INTERVIEW4471

Salvador Muñoz-Viñas
New Horizons for Conservation Thinking

Interview by Christabel Blackman

Salvador Muñoz-Viñas was born in Valencia in 1963. He holds degrees in both Fine Arts and Art History. After working as a conservator at the Historical Library of the Universitat de València, he became a young member of staff at the newly created Department of Conservation at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. In the late 80s and early 90s, he obtained several scholarships including the Luis de Santangel research prize which enabled him to visit the Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard University (presently known as Straus Center for Conservation), where he carried out research as a visiting scholar.   In 1991, Muñoz-Viñas presented his PhD., partially based on research made at Harvard, a technical analysis of Italian Renaissance manuscripts which was subsequently published by Harvard and the UPV. In those years, Muñoz-Viñas taught both Paper Conservation and the History of Paintings Techniques at the UPV, however in 1999, he was obliged to choose a single subject,  and opted for Paper Conservation. At that time, he was already beginning to analyze the prevalent ('classical') tenets of conservation theory.

Following some rather tentative, short articles on the topic, the book 'Teoría contemporánea de la  Restauración' was published in 2003. Soon after that he began writing 'Contemporary Theory of Conservation', which was published late in 2004. Salvador Muñoz-Viñas became Professor (Catedrático) in 2000 and presently, works both on conservation theory and on paper conservation techniques.

A visit to Salvador Muñoz-Viñas’ work place is a discovery akin to an explorers encounter with a long sought-after treasure. The Arts and Conservation building of the UPV is circular and reaches out its architectural enveloping arms like St. Peters forecourt, to snuggle in the rasta-haired arts students along with the white cloaked conservation researchers. Professor Muñoz-Viñas' chambers, his deskroom and laboratory are dimmed and silent compared to the harsh revealing Spanish sun and the convivial chaotic ambience outside. Salvador strikes one as quietly spoken, a listener rather than a dogmatic teacher; elegant and thoughtful, perhaps the archetype of the absent-minded professor. He is however a stream-lined thinker, with a terrific capacity to anchor things straight to their axial point and definitely doesn’t waste his words…

Cristabel Blackman: What drew you in to conservation as a profession?

Salvador Muñoz-Viñas: It was not a decision that was planned long before it became a reality. I just naturally found myself learning, enjoying and working in it and that was that. I studied Art History and Fine Arts, and this was an easy and natural way to join both together.

CB: You worked in investigation at Harvard University during your formative years. How did that experience contribute to your thinking?

SM-V: Looking back retrospectively, I think that that was a really important time because I encountered different ways to do things, different ways to approach problems, different ways to communicate between conservation professionals and of course there were a lot of resources available. There was just everything I could think of, from the most sophisticated scientific apparatus to the rarest publication. It really changed my way of thinking about conservation research and about knowledge.
I was very lucky to be working with people who were so open and cooperative, especially with the then Senior Conservation Scientist Eugene Farrell who was first a master and a teacher and later a teacher and a friend.

CB:  What inspired you to write "Contemporary Theory of Conservation"?

SM-V: I had been working in both practical conservation and teaching for some time, often trying to tackle ethical problems that arose when approaching conservation ethics in the classical way; that is by applying classical principles, such as,  reversibility, objectivity, respect for truth, minimal intervention and the like. However I found that these classical principles could seldom be fully applied. In order for them to work, you had to not abide by them at some given moment. Sooner or later it was necessary to discard them to enable conservation to be reasonable and acceptable. For some years I tried to cope with this incongruity between theory and practice, between what should be and what could be. However I couldn’t get free from this theoretical itch. Finally I tried to put things together and to create some coherent body of thinking, which led me to write those books.

CB: You introduce many new or rather outline many existing yet previously undefined concepts in the conservation field. For example, what do you refer to by sustainable conservation?

SM-V: This is a notion that has been put forward by other authors such as Sarah Staniforth and Erica Avrami. When they spoke of sustainable conservation, they thought about economical aspects of conservation, maybe about technical aspects. I would include those aspects in my notion of sustainable conservation. But I mainly refer to the fact that conservation should not limit the variety of messages that observers or scientists or scholars can extract from a given object. Conservation should be sustainable in that it should not make any reading impossible or, to be more practical, it should maintain as many meanings of that single object as available as possible: it should not exhaust the ability of an object to transmit different messages.

