Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues12ArticlesNotes on Theories of Conservation...

Articles

Notes on Theories of Conservation – Colonialism, Obsolescence, Misreading

Pedro Augusto Vieira Santos

Abstracts

Even though there have been constant discussions about the theoretic and ethical questions of conservation, the scientific production in recent years demonstrates the difficulty of arriving at consensual opinions and formulations – which is not a problem. The problem is the shakiness of some of these opinions or formulations, which can be explained by some ghosts that still haunt scientific production generally: Colonialism, Obsolescence and Misreading. The present article sheds light on these problems and points out possible paths, based on authors in the field of conservation, on the punctual analysis of their productions, and on the way their ideas have been worked on by scholars in the field.

Top of page

Full text

Some Ghosts

1The terms introduced in the title of this article should be accompanied by their pairs, or, as it were, their antonyms: decolonialism, timeliness, suitable interpretation. It is also possible to include the pairs of the term Conservation: preservation or restoration. It is preferable not to think about these different words as antonyms or rivals, but as different perspectives that can be considered, developed and contextualized. For example, someone could say that writing this article in English is a sign of colonialism – and I would tend to agree – but it is better to think that some ideas that arise from colonized places will reach a larger audience this way, also working with a decolonializing perspective. Someone could also say that conservation and restoration are completely different – and I would tend to agree – but it would be better to think that all the reflections presented in CeRoArt, for example, are focused on the discipline of Restauro, as it is named in Brazil or Italy, which accepts the different senses of its comprehension, including conservation – so we see that there is a subtle shift of mindset that is always inevitable when moving from one language, or one cultural context, to another. And this is not to mention that in international contexts is it preferable to refer to the Portuguese word restauro, rather than the much-used synonym restauração – in deference to the general inability of non-Lusophone speakers to pronounce the latter.

2Operational problems are part of our reality and should be faced each time with a renewed outlook, supported by new techniques and technologies, always considering the object in its individuality. Fortunately, conservators/restorers and scientists from various fields are working skillfully on these problems, presenting increasingly reliable solutions. On the other hand, the myriad problems that concern the theory and ethics of restoration do not seem to reach the same level of reliability.

3Therefore, in this text, the core of the discussion is focused on the theoretical dilemmas, or, to state it better, on discussing how these dilemmas have been presented, and often misread by readers who reproduce these mistakes or, in the search for the “new,” wind up constructing shaky discourses. Like any other researcher, the present author is not free from committing such mistakes, and this is part of the process of the construction of knowledge. The problem is when these mistakes are reproduced and either replace or overshadow some previously established notions due to their supposed novelty. A better solution would be the coexistence, accumulation and reinterpretation of these notions and theories, rather than the current situation where the earlier tends to be substituted or eclipsed by the new. This is more difficult than it appears, since we are still haunted by the ghosts of Colonialism, Obsolescence and Misreading. The text is structured based on a commentary about these ghosts.

4Some authors and texts, from which these ghosts emerge, were chosen to organize this discussion, always thinking about the problems faced in the conservation of contemporary art. Or simply because they represent the roots of our dilemmas: Cesare Brandi and Heinz Althöfer at the core of the problem; Alois Riegl before them; and Jean-Pierre Cometti after them. These names were not chosen at random. Beyond the undebatable relevance of their contributions, they somehow summarize the problems/solutions of our discussion; and they also summarize a network of researchers scattered around the world, with different points of view, and the various lines of thought they have spawned, whether through agreement, or by disagreement, which can be set into coexistence rather than into clashing.

Colonialism

5During the triennial meeting of Icom-CC held in Madrid in 1972 and often cited by researchers due to the contribution of Heinz Althöfer entitled “Les problèmes esthétiques et de retouche dans la restauration d’œuvres d’art moderne,” Giovanni Urbani (1972) called attention to the problem of the spread of ideas and texts related to the Italian language:

In fact, the shortage of funds is the main reason why a number of research reports of major interest to our working group have not been presented to the Madrid Conference – in several cases, only because no one would pay for their translation. A comprehensive list of these reports is provided below; we will gladly distribute the Italian texts on application.

  • 1 According to the Ethnologue research, in 2020, the ranking of most-spoken languages in the world is (...)

6While one cannot ignore the fact that English is considered the “language of globalization,” one must also be aware of how this supposed globalization is a program of hegemony linked to geopolitical questions,1which range beyond the scientific interests. While the language of globalization should connect people and ideas, cross borders and promote knowledge, it also creates barriers and limits to intellectual production and its dissemination, as also occurs in the political, economic and social spheres around the world. How many people at the Icom-CC took up the challenge to read texts in Italian; or, in our case (I’m writing from Brazil), in Portuguese?

