Embracing Humanness in Cultural Materials Conservation: A Roundtable Discussion with Conservation Professionals on Ethics, Values and the Future

References

• Abrams, A 2022, ‘Kim Kardashian’s met gala dress angered conservators so much that the International Council of Museums had to make a statement’, Artnet News, 12 May, viewed 2 September 2022, <https://news.artnet.com/art-world/kim-kardashian-marilyn-monroe-dress-2113907#:~:text = Kim%20Kardashian%20attends%20The%202022,guidelines%20on%20handling%20historic%20garments>.
   Google Scholar
• Althaus C 2020, ‘Different paradigms of evidence and knowledge: recognising, honouring and celebrating indigenous ways of knowing and being’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 79, pp. 187–207, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8500.12400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashley-Smith J 2000, ‘Developing professional uncertainty’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 14–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley-Smith J 2017, ‘A role for bespoke codes of ethics’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM committee for conservation, 18th triennial conference, 4–8 September 2017 Copenhagen, International Council of Museums, Paris, viewed 28 July 2023, <https://openheritagescienceblog.files. wordpress.com/2017/09/1901_4_ ashleysmith_icomcc_2017.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material 2002, ‘Code of ethics and code of practice’, AICCM, viewed 6 January 2023, <https://aiccm.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CODE-OF-ETHICS-AND-CODE-OF-PRACTICE-Australian-Institute-for-Conservation-of-Cultural-Material.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material 2010, ‘AICCM history’, AICCM, viewed 12 June 2023, <https://aiccm.org.au/about/aiccm-history/>.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material 2020, ‘AICCM strategic plan 2020–2025’, AICCM, viewed 1 January 2023, <https://aiccm.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AICCM-Strategic-Plan-2020-2025.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Conservation of Cultural Material 2022, ‘The AICCM 50th anniversary volume: call for papers: cultural materials conservation: self, systems and society’, AICCM, viewed 12 June 2023, <https://aiccm.org.au/publications/aiccm-bulletin/>.
   Google Scholar
• Avrami, E, Mason, R, Macdonald, S & Myers, D 2019, Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Balsiger P & Lambelet A 2014, ‘Participant observation’, in D Porta (ed.), Methodological practices in social movement research, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 144–172.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield T 2023, ‘Considering the impacts of colonization trauma when exhibiting indigenous cultures in museums’, in N Owczarek (ed.), Prioritizing people in ethical decision-making and caring for cultural heritage collections, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 55–64.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V & Clarke V 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 77–101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne S, Clarke A, Harrison R & Torrence R 2011, ‘Networks, agents and objects: frameworks for unpacking museum collections’, in S Byrne, A Clarke, R Harrison & R Torrence (eds.), Unpacking the collection: networks of material and social agency in the museum, Springer, New York, pp. 3–26.
   Google Scholar
• Castriota, B 2021, ‘Instantiation, actualization, and absence: The continuation and safeguarding of Katie Paterson’s Future Library (2014–2114)’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, vol. 60, no. 2-3, pp. 145–160. DOI: 10.1080/01971360.2021.1977058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavir M 1998, ‘The social and historic construction of professional values in conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–8, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.1998.12068815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavir M 2002, Preserving what is valued: museums, conservation, and first nations, UBC Museum of Anthropology Research Publication, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Clifford J 1997, Routes: travel and translation in the late 20th century, Harvard University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Coskun M 2018, ‘Beyond safeguarding measures, or a tale of strange bedfellows’, in N Akagawa & L Smith (eds.), Safeguarding intangible heritage: practices and politics, Routledge, London, pp. 218–231, DOI: 10.4324/9780429507137-14.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Australasian Museum Directors 2022, ‘ICOM apology prompted by Māori curator 26 May’, viewed 2 September 2022, <https://camd.org.au/icom-apology-prompted-by-maori-curator/>.
   Google Scholar
• Damasio A 1999, The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness, Harcourt Brace, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin NK & Lincoln YS 2017, The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis C, Adams T & Bochner A 2010, ‘Autoethnography: an overview’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 273–290, <http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108>.
   Google Scholar
• Fekrsanati F & Marçal H 2022, ‘Affirming change in participatory practices of cultural conservation’, in C Rausch, R Benschop, E Sitzia & V van Saaze (eds.), Participatory practices in art and cultural heritage. Studies in art, heritage, law and the market, vol. 5, Springer, Cham, pp. 127–141, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-05694-9_10.
   Google Scholar
• Finlay L 2002, ‘Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’, Qualitative Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 209–230, DOI: 10.1177/146879410200200205.