CB: Why is authenticity important in conservation?

SM-V: I don’t think it is actually important, even though many people may think it is. Authenticity, or Truth, is important in many aspects of life, I mean, it is a basic rule of behavior: like, 'Thou shalt not lie'. However, in conservation we usually  understand authenticity in a very particular and peculiar way, giving it a meaning which has nothing to do with authenticity as we usually understand the term.
Basically, when we speak about an 'authentic' object, or about the 'authentic' state of an object, we are actually referring to an expected or preferred state of the object. Conservators often alter or delete the authentic imprints of history for the sake of 'authenticity'; the problem with those imprints (a marred surface, a missing fragment, a darkened varnish, you name it) is not that they are not authentic, but that we do not like them. We prefer the object to exist in a different state. Conservators thus modify reality (which is undoubtedly authentic) to suit our expectations, needs or preferences. So authenticity is useful because it helps us to believe that we are acting for some higher reasons (truth, science, objectivity, etc.) and not that we are simply implementing our own expectations or preferences.

CB:  You criticize truth-based theories: does it mean that conservators 'lie'?

SM-V: No. What it means is that truth is not actually a part of the equation, or that a conservator cannot lie just by altering an object. Altering an object and acknowledging and documenting that change can be hardly considered as a form of lying. If it were so, as classical, truth-based theories suggest, then we would have to admit that we conservators lie all the time. Even rigattino or similar tricks should be considered to be lies from the point of view of classical theories: the idea is that if we come close enough to a painting we will be able to spot these additions, on the other hand we would have to meticulously scan the entire painting’s surface to be able to spot what parts of it were not original, which is just a very unrealistic expectancy, to say the least. So according to classical theories we should be respectful to truth but at the same time we must lie. However, as I said before, I don’t think that truth is all that important, because I don’t think that we can make an object 'false'. Truth depends on what a person believes an object to be, and not on the object itself; the object cannot lie. We transform the object, but it does not mean that we are lying: we do not hide that fact but publicize it. Whatever state an object exists in is always a reality. I mean it is what it is. That’s the tautological argument. Truth is always there within the object. The fact that we do not like that truth does not mean that it is not a truth. The fact that we do not like the state of a painting which is burnt does not meant that the true authentic state of that painting is not burnt. The fact that we do not like a statue which is broken does not mean that the true authentic state of the broken statue is not broken. So objects always exist in a true state. Henceforth, what makes a restoration good or bad is not the fact that it abides by truth. Truth has nothing to do with conservation theory; we are not dealing with truth. We are dealing with preferences. We want an object to exist in a given state. And we tend to think that that preferred state is the true state of the object. But it is not, because the object always exists in a true state. A torn piece of paper is authentically torn, it is really torn. So how can we believe that the true state of a torn piece of paper is not torn? That does not make sense.
Truth has little to do with conservation. Conservation is about bringing the object to a preferred state. We adapt objects to our preferences and that’s it.

CB: You say that contemporary theory of conservation calls for a revolution of common sense. Are classical theories not based on common sense?

SM-V: No they are not, definitely. In fact they are based on very specific views that are not those of the common people. They are based on the views of specialists. Classical theories are made to satisfy specialists, art historians, archaeologists,  chemists, physicists, but not necessarily the stakeholder, user of the object, or the spectator. I think that contemporary theories are now moving towards this, well, they are aiming at bearing in mind the views of the spectators, the layman and the views of the common people.

CB:  Are you implying, whilst saying that, that common sense is not applicable to these elitist groups?

SM-V: No, no, no, it is not. These elitist groups, (and I know well, I sort of belong to one of them) do have some inner, particular ideas that are common to us insiders –but this common sense is not very common, since it is that of specialists, a reduced group of people. We have an idea of what is common sense within our own field of specialization. When I speak of the revolution of common sense, I am referring to common sense in the broadest sense of the term – that which applies to the vast majority of people. For instance, to conserve some layer of dirt that most people would find disgusting over an object that most people find worthless, as in archaeological conservation, is not common sense. But then some not-so-common-one could say, hey, I’m an archaeologist and I do care about conserving that layer of dirt because it could provide me with some information  in the future.
This common sense stems from the specialist’s point of view only, but that common sense is not actually all that common, because most people would want to remove that dirt. But then again, a certain group of people with a, well, less-common common sense may find that layer of dirt valuable. Up until now, the views of the vast majority of people were not cared about. Indeed sometimes these views do not need to be cared about, because it may be necessary to conserve for those specialists. However I mean to say that an object, say a painting, may not necessarily be valuable for an elitist group only, it can also  have a symbolic value for many people - the same applies to a sculpture, a cathedral, etc. All these things mentioned can be considered valuable for more people, for reasons which are, indeed, truly common sense.

