Conservation: To what end?

[Scott Odell <MAH0C01@sivm.si.edu>]

On 12 Aug 1994, Dwight A. Newton wrote:

>   Thought I would test the waters of this new list to see how open we
> might be to discussion of really basic issues. My interest in historical
> instruments is avid, but avocational.
>   My first really significant contact with the field of conservation
> was in ca. 1975 at a convention of the then fledgling Guild of American
> Luthiers. I attended a lecture by Laurence Libin of the Metropolitan
> Museum (New York) on conservation and restoration techniques. He
> discussed, among other things, a technique of welding the ends of
> broken harpsichord strings and using a special lathe to turn the joint
> smooth. I was really impressed by the extremes one might go to to deal
> with minutia.
>   One point Libin made during his talk was that his restoration work
> was intended to make an instrument LOOK as perfectly authentic as
> possible, without any expectation of it actually being a fully functional
> musical instrument. There are differing approaches to this issue at
> different museums and with different individual instruments. My
> question to MICAT-L is: How do you approach the issue of restoration
> of an historical instrument? Is it a living thing to be used, or is
> it primarily an historical document from which to learn?

Reminds me of the repair I made back in the 1960's to a broken original
string on an Appalachian dulcimer the museum had just acquired, which was
going on exhibit.  Did a butt-joint mend with a tiny spot of epoxy,
reinforced with a few short strands of fiberglass,  which permitted the
string to be put under just enough tension to bring it into alignment with
its neighbors.

As for the larger theoretical extremes of "hands off/study only", versus
"restore and let it sing again", you are certainly right when you say
that "there are differing approaches to this issue at different museums and
with different individual instruments" - and in my view, that is just as
it should be. The process of actually arriving at a suitable policy for one's
own collection, or for an individual instrument, begins an endless,
interesting (hopefully not contentious) discussion.  Good starting points
might include the mission of the museum, the purpose of the collection, and
the importance and condition of the instrument.  Most of these are more or
less subjective, which is where the fun begins and the discussion becomes
"interesting".

A good summary of some recent thinking on this issue is "Recommendations
for the Conservation of Musical Instruments" produced by the Comite
International des Musees et Collections d'Instruments de Musique (CIMCIM),
(CIMCIM Publication No. 1, International Council of Museums, Paris, 1993.)
The current CIMCIM Secretary/Treasurer, Bob Barclay was the editor of the
document, is one of the moderators of MICAT-L, and ought to be able to help
anyone interested in it get a copy.

My own sympathy is with a minimal intervention approach for most historical
instruments, particularly those in public collections, coupled with use of
"copies".  A full discussion would take *much* more space than would
be appropriate for an initial comment on this topic (eg, what do we mean by
"copy"?)  So, for the moment I will leave it at that and wait to see (hear?)
what others may have to contribute.

Scott Odell  <mah0c01@sivm.si.edu>