7So how is it possible to take a decolonized approach to thinking about the theory of conservation? This is not a simple question, and involves contradictions. Some might say that we should produce our own theory and that we should not import any sort of input. This would not be totally wrong, but it appears to be a false utopia, since one cannot ignore what is already known. It is thus necessary to pay attention to what, how and from where one is importing, as a theory is not a cold text, but bears with that the signs of space and time, and therefore must be “acclimatized” instead of simply imposed on a new situation. Importing (and likewise exporting!) must not be confused with the act of translating in its most banal sense: authors like Paul Ricœur or Umberto Eco invite us to problematize the translation and rethink its constructions steps, considering the interpretation and the understanding before the simple word matching.

  • 2 Cf. BASILE, G. (a cura di). Cesare Brandi oggi: prime ricognizioni. Saonara: Il Prato, 2008. and BA (...)

8It is also necessary to understand that a Theory is different from a theoretic reflection and from a theoretic framework. The importation/exportation of Cesare Brandi’s Theory of Restoration is a good example: translated into ten languages, the reception (or acclimatization) of this theory is different in the various countries. This depends, above all, on the quality of the translation, but also and mainly on the work carried out to ensure a satisfactory reception, interpretation and use of this text. Its (non)reception is certainly influenced by cultural aspects and, in some cases, by previous junctures in the authors’ careers.2

  • 3 Among Beatriz Mugayar Kühl’s extensive production, an especially noteworthy text, also published in (...)

9In the case of Brazil, there is fortunately a good experience in this reception, and work has been done to construct solid pathways for the use of the Theory in a noncolonized perspective. Much of this work should be credited to Beatriz Mugayar Kühl,3 who not only translated the Theory but has also been working with an extensive number of sources, from different countries and periods, reinterpreting them to the Brazilian reality (considering cultural, economic, legislative and executive aspects). Perhaps it cannot be said that Kühl is the author of a new or contemporary theory of conservation – is a new theory of conservation really necessary? (Carbonara, 2017)– but it certainly can be said that she is the author of a solid and renewed theoretical framework which, by the way, is made in Brazil. It can be said that today, in Brazil, Brandi is not being passively imported; rather, there is a dialogue with him and with many others (although there are still many problems related to the correct and responsible conveying of this theoretic dialogue into practice, especially in a context with many still corrupt and fossilized administrative structures, coupled with economic and political problems).

  • 4 Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. For all the numbers of Conversaciones, see https://r (...)
  • 5 International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. For mo (...)

10This sort of dialogue can certainly be found in other countries, and a good example comes from Mexico, where the journal Conversaciones was created within the INAH.4 Since 2015, eight editions have been published with the collaboration of researchers from Brazil, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain and other countries, always based on some central figures of Cultural Heritage [Paul Philippot (1, 2015), Jukka Jokilehto (2, 2016), Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and Prosper Mérimée (3, 2017), Camilo Boito and Gustavo Giovannoni (4, 2017), Georg Gottfried Dehio, Alois Riegl and Max Dvorák (5, 2018), Ananda K. Coomaraswamy (6, 2018), Cesare Brandi and Giulio Carlo Argan (7, 2019), Herb Stovel (8, 2019), Nicholas Stanley-Price (9, 2020)]. Since 2019, the journal has been coedited by Iccrom, which has stated: “It is our shared hope that by offering up these fundamental texts, together with some contemporary thinking around them, we will be able to enrich further the conversation between heritage professionals around the world while providing greater access to literature that has shaped our field.”5 The texts are published in their original languages and also translated to Spanish and/or English.

  • 6 It is out of our subject the debates about colonizing/decolonizing problems and its reflections, ev (...)

11Finally, passing from theory to the set of works that compose an imaginary of the artistic production, it is necessary to review the use of the terms foreign (that which is from the outside) and international (that which circulates outside national borders or extends beyond them), since the definition of international is also the product of a colonizing historiography.6 Even though the art made in Brazil, or by Brazilians, rarely appears in the international debates about conservation, Brazilian art is also international. To cite just two cases, both in this field: the jacket of the book Heinz Althöfer published in 1980, Modern Kunst Handbuch der Konservierung, is illustrated by the work The Illustration of Art, by Antônio Dias (Fig. 1). While the book Paolo Martore edited in 2014, Tra memoria e oblio, opens with the image of Ocupação Descobrimento, by Antônio Manuel.

