Brahmoism

Page move

Hiya, I see the page is getting moved around a bit. I have no preference on page title, but as a suggestion on wiki-procedures, please be aware that if a move is controversial, it should be proposed first at the talkpage. If there is disagreement, it should be listed at Requested page moves, and then let an uninvolved third party make the decision on whether or not there is consensus for the move. Thanks, --Elonka 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Perhaps I was a bit rash in moving this back --Richard McCoy (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has been moved again! I can see how the title Art Conservation doesn't appear to encompass all conservation related professions. However, when there is a seperate page for restoration, it seems unnecessary to hyphenate this page as conservation-restoration. Perhaps the two can be renamed as Conservation (art) and Conservation (restoration)?

I believe the article does a good job at further identifying the various specializations, many of which may fall outside the realm of "fine art." If you do a search on google, just using the words "conservation restoration," you will get a page that has some links to the type of conservation/restoration we are discussing here; however, you will also get a number of links for plant, water and nature conservation. Similarly, if you do a search for "art conservation restoration," you will see a page that only brings up links to the conservation of art, paintings, objects, cultural heritage, and etc. I think this shows why we need to have something more definitive for a title. Would something like Conservation (art and artifacts) be more descriptive?

I'm just throwing out ideas to get some discussion going. I think we should post this at Requested page moves if an agreement isn't reached soon, or if users keep changing the name without discussion. --CristaPack (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I've moved this topic up to the top because I think it's currently the most important question regarding this article.

I agree with CristaPack that it is important to recognize how Google searches relate to how we understand and define conservation.

While my first reaction was that the article should remain "Art conservation" and not "Conservation-restoration," but I'm not so sure anymore. I think that the definition of this profession is still in need of thought and discussion -- more opinions, other thoughts, etc.

Clearly, there is a semantic, practical, and even an etymological difference between the US understanding and definition of conservation and restoration and internationally. It is a difficult thing to write a definition in English (which in many ways is a universal language) that encompasses all of the other permutations and nuances of the profession throughout the world. This is a challenge, and one that we should not back away from.

If this article is to remain as it is titled now, then work needs to be done on the other articles that link here that are referencing it as "Art conservation."

I'm most interested in Lmspfs' rational and thoughts on this because this person has changed the title.

--Richard McCoy (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, making a decision as to the title of this article is important. It is a shame you can't simply allow disambiguations on wikipedia and just call it conservation.

• I actually like the "conservation-restoration" idea, but worry it is going to be confusing for an american audience.
• I never liked "art conservation" as a term, as its way to restrictive... not all cultural heritage is art, after all. It is also not a term that is used in England other than for the conservation of painted works of art, and such like. I do not call myself an art conservation, although that does not mean I have not conserved works of art. Just to confuse things!
• I say we leave it as it is "conservation-restoration" and work on tightening up the definitions to be more broadly applicable, and also work on the history section, to incorporate more of a narrative than a list of people (now we have the beginnings of a list, from which some bio's have been added). We can then add more people into the narrative, in the hope that soon their bios will be added too.
• It appears that Lmspfs is unlikely to respond, having not commented on the talk pages. --Daniel Cull (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Were people aware that there is this page as well to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiques_restoration --Daniel Cull (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

One can not say that the opposite of art restoration is art destruction when restoration is not, in fact, bringing the orignal art work back or saving it. It simply invents a new version, a close approximation, of the original or how we imagine the orignal once was. One of the great writers in the field, John Ruskin, (The Seven Lamps of Architecture,1886) called restoration the ultimate destruction. Preservation and conservation, at their core, are closer to an opposite of destruction. Spunth 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is in the beginning stages and needs a lot of work. This is a fairly complex field, one that is charged with the care of cultural property. Ricardisimo 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

In fact 100 years after Ruskin's book are passed, and the people who don't work in the field, talk more and more. Please come in any institute for art conservation and talk with some Professional C-Restorer.

Our work is changed in the last 20 year, new method, new product, new scentific diagnostic method are introduced in the practice of the field; to respect not only the original skin of the object but every kind of sign of the time (called "Patina")that we found on surface. Rob_cons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.30.35 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

** I have undone the edits that moved this article to art conservation-restoration and changed its definition. "Lmfsps," who doesn't have a user or talk page nor a record of previous edits, moved this article to a hyphenated article without much of a rational and without a discussion here. According to the edit summary, this "minor edit" was because " Conservation is not just about art, but also about utilitary objects. The conservation object is defined by its value, not necessarily an artistic one. Conservation-restoration is t)"

Not only is this an incomplete thought, it does not seem to take into account the above discussion and the more nuanced discussions below. As some may remember, this article used to be called "Art conservation and restoration," but was split because these are actually two different concepts. I don't think this is a strong enough rational to yet move the article again. Perhaps Lmfsps could provide a more detailed discussion and rational for this move. Or others could weigh in. Changing the name and definition of this article is not a minor edit and needs discussion.

