Determinación de la Probabilidad de Responder (SI) Por el Método Logit Binario

The effects of the demonstration approach on the preservation of

collections, if by "collections" is meant assemblages of real, historic, objects, has been well explored (Mann, 1989). It might be questioned whether if objects are likely to end up partly or even entirely as replicas it would not be better to resolve the dilemma by building accurate replicas in the first place. There are other possible ways of resolving it. In the Welsh National Folk Museum, the approach is said to be to retain and not use the most perfect example of the object, and to designate other similar objects specifically for use (R. Child, 1988, personal communication).

The effects of the display approach can be equally destructive. Objects can only be displayed if they are lit. The progress of fading and other damage due to light is normally not perceptible by eye, because it happens slowly, and we cannot retain accurate memories of past images against which to compare changes. There has been much intensive scientific work on the effects of light, but to many art curators the question is beside the point, because as far as they are concerned the collections are not there to be preserved for nebulous future generations; they are there to be displayed and appreciated. But the image which is the point of the display is almost certain to be drastically altered if it is exposed to sufficient light energy. Can this be irrelevant?

When the purpose of a collection is to be an archive for use in perpetuity then policies which promote its preservation are most likely to be adopted.

Problems are likely to arise because such collections - natural history specimens, paper or archaeology archives - are likely to be numerically very large, and their immediate use is not obvious. They take much up-front investment to organise and inventory, are expensive in storage materials, which must all be of archival quality, and their immediate use is not obvious (why are we keeping all these bits of old pot?). Once organised, however, they require little upkeep, and because the aim is

to maintain them as unchanged evidence they require minimal remedial conservation treatment; the main cost will be that of suitable storage.

2.2 .5 The users and th eir needs

So far only the attitudes of the holders of the collections, the museum professionals, have been discussed. But what about the users - the public? This broad term includes a surprising variety, from scholars to primary school children; from film producers to learned societies. Obviously, some of them will want to benefit from the collections in one way, some another. Scholars will want to use the collections-as-evidence; film producers will be after objects-for-demonstration. The question is whether the short-term wishes of one particular set of users, or indeed museum professionals, should override the needs of other future possible users. Does this matter? Museum people are fond of quoting Maynard Keynes, "in the end we are all dead"; but the point about museums is that their collections are held "in trust for the nation"; they have a life beyond that of their current employees.

The public is becoming both more and less sophisticated in its use of museums. On the one hand, the success of exhibitions such as Art in the making (National Gallery, series, 1989 and ongoing), or Fake] (British Museum, 1990) shows that substantial numbers of people want and enjoy an extremely detailed, accurate, academic and scientific treatment of objects (MacGregor, 1990). This can only be provided by preserving objects-as-evidence; in the case of Faké real fakes! On the other hand, the growth of simulated historical experience exhibits and similar "demonstration" museums, indicates the reverse - that many people want history primarily as entertainment. Perhaps the truth is that more people are visiting museums more often, they want a wide range of education and entertainment, which is being provided by all these different museums, and they want above all something new.

Changing taste

It seems a pity, however, that policies seem to be so compartmentalised between different types of collection, and in particular that many types of museum find it difficult to defend the maintenance of collections as permanent archives. This

Chapter 2: Museums and collections

may be changing, as the National Audit Office and the Museums and Galleries Commission force a greater accountability for the collections as a publicly owned resource. The standards which are being developed in connection with museum registration (e.g. Paine, ed., 1992) will encourage a greater emphasis on the preservation and archive function of museums. Curators are also coming to terms with a plurality of views at the higher levels of museum management, as on the one hand exhibitions and marketing specialists and on the other conservators and collections managers increasingly demand and find a voice in policy development.

The public response to the recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the collections of the English national museums (1988), and the ensuing sitting of the Committee of Public Accounts , elicited a remarkable amount of press comment, echoing with more vehemence than the average member of the public probably feels the censure expressed in the public reports (a typical headline. A rts for oblivion (Fletcher, 1988), gives the flavour; for others, see Keene 1991 (2)). Perhaps the debate about the natural environment - at the core of which is the need to live within the limits of a fixed resource - strikes chords when the

maintenance of museum collections is discussed. The public seems to perceive museums as above all places where something at least is properly looked a fte r so in museums at least there should be no need to worry about using up a finite resource. Witness the surprise and sometimes dismay expressed by people visiting typical stores on museum "open days" (author's experience). In truth, museums are mostly no better at looking after their possessions than are private individuals; indeed, they are often far worse. Most museums could find examples of objects that were in excellent condition when first acquired, which have since suffered severe

deterioration in overcrowded and unsuitable stores - ethnographic collections are especially vulnerable.