Fig.1 The Ilustration of Art

Fig.1 The Ilustration of Art

Jacket of the book Heinz Althöfer published in 1980, Modern Kunst Handbuch der Konservierung, illustrated by the work The Ilustration of Art, by Antônio Dias.

Crédits: Pedro Vieira

Obsolescence

12Obsolescence is characteristic of technological devices, but should not be taken as characteristic of critical and intellectual processes. Obviously some theoretical ideas and constructions cannot be used without due consideration of the passage of time and the ensuing historical, cultural and epistemological transformations. But contrary to what takes place with those devices (which do not operate, or, because the companies convince us to believe that they need to be substituted, in order to create consumer demand for new ones), theoretical production should always be open to reinterpretation, updating and reutilization – following the example of the above-mentioned journal Conversasiones... (at least when the Academy is not considered as a company concerned about its profits). It is unfitting, therefore, for readers to lend credence to articles that insist on the obsolescence of some ideas that are still valid and are continuously contributing to the development of the field.

13Perhaps the text most intensely attacked in the past years is Brandi’s Theory of Restoration. Many authors refer to this theory as dated, obsolete. What criteria are used to affirm this? Its date of publication? Theory of Restoration was published for the first time in 1964, and its commercial edition was released in 1977, but it is known that many of its texts and ideas began to be developed and shared long before that. Brandi was the director of the ICR (currently the ISCR) and a professor in different colleges and courses. Starting with Brandi, other authors are commented on below, beginning with the German conservator Heinz Althöfer.

14If the current domination (or nearly tacit monopoly) of the English language in the dissemination of scientific and intellectual production hinders awareness of contributions in other languages, unfortunately the production in German is relatively more restricted or restrictive (despite the many and undeniable contributions in this language to the history of art and to conservation throughout history). The first book that compiles the texts by Althöfer, in German, was published in 1980. The first anthology of texts by Althöfer was translated into Italian in 1991, and in 2003 to Spanish, which also helped in the dissemination of his ideas. This new and recent access should be taken with caution since while it is true that Althöfer was a pioneer and contributed to the debate, it is not true that his developments are the most recent ones – the Italian edition cites the 1980 books as sources, not the articles in their original versions, which might lead one to believe that the oldest text there is from that period, when it is actually from 1960. This in no wise invalidates his contribution, rather, it should be reviewed and contextualized.

15The paratextual elements stand out in these articles: in the text from 1960, it is possible to find direct references to the ICR (currently the ISCR), to Brandi himself, to his interpreters, and to artists such as the Italian Alberto Burri (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Das Kunstwerk

Fig. 2 Das Kunstwerk

“Einige Probleme der Restaurierung moderner Kunst”, by Heinz Althöfer, on its original edition (1960), with illustrations: on the left, p. 56, credit for ICR; on the right, p. 57, artwork by Alberto Burri.

Credits: Pedro Vieira

16It is also possible to find a cluster of the problems that would be considered over the course of decades in regard to conservation of modern and contemporary art, and which are questions still being considered today. Althöfer (1991[1960]:43) concluded his text stating:

It is symptomatic of the modern science of conservation to rethink the conservations of the past in strictly critical terms: the future will teach us, however, how much our conservations are subject to the strong influence of contemporary art, and the degree to which they are really beneficial or only experimentations, that is, if they are true conservation or harmful actions in accordance with the taste of a time. Above all, we should ask if the science of conservation, as it is being developed, will be able to be characterized as an experimental humanistic discipline, reaching the desired connection and integration with the history of art […] [emphasis ours] [translated from the Italian version]

17A cursory reading, especially based on the translations (1991, 2003), could lead the reader to believe that the “modern science of restoration” refers to something recent, from the 1990s, and that the restoration of the past is that of the mid-20th century. As this text is from 1960, however, this modern science of restoration that Althöfer is referring to is precisely that which was being debated in the Italian context, captained by Brandi; and the restoration of the past can only be that which preceded it. Furthermore, the fact that Althöfer recurs to a critical and humanistic approach, as well as an interdisciplinary one, is enough for us to link his thinking to that of the Italian wellspring. Here we are limiting our examples to those published previous to the first edition of Theory of Restoration. It is not necessary to search for such signs of a relationship with Brandian theory – it is sufficient to consider one of the most recent articles published by Althöfer (2008:53), in which he states that “the Italian theory of conservation is the basis of all aspects of the conservation of modern and contemporary art.”

  • 7 Analyzing the index of names, Cesare Brandi and Nelson Goodman appear with the same number of entri (...)

18One of the most recent contributions in the area, however, is perhaps the book by French theorist Jean-Pierre Cometti, published in 2015. Not being an author involved directly in the world of conservation, but rather in the aesthetic field, his book Conserver/ Restaurer. L’œuvre d’art à l’époque de sa préservation technique approaches conservation on the basis of philosophical formulations, its discussions being centered on the superposition of two key moments for art and conservation: production and dissemination. In that volume, Brandi is the most cited author,7 and this is not merely a numeric detail, since it demonstrates the recognition of those theoretic developments that must be mobilized in order to make headway in the discussions. Cometti is not interested in discussing the period of “technical reproducibility,” but that of “technical preservation,” denouncing the excess of technicism and the need to think about the questions of conservation within the humanities. It is also interesting to note that Althöfer, supposedly very well known in this field, is not mentioned in the volume. For the theme of preservation, Cometti refers basically to two authors: Brandi and Alois Riegl. So it does not seem that these are obsolete sources.

19And although Riegl began to receive a great deal of attention in the translations that began to be made in the 1980s, in the 1970s Giovanni Carbonara (1976:198) calls attention to the author, stating that his three values (historic, aesthetic and practical) are summarized in Brandi’s bipolarity, and that the practical aspect “always, somehow, reverts back to the first two.” Another comparison that merits comment regards the recent formulation by Wolfgang Baatz (2019: 67): “Whereas Riegl related his values to both history and art in contrast to him in Italy, Cesare Brandi, one of the most influential persons in conservation ethics, put stronger emphasis on the art aspect.” Brandi is just as concerned about reformulating the questions linked to history as those linked to aesthetics. Taking another look at Riegl, we see that he treats on both sorts of questions, but with emphasis on the historical ones. No matter how it takes place, giving emphasis to one of them does not mean ignoring the other. It is essential to revisit both of them, together, to consider the questions posed by contemporary art. The fact that these contributions were written more than 60 or 100 years ago do not automatically make them obsolete, even if they should be considered in their cultural contexts.

  • 8 The so-called ABC method furnishes clear and objective tools for the analysis of risks and, if prop (...)

20While today we have the possibility of working with methods that privilege quantitative analyses and which can greatly contribute to the preservation of our heritage – such as the ABC method8 – this does not mean that critical analyses are no longer necessary: the ABC method, in this article, suggests an acronym for reading Althöfer, Brandi and Cometti, always in a critical and thoughtful way.

Fig. 3 Table of texts

Fig. 3 Table of texts

Some authors, titles and translations over the years. Adapted and translated from Santos, P. A. V. Restauro, arte contemporânea, espaço público etc. (PhD Thesis). São Paulo: FAU USP, 2020, p. 94 (PDF in appendix).

Credits: Pedro Vieira

Misreading

21As mentioned in the first part of this text, any researcher is susceptible to making mistaken interpretations, and pointing out or commenting on these cases is a delicate (or even embarrassing) action. In fact, some ideas can be supported in the context in which they are created or expressed but, often, due to the brevity of the text, there is a lack of theoretic context or deeper reflection that could help to avoid this sort of interpretive mistake. We can base our discussion on a fragment by Hiltrud Schinzel – a very committed and responsible author who has been collaborating powerfully with the discipline of conservation. Schinzel (2004:29) writes:

Brandi’s bipolarity – aestheticism on the one hand and historicism on the other – is being superseded by the bipolarity of material and spiritual content, a tendency which corresponds with today’s more anthropocentric worldview which has taken the place of a historical way of thinking.

22Although one could agree with some questions pointed out by Schinzel in this excerpt (the anthropocentric view, or the consideration of the spiritual content), it is difficult to agree with the manner in which she constructs the statement or, to put it better, with the way that she suggests the dismantling or deformation of Brandi’s ideas. First, because the bipolarity configured by the aesthetic and historic instances (rather than aestheticism and historicism) is key for reading, analyzing and recognizing the material the work consists of; these two elements are not antitheses or antonyms, rather, they are poles that need to be balanced, set into coexistence, and never considered in isolation. Nor are they isolated words, but rather refer as well to the disciplines of Aesthetics and History – thus, there is not the smallest chance of making this sort of change in Brandi’s theoretical construction. Second, because the material content is already considered in Brandi’s definition of restoration. Therefore, it is not necessary to make this addition. Finally, even though it is not clear what the author wishes to say by the term “spiritual content,” this content can be inferred by a meticulous analysis of the work of art itself, recognizing it as an artwork, in its physical consistency and its aesthetic and historic bipolarity. In short, one can take Schinzel’s ideas as a basis for enriching and enlarging the interpretation of Brandi’s theory, and doing this does not invalidate his theory. Schinzel does not negate Brandi; much to the contrary, she uses his ideas as a basis for developing her own. Just as Cometti does.

  • 9 The "Program for the Restoration of Modern Art” was presented by Heinz Althöfer in many occasions. (...)

23Althöfer has also been interpreted in a limited way, especially in relation to his famous “Five Points.”9After discussing this subject, the author himself writes: “This list can easily be enlarged with other points, confirming the variety of materials and the richness of ideas found in contemporary art” (1991:49). The truth is that, in the 1977 symposium on conservation of Modern Art, Althöfer did not discuss five points, but seven, from which two were suppressed: point #2, which concerns the packing and shipping of large-format works (a theme he develops later), and point #4, in which he cites just one example (Louis Morris), concerning unprepared, exposed canvases.

  • 10 The book was published in collaboration with Hiltrud Schinzel, who has influenced Althöfer's ideas (...)

24What has been seen since then? Many texts that cite the “Five Points” wind up emphasizing form over content and have, as an end – rather than a means – the addition of items to this list, as though contemporary art could be categorized like that! Within these five points it is possible to find other subdivisions, and certainly Althöfer was aware of this. He chose not to add to the list, but rather to summarize it, not only based on technical problems but on questions to be solved theoretically. In 1985,  in a close collaboration with Hiltrud Schinzel, Althöfer published Restaurierung moderner Malerei: Tendenzen, Material, Technik, and went back to more moderate groupings though less dramatic ones, for contemporary art: (1) works that can be treated like the traditional ones; (2) new technical problems and (3) new “ideological” problems. This grouping contributes in a much healthier way to the discussions than do the “Five Points.”10Concerning the third group:

[…] In the third case, a new theoretical approach is needed, which on the one hand is based on the new status of contemporary art, and, on the other, takes into consideration other points of reference, both past and current, in the history of thought in this field. (Althöfer (1991[1985]:146) [translated from the Italian version]

25What exactly does a new theoretic approach signify? Or, by contrast, what are the old approaches? Definitively it cannot be inferred here that they are speaking in opposition to the Brandian theory. Rather, a more careful reading of this text, coupled with those mentioned in the previous item, shows that Althöfer and Schinzel participate in a movement of theoretical renewal which is still that of Brandi, giving continuity to it.

  • 11 Muñoz Viñas sentences: “To be precise, I was not afraid of Brandi, but of the Teoria del restauro (...)
  • 12 It can be inferred from the text cited in the previous note.

26Among the production of Brandi, Althöfer and Cometti, there were many contributions, recorded in the minutes of congresses and in specialized journals from a wide range of cultural contexts, which very notably include The Contemporary Conservation Theory by the Spanish conservator Muñoz Viñas, who is afraid of Brandi’s Theory of Restoration and seems to confuse the problems more than clarify them.11In fact, Muñoz Viñas said that the Brandian theory “did not make sense” to him, and it seem that he made any effort to comprehend Brandi’s ideas either in that text or outside it.12 Even though his theory is not specifically focused on the problems of the conservation of contemporary art, many authors have adopted his point of view to discuss this theme. Although Muñoz Viñas has actively contributed to the debate, the problem is exactly the presumption of The Contemporary Theory. Rather than pointing out the problems in his discussion, I invite the reader to read the excellent article by Giovanni Carbonara (2017) published in the Opus Journal – in Italian – which comments not only on the inconsistencies in Muñoz Viñas’s analysis (making confusions between concepts and also displaying a lack of awareness in regard to the history of the discipline), but also the shakiness of his propositions (which, under the rubric of theory, refute the theoretic formulation, make an apology of empiricism and set forth themes with a sociological appeal, instead of anchoring them in the foundational problems of the discipline: aesthetics and history). Certainly, Carbonara’s established and respectable position in the field of conservation is enough to endorse his analyses.

27Being aware of the ghosts that haunt the questions inherent to the circulation and development of ideas and theoretical constructs, such as Colonialism, Obsolescence and Misreading, is a first step toward being able to make good use of the existing theoretical tools and, perhaps, to collaborate responsibly toward strengthening the scientific framework. It is necessary to consider the theoretical constructions as part of our heritage, and, therefore, as something that should not be destroyed, but rather conserved and reinterpreted for the current standards of use and the new demands that arise each day.

28And how someone could be aware of theses ghosts and deal with them? The first step – and it also has to do with our present context – must be to avoid any negationist or dualist position: the problems exist, and they should be faced in their complexity, considering dialectic process and the contradictions they bring out. The second one should be to make more rigorous approaches to our theoretical basis. It could seem naïf, but the simple gesture of doublechecking dates, translations and citations, for example, could avoid waves of mistakes that propagate also in the scientific production. Finally, we need time to think, to mature ideas and to share them. But this is something difficult to handle given the increasing speed with which we are pressured to produce, indeed pressured to produce the new, the novelty. To comprehend what already exists instead of creating the supposed new could be a welcome solution.

Top of page

Bibliography

Althöfer, H. “Restaurierung moderner Kunst”. In Das Düsseldorf Symposion. Düsseldorf: Restaurierungszentrum, 1977.

______. “Ist die moderne Kunst noch zu retten? Fünf Aufgaben für ihre Restaurierung”. In Das Kunstjahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Österreich und die Schweiz, Mainz: Alexander Baier-Presse, 1978.

______. Modern Kunst Handbuch der Konservierung. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1980.

______. Restaurierung moderner Malerei: Tendenzen, Material, Technik. Verlag Georg D.W. München: Callwey, 1985.

______. Il restauro delle opera d’arte moderne e contemporanee. Firenze: Nardini, 1991.

Althöfer, H; Behrman-Frigeri, M. “La teoria di Cesare Brandi e l’arte moderna”. In Basile, G. (a cura di). Cesare Brandi oggi: prime ricognizioni. Firenze: Il Prato, 2008.

Baatz, W. “On principles and subjectivity”. In Schädler-Saub, U.; Szmygin, B. (ed.). Conservation ethics today: are our conservation-restoration theories and practice ready for the twenty-first century? [international ICOMOS conference, Florence, 2018]. Lublin: Lublin University of Technology, 2019.

Basile, G. (a cura di). Cesare Brandi oggi: prime ricognizioni. Saonara: Il Prato, 2008.

Basile, G. (a cura di). Il pensiero di Cesare Brandi dalla teoria alla pratica. Saonara: Il Prato, 2008.

Basile, G., Cecchini, S. (ed.). Cesare Brandi and the Development of Modern Conservation Theory. [International Symposium, New York, 2006]. Saonara: Il Prato: 2011.

Bosi, A. Dialética da colonização (1992). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2010.

Brandi, C. Teoria da restauração [Teoria del restauro, 1963, 1977]. Tradução de Beatriz Mugayar Kühl. Cotia: Ateliê editorial, 2004.

Carbonara, G. La reintegrazione dellimmagine: problemi di restauro dei monumenti. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, 1976.

Carbonara, G. È proprio necessaria una nuova teoriadel restauro? Considerazioni sul volume di Salvador Muñoz Viñas”. In Opus – Storia, architettura, restauro, disegno. n. 1, 2017.

Cometti, J.P. Conserver/Restaurer. L’ouvre d’art à l’époque de sa préservation technique. Gallimard, 2015.

Eco, U. Quase a mesma coisa: experiências de tradução. São Paulo: Record, 2007.

Kanter, L. “The reception and non-reception of Cesare Brandi in America”. In Future Anterior. Vol. IV, N. 1, Summer 2007.

Kühl, B. M. Preservação do patrimônio arquitetônico da industrialização: problemas teóricos de restauro. Cotia: Ateliê Editorial, 2008.

______ Paul Philippot, o restauro arquitetônico no Brasil e o tempo”. In Conversaciones, n. 1, julho 2015.

______“Ethics in preservation in the 21h Century.” In Hernandez Martínez, A. (org.). Conservando el pasado, proyectando el futuro Tendencias en la restauración monumental en el siglo XXI, Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 2016, pp. 231-244.

______ “The ideas on preservation at the beginning the 20th century in German-speaking countries: some lessons for Brazil today”. In Conversaciones, n. 5, junho 2018.

Matero, F. G. “Loss, Compensation, and Authenticity: The Contribution of Cesare Brandi to Architectural Conservation in America”. In Future Anterior. Vol. IV, N. 1, Summer 2007.

Michalski, S; Pedersoli J-L. ABC Method: a risk management approach to the preservation of cultural heritage. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute; Rome: Iccrom, 2016.

