| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| bauerova-en [01.10.2022 18:29] – admin | bauerova-en [19.02.2023 13:41] (current) – admin |
|---|
| And that's not all. Current proposals for ‘experimental’ conservation point to moving beyond the utopia of John Ruskin and the Arts and Crafts Movement – i.e. that it is our duty to pass on our inherited cultural heritage to future generations in the condition in which we inherited it.[(For more on this activity, see Melková's 2022 essays, especially p. 67: "One area that has great potential in this regard is 'experimental heritage care' – a theoretically informed practice that tests hypotheses about what heritage care be and what it could accomplish.")] On the other hand, experimental conservation "... sees culture as an intergenerational phenomenon – as shared heritage ... as something that belongs to multiple generations. This is the basis of intergenerational equality – leaving the world in a condition that allows our children to enjoy it as much as we do, which is not the same as leaving it in the state in which we found it, which is essentially impossible, because the deepest quality of existence is change."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note. 9, p. 67.)] | And that's not all. Current proposals for ‘experimental’ conservation point to moving beyond the utopia of John Ruskin and the Arts and Crafts Movement – i.e. that it is our duty to pass on our inherited cultural heritage to future generations in the condition in which we inherited it.[(For more on this activity, see Melková's 2022 essays, especially p. 67: "One area that has great potential in this regard is 'experimental heritage care' – a theoretically informed practice that tests hypotheses about what heritage care be and what it could accomplish.")] On the other hand, experimental conservation "... sees culture as an intergenerational phenomenon – as shared heritage ... as something that belongs to multiple generations. This is the basis of intergenerational equality – leaving the world in a condition that allows our children to enjoy it as much as we do, which is not the same as leaving it in the state in which we found it, which is essentially impossible, because the deepest quality of existence is change."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note. 9, p. 67.)] |
| |
| The aforementioned corrections of conceptual categories demonstrate the pushing of the boundaries of the field and essentially set the stage for "moving past the boundaries of previous experience."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 9, p. 68.)] The imaginary movement of the boundaries of the field has support in the ‘authorised heritage discourse’, which is moderated by international organisations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICOM, ICCROM, and IIC, and thus ensures the establishment of new or complementary top-down priorities and approaches.[(Smith, Laurajane, //Archeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage//, London, 2004.)] By its very nature, it predisposes social and cultural institutions to normalisation and subsequent control.[(Also pointing out this trait in heritage care is Otero-Pailos, Jorge, "Experimentální památkové péče", in: Melková 2022, p. 24: "social institutions codify human experience in order to normalise and control it.")] It is important to note that this process (which needn’t always end in the form of a law) has certain patterns and established procedures that take time and ultimately often generate even more rules, obligations and bureaucracy.[(Graeber 2017, note 9, p. 16.)] These are certainly not flexible processes that skilfully correspond or respond to the needs of society, conservation or a particular monument; instead, the aforementioned movement ‘beyond’ the boundaries of current practice belongs to pressing current problems and the needs of specific artistic, conservation-restoration and heritage care practice, including the demands of society, taking the form of smaller projects or targeted activities. Their specific naming of the problems in principle calls for direct accountability and immediate remedy. The actions of activists allow for flexible changes, while allowing for a certain degree of error in their positions. Such strained situations can result in new, often unorthodox approaches.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 9, pp. 68–69)] It is important to realise that they are the hope for a particular object, field and discipline. As such, they are part of the natural life cycle and thus an expected outcome of our responsibility to ‘vague’ future generations.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 17, p. 25: "The time scale is most often short: our personal choices are likely to die with us unless they resonate in some way with the future choices of younger generations." Cf.: Bauerová, Zuzana, "Konzervátor-restaurátor = Indiana Jones s bičem na minulost a budoucnost?", Plato Ostrava, 20/11/2019, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HN2zrsrCZc (accessed 24.7.2022).)] | The aforementioned corrections of conceptual categories demonstrate the pushing of the boundaries of the field and essentially set the stage for "moving past the boundaries of previous experience."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 9, p. 68.)] The imaginary movement of the boundaries of the field has support in the ‘authorised heritage discourse’, which is moderated by international organisations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICOM, ICCROM, and IIC, and thus ensures the establishment of new or complementary top-down priorities and approaches.[(Smith, Laurajane, //Archeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage//, London, 2004.)] By its very nature, it predisposes social and cultural institutions to normalisation and subsequent control.[(Also pointing out this trait in heritage care is Otero-Pailos, Jorge, "Experimentální památkové péče", in: Melková 2022, p. 24: "social institutions codify human experience in order to normalise and control it.")] It is important to note that this process (which needn’t always end in the form of a law) has certain patterns and established procedures that take time and ultimately often generate even more rules, obligations and bureaucracy.[(Graeber 2017, note 9, p. 16.)] |
| | |
| | These are certainly not flexible processes that skilfully correspond or respond to the needs of society, conservation or a particular monument; instead, the aforementioned movement ‘beyond’ the boundaries of current practice belongs to pressing current problems and the needs of specific artistic, conservation-restoration and heritage care practice, including the demands of society, taking the form of smaller projects or targeted activities. Their specific naming of the problems in principle calls for direct accountability and immediate remedy. The actions of activists allow for flexible changes, while allowing for a certain degree of error in their positions. Such strained situations can result in new, often unorthodox approaches.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 9, pp. 68–69)] It is important to realise that they are the hope for a particular object, field and discipline. As such, they are part of the natural life cycle and thus an expected outcome of our responsibility to ‘vague’ future generations.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 17, p. 25: "The time scale is most often short: our personal choices are likely to die with us unless they resonate in some way with the future choices of younger generations." Cf.: Bauerová, Zuzana, "Konzervátor-restaurátor = Indiana Jones s bičem na minulost a budoucnost?", Plato Ostrava, 20/11/2019, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HN2zrsrCZc (accessed 24.7.2022).)] |