In America, as so often, the debate on the importance of caring for collections is far advanced, and has occasionally been pursued in the courts. It is being demonstrated there that concepts such as "due care", "fiduciary

responsibility", and "standards in the industry" can be applied just as well to the responsibility of museums to preserve their collections as to the activities of many other institutions (Ulberg and Lind, 1989; Weil, 1983).

Conservation and preservation, however, like museums themselves, are not universally seen to be a good thing. Conservation is often perceived as being puritanical and restrictive, insisting on preservation at the expense of natural

enjoyment and use. For example, in a typical sideswipe at conservation attitudes, Hewison, referring to buildings and the built environment (1987, 98) complains that "conservation ... creates a new context, and, if only by attracting the attention of members of the public, a new use", while "preservation means the maintenance of an object or building, or such of it as remains, in a condition defined by its historic context, and in such a form that it can be studied with a view to revealing its original meaning".

Conservation o r restoration?

Alongside the debate on how museum collections should be used, is that on the approach which should be adopted to their preservation and maintenance. At the two poles are those who support the minimalist approach to conservation: do as little as possible: and those who wish to restore the object to working order, looking more or less new. In the first case, only the work which is essential to the preservation of the object is undertaken, and additions are clearly distinguished from the original. Although this debate is quite vigorously pursued in museum circles, where privately funded museums, private collectors and private conservators and restorers are often identified as those in the "restoration" camp, it does not often occur publicly. A rare example was a court case held in 1989, when Edward Hubbard refused to honour a contract he had entered into to purchase a vintage Bentley because he considered the car to have been so heavily restored as no longer to be genuine (The Guardian, 1990).

The minimalist approach to conservation, necessitated by the archive function of museums, is the one which leaves the widest range of options open for other and future 'uses' of the collections. In matters of debate about conservation or restoration especially, any party should have the right of veto in favour of the option that affects the original nature of the object least, because this leaves the most

options open. More thorough replacement, more extensive restoration can always be done later; but once original parts have been removed or altered then they can never be recovered. Objects which have been restored to a supposed earlier state, where someone has already decided what they looked like, will be no use in Merriman's vision in which people can draw on museum collections to creatively reconstruct the past (1991, 18).

Chapter 2: Museums and collections

2.3 CONSERURTION IN MUSEUMS

Conservation is defined in the statutes and instruments of government of various organisations concerned with the heritage. It can be seen from the

definitions that two themes predominate in discussions of conservation in museums: firstly, the nature of the work carried out on objects: conservation versus

restoration; and secondly, the role of the conservator or other agent carrying out that work.

UKIC Guidance for conservation practice, 198h (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, 1981)

Conservation is the means by which the true nature of an object is preserved. The true nature of an object includes evidence of its origins, its original construction, the materials of which it is composed and information as to the technology used in its manufacture. Subsequent modifications may be of such a significant nature that they should be preserved.

/COM, The conservator-restoren a definition o f the profession. (International Council of Museums, 1985).

The activity of the conservator-restorer (conservation) consists of technical examination, preservation, and conservation/restoration of cultural property.

Preservation is action taken to retard or prevent deterioration of or damage to cultural properties by control of their environment and/or treatment of their structure in order to maintain them as nearly as possible in an unchanging state.

Restoration is action taken to make a deteriorated or damaged artifact understandable, with minimal sacrifice of aesthetic and historic integrity.

Other useful definitions are contained in the Burra Charter, which has been drawn up by Australia ICOMOS (Australia International Committee on Sites and Monuments, undated). The Charter defines its approach to the preservation of places of cultural significance, using many terms generally applicable in conservation.

The Burra Charter Definitions

1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstance include preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these.

1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and it should be treated accordingly.

1.6 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.

1.7 Restoration means returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the fabric. This is not to be confused with either re-creation or

conjectural reconstruction which are outside the scope of this charter.

2.1 ... cultural significance means "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations".

Article 2. The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place and must include provision for its security, its maintenance and its future.

Each of these definitions draws a clear distinction between preservation and restoration.