Conservators as Middle-range Theorists

73 views
Skip to first unread message

Dennis Piechota

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 8:30:45 AM11/5/15
to alt...@googlegroups.com
There is comfort in not seeing ourselves as a theory-oriented field, in being pragmatic, method-oriented and avoiding all that theory rigamarole. However... it does sell us short. We have a unique perspective and all actions have underlying theory no matter how implied or unspoken they are.

If, in applied fields at least, action equals thought, then conservators are middle-range theorists. That is, we start with empirical observation and from that we propose and take actions which define the future object in front of us.

Said another way, the archaeologist observes the residue of past actions to reconstruct past thought; the conservator observes the residue of past actions (on an artifact) to define through treatment the future object and so construct future thought.

It is not so comfortable but it might be a delightful way to see one's work.

Dennis

Dennis Piechota
Archaeological Conservator
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
UMass Boston
Office: 617-287-6829

pXRF Group Co-admin
RTI Group Co-admin
ALTCONS Group Admin

Thatayaone Segaetsho

unread,
Nov 14, 2015, 6:21:24 AM11/14/15
to Alternative Conservation Discussions, dennis....@umb.edu
I partially agree with you though  my thoughts are that; as conservators we work with relevant specialists in historical about the artifacts. Taking a painting artifact as an example, the historian or art specialist might be in a good position to know the historical background of the painting techniques used in the painting. In such a case, the conservator only need to read the information on the painting and use it as a guide in his/her treatment. The conservator doesn't have to pass through the struggle of researching about the history of the paintings. 

Clavir, Miriam

unread,
Nov 14, 2015, 2:15:55 PM11/14/15
to alt...@googlegroups.com, dennis....@umb.edu

I know I’ve been going on about this for a long time, but let me say, I agree that conservators have a highly specialized, necessary, applied focus –but we are also now considering the intangible as well as the tangible attributes of the collections we work on.  Whether we see ourselves as pragmatists or middle-range theorists, I believe it’s important to keep thinking and asking questions about more than physical preservation. And to ask these questions -to discuss what we’re doing –with people outside of the museum and art fields as well as the specialists inside. Here I’m thinking not only of professionals such as engineers, for example, whom we consult if we’re working on an historic structure, but also the originators of the pieces the conservator is working on. This is accepted practice with the conservation of contemporary art, and copyright laws support this. More and more this practice has, as well, become accepted in the conservation of collections from indigenous and world cultures, especially when the museum housing these collections is not in the originating community. The questions we think about are not only on the pragmatic level, they also have to do with considering more broadly what we are preserving, why, and for whom. In Canada, even in the 1980s, certain First Nations cultural values people were trying to make conservators understand included, for instance, that “The objects themselves are not important; what matters is what the objects represent.” Whatever sub-discipline of conservation we’re working in, I hope we’re interested in the profession as a whole, and in differing views on the preservation of material culture.


best,
Miriam

Conservator Emerita and Research Fellow, MOA, The UBC Museum of Anthropology, Vancouver.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Alternative Conservation Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to altcons+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/altcons.

Dennis Piechota

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 11:55:03 AM11/18/15
to Alternative Conservation Discussions, Thatayaone Segaetsho
Thanks for your reply Thatayaone! 

I think you've nailed the traditional relationship we have had as technical support to the intellectually-engaged disciplines. But we are changing no?

In the US over the last century there's clearly been an evolution in basic conservation education from the guild model to that of the academy. Prior to the 1980s the working laboratory/studio was seen as a sufficient space to provide a complete education to new conservators. Education in that context was often informal, called simply 'training' or more formally an 'apprenticeship'. Gradually that setting was recognized as insufficient. Basic studies moved to the academy and the working studio became a space for advanced 'internships' only.