   Google Scholar
• Gfeller A 2017, ‘The authenticity of heritage: global norm-making at the crossroads of cultures’, The American Historical Review, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 758–791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosden C, Larson F & Petch A 2007, Knowing things: exploring the collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum, 1884–1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Groth C 2015, ‘Emotions in risk assessment and decision making processes during craft practice’, Journal of Research Practice, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway D 2008, When species meet, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway D 2016, Staying with the trouble: making Kin in the Chthulucene, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
   Google Scholar
• Harman G 2016, Immaterialism, Polity Press, Malden, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson J 2018, ‘Managing uncertainty for preservation conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 108–112, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2018.1479936.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson J, Lingle A & Parkes P 2023, ‘Reflexive autoethnography’: subjectivity, emotion and multiple perspectives in conservation decision making’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM-Committee for conservation 20th triennial conference preprints working towards a sustainable past., Valencia, 18–22 September 2023, International Council of Museums, Paris, pp. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson J & Nakamoto T 2016, ‘Dialogue in conservation decision-making’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 67–78, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1183106.
   Google Scholar
• Hölling H 2017a, ‘Lost to museums? Changing media, their worlds, and performance’, Museum History Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 97–111, DOI: 10.1080/19369816.2017.1257873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölling H 2017b, ‘The technique of conservation: on realms of theory and cultures of practice’, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 87–96, DOI: 10.1080/19455224.2017.1322114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölling H 2017c, Paik’s virtual archive: time, change and materiality in media art, Oakland University of California Press, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold T 2015, The life of lines, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• International Council of Museums 2022, ‘ICOM approves a new museum definition’, ICOM website, 24 August, viewed 28 July 2023, <https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-approves-a-new-museum-definition/>.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston M 2006, ‘The lamp and the mirror: action research and self-studies in the social studies’, in KC Burton (ed.), Research methods in social studies education: contemporary issues and perspectives, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp. 57–83.
   Google Scholar
• Latkowski M 2021, ‘Remote qualitative interviews. A contributions towards the analysis of remediation’, Journal of Education Culture and Society, no. 1, pp. 202–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurenson P 2008, ‘Authenticity, change and loss in the conservation of time-based media installations’, in J Schachter & S Brockmann (eds.), (Im) permanence: cultures in/out of time, Center for the Arts in Society, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, pp. 150–164.
   Google Scholar
• Lizzo 2022, ‘Nobody has ever heard the crystal flute before 28 September’, Twitter Post, viewed on 10 October 2022, <https://twitter.com/lizzo/status/1575003731640274944?ref_src = twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1575003731640274944%7Ctwgr%5Ed34d2a4cf53c88b97354369fb9e4f2dadd750c2d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url = https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2022%2F09%2F28%2F1125564856%2Flizzo-james-madison-crystal-flute-concert>.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal H & Gordon R 2023, ‘Affirming future(s): towards a posthumanist conservation in practice’, in C Daigle & M Hayler (eds.), Posthumanism in practice, Bloomsbury Academic, London, pp. 165–178.
   Google Scholar
• Marçal H, Macedo R & Pereira A 2014, ‘The inevitable subjective nature of conservation: psychological insights on the process of decision-making’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM committee for conservation 17th triennial conference preprints, Melbourne, 15–19 September 2014, International Council of Museums, Paris, art. 1904, 8 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Viñas S 2005, Contemporary theory of conservation, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy C 2020, ‘Physical object or variable, flexible, ephemeral and reproducible: the management and care of contemporary art collections in 2020’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 45–51, DOI: 10.1080/10344233.2020.1788880.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy C & Treacy A 2018, ‘Drawings you can walk on – Mike Parr and the 20th Biennale of Sydney 2016’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 76–85, DOI: 10.1080/10344233.2018.1507504.
   Google Scholar
• Museums are not Neutral 2017, ‘Homepage: museums are not neutral’, viewed 6 January 2023, <https://www.museumsarenotneutral.com/>.
   Google Scholar
• Owczarek N 2023, Prioritizing people in ethical decision-making and caring for cultural heritage collections, Routledge, Oxon.
   Google Scholar
• Pearlstein E 2017, ‘Conserving ourselves: embedding significance into conservation decision-making in graduate education’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 435–444, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1210843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips J 2012, ‘Shifting equipment significance in time-based media artworks’, EMG Review, vol. 1, pp. 139–154.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips L & Zavros-Orr A 2012, ‘Researchers as participants, participants as researchers: ethics, epistemologies, and methods’, in W Midgley, P Danajer & M Baguley (eds.), The role of participants in education research: ethics, epistemologies, and methods, Routledge, New York, pp. 52–63.
   Google Scholar
• Pienkowski T, Kiik L, Catalano A, Hazenbosch M, Izquierdo-Tort S, Khanyari M, Kutty R, Martins C, Nash F, Saif O & Sandbrook C 2023, ‘Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners’, Conservation Biology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1–12, DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt ML 1992, Imperial eyes: travel writing and transculturation, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Pye E & Sully D 2007, ‘Evolving challenges, developing skills’, The Conservator, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 19–37, DOI: 10.1080/01410096.2007.9995221.
