Subject: AIC certification plan
In considering Ruth Seyler's email addressing certification issues, I would like to pose the following questions and comments to the greater conservation community. First, let it be said that I feel ambivalent about certification. I am neither here nor there on the issue. If it comes to pass, I will be tested, if not, I won't be. Second, although I greatly respect the time and effort that our colleagues have put into the work of certification, it is important to understand that no matter how much work has been put into something, if it is not received well by the community at large, the work, no matter how much merit and good will it holds, should cease. We need to define ourselves before others do it for us. This line of argument has always been something that I have found curious. What governmental and state agencies have made initiatives to dictate who or what a conservator should be? And for what purposes would they do this? We need to know if this is a valid concern and why. Tell us please. To raise the standards of our profession. All right, this seems reasonable. If we test for certification, the standards will be raised to a degree. As long as the testing is sound (I think this is the sticking point here) the standards could be said to be raised. And, if some become certified, others will feel pressure and thereby do the same. This will require keeping up on current literature, etc--this is a relatively sound argument. Certification can provide conservators with a recognized credential. This is certainly true. Even if the general public doesn't know what it means exactly, saying one is "certified" carries a lot of weight. It is associated with other main-stream professionals who require certification. Whereas a Professional Associate or Fellow status means more to us internally, a certification will mean more to others outside the profession. Who will care about this? Probably clients of private conservators, mostly. Will it get us more money? Certification will only get you paid more if you have the common sense to ask for what you are worth. Certification can be a unifying force for our profession. With all due respect, this argument does not pass muster. The entire purpose of certification is to exclude those who aren't qualified and include those that are and can afford to be. If we want to be unified, things should remain as they are with the only levels of change being Professional Associate/Fellow status. That does mean something and have privileges. So, I am left with the following question: Who is this for and what will it bring us? The job listings in AIC have gradually changed from "Program trained or equivalent experience" to "Graduate degree in conservation required." Most of the museum jobs will be taken by graduate-trained professionals in a few years. This leaves the conservators in private practice making up the vast majority of those out there practicing. If the CIPP has a graduate degree, that should give confidence. If the CIPP does not have a degree, there is nothing that can stop them from practicing and, really, unless AIC embarks on a monumental PR campaign, the general public will have no idea how differentiate a qualified conservator from one who is unqualified. We are not doctors, we are not dealing in matters of life and death. Doctors get more money because they ask for it and really, in the end, does their certification stop malpractice? Look at the back of any yellow pages--that will answer your question. Food for thought. Erica E. James Assistant Conservator, Paintings Conservation Dept. Rosine Bldg. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston 800 Rosine Houston, TX 77019 713-639-7732 Fax: 713-639-7740 *** Conservation DistList Instance 22:38 Distributed: Saturday, January 10, 2009 Message Id: cdl-22-38-005 ***Received on Wednesday, 7 January, 2009