CB:  Do you think that mass popularity of a cultural asset can lead to a type of demagogic conservation?

SM-V: Yes, sure, that is a risk, but we don’t want that either… It is not that we should just abide by the will of the majority. Often, to avoid demagogic conservation we do have to ignore the common view of the people. This leads to a paradox. They pay us, we work for them, but we just have to ignore them. I think that this paradox can be solved by suggesting that when we say that we are working for users, the term 'users' includes not only contemporary users, but also future users.
And we conservators are speaking for those future users who do not have a voice yet.

CB: Indeed you refer to this in your book as sustainable conservation, which we have been speaking about. Do you think that your 'Contemporary Theory of Conservation' offers a satisfactory answer to the problems of conservation ethics?

SM-V: I do not think that it is my theory of conservation, I think that it is a theory that is in the air, like, well 'Love is in the Air'… but 'Conservation Theory is in the Air'. There are many people who think this way, and who have contributed to it. I have formulated it and I have added my own patches where I felt it needed patching. And yes, I feel that it gives an answer to many problems. Laudan, a philosopher of science, said that the value of a theory is measured by the amount of problems it can solve. I do think that this contemporary theory solves more problems than classical conservation theories. However, there are  problems that cannot be solved so easily, such as the problem of measuring value. Subjective values cannot be expressed in terms of numbers, and that’s a real challenge we’ll have to cope with.

CB: In your book, you criticize the notion of scientific conservation. In your opinion, what role does science play in conservation?

SM-V: It helps conservators to have more data, to be more informed. It should not substitute or replace ethics. Science tells us things about how the world works, how an object was in some more or less remote past, it can hint how some particular material will behave, but then again there are many other factors that are not scientific, which are usually more important than the information that science can provide us with. For example, we need to know not just the past state of an object, but whether or not that past state of the object is more desirable than some other states of the object. This is something that science cannot tell us. Science can tell us if a varnish is aged or not, but it cannot tell us if we should remove that varnish. So the most important decisions have nothing to do with science, they have to do with needs, expectations and people. These are things that cannot be dealt with by science; it should just act an auxiliary tool, because it cannot guide conservation. It can tell us to select a particular adhesive or to help us make more informed decisions, but it cannot make the decisions; it is we who make the decisions.

CB: What are your views on minimal intervention?

SM-V: I have nearly finished the final version of a chapter on that topic for a book which is being edited by Alison Bracker and Alison Richmond, so this is a topic that I am somewhat acquainted with. What I have found is that either we do not actually refer to anything minimal or we do not actually refer to the intervention at large, but only to some particular aspects of the intervention. If we would sincerely abide by that principle we would do nothing, because a truly minimal intervention is just the slightest step away from doing nothing. So it is obvious that the notion makes sense if we change its actual meaning. While we do understand the notion and find it useful, it could be better referred to with other terms.

CB: What projects are you currently working on?

SM-V: I am working on some theoretical texts on ethics but I am also working on some interesting technical aspects of paper conservation. This is a field that I do not want to abandon, not at all. It is very nice to alternate between purely  theoretical, almost philosophical research, and the more practical, technical research –switching from working with words to working with formulae and physical principles, and with the hands, is very refreshing –perhaps the most important privilege of working within a university is that I can choose when to switch, and how often.

CB: What publications are you working on?

SM-V: I have recently completed a contribution on the notion of authenticity for the chapter of a book that will be published by Archetype. Besides that, I am preparing a technical article on an often overlooked (or plainly ignored) drawback of common flattening techniques – these techniques alter the original dimensions of paper sheets; it has been very interesting to discover, assess and understand this phenomenon. A long overdue book on the history of painting techniques is also in the pipeline which I am co-authoring with a fellow Spanish conservator. It should have been finished long ago, since the project dates back to the late 1990s, when I still had the privilege of teaching that beautiful subject, but I have been indulgently procrastinating upon it – the publishers are not happy with that. Further ahead there lie several very appealing projects, such as a book on conservation ethics and contemporary art or an analysis of some aspects of Brandi’s Teoria del restauro. However, these projects are just that - I have deviated from your question, since I am not actually working on them, but just musing with them.