What I think needs to be done is more work on the article for Art restoration so that we can better understand how it relates to this topic; this information could also be worked into this text. Having them together as a hyphenated article just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that there should be an article for the "Silver-sugar maple tree," because they are so closely related. But they are simply different trees and have separate articles (their scientific classification are identical down to Family).

Second of all, I strongly disagree with the changing of the definition of art conservation from a "profession" to a "discipline." What is the rational for that?

I was interested to see the addition of Ruskin, Brandi, and le Duc.

--Richard McCoy (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit fast to react to this ... Perhaps there is a good reason to revisit this thought. I hope my above comments didn't come off to strong. Is there a bigger umbrella under which art conservation and restoration can fit?

Certainly someone has to have written about this issue. --Richard McCoy (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rushkin, Brandi, etc... brilliant additions, we need more like this... however, we really need to turn the history section into an encyclopedic section and not a list... see discussion elsewhere. Perhaps some of this would go in the history of restoration, rather than conservation... i.e., if we accept that conservation grew out of a much longer running profession of restoration, that still continues today (and that are now somewhat entwined).
• I do not know the rationale for why it was changed, however, to add to the incomplete thought suggested above. The wikipedian is correct to say that Conservation is about more than "Art".... however then we get into the issue of how we define art? I also have had a problem with the phrase "Art Conservation" from the start... however it does appear to be the main phrase used in the US, and so was happy to let it slide for the greater good... however, I would eventually like the issue to be discussed within the page.
• Conservation-Restoration IS a profession, and should be stated as such... this can easily be shown through links to ECCO and the PACR (professional accredited conservation-restorer). So there is no question there. It is of course also a discipline, but thats another story.
• Restoration and Conservation??? I think that they should be separate pages, as they are both interesting in their own right, to link them onto one page undermines them both in terms of their warranting separate pages. many people have written about these issues, when I have time I will find references, etc.
• They should be linked under an umbrella page, how to do that, is a different question?? --Daniel Cull (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

• Okay, I've started a major overhaul of this page. The first thing I did was seperate conservation and restoration into seperate articles. The rest was just minor stuff.

Next, there needs to be a better description of the profession and then move beyond that.

I'd love to see a better picture of a conservation lab then the one currently used ...

RichardMcCoy 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

I've done a little more. My thought is that this article should be about the broad topic of conservation and include all specialities of conservation. Individual articles could be made about the specialities at some point. For sake of ease, I've used the AIC's speciality categories.

Check out a few other articles related to conservation: Preservation (as related to library science): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation_%28library_and_archival_science%29

Media preservation

02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

I added some more sub categories to specialization and then added a conservation materials section. RichardMcCoy 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

Dang .... nice work, Sam Bellamy! RichardMcCoy 03:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Sam Bellamy is Dan, by the way. I was thinking we really need to find a source for images. I love the CoL addition to the ethics section. Anyone know how to get rid of the 'too many external links' thing? I don't think its too many... it was in my first edit (I got a little carried away and put everything as external). It would be cool to have one of those BT/AT type images. I was also thinking we could have a section on "controversies" there is a good write up of one if you wiki 'Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes'. --Sam Bellamy (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

Nice work, folks! I made some posts on some Facebook groups that are associated with conservation. Who knows, maybe that will get more computer-minded folks involved. I've removed the external links label that Sam/Dan commented on (find out here how to remove it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_external_links_cleanup ).

I'm glad to see another picure on the article, but we still need a good one for a lab ... but it's hard to say what would represent all of art conservation. Maybe we should just remove the current picture, because it's really not describing anything. Yeah, I think I'm going to remove it.

I think we should look at CoOL to see what could be incorporated here.

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/

Thanks, Walter for bringing the ethics business over here.

RichardMcCoy 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

Note, it's my thought that folks should use their real names when editing. But just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned up some text, and then added section that allowed me to talk about the Heritage Health Index for the US. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to include, but I argue that it's a good model for other countries to look at, this taking an index of the 'health' of a country's heritage.

I'll try and add some text to the External links next.

RichardMcCoy 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

Richard McCoy, excellent idea about the Heritage Health Index, and the "Country by country look" there are definitely some interesting things I could include in the UK section, such as 'Renaissance in the regions'. I'll get on that asap.

