Conservators and Restorers: Finding Common Ground
Donald C. Williams

 There are three distinct areas where the objectives of museum and private sector restorers may be identical. They are:

1) what we are trying to accomplish
2) what we need to know in order to accomplish it
3) what we need to use on order to be successful.

I. What are we trying to accomplish regarding artifacts?

Clearly we are trying to preserve them for the future, to mitigate any damage that may have occurred to them, and finally to recognize that artifacts are historical documents.

If our goal is to stabilize and preserve artifacts, we must recognize that each artifact is different in terms of materials, construction, history, condition and end use, so each treatment situation is unique.

Because of these individual differences, rather than having strict "do" and "don't" rules, we rely instead on the abilities and experience of the practitioner to make correct judgments within broad guidelines revolving around the historic, physical and aesthetic integrity of the object (and those of you who watch "Antiques Roadshow" know that the marketplace values the integrity of historic materials; the more untouched, the better).

Thus, a balance is always sought between stabilization and restoration, a balance that may require alteration of the piece as it currently exists while preserving the maximum historic information.

Some general conclusions can be reached that direct all treatment procedures.

First and foremost, existing materials should be left in place unless they are clearly inappropriate to the object or so badly degraded that they actively contribute to the continued deterioration of the object historical record.

We must also recognize that objects have purpose and function, which are very real limits to possibilities and expectations.

Neither approach is right or wrong. Each has its proper role. The problem rears its ugly head when we apply the wrong expectations and limitations the wrong circumstance.

The trick here is to find a process that works for making decisions regardless of the circumstances. Following this menu of questions, if asked and answered honestly, provides insightful guidance for responding to the deterioration of nearly every object in every circumstance.

1. How old is the object? What is its nature? What is its problem?
2. What was, is or will be the intended environment for the object? What is the end use?
3. What are the ethical constraints regarding the integrity of the object (and your own integrity)?
4. What can be done?
5. What do you want to accomplish?
6. What resources do you have and how will you consume them?

Once we entertain the notions listed above and resolve all of the questions raised, we are well on your way to talking a thoughtful, reasonable and ethical path to future actions (or inactions).

II. So what do we need to know to follow that path?

Most of us develop an intuitive understanding of the materials we use, compiled during years of experience and practice, success and failure. Such anecdotal information is usually quite accurate, but it is also very limited. In order for knowledge to expand beyond this, we must begin to study materials science to some degree.

The practitioner who does not pursue this endeavor can progress no further than his own limited experience.

Without the knowledge of this material science, restoration artisans can observe but may not understand processes and reactions, hence their problem solving skills, and attendant ability to earn, are restricted. This information helps us understand the nature, condition, deterioration, and compatibility of different materials. Let there be no doubt: By understanding the nature of materials, restorers can greatly expand their abilities to solve problems. The more we know, the better our chances of making good decisions, and our ability to practice our discipline and prosper.

The list of historic materials is a long one with hundreds of different items. To these one must add all of the new materials that have been developed in recent times. We deal with objects not only of the ancient past but also of the recent past: In addition to "antiques," museums and collectors are acquiring things whose makers are still living, so our material knowledge must cover all periods.

Finally, we must be well versed in the crafts of our materials. The craft skills employed in restoration are virtually identical to those used in other artistic procedures, although the application of those skills may be highly specialized.

III. What materials and processes should we use?

The first area is one in which I can see no conflict is a commitment to using the "best possible" materials to achieve the results, especially the use of materials known to be stable over long periods of time. I cannot imagine any practitioner who thinks, "Yeah, this will do the job wonderfully, but I'd really rather do a bad job and use something not so good." Practitioners who act on cost preferences alone, allowing the cost side of the cost/benefit analysis to trump the benefit side regardless of the final outcome, are rightly scorned. (In a discipline where the most valued commodity is time guided by expertise, arguments about the cost of materials are virtually meaningless.)

Second is the use of materials that, preferably, can be removed without inflicting further damage on the object. This might become necessary when the materials used deteriorate (remember, everything deteriorates), the object suffers further abuse in the future or a better treatment method is found in the future.

Also, our work should be detectable under close scrutiny to insure that future observers are not confused or misled by what they see. To do otherwise is to be party to fraud. When someone asks for repairs that are "undetectable," it might be useful to ask, even if only to yourself, "Who are they trying to deceive, and why?" Obviously, at some level of scientific investigation all alterations are detectible. I am not suggesting that repairs should be glaring or even noticeable on casual glance. They should not be unsightly, but rather just the opposite: they should reinforce the visual harmony of the object.

Finally, we are obliged to keep accurate and detailed records for future reference.

Conclusions

For the caretaker of history, each project is unique and every piece has its own set of problems. Decisions must be reached on an individualized basis. The correct plan for one object may be absolutely wrong in another case - even one that may appear similar. Because of this there are few "rules of thumb."

The only thing common to each treatment is the practitioner's desire to use all of his or her knowledge, experience and judgment to preserve and stabilize it. Only through understanding restoration and conservation as science, history and craft can we successfully complete such a task. In dealing with an increasingly sophisticated clientele who will be ever more informed on materials and processes, it will be necessary for the survival of our discipline and the prosperity of our enterprise.