New Strategies in Conservation

Content: short description of the synthesis project of New Strategies in the Conservation of Contemporary Art

Synthesis: Towards a theory and ethics for the conservation of contemporary art
Synthesi

Most practice-oriented research projects initiated within the field of contemporary art conservation have followed a case-based approach. Museums have proposed problematic art works from their collections to be investigated from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. As each work of art has its own characteristics and its own problems, it is very difficult to stipulate common guidelines for general classes of works. Moreover, the research undertaken has been aimed at problem solving. Hence the more generally applicable outcomes of the projects have been the development and implementation of practical instruments to cope with the diversity: protocols for registration and documentation, decision-making models and instruments for the exchange of professional knowledge and information. 

When it comes to the theory and ethics of conservation, many questions remain. A notable tendency within conservation practice has been to focus on the artist (or his/her representatives) as the primary source of information about the work and to develop instruments for capturing the artist’s intent as guideline for conservation decisions. This tendency has its drawbacks. From a theoretical point of view, intentionality, and the artist as a source of meaning, are concepts that have been profoundly questioned in the philosophy of art and in art-criticism. From a practical point of view, reliance on the artist’s authority has often proved to be problematic, for instance in cases where artists wanted to completely remake a work or were no longer able to provide reliable information. Although there is general agreement that the artist should, when possible, be consulted and asked for advice, whether or not and to what extent the advice should be followed differs from case to case.

The synthetic project proposes to formulate a conservation theory that is consistent with the case-based approach of practice-oriented research, yet allows for more general conclusions. Research projects like Modern Art Who Cares? implicitly proceed along the lines of moral casuistry (van de Vall 1999), an approach of moral reasoning based on the theory and practice of medieval Catholic moral consultation that has recently been revived in the field of medical and bioethics (Jonsen and Toulmin 1988; Brody 2003; Cherry and Smith Iltis 2007). Rather than understanding moral reasoning as a theoretical science, a body of sure knowledge (episteme) based on general principles, the casuist approach treats it as a form of practical wisdom (phronesis) starting from the details and circumstances of particular situations. Moral casuistry does not exclude rules, but understands them as guidelines that derive their intelligibility from concrete paradigmatic cases. By comparing the similarities and differences of the problem at hand with relevant paradigmatic examples it seeks to find out whether the former may be resolved in a like manner or not. Major tools in this approach are the development of a moral taxonomy, ‘a detailed and methodical map of morally significant likenesses and differences’ (Jonsen and Toulmin, 14) and the development of practical experience enabling professionals to understand how adherence to specific rules has worked out in the course of people’s (in this case artworks’) lives (ibid., 314).

The synthetic subproject will investigate whether moral casuistry is a viable model for conservation ethics. After reviewing existing literature on conservation of contemporary art, analysing and comparing the various theoretical approaches proposed, it will analyse the debates on moral casuistry in medical and bioethics. Drawing on existing case-studies and on the research of projects 2, 3 and 4 (‘Biographies’), which compare cases that manifest pertinent similarities and differences and investigate how various museum conservation procedures have worked out in the life span of these cases, it will elaborate examples of case taxonomies. Furthermore, the synthetic project will reflect on the role of scientific and other types of knowledge, on technological articulation and mediation of knowledge and on knowledge transfer through documentation in the development of practical experience, using the investigations of projects 5 and 6 (‘Stages’). The question here is how to understand the specific expertise of museum professionals as they increasingly have to cooperate in, and even to substitute for, the creative processes of the artist. The subproject will investigate whether, rather than as an applied science, conservation should be thought of as a scientifically informed type of craftsmanship (Sennett 2008), relying on a professionally developed capacity of reflective ethical and aesthetic judgement (cf. van de Vall 2008).  Finally, the project will reflect on the consequences of the project’s comparative case-based approach, with its emphasis on the empirical details of conservation practices, for the understanding of cultural heritage, in particular the formation of the art-historical canon.