Also, about the reformatting of the US courses... I think it works better that way, nice one! I think I should go through and reference the UK courses as you have done for the US.

One thing - footnote 6... it just says insert footnote here.. can you add in the footnote you preferred. It's for NYU.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

Picture

I think it would be useful to have a different picture of a conservation lab that shows more of the equipment used (and perhaps a conservator in action!)...or at least a lab that is cited so it is clear what the picture is of. Photos of conserved works would also be great. CristaPack (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We need more pic's that are more representative of the wider field of conservation. We have one archaeological one - whoever found that well done! But we need to find more... I think we need a good shot of someone working in a lab [looking through microscope is usually a good image] a good BT/AT type shot - I always love these on paintings (as its so obvious the work that was done)... Anyone want to add any images they don't have copyright issues with. Ron yours are already online... could you add some of yours - I don't remember the copyright you had? --Daniel Cull (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so I was thinking there seems to have been little response to the copyright free image, bar the one on the site already... well done whoever found that, I was wondering if we'd be able to convince anyone to share some images under this license, thoughts anyone? --Daniel Cull (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

Something needs to be done about the external links. There are just too many that don't really add up ...

Anybody know of any artworks that have articles that mention conservation work? I can't think of any ...

RichardMcCoy 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree... the external links are superfluous in a lot of ways.

• There are a bunch of conservation associations, which could simply be moved to their appropriate place.
• Things like the lunder center shouldn't be there at all (why one SI lab over every lab in the world??)
• Things like COoL should be more significant.
• Some of the others are links to online examples of conservation (or similar) and could be included within the text of the article and then be in the references section instead of the external links.

I will begin doing some changes, and see how it goes.

ps.. Sorry, RM but SB is my internet name, and has been for many years, and will remain so. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet" :)

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

I was just thinking amongst those external links there are a few that could be kept as they are useful... such as CCI, DCOM, these are international conservation institutes... I was wondering if we could have a section after associations that could include these? Just thinking out loud for now.

• The external links should have some actual relevant function.
• I was thinking we could break down the external links into useful sections - (bear with me I'm still thinking this through) but something like:

• History of Conservation
• Scholarly Journals.
• News
• Conservation Materials and Suppliers.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

So I edited it in the way I thought... I hid the other links, but didn't remove them... I don't know what a couple of them are, or why they might be there? Anyways... what do you'll think. --Sam Bellamy (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

• So I started with the ass'ions. and org's. as a separate list. We should turn the schools into a list as well.

--Daniel Cull (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam Bellamy you are a wizard. RichardMcCoy 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

• If Ron Barbagallo's link to his personal web page is to stay then it should be properly located. It does not seem to be in the general category of conservation resources, but is better suited to its speciality so I made it it's own heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• In Re: above comment..... Where did that link, and that section go? And more to the point why? It looks like it was auto removed... anyway to put it back, and not have it auto removed? --Daniel Cull (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, I made an effort find a more appropriate place for this link, however, according to the aticle's history, HaeB removed the section entirely, citing that the "linked page is a biography of a particular person, not about this article's subject in general". -- Richard McCoy (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah well it appears to be back now... this could get silly, add it in, it gets removed, repeat. --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Countries

So I altered UK to look like the US Section. I think it works better. Will do the other countrues too asap. Also, I put in a ref for NYU... hope thats OK. --Sam Bellamy (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cull (talk • contribs)

Links

I am not sure who put the links I hid back...anyone?... but the sections looked weird, so I removed the US links under "external links" and put the link in resources... as it seemed wrong to be having a country by country breakdown, as we've been putting country specific links in the other sections... and I can't see the point in duplication? Thoughts?

As I said in a comment earlier I hid the links before as I'd never heard of them, and wanted to read through them and see where they best fitted... it seems to me the DOCAM clearly can go in resources... so thats cool.

However, the animation one seems to be a website for a private conservator(?) and they haven't commented on the discussion so I am not sure why it's there? The site itself includes some good BT/AT stuff and some articles, etc, but is not really relevant to conservation around the world. I haven't hidden it, so its easier to find, but, I am not sure if it should be in the external links, otherwise we would have to include every conservator in the English speaking world, which seems a little daft. We'd have millions of links.

My suggestion would be to have a "Conservation of Animation Art" link to a stub page on wiki, and to have this as a link off of there... I however cannot write it, as it's not my area of expertise.

By the way I have changed my handle from SB to my real name.