CB: In your opinion, which is the best model of education in conservation?

SM-V: I think that it should be similar to how physicians are taught. That is the students have a heavy load of hands-on practical work and a heavy load of very different theoretical matters. And then, when they finish, they start an internship for four more years, alongside with experienced experts from whom they are transmitted valuable acquired knowledge and skills. This could be a model for conservation – not that I am advocating for a six-year conservation degree followed by a four-year internship: I am advocating for a blend of theoretical and practical teaching, ranging from sciences to humanities to  conservation techniques – this is a real trademark of conservation as a discipline which in my opinion is rarely well-implemented. Ideally, it would be followed by a strictly controlled period of work in real laboratories.
The Bologna directive seems to call for a four-year degree, but they tell next to nothing about internships in real-life laboratories or workshops. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make sure that the interns will get hands-on experience in the specific techniques that they need, since professional workshops are not concerned with teaching, but with solving  professional needs and with their own livelihood. And then there is the fact that many laboratories just do not need or do not want interns buzzing around; and those which often assign the interns the most routine and boring tasks – the tasks that nobody wants to do. This is a good lesson about how life is, but not about conservation. Even though the attitude of the conservators who host the interns may be easily understandable and perfectly logical, this defies the whole point of an internship. Of course, and worst of all, it is very difficult to avoid. Thus, in many ways, the model I am describing can only be a purely ideal model. To tame these problems, I would add to the equation the need to have a strict system of student selection, and strict 'numerus clausus'. Not just because it would enable to improve the teaching and instruction, but also because it would allow the teachers and the students to be much more selective about those all-important internships.

CB:  How do you see the implementation of the Bologna process in higher education? Do you believe it will bring about an improvement to the actual models of conservation education in Spain?

SM-V: No, I don’t think so. Each European country has its particular issues and the issues in Spain will not be solved by any particular education qualification system, such as that which the Bologna directives call for. After Bologna we will have more or less the same problems, except that we will have new degrees which have slightly different durations from those we have now. For example, one of the main problems which currently exists has to do with the fact that in Spain conservation is taught both by universities and by "Escuelas Superiores" (which are tertiary education institutions outside the university). In fact, and following Bologna, the "Escuelas Superiores" already have their four year degrees which have just been approved by the Ministry; while the Universities already have their post-graduate, Bologna-style degrees, and will soon have their four-year graduate degrees. However, both the Escuelas and the Universities refuse to cooperate together to unify these degrees: each party seems to the other as a menace or even an enemy. It is a problem that will not be solved by anything from Bologna; unfortunately the problem will remain. However, the Bologna process is not to be blamed for it: its goals were not to solve all of these problems, but to implement a homogeneous higher education system all across Europe, and, in my opinion, this is something that has been successfully achieved.

Image 1. Prof. Muñoz-Viñas in his deskroom at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia; Image 2. Salvador Muñoz-Viñas with Joana Kosek, paper conservator from the British Museum and James Black, director of Archetype Publications and co-ordinator of International Academic Projects; Image 3. Salvador Muñoz-Viñas in his paper conservation workshop at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Image 4. Prof. Muñoz-Viñas lecturing at the British Museum, 'Contemporary Ethics of Conservation for the XXIst century' Seminar in London, June, 2007.

Professor Salvador Muñoz-Viñas concludes his interview with the air thickened by the variety of thought provoking ideas that have been offered forth. His complex concepts are simplified down into digestible units in the same way that conservation processes are isolated into more manageable steps. He belongs to the innovative vocational thinkers that are paving the way for changes on a more communal and universal level in the conservation sphere, changes that are slowly being reflected in the collective attitude of our profession. Undoubtedly we will keep hearing his words reverberate amongst the movement of the contemporary visionary kaleidoscope of new notions in conservation.

Interview by Christabel Blackman

Christabel Blackman (b. 1959, Australia) holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Patrimony (UPV, Spain) specializing in easel painting and a Diploma in painting restoration from the Istituto per l'Arte e il Restauro, Italy. She lives in Valencia, Spain, where she is a freelance senior paintings conservator.

Download Issue 6

Download this article

Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/627