| |
| ==== 2. From institution to object ==== | ==== 2. From institution to object ==== |
| Available information and footage indicate that the New Media Museums project is in this very stage, i.e. it is looking for recognition of the needs of moving-image objects by state cultural (and academic) institutions or their founders. I consider the setup of the project, its focus and structuring to be absolutely correct and I value its results. I understand the calls from experts in various fields for the provision of material, technological and personnel infrastructure by competent (mostly national) institutions. Considering the information above, the following are some conclusions that could in my opinion complicate the collection, preservation and conservation-restoration of the moving image. | Available information and footage indicate that the New Media Museums project is in this very stage, i.e. it is looking for recognition of the needs of moving-image objects by state cultural (and academic) institutions or their founders. I consider the setup of the project, its focus and structuring to be absolutely correct and I value its results. I understand the calls from experts in various fields for the provision of material, technological and personnel infrastructure by competent (mostly national) institutions. Considering the information above, the following are some conclusions that could in my opinion complicate the collection, preservation and conservation-restoration of the moving image. |
| |
| We designate the moving image as cultural heritage and apply the canonised categories to it in order to fulfil the earlier experiences of society, which are already codified concrete categories or ‘values’ (returning to Riegl at the beginning of the essay). As such, on the basis of convincing arguments we are quite legitimately and rightly attempting to introduce new cultural and historical objects into our collective consciousness.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 17, p. 21.)] The reasoning is in line with the priorities of the national authorities. As citizens, we want to use the procedures in place to make the state take responsibility for the care of this new kind of cultural heritage (under the existing interpretation). | We designate the moving image as cultural heritage and apply the canonised categories to it in order to fulfil the earlier experiences of society, which are already codified concrete categories or ‘values’ (returning to Riegl at the beginning of the essay). As such, on the basis of convincing arguments, we legitimately and rightly attempt to introduce new cultural and historical objects into our collective consciousness.[(Otero-Pailos 2022, note 17, p. 21.)] The reasoning is in line with the priorities of the national authorities. As citizens, we want to use the existing procedures to make the state take responsibility for the care of this new kind of cultural heritage (as it is currently interpreted). |
| |
| We therefore act as we have been taught and as the state administration tries to convince us: we see institutional support as a guarantee for the preservation and protection of cultural objects and therefore expect state investment: "In reality, without government funding, the existence of intergenerational preservation of ... heritage would hardly be conceivable."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, p. 26.)] We see the collection and preservation of moving-image objects or collections as a hedge against their destruction, against them falling into obscurity or not being preserved for future generations. | We therefore act as we have been taught and as the state administration tries to convince us: we see institutional support as a guarantee for the preservation and protection of cultural objects and therefore expect state investment: "In reality, without government funding, the existence of intergenerational preservation of ... heritage would hardly be conceivable."[(Otero-Pailos 2022, p. 26.)] We see the collection and preservation of moving-image objects or collections as a hedge against their destruction, against them falling into obscurity or not being preserved for future generations. |
| This established form of conservation-restoration has been enriched in recent decades by an interdisciplinary approach that allows for the involvement of other professions, or at least their work procedures. However, it still contingent on the historicity of the material nature of cultural objects. If elements such as the denial of material originality, material impermanence or even the absence of (at least classical) materials enter the processes of conservation, protection and interpretation of cultural objects thanks to the moving image, we have to admit that a change in some procedures is inevitable and the possibilities of the profession may be quite limited. | This established form of conservation-restoration has been enriched in recent decades by an interdisciplinary approach that allows for the involvement of other professions, or at least their work procedures. However, it still contingent on the historicity of the material nature of cultural objects. If elements such as the denial of material originality, material impermanence or even the absence of (at least classical) materials enter the processes of conservation, protection and interpretation of cultural objects thanks to the moving image, we have to admit that a change in some procedures is inevitable and the possibilities of the profession may be quite limited. |
| |
| Therefore, rather than introducing the new fields of conservation-restoration of new media in an academic environment, the future of professional care could be shaped by postgraduate or complementary (in the sense of specialised) studies to the master's degree in conservation-restoration (at art or engineering universities). This idea follows the practices of British conservator-restorers, who see the development of the discipline as more of an amalgamation of related conservator-restorer specialisations while maintaining a uniform basic professional education.[(Jonathan Ashley-Smith's article (note 7) recalls his colleague Jane Henderson's call in 2000: "we must realise that what unites us as conservators is far more significant than what divides us.")] | The future of professional care may therefore be shaped not by the introduction of new fields of conservation-restoration of new media in an academic environment, but by postgraduate or complementary (in the sense of specialised) studies to the Master's degree in conservation-restoration (at art or engineering colleges). This idea follows the practice of British conservator-restorers, who see the development of the discipline more as an amalgamation of related conservator-restorer specialisms, while maintaining a unified basic professional education.[(Jonathan Ashley-Smith's article (note 7) recalls his colleague Jane Henderson's call in 2000: "we must realise that what unites us as conservators is far more significant than what divides us.")] |
| |
| A major challenge for learning opportunities defined in this way is stimulating their ability to respond promptly to frequent changes (given the evolution of technology), as only then can we open the question of their integration into a specific cultural or academic institution, or of maintaining their institutional independence. | A major challenge for learning opportunities defined in this way is stimulating their ability to respond promptly to frequent changes (given the evolution of technology), as only then can we open the question of their integration into a specific cultural or academic institution, or of maintaining their institutional independence. |