Muñoz Viñas, S. “Who is Afraid of Cesare Brandi? Personal reflections on the Teoria del restauro”. In CeROArt [En ligne], Juin 2015. http:// ceroart.revues.org/4653.

Ricœur, P. Sobre a tradução [2004]. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2011.

Salzstein, S. “Sobre historicidade, arte contemporânea, arte brasileira”. In: Salzstein, S; Bandeira, J. Historicidade e arte contemporânea – ensaios e conversas. São Paulo: ICC, 2012.

Santabárbara Morera, C. Conservación y restauración de arte contemporáneo. Historia, teoría y critica. [tesis doctoral]. Zaragoza: Departamento de Historia del Arte, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Zaragoza, 2015.

Santos, P. A. V. Restauro, arte contemporânea, espaço público etc. (PhD Thesis). São Paulo: FAU USP, 2020.

Schinzel, H. Touching vision. Brussels: VUB, 2004.

Urbani, G. “Foreword”. In ICOM CC. Analysis of creep curves on lining canvas. [Icom CC Conference Acts]. Madrid, 1972.

Varagnoli, C. Un restauro a parte?”. In Palladio n. 22, luglio-dicembre, 1998.

This paper was developed from issues initially addressed in the author’s thesis, partly financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001.

Top of page

Attachment

Top of page

Notes

1 According to the Ethnologue research, in 2020, the ranking of most-spoken languages in the world is 1-English, 2-Chinese-Mandarin, 3-Hindi, 4-Spanish, 5-French […], 8-Russian, 9-Portuguese […], 12-German; if we consider the number of native speakers, the ranking changes: 1-Chinese-Mandarin, 2- Spanish, 3-English, 4-Hindi, 5-Bengali, 6-Portuguese, 7-Russian. […] 9-French, 10-German. It is obviously naïve to consider just the numbers – most of us do not speak Chinese; in the same way we are aware of the fact that the intellectual contribution from France or Germany, for example, that have a smaller number of native speakers, surpass, culturally, the contribution from Portuguese or Spanish speaking countries. We could demonstrate it, in our metier, by citing the Contemporary Theory of Conservation, by Salvador Muñoz-Viñas published in English even before its publication in Spanish: a geopolitical strategy. Cf. https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/ethnologue200 [last access on December 21, 2020]

2 Cf. BASILE, G. (a cura di). Cesare Brandi oggi: prime ricognizioni. Saonara: Il Prato, 2008. and BASILE, G. (a cura di). Il pensiero di Cesare Brandi dalla teoria alla pratica. Saonara: Il Prato, 2008. For the specific (non) reception of Brandi’s Theory in the Anglo-Saxon culture, cf. Laurence Kanter and Frank Matero texts in the volumes Future Anterior. Vol. IV, N. 1, Summer 2007; and BASILE, Giuseppe, CECCHINI, Silvia (ed.). Cesare Brandi and the Development of Modern Conservation Theory. [International Symposium, New York, 2006]. Saonara: Il Prato: 2011.

3 Among Beatriz Mugayar Kühl’s extensive production, an especially noteworthy text, also published in English, is “Ethics in preservation in the 21h Century.” In: HERNANDEZ MARTÍNEZ, Ascensión (org.). Conservando el pasado, proyectando el futuro Tendencias en la restauración monumental en el siglo XXI, Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 2016, pp. 231-244; or the articles she published in Conversasiones: Paul Philippot, o restauro arquitetônico no Brasil e o tempo”. Conversaciones, n. 1, julho 2015 (also in Spanish) or “The ideas on preservation at the beginning the 20th century in German-speaking countries: some lessons for Brazil today”. Conversaciones, n. 5, June 2018 (also in Spanish and Portuguese). Another highlight is her book: Preservação do patrimônio arquitetônico da industrialização: problemas teóricos de restauro. Cotia: Ateliê Editorial, 2008, which is not limited to the heritage of industrialization and serves as an example of this theoretical framework.

4 Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. For all the numbers of Conversaciones, see https://revistas.inah.gob.mx/index.php/conversaciones/issue/archive [last access on December 22, 2020]

5 International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. For more info, see https://www.iccrom.org/news/conversaciones-multilingual-journal-history-and-theory [last access on December 22, 2020]. The Iccrom and its library are other good examples of initiatives of dialogue on a decolonized perspective, starting from its staff till the book’s catalogue.

