2022, 10:16:22 AM6/9/22
to alt...@googlegroups.com
Recently I said no to a survey and interview request.
I was one of many who were asked to take part in another study of the materials we use in conservation. This one, which is ongoing, focusses on display, packing and storage. It has a wonderful pedigree being administered by the MET with funding from an IMLS grant. I'm sure it will yield useful information.
But this type of review of the nature of the materials we either use or avoid should be recognized as our peculiar fetish. The properties of inanimate 'objects', from planks of Ethafoam to sticks of hot melt glue, are exalted or shunned. These evaluations then have power over how we see ourselves and others in our profession.
This fetish has been fed for decades by the low hanging fruit of material science studies. Questions surrounding material selection, suitability and permanence divert too much time, funding and expertise from the harder and more important non-material issues of conservation.
What are those questions? I'm sure you don't need me to list them. My point here is that re-evaluating the Oddy Test et. al. is not among our biggest needs. It is just easy to do. If pressed I would say a better survey and interview would ask, since it's clear we are neither scientists nor just technicians, what are we?
Dennis
I was one of many who were asked to take part in another study of the materials we use in conservation. This one, which is ongoing, focusses on display, packing and storage. It has a wonderful pedigree being administered by the MET with funding from an IMLS grant. I'm sure it will yield useful information.
But this type of review of the nature of the materials we either use or avoid should be recognized as our peculiar fetish. The properties of inanimate 'objects', from planks of Ethafoam to sticks of hot melt glue, are exalted or shunned. These evaluations then have power over how we see ourselves and others in our profession.
This fetish has been fed for decades by the low hanging fruit of material science studies. Questions surrounding material selection, suitability and permanence divert too much time, funding and expertise from the harder and more important non-material issues of conservation.
What are those questions? I'm sure you don't need me to list them. My point here is that re-evaluating the Oddy Test et. al. is not among our biggest needs. It is just easy to do. If pressed I would say a better survey and interview would ask, since it's clear we are neither scientists nor just technicians, what are we?
Dennis
Dennis Piechota
he/him/his
Archaeological Conservator
Archaeological Micromorphologist
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
UMass Boston
Office: 617-287-6829
he/him/his
Archaeological Conservator
Archaeological Micromorphologist
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
UMass Boston
Office: 617-287-6829
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages