Conservation vs Restoration: the options
Owners or curators of works of art or objects of cultural value that need cleaning
or repairing may be confused by the apparently different services on offer.
Should they go to a conservator or a restorer, and what do these different professionals
do? This information sheet seeks to answer the dilemma and offer reassurance
that conservation and restoration are aspects of the same process and frequently
go hand in hand. The difference in terminology has to do both with to what degree
you wish to recover the original appearance of the object, and what medium the
object is made of. The debate over whether to aim for an historically accurate
"renewal" of the original appearance and function of an object or
intervene only minimally to arrest further deterioration is discussed further
on. First, let us look at the confusion that has arisen over the role of conservators
as opposed to restorers.
Both conservators and restorers share the following aims:
- To preserve the integrity of the item, including evidence of its history
and manufacture
- To try to use methods that are reversible and materials can be removed without
damage to the item itself
- To record all stages of their work
The more specific goals of conservation are to:
- Establish the causes of deterioration
- Arrest deterioration
- Prevent further deterioration
- Reveal what has become hidden and, by investigation, lead to a fuller appreciation
of the item
Restoration goes further. On the whole it is used to mean restoring
something back to how we think it looked at some earlier time. Knowing how this
was, at any particular moment in its history, can of course be difficult. While
reviving the bright colours of a painting through cleaning may help us to increase
our appreciation and enjoyment, there is no guarantee that what we see are indeed
the tones that the artist painted because pigments alter with time.
Some examples of how the terms restorer and conservator are used for different
media
In the case of paintings, both conservation and restoration are often
carried out on the same item by the same person. The professional, traditionally
called a restorer, will
- Inspect the painting very carefully, possibly using a microscope, and perhaps
more sophisticated methods, like X-radiography. This inspection will show
how the picture was painted, what changes the artist may have made, what previous
restorers have done, and what is wrong with it now. (It might be dirty, its
varnish may have darkened, it may be cracking, its canvas might be distorting,
and so on.)
- If necessary, improve the physical support of the painted surface and consolidate
the areas of flaking or cracking paint with a harmless, stable and safely
removable substance.
- Undertake cleaning, depending on what the client agrees is safe to do without
damaging the artist's original work and intentions.
- If there are visible losses to the picture, "restore" those areas
so as to provide visual continuity, but in such a way that future experts
will be able to see what has been done (e.g. by using different materials
which will show up under ultra-violet light or by employing a visibly different
and therefore distinctive brushstroke). The aim is to present as complete
an image as possible, striking a compromise between the normal effects of
ageing and the viewer's preference to see as little obvious damage as possible.
In the case of ceramics the professional may be called a conservator
or restorer. Ceramics are usually valued for their perfect surfaces and blemish
free glaze. Restoration is undertaken when the ceramic is broken or when missing
parts make it unattractive. Also when it is cracked, disfigured due to dirt
and staining or when old repairs are breaking down.
The extent of the restoration is dependent upon the owner's requirements. For
physical safety, it may simply need cleaning and bonding with a stable but reversible
adhesive. However a skilled ceramics conservator has the ability to restore
an item to a virtually perfect appearance. Not only can all the tiniest fragments
be reassembled, but also cracks can be made to disappear, missing parts replaced
and lost areas of glaze and decoration totally and accurately restored.
Is it right to go that far, or should the conservator take pains to ensure
a distinction between the old and the new, sufficient for an expert to discern
the repair? Or would it suffice to know that the different materials used would
be revealed by inspection under an ultra violet lamp?
In practice, from a conservation point of view, it is important that the treatment
does not cause further damage and that all restorations are reversible. All
replacements should be accurate and as little as possible of the glazed surface
should be obscured by retouching. When the concern of the owner is that the
object is restored to its original beauty and that the restoration is not obvious,
these demands need not be incompatible with the ethics of conservation.
One solution might be to restore a plate perfectly on its upper surface while
not covering over the cracks on the reverse. In another case, coloured resin
fills can replace missing chips and lost areas of glaze but require no retouching
onto the original.
In the case of furniture restoration is a necessary part of conservation.
Imagine a period chair, broken and missing a leg. A pure conservation approach
would be to do no more than repair the broken parts (after inspection, and using
reversible materials and documenting everything). But then what? The chair will
still have only three sound legs! Each time it falls it will suffer more damage.