--Daniel Cull (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd love to see a Wikipedia article on the Conservation of Animation Art. It could be linked to this one. RichardMcCoy 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) RichardMcCoy (talk · contribs)

Cleanup

This is an important topic, but right now this article seems to be being used as a bit of a dumping ground for a lot of information. I appreciate that some work is being done already, but more is needed. Some of the info here is good, some seems to be promoting different schools, and some seems to be just trivia which can be pulled. The core policy here is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Another is Verifiability, in that anything in this article should be backed up by sources, preferably reliable secondary sources. I recommend that we:

• Cull down the list of external links
• Remove the long lists of schools with art programs, unless we want to make a separate List of art schools or something
• Merge art restoration back into this article (why was it removed?)
• Ensure that everything here is backed up with sources

Thanks, Elonka 21:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, Elonka.

• Art restoration was removed because it is completely different from art conservation. Having them together would be similar to having an article about dogs and cats because they are both house pets.
• Perhaps a separate article could be made about training for art conservation. The listing of th e schools is important as each has its own history and methodology which relates to the initial skill that a conservator gathers.
• More sources do need to be added, and the external links need to be justified to fit the criteria.
• A proper category needs to be understood for Art conservation because it often gets confused with 'conservation,' which generally means the conservation of nature. Whereas Art conservation deals primarily with art & architecture.

RichardMcCoy 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)

I would say it is vitally important to keep the list of conservation schools... until I did the research to make that list, I had no idea there was more than one school in Canada (clearly neither did the people who'd originally made the list) also I did not realise there was so many schools in the UK (and I trained there) they all have there own approach, ideas, speciality and it is vital that people be able to see them all to get a grasp of the variety.... What I think we need to do is add more that the section in terms of description (with references) to discuss the idea of training in conservation... Then if it begins to look like its approaching a decent sized block of info, then we could split it into a new page.

--Daniel Cull (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:NOT and WP:LISTS, I have to agree with Elonka and say that I think we should consider creating a separate list for art conservation schools, simply because it is beginning to dwarf the rest of the page. Between the areas of specialization and various schools, we are starting to have one giant list as opposed to an article about what art conservation is for the general public. Daniel, I am in 100% agreement with you that people should see them all, with descriptions, to grasp the variety...which is why I think it should just become a separate article because it begins to focus more on the schools and training as opposed to the practice of art conservation.

Also, I agree art restoration should be kept as a separate article, but I no longer see it mentioned or linked to within this article. While the two are different fields, my understanding is that conservation grew out of and split off from restoration. Perhaps a section pertaining to the history of the field would be useful to describe this and outline the differences? I would be willing to start on this if no one has any objections.

--CristaPack (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi CristaPack, welcome to Wikipedia, and yes, please proceed. :) --Elonka 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Weird! Restoration should be in there linked.... although its a little more complicated than the story you suggest. Whilst conservation grew out of the 'restoration discipline', restoration is also a school of thought and philosophy that would "restore" an object to some presumed "authentic" state.... one of the ideas that grew within the conservation field (as it now is) was the re/questioning of the nature of "authenticity" and whether or not there was, or could ever be, an authentic past... and this provides a theoretical discourse between conservation and restoration over and above the concepts of methodology.

However, a field about history was in my original suggested sections, so that'd be good... also within that we could reference the first conservation book.... and I would guess the author has a page (but it may be in German) I'll see what I can find when I have a bit more time.

I am all fine with a separate page on schools... Its just there are not that many of us editing this page, and I thought we should try our best to walk before we ran... we've hardly started filling out the details and putting in references yet. There's only so many pages we can work on at one... and I felt it we started a page as a list, we'd really need to put a lot more background on it before it was actually useful to the reader.... but, I'm cool with you doing that... so go ahead make it a list. You don't need anyones permission! :::--Daniel Cull (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend adding a section at List of art schools. --Elonka 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But outside of a couple of schools the majority of conservation schools have NO relationship at all to art schools - or a limited relationship at most. It's a much wider field when we remember it deals with architecture, anthropology, monuments, landscapes, etc. It really will require a separate list. And if art schools has a list, there is really no reason that conservation cannot also - I think I will make a list, in the same way as for Professional organisations on a separate page.--Daniel Cull (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Art restoration

I think that Art restoration may be splittable eventually, but right now it's really orphaned, on its own page with no sources whatsoever. If some sources can be added to the article, good, otherwise it should probably be brought back here until it's "grown up" enough to have its own page. I'll start other sections on some of the other comments, to try and keep the threads coherent... --Elonka 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I see that as a totally separate task and bringing Art restoration back here is just going to make more trouble on Art conservation. Why bring restoration back into this article if for no other reason than the article for Art restoration isn't very good?