The evolution of the Straus Center (then called the Center for Conservation and Technical Studies) at Harvard is a wonderful example. Though housed in a university it followed the guild structure offering informal, then formal three-year apprenticeships for its first fifty years. Until the late 70s a new 'apprentice' could go from just sweeping the lab to being recognized by the field as a specialist in a sub-discipline of conservation. After that the Center became increasingly a space for shorter terms of advanced study ceding basic conservation education to the developing university programs.

I would argue that the character of basic education, not advanced studies, defines the future breadth and direction of a changing field. How new students self-identify directs their future development. Moving away from the studio/laboratory and into the classroom moved us into a space that welcomes engagement with the more intellectual aspects of our field- whatever they may be. 

We are still a new field beginning a process that other sciences and humanities have long experienced. Could we for instance be on a similar track to that of the field of physics? 19th Century physicists developed ingenious new instruments and solved practical problems. Then in the 20th century they split into two major groups: applied physics continued on and theoretical physics grappled with heady matters such as quantum theory. 

When I read of developments such as Renata Peters' group collaborating equally with allied fields in 'Investigative Conservation' and I compare that to the traditional view of the conservator as technical support alone, I think perhaps a split could come. But I've had enough of fragmentation. The formation of multiple specialty groups is perhaps the dominant single development during my career. I'd prefer we all moved together to a more intellectually-engaged discipline.

Dennis

Dennis Piechota
Archaeological Conservator
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
UMass Boston
Office: 617-287-6829

pXRF Group Co-admin
RTI Group Co-admin
ALTCONS Group Admin

Dennis Piechota

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 12:23:40 PM11/18/15
to Clavir, Miriam, alt...@googlegroups.com

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Clavir, Miriam <cla...@mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
“The objects themselves are not important; what matters is what the objects represent.”

​Miriam,

Thanks so much for repeating that. Since you wrote it I've used it twice in discussions here. In a field where an object's materials of construction are the focus it is a show-stopper that lifts the heads of everyone in earshot. It should be the motto of conservation.

Thanks again,

Clavir, Miriam

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 10:00:20 PM11/18/15
to Dennis Piechota, alt...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Dennis for your message. For those interested in the phrase and its context, it is a  quote from Gloria Cranmer Webster, printed in:  Barclay, Robert L., Gilberg, Mark R., McCawley J.Clifford, and Stone, Thomas G. (Eds.) Symposium 86: The Care and Preservation of Ethnological Materials, Proceedings, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa, 1988, p. 77.  Gloria Cranmer Webster is a member of a chiefly ‘Namgis (Kwakwaka’wakw) family in British Columbia, and was the first director of the U’mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay, and responsible for many repatriations.

I  agree also with your slightly-earlier-in-the-morning Nov. 18 email discussing conservation education and theory and practice.  I’d like to clarify as well that for me, decisions in preventive conservation, as well as treatment conservation, may involve what I talked about in my initial email: reflection on the broader context, including "what we are preserving, why, and for whom"  Here’s one example (from a paper I gave):

 

“Conservators in private practice can overprotect the physical object – they must protect their businesses as well–and, as more museums hire private conservators rather than have in-house departments, the stringent conditions that these private conservators may feel obliged to stipulate for a loan, for instance, leave little flexibility for the receiving museum to let the originating people be comfortably close to their heritage belongings without breaking the loan conditions.”


best,
Miriam

Conservator Emerita and Research Fellow, MOA, The UBC Museum of Anthropology, Vancouver.

cynthia blechl

unread,
Nov 19, 2015, 7:14:03 PM11/19/15
to Alternative Conservation Discussions, dennis....@umb.edu
Dennis,

I am very interested in reading about "Renata Peters' group collaborating equally with allied fields in 'Investigative Conservation' ".  Can you direct me?  Thanks.

Dennis Piechota

unread,
Nov 19, 2015, 8:42:51 PM11/19/15
to cynthia blechl, Alternative Conservation Discussions

Dennis Piechota
Archaeological Conservator
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
UMass Boston
Office: 617-287-6829

pXRF Group Co-admin
RTI Group Co-admin
ALTCONS Group Admin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages