Subject: Stone sculpture
My apologies [to Ebenezer Kotei] if I offended you. I certainly was not aware that English is not your first language, but I think the reason that you have not gotten other replies is the broad nature of your question. Of all fields in conservation, the question of consolidating outdoor stone is in probably the worst state. Studies of treatments that are reported to work on one kind of stone seem to fail miserably on the next, and many seem eventually to promote rather than prevent further loss, as you are aware. For stone objects that are deteriorating badly, particularly if they are to stay in the same conditions that caused the problem, the literature seems to indicate no sure way to consolidate what is still there, not to mention prevent further damage or adhering new restoration material to a newly consolidated surface. If bringing the object inside is not feasible, then proposing a treatment with highly favorable odds of actually helping the object over the long term is questionable. With other kinds of conservation problems, that is, for indoor objects of many kinds, there is much more leeway to test treatments and see how they do, or to work out a treatment that has predicably better odds of succeeding. Impregnation, to be specific, is not the kind of treatment one can test on a small area and gain helpful information on its effects under extreme outdoor conditions. I do not mean to imply that the object does not "deserve" treatment, but it is my experience that when objects are in a state that reflects poorly on what they once looked like, it is very difficult for owners to appreciate the technical difficulty of this kind of treatment, and there is a danger that they will not be satisfied with the outcome. Few clients, private or museum staff alike, are capable of visualizing what a conservator describes to them, and what conservators see as an improvement in condition does not always look like that from the other side. Because of the importance of the exact details of the type of stone, its condition, and its environment in predicting treatment outcome, I suspect that the only helpful advice will come from another conservator who is very experienced in outdoor stone sculpture who sees the object him- or herself. I still think that the question of this object, or any other, "needing" treatment is an important one--this is certainly not the only time it has been brought up--and requires that the prognosis of the object untreated for now be carefully compared with the odds of its being treated successfully. Obviously this is always a judgement call, but if a treatment does not have pretty solid chances for success either in terms of long-term preservation of the object or satisfaction of the owner, then this option should be considered. If this sculpture is used as a religious object, then the client's point of view is even more important, and may not be the same as for someone who sees a sculpture as decorative. The difference may go in either direction, that is, a religious object may be seen as worthy of veneration even if it is in poor condition, or complete restoration may be sought. Because many conservators have had unpleasant experiences when clients want them to do something they think is not proper, it sometimes seems as if judging a treatment by whether the client will be satisfied is not a good thing. But it is vital that the conservator know what the client's wishes and expectations are, so that if the treatment cannot fulfill them, the issues are dealt with before the treatment rather than afterwards. Again, my apologies if my remarks seemed unpleasant. I do not minimize the difficulties of this situation. The shortness of entries in the DistList format sometimes contributes to difficulties in understanding the exact nature of a situation. B. Appelbaum *** Conservation DistList Instance 12:32 Distributed: Thursday, October 1, 1998 Message Id: cdl-12-32-002 ***Received on Wednesday, 30 September, 1998