RichardMcCoy 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay on keeping it as a separate article, if some sources can be added to it. Otherwise what it looks like is a "POV fork", which is against guidelines. See WP:POVFORK. --Elonka 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're okay keeping Art restoration a separate article. These two topics are not the same subject. Again, there's no reason to bring something to this article just because it lacks links. Perhaps you could point to some work that could be done on that article to make it acceptable. RichardMcCoy 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources. The section was taken out of an article that did have sources, and plopped onto a page without any sources. If some of the sources at Art conservation are applicable, they should be copied over to the new Art restoration article, but it shouldn't just be left there, shivering and sourceless.  :) --Elonka 03:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Art Restoration needs a separate page... however I think we should also improve on that page whilst we are working on this one. At the least we should copy some of the relevant links/references over. However my interest is not so much making millions of wiki pages as working with all of you to make this page look good, and also be a useful tool for conservators, students, and the lay person... I think we are off to a good start, but there is of course lots more still to do! --Daniel Cull (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

New category

Right now this article is in Category:Conservation, but as was mentioned above, that's not really appropriate, since that applies more towards nature conservation. So would an "Art conservation" category be more appropriate? Or something more general to go into the "Art history" category? --Elonka 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a new category of Art conservation is the right way to go. It's a constant frustration for art conservators to be confused with conservationists. I think the museology categorization is correct, but I'm not sure about art history ... -- Richard McCoy (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree completely! The conservation of Heritage whether it is Art or Environment should be seen as part of the same thing.
• "Heritage Conservation" one is Cultural Heritage the other Ecological or Environmental Heritage - this is especially true when we consider the conservation of Monuments, Sites and Places - as the local ecology can play a significant part in conservation decisions, as well as being a significant influence within stakeholder analysis, and with possible "dual conservation solutions" you just have to look at Stonehenge as a case study...and when looking at ethnographic conservation when wanting to consider holistic conservation solutions in the local community..
• Having said that I'd be even more opposed to it going into Art History, I'd agree that Museology would be a closer fit.... but... We have to remember not all "Art conservation" takes place in a museum or a lab! Therefore if its going to be split it should have its own category.

Yours hoping that no-one will split these. Although if they do I wont go around switching the back all the time. --Daniel Cull (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage etiquette

I just did an overhaul of the talkpage to make it a bit easier to follow. For future comments:

• Please add new messages below what you are replying to
• Please sign with your actual account name, with four tildes: ~~~~
• Please ensure that your signature links to your userpage (let me know if you're having trouble with that)
• Start new sections for new threads

Thanks, Elonka 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Elonka,

Thanks for re-organising the talk section, makes it a lot easier... Job well done!

--Daniel Cull (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, may I recommend that you add your sig at the end of your last line? Putting it two lines down is often a mark of a very new editor, who is "signing" a post like they are "signing" a letter. But here on Wikipedia, the custom is to keep things more condensed, for ease of reading. Thanks, Elonka 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Post at Editor Assistance

Ron Barbagallo has stated that he disagrees about what has been done to this article recently. I include his request for editorial assistance because it discusses my decision for removing Art restoration from this article and my decision to remove his personal web page from the Resources for Conservation Professionals section in the External Links. I think these are important points that should be considered as we move forward on this article so I quote them here in entirety:

Below post copied from WP:EA

== Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_conservation ==

Hello:

I was wondering how I can go about contacting someone who has significant knowledge about Wikipedia and in particular in regard to this posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_conservation

Very recently, a group of conservators who represent a limited part of the field have decided to alter this page to skew it to their particular point of view. They have removed, rather than reorganized the information, and even though Art Conservation is not a Not for Profit Business, they are biased against those who are in Private Practice. They've also removed the restoration page and greatly reduced its presense.

Is there someone I can talk to who is a Wikipedia editor? Someone with greater knowledge than I about what can be listed or not listed on a Wikipedia page.

My thanks in advance for you help.

Ron Barbagallo

RonBarba@aol.com

Director, AnimationArtConservation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs)

I too think that this article could clearly benefit from a lot more assistance, editorial or otherwise; but as a side note I would like to state that the work I've done here and will do here only represents myself. I am not part of any group, small or otherwise. A lot of people have worked on this article over the past 7 years. It is my effort to ground my decisions on the policies of Wikipedia, the published literature (in book form or otherwise) around the topic of conservation, and of course, my understanding of what Art conservation is in a holistic sense.

I would also like to state that I do not believe I am biased in any way against conservators in private practice. Of course, there probably could be an article about conservators in private practice that would better state what CIPP is all about.

See below above for a discussion on the rational for removing Art restoration from Art conservation. Clearly that article needs work, too. I know Elonka has had some good suggestions on how to clean that article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) June 14, 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Ron B maybe upset that his link was removed... but I agree it is not relevant to THIS article... it is however RELEVANT and could be included in

• An article on Conservators in Private Practice [there really should be an article on that... seeing as I believe they are probably higher in number than conservators in museum (at a guess)]
• An article on the conservation of animation art - RonB is clearly an expert in that... and it would be great if he had the time to start an article on that.

I would but, I would essentially be copying a lot of his work - and I'd rather he decided what was most significant.

If we all made articles on our respective areas of expertise (as I intend to do asap) then the Art Conservation page would be basically a first point of call.... it would be great for wikipedia to be actually like an encyclopedia of all the conservation fields... I think that would be an exciting project! --Daniel Cull (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I think we need to have a discussion about the potential for a Conflict of Interest in this article. The only conflict that has arisen so far has been Ron Barbagallo's suggestion that myself or some "group" is purposefully trying to exclude his viewpoint. There has been some activity recently on this article by a number of different people, but it seems this activity is mostly aimed at improving the article in general.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how we can get through this COI?

Thanks -- Richard McCoy (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are that all three of the primary editors, are working in the field. One of which, Ron Barbagallo, has raised the concern that there is a professional dispute between the "Conservation" and "Restoration" crowd, which is why the Art restoration article was moved off to a separate unsourced page. I am also concerned by the excessive amount of detail in this Art conservation article. It's not encyclopedic, and is not targeted towards a general audience. If there were multiple editors working on this article, we might ban the professionals from editing the page, and then let other non-professionals work on it, while listening to comments from the professionals. Since professionals are the only key editors though, that would be unreasonable (in my opinion) to ban them from editing. So the best way to deal with things for now is to tag the article as potentially COI, and let folks work on it. Once both articles are further expanded, and have arrived at a more neutral and cleaned-up state, we can look into removing the tag. --Elonka 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see any primary editors on this article, and am not aware of any editing that Ron Barbagallo has done besides adding his company's web page and maybe a few other links in this article (on a side note, though I did not appreciate the accusatory tone in which Ron Barbagallo to against me in asking for editorial assistance, I think that having an editor look at this article has been very helpful). Heck, it would probably good to have multiple editors look at it.

True, it appears that Daniel Cull and I have been principals trying to work on this article for the past couple of weeks, but a few others have chipped in. I have been advertising within the field to try and get other folks interested in improving it. Elonka, if you have ways to bring other knowledgeable editors to this article, by all means do it! It would be a dream if there were a whole band of editors working on this page and all the conservators had to do would be hang around and be banned while making comments. I suspect that this will not happen anytime soon, though.

I agree with Daniel's comments below in that as the article stands now it is only but a draft of what it can be. I'm not sure why it is concerning that the article has detail in it (but perhaps this is because conservators tend to the detailed -- it's what we do).

I've laid out my thoughts on why Art restoration should not be included in the title of this article, as it was before (see section above). Of course, I think it could be useful to include a description of what it is within this article, but it is a separate topic and need not be in the title as it was before.

-- Richard McCoy (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough.... but please remember this is VERY early days in terms of editing... and remember that the article has gone from one with little or no useful information, to one which has already taught be something about the field (and I have two Masters Degrees in the subject!)

• I also do not understand the comment "excessive detail" and "not encyclopedic"... :lol: first isn't excessive detail something wiki does well!!! And on a more serious note... its only just started... I would hope that by the time we (and everyone who joins us in this venture) finish we'll have made this the best encylcopdia entry on Art Conservation at least on the web, if not anywhere. And one that has sensibly laid out fields so that it can continue to grow and develop... in a way it simply couldn't have even a week ago. AND one that links to a whole series of articles on the various ideas/sub disciplines/philosophies/methodological disputes/etc, etc... that would then provide an encyclopdic knowledge of the field(s). --Daniel Cull (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservation Laboratory

So I've added a bit that was meant to start out as part of a history section, then as perhaps a bit on conservation science...and now I've just named it "The Conservation Laboratory" because it was just a little bit of both. Maybe the history part should be split apart from the lab instruments bit that I started? --CristaPack (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can add to it until such a time as the history section can be split. Does anyone know the first Conservation book - written by a German Chemist, if memory serves me. I will check if not... as I think that should go in any history section. --Daniel Cull (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservation History