This is contrary to the purpose of conservation, which is "to prevent further
deterioration". The common-sense option is to provide a substitute leg,
i.e. to restore the leg; and what more appropriate than to restore it to match
the other three? There is nothing wrong with this, provided that the new leg
remains discernible as a replacement by somebody who knows about chairs, that
the replacement is documented and that deception is not intended.
The solution is usually less obvious than in the over-simple example given
above. Nevertheless, in every case we need to know with absolute certainty what
the missing part looked like. This means that the furniture restorer should
select replacement materials very carefully, to ensure that they are discernible
now and in the future. The aim is always to replace as little as possible of
the original material.
The example of the chair illustrates another purpose of restoration: that it
may be necessary to make something function. A chair cannot be sat upon unless
it is structurally sound; a clock cannot show the time unless it is in working
order; a steam engine cannot haul a train and evoke past times unless it is
fully restored; and a rocking-horse cannot be ridden unless it is structurally
safe.
Finding a compromise between an object's integrity and ability to function
When restoration is necessary how far should it go? This is where views differ,
where the debate becomes heated, and simple answers are elusive. Restoration
gained a bad reputation in the past from the over zealous cleaning, renewal
or reconstruction of buildings and paintings. People now realise how much was
lost and sometimes react strongly against any replacement or renewal.
A museum curator may want to display a rare and early rocking-horse, perhaps
one having historical connotations, exactly as it is today, with its paintwork
faded or chipped and its mane hairless. In contrast, a private owner may wish
to present a similar piece to a child and will want its paint gleaming, with
a fresh mane, leatherwork, and fittings - indeed will want it to look "as
new". The creature may become only a semblance of its original self, with
much of the original completely destroyed by the very process of restoration.
The cost might be as great as buying new.
People often like metal objects to look bright and shiny. They may be unaware
that in polishing the surface layers they may remove important details indicating
use, maker or manufacture, or even decorative or historical features, or that
the patina may be original and applied by the maker. In the past metal was not
always expected to have a shine.
The current trend is for owner to like their art to look "clean".
Hence a stained and yellowed master drawing on paper may have to be bleached
and washed using chemicals which may shorten its life. Is this a price worth
paying?
With working objects, like clocks, steam engines or fairground
organs, running wears them out, requires new parts, and puts them at increased
risk, as when cars are driven and aircraft flown. As parts are replaced, the
artefact loses its original identity and eventually becomes a mere replica.
One solution might be to build and operate a replica while doing the minimum
needed to stabilise the original and then keeping it unused in ideal conditions.
Another solution might be to restore the item to working order but to keep the
original parts in store.
The dilemma when conserving musical instruments is no less painful.
To put an early instrument into playable condition invariably requires replacement
of its original parts and for that reason there are very few unaltered early
instruments extant. Playing the instrument then imposes stresses and risks,
but consigning it to a showcase and creating a replica for use is only a visual
solution: the original sound can only be made by the original unaltered instrument.
Inappropriate restoration may adversely affect an object's long-term preservation.
Repairing a damaged textile by re-embroidering, or renewing missing or
worn areas may do more harm than good. This can be avoided in a museum where
the item is needed only for display in controlled conditions, but may be necessary
in the home, for instance on a damaged chair cover.
In a church the visitor (congregation) will want their wall paintings,
furnishings and other objects to remain usable and a visible contribution to
the building and religious experience. This is a requirement that demands sensitive
compromises.
The basic precepts that restorers and conservators share
Accepting that restoration is often a necessary part of conservation we need
some underlying principles. These are:
- The original object is of paramount importance
- What has happened to it in the past may be historically important
- Do not destroy or hide evidence of original construction or composition,
modifications or use (If this has to happen, the evidence should be properly
recorded.)
- Always do the least possible
- Any changes to the item should be discernible in the future
The past history of an object may be revealed through a complex series of alterations,
each of which leaves physical signs, which can all too easily be destroyed.
The principle of not destroying or hiding evidence is especially relevant where
restoration is needed to disguise damage (e.g. covering over cracks), the more
cautious conservation approach being only to minimise the effect of the damage.
These principles allow for the possibility of change in artistic appreciation
and fashion, and improvements in the technologies for preservation. In the art
and antiques trade, whereas full replacement or reconstruction was once essential
to maximise the monetary value of an item, less drastic approaches are becoming
usual. Indeed, with some types of art object, buyers may actually prefer to
see the condition and extent of the original. Faded colours, blemishes and flaws
are often acceptable and welcome evidence of antiquity.
The trend now is to do less to artefacts to avoid drastic treatments, and to
stress prevention rather than cure. The inevitable process of decay can be dramatically
slowed not only by the conservator's intervention but also by reducing light
levels and by controlling humidity and temperature. This is as true for objects
held by private individuals as for those in public care. Taking care in this
way in the long run saves expenditure on putting right later damage. It also
makes the best of a costly treatment that can never make the object completely
immune to damage from its surroundings. Conservators and restorers take such
factors into account when inspecting or working on objects and will advise on
appropriate preventive measures.
The responsibilities of conservators and restorers
Putting all these principles together and making a judgement is not at all
easy. That is why the skills of a qualified, trained and experienced conservator
or restorer are essential. Only such a person is able to make these judgements,
taking into account the wishes and expertise of the curator or owner, who may
not be immediately aware of all the issues and will need advice on the options
available. Decisions may be required not just at the outset of the project,
but frequently during the course of the work, as details are revealed and recorded
and have to be instantly conserved and perhaps restored. The range of technical,
aesthetic, and art-historical knowledge demanded for such judgements can be
immense.
The people who conserve and restore are as diverse as the settings in which
they work. Those who work in museums and galleries are usually required
to take a cautious approach. They are expected to place greater emphasis on
retaining what is original, on minimal replacement, and on doing no more than
is required for display or long-term preservation. Ideally, the object will
be replaced in an environment where it will be protected from rough treatment
and its condition will be carefully monitored. Those who operate privately,
whether for museums or private individuals, share the same professional and
cautious approach as those working in museums.
But a conservator can normally offer a range of options between replacement
and reinstatement, taking note of the wishes of their client, of the future
home of the object, and of its future use. They may also need to take into account
the implications and cost of their work in relation to the object's monetary
value.
Conservators and restorers who belong to a relevant professional organisation
agree to abide by a code of practice, which embodies the principles listed above.
They are expected to operate in an ethical and businesslike manner.
One professional standard applies throughout, but the nature of the object
and of its context is taken fully into account when applying that standard.
The client's role
It is up to the client to:
- Choose a conservator or restorer whose approach is compatible with the needs
of the client and whose experience includes similar objects or projects
- Discuss carefully what is to be done with the conservator or restorer, noting
his or her advice, so as to arrive at an agreed brief
- Come to a clear understanding with the conservator or restorer about the
extent of restoration to be carried out, whether restrained repair and preservation
or more extensive gap-filling, in-painting and reconstruction.
- Be available to be consulted by the conservator during the course of the
work.
The curator's first responsibility is to the care of the object in his or her
care because it will, in the course of time, be handed on to succeeding generations.
They will not want too many options to have been closed by over-zealous and
ill-advised restorations.
High quality conservation or restoration is the result of an effective partnership
between client and professional. A professional approach will ensure that matters
of terminology take second place to the primary purpose of doing the best for
the artefact for the pleasure and enlightenment of present and future generations.
This document is an attempt at the impossible; to capture ideas which are not
universally shared and which change with passing fashion. The underlying debate
will never be resolved, but it is hoped that this brief essay at least brings
some of the issues to the fore and thereby makes a contribution to the better
care of our cultural heritage.
The Conservation Register
The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC), together with the Historic
Scotland's Conservation Bureau maintain a national register of conservation
practices (Tel: 020 7721 8246 or 0131 668 8668) or by consulting the website
at www.conservationregister.com.
This text is adapted from the leaflet "Conservation-Restoration: The
Options" originally published jointly by The Conservation Unit of the Museums
& Galleries Commission, London and the Scottish Conservation Bureau, Historic
Scotland, Edinburgh, 1993. A revised version was included in "Working with
Independent Conservators" published by the Museums and Galleries Commission
in 2000.
Copies of this fact sheet can be provided in alternative formats. Please contact
Viola Lewis, Information Officer
at MLA for further information.
top
|