Conservation-restoration Ethics and the problem of Modern Art

At first sight conservation-restoration ethics seems to be a human invention, a cultural, and thus temporal phenomenon. That may imply that it is only valid to a limited extend; that it is relative by nature. There is, however, a deeper significance in conservation-restoration ethics as it has been laid down in the existing codes. This makes one wonder whether these codes do not im fact formulate truth instead of temporary conventions.

Conservation-restoration ethics is based on the apriori, all too often confirmed by experience, that conservation-restoration is always an interpretation of the object concerned and therefore implies the risk of being a mistaken anachronistic interpretation.

Another apriori at the foundation of conservation-restoration ethics is, that we have a responsibility for the future in allowing future generations to have a past as we have one ourselves, and that we do not have the right to interpret their past irreversibly on the basis of our own anachrosnistic interpretations.

Basing himself on these apriories Cesare Brandi came to the conclusion that besides relevant documentation primarily the original material of an object, or what is left of it, can serve as a sound basis for future generations to build their own interpretations of the original appearance, function etc. of the object on.

From that it follows that conservation of the original material has the highest priority in whatever condition it has survived.

This does, however, not mean that we are not allowed to reconstruct the object to a greater or lesser extent. Such reconstruction should - according to the existing codes - be carried out as far as possible only in a reversible way, that is: without impairing or destroying the original material, nor the traces of its construction etc. This rule is in accordance with what was stated above.

Because of the foregoing we are obliged to adequately document the object as we have found it. We should also document in what way we have intervened into the object if this intervention was inevitable or beneficial for an adequate `reading' of the object depending on the context it is seen or used. Such documentation, as well as the treatment that may have been carried out demand the greatest honesty.

It should be emphasized that the fact that the object in this approach primarily has the function of a source about itself does not imply that we have to approach it as a historic ruin. Nevertheless the original sunstance demands our highest respect given our responsibility to the future.

This logic construction, which slowly developed in the 19th and 20th century, is based on what could be called an anthropologically or even genetically determined human condition, constituted by the human being's need for a past on the one hand and his or her care for future generations on the other. Basic in all this is man's need of a memory and his or her built-in urge as to the transition of memories to later generations.

The only way to intervene into this natural continuum theoretically may be a cultural revolution: the destruction of the past in order to build a completely controlled future. We have seen in the last century that cultural revolutions in the end fail and that human nature in the sense as described above can not be bridled.

Nevertheless modern art and to some extent art in general tends to revolutionise culture by striving to influence the present and the future as well as our perception of the past. One could say that much art of the late 19th and 20th century by its very nature has, or tries to have, an existential impact on the way we experience the past as well as the future. As it intends to have the quality of a statement, a manifesto which, as it were, determines the present with as much power as possible. It is its 'here-ness' and 'now-ness' that counts! The conservator-restorer involved in getting the work of art as a statement across by being involved in organising and shaping the presentation of this work according to Schinzel can be seen, as an 'art-promoting person' while helping to present the work with its maximum impact.

The conservator-restorer in that situation deals primarily with the visual impact of the work according to the real or presumed wishes of the artist. He or she participates in a performance that is rather theatrical than museal in the traditional sense. But: the theatre is the place where lies create truth. Heavy, from the point of conservation-restoration-ethics (as described above), highly unethical interventions - in fact radical repairs up to complete reconstructions, or in the case of paintings, overpaintings. Such interventions may be carried out for the sake of the moment and may imply a serious loss of authenticity of the object as a source about itself and its maker. Thus in the field of contemporary art the conservator-restorer is torn between two forces: between the existential power of the work as a statement in the present on one hand, and, on the other hand his or her awareness that the object once, probably very soon, will become absorbed in the stream of time, becoming an historical object as well and deserving the utmost care as a source for future generations.

Apart from the anthropological and restauration-ethical anchoring of the conservator-restorers activity in preserving the past for the future and the existential involvement connected with the artist's wish to make a strong statement there is thus a third aspect involved: the inevitability of the object's transformation in time. This transformation does not only involve the ageing and changing of the material but especially takes place in the minds of the beholders. As to this last type of transformation: It is important to be aware of the fact noted by Brandi that the object is constantly reborn in the minds of those who see it and that it is undergoing a multitude of transformations in that process. For the conservator-restorer it is important to be aware of this phenomenon. For a conservator-restorer, for instance, who has known the artist or who once acted as an assistant either in his studio or subsequently in the context of the presentation of the object, the speed of transformation is much slower than for the young conservator-restorer of a later generation. The first category of restorers tends to prolong the present in an effort to support the strength and actuality of the artists statement. For the young restorer the same artist and the same object may have already become history with all the consequences for the care for the object as a source about the past and the feeling of responsibility for its transition to the future. In this situation for the younger conservator-restorer the autonomy of conservation-restoration-ethics already takes over while for the older conservator-restorer the present and the "theatrical" function of the object prevails.

The transformation of the work of art is tragic. Who would not like to prolong its "here-ness" and the "now-ness". No doubt, like in other aspects of human life, the existential forces at first have priority over prudence and conservative forces. But, like in the existential situation of man, the transition of present into past is inevitable. And behind the existential forces, like the lack of fear for risks in a present situation there is also the natural inclination to care and the need to prolong life. And there the classical ethics of restoration take over even before the existential power of the object as part of the (prolonged) present has faded.

Of course, given the transitoriness of many objects of contemporary art the task to preserve is almost impossible. Unless transitoriness is an integral and explicit part of the artist's statement one should, however, not resign to the decay of these objects, thinking that a proper documentation would suffice to maintain the memory of an object. Documentation always is biased. One rather should stick to the adagium that conservation-restoration does not mean: doing the possible but that it should mean: doing the impossible. And here the classic ethics of restoration may be the power behind the development of technical innovations that, as so often happened in the past, would make seemingly impossible acts of preservation possible.