• I think we need to delete the section added by RARushfield, not permanently, but just until it can be edited so that it meets wikipedia standards (especially concerned about 'original material'). Much of the information is too much for this page, and would fit better in other pages (some of it is duplicated in other pages already) it is also not referenced, and not linked to other sections of wikipedia. I would suggest we remove it, then use some of the information, and edit it to wikipedia standards. Thoughts?
• Also, it is only relevant to the US... it doesn't consider any other english language countries such as: Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, UK...etc. Which is a problem for an overview page. We need to be careful of being too USA centric. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the off talk email from RARushfield... I can confirm that the history section, referred to above, and referenced on the page as by Joyce HIll Stoner. Has been published as "Changing Approaches in Art Conservation: 1925 to the present". The publication exists in two editions. The earlier one is " Scientific Examination of Art: Modern Techniques on Conservation and Analysis" and was published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2003. The later edition of the publication is "Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia: Scientific Examination of Art: Modern Techniques in Conservation and Analysis". It was published by the National Academies Press in 2005.
• This of course means that it is "original research" and not acceptable under the rules of wikipedia Wikipedia:No original research. It needs to be removed, however, some of the information within it can be used and referenced. And there is actually lots of information that could be useful on other wikipedia pages. We should get to editing it, it may take some time! But its a useful paper. --Daniel Cull (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• There's a lot of info on the AIC and FAIC in the Joyce paper and the current wikipedia page for AIC is a bit weak. American Institute for Conservation we could definately add a lot of it into that page. --Daniel Cull (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK... I am going to make the major changes indicated previously, today! I will remove the various "famous names" and publish it instead as a brief history to be developed. This should be the beginnings of something more encyclopedic and less like a list. --Daniel Cull (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Key Players

I re-odered the section so we can more easily find this information. Some key players we should consider. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gettens and Stout

How could I have forgotten them! The article (added by RARushfield) that I have since removed from the page by Joyce Hill Stoner has the makings of the beginnings of a bio for them. Gettens is also referenced on Freer Gallery of Art I was thinking that a page could be made about their book... as it is that which is truly significant, and then bios could be included on that page. We could do one of those false link things internal across wikipedia where their names on this age link not to their names, as it wold appear, but to the book page. I was thinking of just starting a short bio on the main page, until we have more info about them. I actually think we should do that for all the people we are listing, as we go... It may encourage people to take on writing their bios. As it will be obvious they are missing, especially if we include them linked. --Daniel Cull (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) So I started a bio on the main page... we can add bio stub, etc, as we go. I just wanted to start to use that history article. --Daniel Cull (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kecks

I propose that this article include some information about Sheldon and Caroline Keck, who are generally recognized as two of the most important conservators of the 20th century.

For example, see the recent obituary about Caroline Keck in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/arts/15keck.html?ex=1358312400&en=4c55195b9ef74432&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

--Richard McCoy (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link from WAAC about Sheldon Keck: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn15/wn15-3/wn15-302.html

Here's his obit in the NYT: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2D9173AF934A25755C0A965958260&sec=&spon=

Here's a link from the New York Review of Books that includes a response from Ms. Keck: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/6093

Also, there's a well-known award that carries their names: http://aic.stanford.edu/faic/awards/08_final_keck_award_guideline_and_form.pdf

-- Richard McCoy (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think they are as famous outside of the US, they are certainly not people you learn about in conservation school in the UK (at least not in the archaeological or ethnographic fields)...I GUESS you would in art conservation courses. Remember UK courses are specialism based. I found out about their work on my own through an article about eduction that Sheldon wrote, and had no idea they were famous until I went to an AIC meeting several years later! But yes, I agree that there could be some merit to having information about them.
• Lt. Sheldon Keck gets a mention on this page Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program as one of the key members. --Daniel Cull (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree. This would have to be in the USA section, not global. Or perhaps even in conservation training in the US, or both. But it did get me thinking that it would be interesting to identify folks around the world that have played significant roles in advancing the field of conservation and conservation training ... -- Richard McCoy (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a section (see below) I propose you write something about the keck's and include it in that section. I will also write something about Plenderleith. We can add as we go. --Daniel Cull (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Rathgen

I think we need to include some information on Friedrich Rathgen, he was the first appointed chemist to a museum position, and wrote the first book of conservation treatments. Which was translated into English years before Plenderleith wrote his... and was quite clearly a major influence on the development of conservation, most specifically archaeological conservation. Although I think Plenderleith could also warrant a mention, as many people still think his book was the first.

