Subject: Budget cutbacks at Indianapolis Museum of Art
Michele Marincola <mm71 [at] nyu__edu> writes >I would like to second John Campbell's post (Conservation DistList >Instance: 26:42 Wednesday, March 20, 2013) lamenting the cutbacks to >staff at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. I can certainly understand this situation. In 1978 after the passage of Proposition 13 the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco experienced a near 40% cut in the budget. Staff was reduced drastically and conversations began to center around how to reduce labor costs of all kinds. The conservation staff suggested taking in outside work, unfortunately I was one who put this forward. It gave the management staff and trustees the idea that we could generate income not only for the salaries of our department, but we could become an "enterprise" element of the museum. "Making budget" and generating income became a familiar cry after that. I think, however, that in the interim the regard and significance for conservators has declined, especially among management and trustees. Partly this is due, in my estimation, to the entire theoretical push of the past 30 years to emphasize preservation over treatment. Certainly prevention (especially environmental conditions) is important, but in the past two decades I have suffered the assertion over and over from curators and collectors of the irrelevance of conservators because of a new ethic in collecting of less or no treatment. Again, I do not kick my self over this as I was one who pressed for a consideration of the "no treatment" option (especially for archaeological materials (see my JAIC 1987 article "An Outline History of Conservation in Archaeology and Anthropology as Presented through its Publications" <URL:http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-003.html>) and of the need for preventive conservation, but I think it has been overdone. My argument was always that there was much more work to be done in treatment than staff existed, but that I was disappointed in the lack of planning on the management and curatorial level to prevent damage in storage and exhibition. This has, I think backfired. Another element to this attitude that conservators are expendable is the trend to contract out. Worse is the fact that our discipline has all but extinguished the publication of treatment articles. I wrote cautioning on the potential effects of this trend in the 1980s and 1990s in an article in the AIC News in May of 1998. I tabulated the subjects of articles in the JAIC and in a table showed how over time fewer private practice conservators were publishing and how treatment articles were declining being replaced by art history and scientific subjects. In the past 15 years the situation has only gotten worse as the trend has continued, but it has also been reflected in articles published in Studies. In conversations with AIC Board members and publication committee members over the past 3 decades I was told that this reflected a desire to upgrade the regard for conservation by other museum professionals. A past editor responded to my public question on this at an AIC meeting by saying that conservators were no longer submitting many treatment articles. I was skeptical that publishing art history or scientific articles would improve our image. It has, I think, had the opposite effect, other museum professionals see fewer conservation treatment articles published and fewer images of our abilities. When we have spent more than two decades saying that preservation and prevention are central to conservation and we depreciate the work that we do by not promoting it in our publications we do ourselves a disservice. We now are reaping what we have sown. Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D. Director and Chief Conservator Conservation Art Service and Lecturer Department of Anthropology San Francisco State University *** Conservation DistList Instance 26:44 Distributed: Sunday, April 7, 2013 Message Id: cdl-26-44-005 ***Received on Tuesday, 2 April, 2013