   Google Scholar
• Richmond A & Bracker A 2009, Conservation: principles, dilemmas and uncomfortable truths, Butterworth Heinemann in Association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
   Google Scholar
• Rowlands J 2021, ‘Interviewee transcript review as a tool to improve data quality and participant confidence in sensitive research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 20, pp. 1–11, DOI: 10.1177/16094069211066170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott M 2015, ‘Normal and extraordinary conservation knowledge: towards a post-normal theory of cultural materials conservation’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–12, DOI: 10.1179/0313538115Y.0000000002.
   Google Scholar
• Sherring A, Bloomfield T, Barrett M, Stoddart M, McLennan C, Bleechmore H, Redman C & Waters I 2023, ‘Interview transcript of a semi-structured interview with six conservation professionals’, in Embracing humanness in cultural materials conservation: a roundtable discussion with conservation professionals on ethics, values and the future, Figshare Online Resource, DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.24708237.v2.
   Google Scholar
• Sherring A, Cruz M & Tse N 2021, ‘Exploring the outlands: a case-study on the conservation installation and artist interview of David Haines’ and Joyce Hinterding’s time-based art installation’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 13–25, DOI: 10.1080/10344233.2021.1982540.
   Google Scholar
• Sherring A, Murphy C & Catt L 2018, ‘What is the object? Identifying and describing time-based artworks’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 86–95, DOI: 10.1080/10344233.2018.1544341.
   Google Scholar
• Sloggett R 2009, ‘Expanding the conservation canon: assessing cross-cultural and interdisciplinary collaborations in conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 170–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloggett R & Wain A 2020, ‘Cultural materials conservation in Australia: critical reflections and key issues in the twenty-first century’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–2, DOI: 10.1080/10344233.2020.1831826.
   Google Scholar
• Smith L 2006, Uses of heritage, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Smith J 2020, ‘Information in crisis: analysing the future roles of public libraries during and post-COVID-19’, Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 22–429, DOI: 10.1080/24750158.2020.1840719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigter S 2016, ‘Autoethnography as a new approach in conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 227–232, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1183104.
   Google Scholar
• Sweetnam E & Henderson J 2022, ‘Disruptive conservation: challenging conservation orthodoxy’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 67, no. 1-2, pp. 63–71, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2021.1947073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor C 1989, Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity, Harvard University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• The Uluru Statement from the Heart 2022, ‘Website homepage: history is calling’, viewed 15 December 2022, <https://ulurustatement.org/>.
   Google Scholar
• The Value 2020, ‘#BlackOutTuesday: the art world posts black squares on social media to show support’, The Value, 3 June, viewed 7 October 2022, <https://en.thevalue.com/articles/blackouttuesday-george-floyd-art-industry-museum-auction-house>.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Vall R 2009, ‘Towards a theory and ethics for the conservation of contemporary art’, in Art D’Aujourd’Hui—Patrimoine de Demain Conservation et Restauration des Oeuvres Contemporaines, 13es journées d’études de la SFIIC, Institut National du Patrimoine, Paris, pp. 51–56, viewed 30 July 2023, <https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/ publications/towards-a-theory-and-ethics-for-the- conservation-of-contemporary->.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Vall R, Holling H, Scholte T & Stigter S 2011, ‘Reflections on a biographical approach to contemporary art conservation’, in J Bridgland (ed.), ICOM committee for conservation 16th triennial conference preprints, Lisbon, 19–23 September 2011, Critério, Almada, pp. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Van Saaze V 2009, ‘Doing artworks. An ethnographic account of the acquisition and conservation of no ghost just a shell’, Krisis, vol. 1, pp. 20–32, <http://www.krisis.eu/content/2009-1/2009-1-03-saaze.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Wain, A 2011, ‘Values and significance in conservation practice’, in Proceedings of the AICCM national conference, Canberra: 19–21 October 2011, viewed 19 December 2022, <https://aiccm.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WAIN_NatConf2011.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Wain A & Sherring A 2020, ‘Changeability, variability, and malleability: sharing perspectives on the role of change in time-based art and utilitarian machinery conservation’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 449–462, DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2020.1860672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, W 2022, ‘Authenticity and originality, Objectivity and subjectivity in conservation decision-making – or is it just a matter of taste?’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 67, no. 1-2, pp. 15–20. DOI: 10.1080/00393630.2021.1940796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wharton G 2008, ‘Dynamics of participatory conservation: the Kamehameha I sculpture project’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 159–173, DOI: 10.1179/019713608804539592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wharton G 2018, ‘Bespoke ethics and moral casuistry in the conservation of contemporary art’, Journal of the Institute of Conservation, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 58–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar