PhD thesis by Iris Kapelouzou as part of her studies at the Royal College of Art V&A Conservation.

Expected date of completion: 2011.

Abstract

Approaches to defining artworks proper, range from treating them as unique physical particulars to conceiving of them as abstract entities. In the field of Conservation, works of art have historically been understood and treated as unique physical particulars. This is chiefly evidenced in judgments about the nature and significance of “damage” and “loss”, on the basis of which most conservation decision-making and practice are justified. It is also evidenced in values like those of “authenticity” and the “original”, and principles like those of “minimum intervention” and “no removal of original material”, on which conservation literature and ethics focus.

In practice, the above concepts appear to be rather vague, while the principles mentioned are presented as either too broad or too narrow and limiting. This becomes characteristically evident when considering the conservation demands posed by art produced from the 1960s onwards, i.e. artworks that give precedence to the idea over material manifestation, that explore process rather than produce a finished object and that establish peculiar relationships with time and space. While art production seems to encapsulate contemporary conceptions of the artwork as something abstract, the traditional understanding of conservation concepts fails to justify activities like those of substitution, reproduction and recreation, which can thus seem to conflict with conservation ethics.

I propose a re-assessment and redefinition of the conservation values of “authenticity” and the “original” in light of contemporary conceptions of the artwork, that may help overcome this problematic situation. I will start with a brief historical analysis of the above mentioned concepts by reference to conceptions of the artwork within conservation theory and the philosophy of art, and investigate whether there is a conceptual lag between the two fields. I will then examine the theory that artworks are abstract entities and try to identify implications of this conception to conservation practice and ethics. I further propose the adoption of “harm” as a central concept guiding and limiting conservation activities, and the exploration of the associated principle “Do no harm” as a constraint to decisions and judgments on conservation policies and treatments.

It can be argued that the “Do no harm” principle is a foundational principle, implicit in conservation practice and theory, framing “minimum intervention”, etc. I suspect that “harm” may be understood as a concept broader than “damage” and “loss” and may thus allow for more flexibility in the range of treatment options and in the determination of negative actions and results. In support of this, I will explore the limits of the do no harm principle through the use of case studies, while emphasis will be placed on the dangers of harming artworks not only on a material level, but on a conceptual level as well.

RCA/V&A Conservation

School of Humanities

Royal College of Art

London SW7 2EU

U.K.

tel: +44 7979 047 385

email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it