Cupid, Canvas, Circle, Plane: Conservation and Conceptual Fine Art Practice

References

• AIC. 1994. American Institute for Conservation: Code of Ethics, revised 1994. https://www.culturalheritage.org/about-conservation/code-of-ethics. Accessed January 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley-Smith, J. 2009. “The Basis of Conservation Ethics”. In: Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by A. Richmond and A. Bracker, 6. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Avrami, E., S. Macdonald, R. Mason, and D. Myers. 2019. “Introduction: Changing Notions of Value and Shifts in Heritage Practice and Management.” In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions, edited by E. Avrami, S. MacDonald, R. Mason, and D. Myers, 5. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Caple, C. 2000. Conservation Skills. Judgement, Method and Decision-Making. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• DeSilvey, C. 2017. Curated Decay, 33. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• García, J. M. B. 2015. “Re-evaluating the Roles of the Cleaning Process in the Conservation of Paintings.” Ge-Conservacion 6: 21. doi:https://doi.org/10.37558/gec.v7i0.210.
   Google Scholar
• Gombrich, E. H. 1962. “Dark Varnishes: Variations on a Theme from Pliny.” The Burlington Magazine 104 (707): 54.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, R., and E. Hermens. 2013. “The Artist’s Intent in Flux.” CeROArt, http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/3527; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.3527.
   Google Scholar
• Hackney, S. 2013. “The Art and Science of Cleaning Paintings.” In New Insights Into the Cleaning of Paintings: Proceedings from the Cleaning 2010 International Conference, edited by M. F. Mecklenburg, A. E. Charola, and R. J. Koestler, 11–15. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Hedley, G. 1993/1989. “Long Lost Relations and new Found Relativities: Issues in the Cleaning of Paintings.” In Measured Opinions: Collected Papers on the Conservation of Paintings, edited by C. Villers, 176–178. London: UKIC.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, A., and J. Copithorne. 2018. Sharing Conservation Decisions: Current Issues and Future Strategies. Rome: ICCROM.
   Google Scholar
• Holtorf, C., and O. Ortman. 2008. “Endangerment and the Conservation Ethos in Natural and Cultural Heritage: The Case of Zoos and Archaeological Sites.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (1): 86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250701712380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICOMOS. 1966. Venice Charter. Available at: https://www.icomos.org/en/participer/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/157-the-venice-charter. Accessed January 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Icon. 2020. Ethical Guidance. https://icon.org.uk/system/files/documents/icon_ethicalguidance_20200608.pdf. Accessed January 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffreys, T. 2019. “Peering Through the Mists of Time – why we Love the Tender act of art Conservation”, Frieze Online, Available at: https://frieze.com/article/peering-through-layers-time-why-we-love-tender-act-art-conservation. Accessed January 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Laudenbacher, K. 2013. “Considerations of the Cleaning of Paintings.” In New Insights Into the Cleaning of Paintings: Proceedings from the Cleaning 2010 International Conference, edited by M. F. Mecklenburg, A. E. Charola, and R. J. Koestler, 11–15. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal, H. P., R. Macedo, and A. M. Duarte. 2014. “The Inevitable Subjective Nature of Conservation: Psychological Insights on the Process of Decision Making.” In ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Melbourne Preprints, edited by J. Bridgland. Paris: ICOM. art. 1904 https://www.icom-cc-publications-online.org/1538/The-inevitable-subjective-nature-of-conservation--psychological-insights-on-the-process-of-decision-making.
   Google Scholar
• Mecklenburg, M. F., A. E. Charola, and R. J. Koestler. 2013. New Insights Into the Cleaning of Paintings: Proceedings from the Cleaning 2010 International Conference. Washington, DC: Universidad Politecnica de Valencia and Museum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Michalski, S. 1994. “Sharing Responsibility for Conservation Decisions.” In Durability and Change: The Science, Responsibility, and Cost of Sustaining Cultural Heritage, edited by W. E. Krumbein, P. Brimblecombe, D. E. Cosgrove, and S. Staniforth, 241–258. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, S. 2004. Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 175–176. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas, S. 2020. On the Ethics of Cultural Heritage Conservation. London: Archetype Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond, A., and A. Bracker. 2009. Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rickett, S. 2019. The Curious Moaning of Kenfig Burrows. London: GOST Books.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, D., H. Chahine, and J. Cupitt. 1996. “Long-term Colour Change Measurement: Some Results After Twenty Years.” National Gallery Technical Bulletin 17: 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, D. A. 2017. “Art Restoration and Its Contextualization.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 51 (2): 82–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley Price, N., M. K. Talley, and A. Melucco Vaccaro. 1996. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: Getty Publications.
   Google Scholar
• van de Wetering, E. 1989. ““The Autonomy of Restoration: Ethical Considerations in Relation to Artistic Concepts”.” In World Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity, vol.3, edited by I. Lavin, 851. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar