or
“Just Make it Look Better.”
When inpainting areas of color loss on historic and culturally significant furniture complete imperceptibility is neither desirable nor necessary. The “six foot, six inch rule” is an oft repeated conservation proverb regarding aesthetically reintegrative treatments. The stated objective is that from six feet away (normal museum viewing distance) visual unification is achieved leaving repairs undetectable but upon close inspection (six inches) the repairs will be apparent. This rule honors the ethical standards to which we subscribe by allowing for detectability of inpainting. Conservators are not in the business of fine art forgery. They are trying to fool no one. Repairs are documented before and after treatment and are left to be conspicuous upon closer examination.
Additionally, by focusing on mitigation of damage rather
than trying to render the repair completely invisible patina is preserved. This
well-aged aesthetic value is almost universally revered in the sphere of decorative
arts collectors and connoisseurs.
A tertiary benefit is related to practicality. This ‘rule’
no doubt has a liberating effect on practitioners faced with unusually
challenging repairs (such as cross grain scratches in a table top) or budgetary
constraints of clientele.
![]() |
Looking close at different angles reveals the inpainted portions |
![]() |
Close up shot of a skeleton mirror's new foot grafted on and inpainted |
How does this relate
to objects without cultural value?
“…it is becoming more common for people to bring their personal possessions-
the stuff of everyday life- to conservators, something that the profession actively
encourages…There is no shame in providing competent conservation treatment for
these things.” – Barbara Applebaum, Conservation
Treatment Methdology
With this we are faced with a dilemma. Seeing as ethical standards
were born in a museum context (which implies these objects have cultural value)
how should conservators develop treatments for everyday objects in regular use
and/or where there are encumbering budgetary constraints?
Applebaum says, “The answer lies in identifying the object’s
values and focusing a treatment on the values the object has rather than on
those that it lacks… when society at large does not have- and will likely never
have- interest in an object, criteria appropriate for obviously preservation-worthy
objects may not apply.”
If an object has no historic or research value to our
culture but it is “just kind of pretty” and reminds the client of their
grandmother, leaving an undesirably degraded finish completely untouched would
be a failure to properly identify just what it is about the piece that is
valuable. In these cases if the coating cannot be satisfactorily manipulated
with solvents or overcoated, the piece is often stripped and refinished.
If color loss compensation is desired by a custodian, the
thoroughness and imperceptibility of restorative treatment can be adjusted to accommodate
the budget of the client. Inquiring to triage the treatments is more likely to
ensure a satisfied client, a visually satisfactory treatment outcome, and the
conservator’s conscience to be at ease.
Conclusion
This tension resolves then not in changing the quality of the treatments per se but
rather by adjusting the thoroughness and
imperceptibility of loss compensation.
The appropriateness of treatments is determined by the values we impute to the
object.
“Just make it look
better,” they say. Happily, the conscience of conservators of wooden objects
can rest easy knowing that neither the absence of cultural value nor the budgetary
constraints of their clientele mandate either violation of ethical standards or
practicing at a discounted rate.
Sometimes, you just gotta make it look better.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to get at something like what David Pye is writing about in that one good book of his - can't remember just now the title, the book's upstairs in the closet? But it doesn't seem your writing so much about the object but more the subject or the restorer.
Greetings,
Ernest Dubois
Hello Ernest,
DeleteI think you are probably referring to Pye's The Nature and Art of Workmanship. In that book he discusses many aspects of workmanship, the most cited being his distinction between the workmanship of risk (free and unjigged) and the workmanship of certainty (predetermined and jigged tasks).
In this article I am merely making the case that there are times we need to change our mindsets. It is not always necessary to make our "touching up" scratches completely invisible. Sometimes there is benefit to allowing the repairs to be seen for what it is upon close inspection. Thanks for your interest!