The fate of artifacts: Conflicts between Preservation and Access

Museums and art galleries allow us to connect with historical events. They preserve significant objects from the past and the present in order to serve the needs of the future generations. Without them, our understanding of culture, science and society would be incomplete. But these educational institutions are pulled into constant debate over the conflicts between preservation and access of artifacts. In order to engage the audience more and to give them the opportunity to experience a variety of sensory features of the objects, museum displays now tend to be more open and interactive. While this provides an enhanced learning environment for the visitors, it accelerates the deterioration process of the objects and that is why conservation and reconstruction is needed more often. We don’t necessarily destroy what we come to see, but the growing interest in the past has been causing problems of accessibility, maintenance and authenticity. There are ethical issues involved in conservation treatments, and the methods of conservation we use have an effect on the way we interpret the history of the artifacts. We must now strike a balance between preserving our heritage for the future, while also using it to interpret the past through display. This can only be done when we weigh the benefits of exhibiting artifacts with the ethical and sustainability issues associated with these objects. Although we might not be able to preserve all the historic items we want to put on display, it is possible to mitigate their deterioration process by controlling the environment they are exhibited in. Rather than putting everything out for the world to see, we must display a selection of items keeping in mind what the artist or the patron’s intentions might have been.

The collection of historical objects has become extremely popular in our culture. It brings together a wide variety of people from different professions for the purpose of recording and saving objects of sociocultural and historical significance. The tangible past is considered to be attractive and desirable. Even during the renaissance period, classical antiquity was clearly distinguishable from and considered superior to the recent past. Museums research the past and display it for the public for the purpose of education. Without them, our cultural and scientific understanding as well as our sense of self would become impoverished. Therefore, the longer something is preserved for, the longer it can be used to educate people about the history of mankind.

Research and technological advances now allow us to see hidden weaknesses in objects such as paintings, and mend old structures with nondestructive materials. Objects are often treated for the purpose of reestablishing its structural stability. Cleaning, a common form of conservation, is often an essential step in stopping different types of chemical and biological actions such as rusting, and moss growth. Cleaning may also result in the discovery of previously unknown features of a structure, such as the vaulted ceiling of the tower at York Minster. Treatment of artwork such as a painting can reveal the richness of its colours and the artist’s original intent again.

The treatment or restoration of historical objects is not always seen under a positive light. In the 1980s, controversy rose surrounding the cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. There were divided opinions about whether the fresco paintings on the ceiling should be cleaned to bring out their brilliant colours from underneath the candle soot, or be left alone. ArtWatch, an international regulator group for artwork, opposed to the cleaning process mainly due to two reasons. Firstly, it is not possible for us now to ask Michelangelo of his intensions about the outcome of the paintings. It is imaginable that he might have intended for the colours of his paintings to turn dark over time. And secondly, by changing the physical composition of the paintings, we are lying to the audience about its true nature. If the surface of an ancient copper mirror is cleaned recently, and we don’t disclose that in the information to the audience, it is almost like telling a lie because no copper mirror could have lasted this long without losing its reflective surface.

Museum officials from developed countries often believe that they are doing a noble job by preserving ancient artifacts as this ensures the continuous existence of these objects. However, they tend to forget the fact that the artifacts have existed for a long time without any intervention and might have lasted even longer if they were not dug up or removed from their original locations. An example of this would be the removal of mummies from Egyptian pyramids. They existed for thousands of years without any intervention from us, and now they have started to crumble in their museum display cases due to continuous handling and sampling for research. Likewise, the mummified head of Otokar II, the king of Bohemia, remained in his tomb for 700 years. Ever since it was taken out of the tomb, it has been rapidly disintegrating due to the drastic changes in its environment.

When conflicts between conservation and display come up, we often tend to forget the issue of the artist or the patron’s wishes concerning an artifact or artwork. If we look at the example of the mummies again, we can logically assume that it wasn’t the pharaohs’ wish to have their bodies remain in a museum open to the public. This brings about a very severe ethical concern because we have chosen to disregard the integrity and wishes of historical figures for the purpose of quenching our own curiosity.

While it is not our intention to destroy what we come to see, often the acquisition and display of objects can take a toll on their structural stability, exposing their weaknesses and accelerating their rate of deterioration. We lose many important historical items every year in the name of research. Many of the museums today are abandoning their glass boxes and putting their exhibits in more open spaces closer to the public. This allows for the visitors to have a more hands-on experience with the objects. However, the open displays of these objects put them in danger of damage and theft.

