Thank you once again for the wonderful opportunity that INCCA has given us to present our project. The snap-shot presentation was a great platform for us to introduce our insitution, as we hope that more people know about us. I thoroughly enjoyed and learnt a lot from the symposium. Knowing that a lot of institutions are out there (or have been) battling with the same problems with contemporary art conservation, and I was comforted by the fact that many were willing to offer their expert support. I only wished that we had more time and chance to attend several of the parralel sessions and that the Networking sessions are more inclusive of our institution's geographical location. Hopefully one day there will be an INCCA Asia Group?
I look forward to the next symposium.

Thank you for organizing this conference which spurred many interesting debates. However, I'd like to name a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms: A somehow positive problem was that I found myself wishing that the parallel sessions portion of the programme had been given more weight, as I found it hard to choose between them. I would have liked to be able to choose more sessions instead of some of the plenary lectures. Secondly, many of the theoretical discussions seemed to me to be echoing the conclusions from the MA:WC conference several years ago. Discussions about decision making and artist's intent tend to simply underline that each case is different and that with more factors to consider, modern art is more complicated to restore than older works. This knowledge is well-rooted in the conservation profession by now, so I think the importance of a conference like this lies in the presentations that bring about new knowledge, resulting in new tools.

I want to make an addition to my comment. This conference was vastly important to our field. The attendance, questions, and the thought provoking content of the papers made clear that the themes that comprise conservation of contemporary art are numerous and varied and can't be fully covered by one conference. It underscored the need for continued dialogue on materials, methodology and the philosophical approach to conserving works that have ephemeral underpinnings. INCCA is clearly the organization to provide that forum. The question before us now is how to keep the dialogue alive.

The conference was very interesting and extremely well organized. Thank you very much! In my opinion the division between lectures and sessions did help create some diversity and was a good attempt to cover this very broad field.
A downside and disappointment was that, apart from the posters, there was no emphasis on new treatment methods at all and that the conference focused almost entirely on works of art in museum collections. As we all know, Contemporary Art does cover a much broader range of works of art than the ones metioned. As Rosa Lowinger said, the title of the conference was misleading in this regard. And yes, a call for papers would have most likely helped to cover more areas and have given everyone a chance to hear about art "outside installations".