Subject: Budget cutbacks at Indianapolis Museum of Art
A curious comment appeared in an editorial written by Ms. Joyce H. Townsend in the current issue of Studies in Conservation. The theme of the issue is preventive conservation, a topic that I wrote about in a recent post ((Conservation DistList Instance: 26:44 Sunday, April 7, 2013). This was in response to the recent closing of laboratories (e.g., at Indianapolis) and lack of jobs in conservation. My argument was that these were associated with a failure of the main journals in conservation to publish and promote conservation skills, especially treatments. Ms. Townsend refers not to my comments but acknowledges that, "We are aware that some have noted disparagingly that few papers by practitioners are published within our pages--but this reflects an absence of submissions, not a policy of rejecting them on grounds of subject matter. It is true that the maturity of the conservation profession means that the innovative treatments of previous decades are now part of the canon of accepted and safe ways of working, but conservators will never be without challenging new materials, and poorly-understood older materials which have aged in (thus far) unpredictable ways. We welcome such papers and look forward to receiving them in the coming years." This is an interesting statement as it puts forth the impression that the policy of the IIC has a specific limitation in publication. All of us who are practitioners must take note as it gives us a clue to what the editors will accept. Ms. Townsend asserts that "the maturity of the conservation profession means" that all innovative treatments have been achieved accept those that deal with new materials or poorly-understood older materials that have aged. Is this what the membership believe? Do we know all we need to know about treatments? Can we rest assured that there is nothing new to learn in conservation treatments? I am astounded! There is no need for research in treatments or sharing what we do! After the post I wrote appeared I received a number of emails and phone calls from conservators expressing the general view that when they received their copies of Studies or JAIC they looked through them and just put them on their shelves. They felt the journals were not useful. This is a shame, our publications should be means by which practitioners speak to each other and show the work we are doing. There is also an issue of access. It may be that our museum research laboratories can refer to past treatments in their laboratory libraries, but few private practitioners have these back issues. Also in my travels in meetings and in laboratories all over the country and world I have heard from conservators in institutions that they have no room for reference materials. One assumes then that all conservators need today is to go to the programs, get an MA in conservation and they have learned all they need to know about any treatment. I think this is a mistaken interpretation of what we should be doing and how we should be viewing our careers as professionals. Heaven help us if doctors and engineers or other professionals acted like this. I was hopeful that Reviews in Conservation would provide a forum for understanding past treatments and evaluating new methods in the context of old ones and materials. Unfortunately this was not the case and anyway the journal failed. Perhaps I have misunderstood Ms. Townsend, perhaps she and the publication committees of Studies and JAIC have a wider role for the publications than this editorial seems to express. Let's then have a dialog and let's hear from the membership about what they want in their publications. Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D. Dept. of Anthropology San Francisco State University and Director and Chief Conservator Conservation Art Service *** Conservation DistList Instance 26:51 Distributed: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Message Id: cdl-26-51-013 ***Received on Monday, 27 May, 2013