Agents of deterioration include many things; some are caused by biological factors, some mechanical, and others by chemical processes. The Lascaux Cave was once a very famous tourist destination due to its wall paintings. However, it has been forced to close down as human breath was promoting micro-organic decay of the paintings. Mass tourism in places of heritage also causes erosion of the historic sites.

Physical and mechanical damage to artifacts are often caused by accidents such as dropping and breaking the objects during its transportation from one site to another.  In 2002, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a 15th century Renaissance marble statue by Tullio Lombardo crashed to the floor and shattered into pieces due to the faulty base it was placed on top of. Another mishap happened in the same museum in 2010, when a visitor tripped and fell damaging a Picasso painting in the process.

Biological deterioration of artifacts is often caused by micro-organisms, insects and other pests. Animal action such as the clawing of statues by birds or the deposit of excrement by insects in furniture can cause gradual but certain damage to the objects. The growths of green algae, lichen and moss, as well as root action from trees, are continuously weakening the structure of the Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Mold and fungi use materials such as paper as a food source and often attack articles such as historical books and manuscripts at the museums. Insects such as carpet beetles, silverfishes, and clothes moths destroy organic materials by feeding and excreting on them. Organic artifacts such as textiles, furniture, leather and taxidermy specimens are particularly vulnerable. An example of this would be the insect infestation in the stuffed lobster at the Royal Ontario Museum. Larger pests such as rodents can do the similar damages. In nature, these organisms are part of the cycle that returns materials to the earth. They often come into the museum buildings from outside on the clothing, shoes or bags of the visitors. Once they are inside the buildings, they are quite hard to eradicate.

Chemical alteration to artifacts may not always be visible in the early stages of deterioration; however, it is one of the most severe forms of destruction. Breaking chemical linkages in the materials cause weaknesses in the structure of the objects and can make them become brittle. Other consequences of chemical action include color change, stickiness, cracking, shrinkage and exudation. The objects can become acidic and as a result, become a threat for the other exhibits in the same display. One of the biggest chemical deterioration problems for metal objects is corrosion. Corrosion of metals is a process of returning manmade metal objects back to its original stable ore form.

Temperature, humidity, pollution, radiation and light are some other factors that accelerate the deterioration process of materials. The Most damaging wavelengths of light are around the blue wavelengths and ultraviolet rays. Constant exposure to light in a museum setting can create staining, or fading effects. Ivory is quite sensitive to light. It tends to bleach in bright places while it yellows if left in a dark environment. Radiation leads to photo-oxidation causing fading of pigments, weakening of fibers and other materials and yellowing of paper-like elements.

High temperature provides energy causing higher rates of reaction leading to increased physical deterioration and biological activity. High temperature can cause a “bloom” effect on the surfaces of objects, melt or soften plastics, and decrease the strength of some adhesives. Due to this reason, hot places are very damaging to paper and plastic materials. On the other hand, low temperature reduces the rate of reaction; however, it can also cause brittleness or cracks in objects making them more vulnerable. Famous artifacts often travel around the world, taking part in different exhibitions, and the worst damage to objects happen due to them being in environments of fluctuating temperatures, light, and humidity.

Humidity can bring about chemical, physical, and biological deterioration in objects. Low humidity, often associated with cold temperatures, can lead to brittleness and greater susceptibility to damage. Low, high or varying humidity may cause shrinkage, warping or cracking. At a given humidity level, a material would have a characteristic moisture content. An unconstraint piece of wood is free to move, however, once something is created out of it, for example a musical instrument, its movement and reactions to humidity is limited. This creates stresses within the structure of the object.

Pollutants that cause harm to artifacts comprise of elements such as chemicals given off by people, water vapor, dust particles, chemicals released from industries, gasses naturally present in air etc. Some specific pollutants that should be avoided in a museum environment are acetic acid, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. These substances break down bonds and encourage corrosion of certain materials. Dust particles can sink into a sticky or porous object and can become hard to remove, affecting the aesthetic value of the object. The particles can also serve as food sources for insects and attract pest infestation. Concrete dust is acidic and can enter the objects if any building construction work is done nearby.

