Series editors' preface - Wood Tools

378 Conservation of Furniture
could be reversed without causing damage to
original materials or structures. In recognition
of the practical limits of reversibility in many
circumstances the balance of emphasis may
now have shifted to another fundamental issue
which is whether re-treatment will be possible
or whether the current treatment will inhibit
future work. This may include simple questions
such as whether the object should be
protected to make cleaning easier or less damaging
in future as well as addressing major
intervention. It is very important to think about
what follow-up treatment may be required in
future, how this might be achieved and how
the treatment affects what could be done if it
were required again – of the options available
now, how many would still be available after
treatment? This can be related to the statistical
concept of the number of degrees of freedom
preserved. As with other items on the checklist,
this question is phrased to prompt questioning
by the conservation professional. If an
action might prevent a future action (e.g. sampling),
it does not necessarily mean that the
action should not be taken, but it should mean
that the decision to proceed is only taken after
the implications have been carefully considered.
Have I taken into account the future use and
location of the object(s)? The proposed location
and purpose for which an object or collection
is to be used are factors which a
conservator may feel should influence a treatment
proposal. Objects may require different
actions to be taken if they are being returned
to fully functional use or being sent on a
lengthy touring exhibition than if being
returned to storage for occasional study.
Different individuals and organizations have
legitimately different purposes that will have a
profound influence on what is an appropriate
goal for any related conservation treatment.
Use may include temporary or permanent display,
long- or short-term loan (perhaps to multiple
venues), frequent study, storage, partial or
full functional use. An object retired from functional
use and intended for display can be
treated as any museum object; that is the piece
can be treated with full regard to preservation
ignoring the needs of its original function. An
object that is being used as a functional piece
may be treated with regard to function first
with preservation as an artefact of cultural significance
as a secondary consideration. This
may mean that materials that might be entirely
appropriate for conservation are quite simply
impractical. A functional piece of upholstered
seat furniture, for example, has to withstand
mechanical abrasion and the weight of the sitter.
Ceremonial pieces such as thrones,
Masonic chairs and religious furnishings may
be venerated and preserved for their historic
significance but expected to perform functionally
from time to time. This may necessitate
treatment concessions (Rendall, 1990).
The public has a right to expect certain
standards of behaviour from publicly funded
organizations and in many cases what museums
and similar cultural heritage organizations
may do is governed by law. Private owners
operate under far fewer constraints though not
entirely without them. In every case, independently
of any conservation considerations,
behaviour should remain within what is
appropriate for a particular purpose and in
every case where conservation is an issue, the
questions posed by the checklist should be
applied. However, one should not be surprised
or upset to obtain different answers in different
cases. In the authors’ view the application
of the process of questioning and agreement
between the relevant stakeholders plays a far
greater part in determining whether the treatment
can be considered ethical than the actual
nature of the treatment itself.
Within the museum context, an object may
or may not be in environmentally controlled
space, on constant display or part of a rotated
display or subject to loan or travelling display
agreements. Large sets are often split between
institutions wishing to represent a particularly
fine example of type rather than several examples
of the same piece. This may lead to treatments
being devised based on an incomplete
understanding of the whole significance of a
piece within a set. Collaborative treatments
between institutions are possible but are subject
to planning difficulties – for example, the
year one institution wishes to treat an object
may be financially impossible for another.
There are advantages and constraints in displaying
furniture within the historic interior.
The most obvious difficulty to be faced is that
of controlling the environment. Where environmental
control of a whole space is impracti-