Abstract

During the past thirty years, the world of conservation has experienced an important shift towards what has been known as the concept of minimal intervention. Presently, this widely accepted framework has given particular impetus to the application of preventive conservation measures for the preservation of collections and, in turn, it has suppressed other more interventive and active conservation approaches. The broad acceptance of minimal intervention as the "correct" modus operandi is primarily based on an increasing concern for the historical and documental value of the objects. This paper will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of minimalist approaches and consider whether non-interventive policies are sufficient to fulfil all conservation requirements posed by museum collections.

Introduction

Over the last three decades, non-interventive and minimal intervention approaches have increasingly grown in importance and recognition as the leading principles for the preservation of cultural property. The wide spread popularity of this type of conservation strategy is now such that, in some disciplines, active conservation treatments have almost been discontinued, relying on environmental control or preventive conservation measures as the means to avoid or slow down deterioration.
Non-interventive procedures are often seen to provide the most effective use of resources for the care of collections. In addition, they ensure the preservation of the authenticity, signs of age and the historical/documental integrity of the objects without obstructing potential re-treatment in the future. On an international level, many large institutions have therefore adopted minimal intervention policies.

The Origins of Minimal Intervention

The preservation of aspects such as the history and documental value of the objects, their authenticity, the natural signs of ageing, etc, is a growing preoccupation among those concerned with the conservation of cultural property. This is probably one of the main elements giving rise to non-interventive conservation approaches. The idea is that by keeping interventive conservation treatments to a minimum, the risks of alteration to objects are limited and thus historical integrity is ensured.

The development of preventive conservation and the re-evaluation of the concept of reversbility are the two other main elements influencing the current predominance of minimalist tendencies in conservation.

During approximately the last two decades of the 20th century, conservators started to question the existence of "true" reversibility and, inevitably, the conclusion that no conservation treatment is one hundred per cent reversible was reached.
This was therefore a period of general discontent and the necessity of re-evaluating the terms reversible or reversibility became essential. In 1987, Applebaum introduced the concept of "re-treatability" recognising that, if not fully reversible, preservation activities should at least not obstruct the possibility of re-treatment in the future. In that context,  minimalist conservation was found to be the best way forward. Since a minimalist line of action implies the application of less interventive treatments, the principle of re-treatability would be therefore fulfilled.

In the past 30 years, non-interventive or minimalist approaches have also been encouraged by the great development and impact of preventive conservation. In this sense, the publication of the book The Museum Environment by Thomson, in 1978, was a major factor contributing to the dissemination of both environmental concerns and preventive conservation ideas. From this moment onwards, the interest was increasingly focused into museum environment issues and highly interventive conservation was increasingly abandoned.

Limitations

Minimal intervention policies have proven to be well suited to protect the historical integrity of the objects, as well as to comply with the principle of re-treatability. However, other similarly important conservation goals such as long-term  preservation, improvement of aesthetic appearance or provision of access to the objects, cannot be accomplished by means of a minimalist approach alone.

Most non-interventive or minimal intervention treatments can be expected to be short-term measures and, consequently, the long-term preservation of the object cannot be achieved. This implies that conservation treatments would have to be applied more regularly (a greater number of times) in order to maintain the object’s physical condition and, in the end, this may result in greater change or damage.

The primary value of many museum objects is often historical and/or documental (e.g. archival collections). However, there are other items which, as well as having historic value, have a purely aesthetic function. Works of art are a clear example of this as, for the majority of the public, their most obvious and important purpose is indeed aesthetic. Since minimalist conservation shows little interest for the improvement of the general appearance and the legibility of works of art, it fails to safeguard their aesthetic integrity. Similarly, ethnographic objects are in an almost identical situation because minimal approaches are unable to preserve both their conceptual and cultural significance.

Another important limitation associated to minimal intervention is its conflict with accessibility. During the last decade, there has been an important increase in the number of travelling exhibitions as a response to the growing popularisation of museums and exhibits among the general public. Access to collections has therefore experienced an increasing demand, and museums have the duty to fulfil it. The existence of a minimal intervention policy in a given institution can often mean that some items may be considered unfit to be lent or displayed because their condition is not sufficiently sound as to cope with the risks involved. In addition, the generalised use of glazing, show cases, etc, as non-interventive preservation measures may impair proper visual appreciation of the items, thus further restricting accessibility.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, it appears that the wish to carry out minimal intervention treatments has lead to some interesting contradictions in the field of conservation, and a certain doubt about what the aims of treatment really are: to achieve long or short-term preservation? to provide accessibility or to ensure re-treatability?