If the artifacts were kept sealed in their original sites, for example inside a tomb or pyramid, they might have had less exposure to all these factors that affect them in an art gallery or museum environment. It is quite hard to determine what is more important, keeping historical objects away from the public eye and preventing them from gaining knowledge of the past, or excavating all artifacts at the expense of losing them eventually due to their accelerated deterioration. Taking objects away from their original sites and changing their composition or structure for longer preservation has the implication of changing the interpretation of history. As we must preserve heritage for the future, while also using it to interpret the past through display, it is essential that we take every measure possible to strike a balance between them.

The Stone Henge, once easily accessible by the general public, now has limited access for visitors. The visitors can only see the structure from a distance, as opposed to being able to touch it like before. This will reduce the amount of deterioration caused by human interference while still remaining to be viewable to the public. Likewise, a fence around vulnerable artifacts at a museum could prevent problems such as accidents and vandalism.

Items that are very fragile and light sensitive could be photographed and digitized. Although a photograph does not have the same effect on our senses that a three dimensional object would have, a digitized image can reach a larger audience through the internet. If it is absolutely necessary for the objects to be on display, there are some other ways we can reduce the effect of light on them. Certain types of glass can remove the ultraviolet rays coming in, so the objects should be placed in enclosures made out of this material. Since most museum exhibitions are indoors, the amount of light can be reduced using window screens or artificial lighting with lower power light bulbs. An efficient way to arrange displays is to group objects according to their light sensitivity.

The safest museum environment has a stable temperature and humidity level; therefore, the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems should always be used to prevent fluctuations in temperature and humidity from taking place. The use of the ventilation system and enclosing artifacts in display cases can also greatly reduce the amount of damage caused by pollutants such as dust particles. Silica gel can be used to control the humidity in a display, as it absorbs moisture and keeps metals and organic materials dry. We can’t always implement temperature levels for display as we must make sure that the temperature is not uncomfortable for the visitors.  However, we can decrease the temperature in storage areas in order to reduce the rate of deterioration of some materials.

Often a patina layer appears on the surface of objects made out of metals such as silver. This process can occur naturally over many years. A patina is a protective layer that stabilizes the object by not letting oxygen through. While choosing objects to put on display, it may be a better idea to exhibit a metal object with patina as it will be less likely to react in the environment. As patina is a tarnished layer, the visitors will also get an idea about the material the object is made out of, and its age. Changes in an artifact don’t always have to be undesirable; it can be part of its history. What is preserved in corrosion or other damage can sometimes give useful information, for example textile marks found on an ancient blade can give us an idea about the type of fabrics the people used at that time.

Mainly because of the increase in physical and chemical erosion of structures, there is a new trend of substituting facsimiles in situ and transferring the original objects to more stable environments. The visitors are made to understand that the objects they are seeing are replicas of the original. Examples of this include the replica of Michelangelo’s David in Florence and the sculpted figures on the Baptistery of Pisa. This may not be directly equivalent to experiencing the real objects; however, this process can help preserve original artifacts for a longer period of time while also reducing the number of theft cases at the site.

The reconstruction of damaged objects has always been controversial. An object as a whole tells a better story than a few shattered pieces of the artifact. Since the main aim of a museum is to convey historical knowledge to the general public, a reconstructed object would be more functional. For example, rather than displaying pieces of a broken ceramic vase, it would be more purposeful to reconstruct it with plaster to look a bit more like its previous form. We must keep in mind though that the reconstruction process must be reversible. In the past, many conservators have made the mistake of using adhesives that worked well for some time but later lost its stickiness and left permanent stains on the artifacts.

It is the moral right of our future generations to experience all that we are able to experience today. That is why it is very important to preserve objects of heritage and historical significance. Museums and art galleries extract artifacts from their original sites and bring them under one roof to exhibit in front of the general public. These educational institutions are pulled into constant debate over the conflicts between preservation and access of artifacts. While they are helping us build a greater sense of ourselves by getting in touch with our history, some of their display techniques are also causing damage to very valuable artifacts. All objects perish over time; our aim now should be to be very vigilant and decelerate the rate of deterioration of artifacts. Rather than performing restorations, taking preventive measures will be more efficient for the continuous existence of our history.

Want to learn more about the preservation and access debate? Take the UofT Conservation course at the Royal Ontario Museum. The best part of the course? You get to touch a real mammoth tusk!