6 It is out of our subject the debates about colonizing/decolonizing problems and its reflections, even though the bibliography exists and is growing each day. Alfredo Bosi, a brilliant Brazilian critic that just passed away, wrote: “Colonizar quer dizer agora massificar a partir de certas matrizes poderosas de imagens, opiniões, estereótipos.” Cf.: Bosi, A. Dialética da colonização (1992). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2010, p. 383. But we can identify this kind of colonization even when not talking about this subject, like Sônia Salzstein does problematizing the expression “contemporary Brazilian art”. Cf.: “Sobre historicidade, arte contemporânea, arte brasileira”. In: Salzstein, S; Bandeira, J. Historicidade e arte contemporânea – ensaios e conversas. São Paulo: ICC, 2012.

7 Analyzing the index of names, Cesare Brandi and Nelson Goodman appear with the same number of entries. It just so happens that they are authors who operate with different themes and, in our case, the interest is centered on the theme of conservation (even though Goodman introduced the autograph/allograph dyad and would become a constant presence in the texts on conservation).

8 The so-called ABC method furnishes clear and objective tools for the analysis of risks and, if properly employed, can collaborate toward actions linked to preservation. Like any tool, however, it does not furnish cut-and-dried answers and should be used critically. Cf.: MICHALSKI, S; PEDERSOLI J-L. ABC Method: a risk management approach to the preservation of cultural heritage. Ottawa: Canadian Conservation Institute; Rome: Iccrom, 2016.

9 The "Program for the Restoration of Modern Art” was presented by Heinz Althöfer in many occasions. The first public presentation in English occurred in Ottawa, 1980. The five points are: 1. Objects “constructed” using traditional techniques and materials; 2. Monochromic paintings; 3. Unstable materials and combination of materials; 4. Deteriorating objects; 5. Objects moved mechanically.

10 The book was published in collaboration with Hiltrud Schinzel, who has influenced Althöfer's ideas since the late 1970's, which clearly indicates a shift on his theoretical approaches. Although the quotation is attributed to Althöfer here, the ideas presented in that book should be read considering this collaborative work. This tripartition has been revisited by authors such as Claudio Varagnoli to treat on the restoration of modern architecture and by Santabárbara Morera to treat on the restoration of contemporary art. The source consulted, and transcribed here, is the Italian translation: “Le due finalità del restauro” in ALTHÖFER, H. Il restauro..., 1991, pp. 141–158.

11 Muñoz Viñas sentences: “To be precise, I was not afraid of Brandi, but of the Teoria del restauro.” Cf.: MUÑOZ VIÑAS, S. “Who is Afraid of Cesare Brandi?” Personal reflections on the Teoria del restauro. CeROArt [En ligne], Juin 2015. https://doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.4653

[last access November 13, 2015].

12 It can be inferred from the text cited in the previous note.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Fig.1 The Ilustration of Art
Caption Jacket of the book Heinz Althöfer published in 1980, Modern Kunst Handbuch der Konservierung, illustrated by the work The Ilustration of Art, by Antônio Dias.
Credits Crédits: Pedro Vieira
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/8263/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 738k
Title Fig. 2 Das Kunstwerk
Caption “Einige Probleme der Restaurierung moderner Kunst”, by Heinz Althöfer, on its original edition (1960), with illustrations: on the left, p. 56, credit for ICR; on the right, p. 57, artwork by Alberto Burri.
Credits Credits: Pedro Vieira
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/8263/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 484k
Title Fig. 3 Table of texts
Caption Some authors, titles and translations over the years. Adapted and translated from Santos, P. A. V. Restauro, arte contemporânea, espaço público etc. (PhD Thesis). São Paulo: FAU USP, 2020, p. 94 (PDF in appendix).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/8263/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 201k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Pedro Augusto Vieira Santos, Notes on Theories of Conservation – Colonialism, Obsolescence, MisreadingCeROArt [Online], 12 | 2020, Online since 24 January 2022, connection on 29 March 2023. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/8263; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.8263

Top of page

About the author

Pedro Augusto Vieira Santos

Pedro Vieira earned his BA, MA and PhD (on a Capes fellowship) at the College of Architecture and Urbanism of the Universidade de São Paulo (FAU USP), and completed a stint of research in Italy at La Sapienza of Rome (on a grant from Capes/PDSE). His researches link theoretical questions of conservation with themes concerning contemporary art and the public space. He is currently developing postdoctoral research concerning Cesare Brandi, also at FAU USP, where he works as a collaborating professor. 

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Top of page
  • DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search