The Way Forward

Having understood the origins of minimalist conservation and weighed up its advantages and disadvantages, it is possible to conclude that minimalist approaches cannot be considered as a complete guiding principle for the conservation of museum objects. Minimal intervention policies are incapable of addressing all the complex requirements posed by museum collections, since the treatment selection criteria based upon these policies is unclear and partial.

All conservation codes of ethics state that treatment should be carried out to the minimum extent necessary. The question is, what is necessary? Do different items have different necessities? Pure minimalist intervention approaches may indeed be appropriate in certain cases where, for instance, the item is in storage and it is not going to be requested for loan. However, a certain level of treatment may become imperative if public access is to be facilitated. Yes, different objects do have different requirements. For this reason, conservation should always aim to provide balanced solutions in response to the necessities of individual objects or collections. Any conservation activity should, therefore, follow sufficient research in order to identify the needs of the objects and safeguard their values and functions. Often a compromise between the different conservation objectives (preservation of the physical, historical, documental, aesthetic and symbolic values) has to be reached according to the character, function and usage of the object.
Balanced solutions can only be achieved by seeking interdisciplinary co-operation and integrating preventive measures with the required conservation treatment. Therefore these solutions may involve greater levels of intervention than currently considered as acceptable by minimal practitioners.

Conclusion

The increasing concern for the integrity of the objects, the acceptance of complete reversibility as an unachievable goal and the development of preventive conservation are some of the factors that have contributed to the current predominance of non-interventive or minimalist conservation approaches.

Minimalist approaches are able to preserve the historical and documental values of the objects and to ensure re-treatability. However, minimalist conservation cannot be considered to be a complete guiding principle for conservation as it has important limitations: it cannot ensure long-term preservation, suitable access to the objects and improvement of their aesthetic appearance.
Instead, conservation should provide balanced solutions appropriate to each individual case scenario and guided by common principles of professional practice. Therefore, both preventive measures and conservation treatment should be applied skilfully and intelligently to objects in order to ensure their physical, historical, aesthetic and symbolic integrities.

 

 

References

1. P. Ackroyd and C. Villers, "The problem with minimalism", Alternatives to lining, BAPCR & UCIK Conference Proceedings, 19 September 2003 London, UKIC, London, 2003, pp. 9-14.

2. B. Appelbaum, "Criteria for treatment: reversibility", Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 26 (2), 1987, pp. 65-73.

3. S. Bradley, "Preventive conservation: The research legacy", Conservation Science, Conference proceedings, 22-24 May 2002 Edinburgh, Archetype Publications, London, 2003, pp. 3-7.

4. M. Clavir, "Preserving conceptual integrity: ethics and theory in preventive conservation", Preventive Conservation Practice, Theory and Research, Conference Proceedings, 12-16 September 1994 Ottawa, IIC, London, 1994, pp. 53-57.

5. J. M. Kosek, "Restoration of art on paper in the West: a consideration of changing attitudes and values", Restoration - is it acceptable?, Conference proceedings, 24-25 November 1994 London, British Museum Occasional Paper, 99, British Museum Press, London, 1994, pp. 41-49.

6. A. Oddy, "Does reversibility exist in conservation?", Reversibility - does it exist?, Conference proceedings, 8-10 September 1999 London, British Museum Occasional Paper, 135, British Museum Press, London, 1999, pp. 1-5.

7. N. Seeley, “Reversibility - achievable goal or illusion?”, Reversibility - does it exist?, Conference proceedings, 8-10 September 1999 London, British Museum Occasional Paper, 135, British Museum Press, London, 1999, pp. 161-167.

8. G. Thomson, The Museum Environment, Butterworth, London, 1986, 2nd ed.


About the author

María Rubio Redondo
contact: Maria.RubioRedondo@bl.uk

María Rubio Redondo received an MA in Paper Conservation from Northumbria University, Newcastle, in 2004. She was awarded an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship in Paper Conservation at Intermuseum Conservation Association, in Cleveland, US. María has worked at Dorset Archives, Durham University Library and she is currently employed as a Conservation Officer at the British Library.

 

 

Download Issue 5

Download this article

 

Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/618