I am thinking we could put this in a new section I will start called "The History of Conservation" or something like that. We could also move some of the info from the laboratory section into a history section, where I think it would work better, as there was some info on fixers that (although now removed) I think could be useful in this section.

- Mark Gilberg. (1987) Friedrich Rathgen: The Father of Modern Archaeological Conservation. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 105-120 http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-004_2.html - Elizabeth Pye. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. James and James. London. --Daniel Cull (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. So I made a bio page for Rathgen, and linked that across. Hope this works for everyone. I think this would be a good way of adding these extra people without making the page too confusing. --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Garry Thomson

I think we need to include the work of Garry Thomson, to do with setting "parameters" for light, UV, Humidity, Temperature. As despite conservators for the most part having now moved beyond these parameters they remain the guideline used as a comparison, as well as his book "The Museum Environment" being hugely significant and really helping to push the whole emphasis towards preventive conservation. However, does anyone have some good biographical information, as I only know a little bit. --Daniel Cull (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• a useful link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/garry-thomson-454552.html --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

more... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070625/ai_n19322591 one more.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1553331/Garry-Thomson.html another.. http://www.iccrom.org/eng/news_en/2007_en/various_en/06_06obitThomson_en.shtml OK... I feel pretty confident now that I can write a short intro on this page, and start a biography page for Garry Thomson. --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Also an interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/lastword_08june2007.shtml need to check if it's a permanent link or not. --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• So I started a page for Garry Thomson I think its an OK start. --Daniel Cull (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenderleith

I think it would be worth writing about Harold Plenderleith, I could do it. I like this section but a separate entry for conservation history might be warranted because this might get really long. Or a separate entry for the key figures and just a link here. Rose Daly (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should do an entry sentence about "key player" then a list of names with a one line intro, and then link to a separate page and have their bio on that page.--Daniel Cull (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a useful link: http://www.sal.org.uk/obituaries/Obituary%20archive/harold-plenderleith/view?searchterm=hoo --Daniel Cull (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Oddy

I was thinking we could include something on Andrew Oddy and the importance of Oddy testing... but, I wasn't sure if it should be a biographical entry, or something on techniques. Any ideas anyone? --Daniel Cull (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Key dates

Wow.. Thats some list of dates.... I edited it for some minor formatting issues. I was wondering though if it might deserve a page of it's own. Problem is references for all the details. Has this list been published anywhere? I know its compiled for the Winterthur course, but, would be really good if its been published, as then could easily give it a seperate wikipedia page. 'Key dates in conservation' type thing. Thoughts anyone? --Daniel Cull (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked around and there are other examples of lists, unreferenced, like this. List of dates in the history of Sunderland for example. I think this would work well as such a list. It would take a bit of time.... as we should also do lots of cross linking from the page of all the names, that are available, and link it to the art conservation page, etc. --Daniel Cull (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope no-one minds but I made that page, as it looked kind of messy having a huge list in the middle of the page. It is an introduction front page after all! I also, altered the order of the history section, so the link to the list page comes first. It seemed to make more sense. We should find a couple of references too,for that new page, just to help it out. --Daniel Cull (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservation Ethics

I appreciate the varied discussion on conservation ethics. The articles posted seem pretty minimal.

Further fuel for the debate can be found in Ethics and the Visual Arts, "The Moral Case for Restoring Artworks" by James Janowski. This essay gives insights into the Purist and Integral Restoration viewpoints.

It is interesting that extremists of the purist view believe that no new materials should be added and that it is better to let the piece decay rather than repair in any way. "Integral Restoration seeks to return the work to its pre-damaged condition...even though at least some of the material used to do so is not material from the original work." James Janowski Goldfish3 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree whats there at the moment is pretty minimal. I was wondering though to what extent we could go into issues of ethical disagreement, and still retain the wikipedia page as a general introduction of positions agreed throughout conservation? We could add in texts, such as the one you mention, although we would have to be careful not to go on one side of the fence or the other, or else the whole thing could degenerate into a add/removal match of ideas. It would be good to have more details though, so I say go for it. Add them in.
• It is however worth noting that in the real world conservators are neither of the two extremes described above, and most conservators would at one time or another follow both or neither.
• Another issue within ethics that the two positions do not get into is the ethical issue of "authenticity", which in my opinion, is for most practicing conservators the real crux of the applied ethics debate.
• ALSO...it would be good to add these ideas into the Art restoration page --Daniel Cull (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)