|
|
I have come to dislike the term paper conservator. So much
more is involved. Of course one must have an understanding
of the components and the chemistry of paper in order to
proceed successfully with a treatment. However, there is ink
and watercolor and graphite and a whole gamut of graphic
materials to be conserved as well. There are platemarks and
blind marks and underdrawings which may require
consideration. There is the art object as an aesthetic
entity which at the end of the treatment must be integrated
and please the eye. Finally there is the artistic intent and
cultural context which comes with an object whether it is
fifty or hundreds of years old. One would be fortunate if
paper were the only consideration. The task would be so much
simpler.
When choosing treatment options my inclination is to start
first with that which is least intrusive. One watches the
piece as it responds to the procedure and the conservator is
informed as to the limitations and variables present in the
object. Move slowly, observe, then move slowly again.
Art is created in a studio and that seems like a good place
for it to be conserved. Modern analytical equipment and
techniques have provided many fascinating insights into the
structures and materials of artwork. Binocular magnification
is a major blessing. However, in the end it is the eye and
the judgment and the skill in the hand which are most
important. Clever apparatus and powerful reagents are of
little use when misapplied or remove evidence of use or
intention. My training and subsequent research have resulted
in a tendency to stress connoisseurship, theory and
traditional approaches and to move slowly in regard to
adopting the latest technological innovation. Most treatment
procedures have the capacity to produce both negative and
positive results. How these factors are balanced weighs
heavily in determining the success of the treatment.
- Mark Stevenson |
|
