86 CONNOISSEUR decision-making. In the museum world, a conflict of interest can affect collection object acquisition procedures (for collectors, in an acquisition committee), or the procurement process at museums financed by public authorities. An unlawful acquisition of interest resulting from a conflict of interest may result in penal sanctions. See Ethics (deontology). CONNOISSEUR (fr. Connoisseur, sp. Conocedor), n. – This term refers to a person who is very knowledgeable about art, and known for their artistic taste and good judgement. Of French origin, the term is mostly used in English, where it has also produced the derivative connoisseurship – a method of art analysis and assessment developed in the 19th century by art critic Giovanni Morelli, and later built upon by art historian Bernard Berenson. In the museum context, Benjamin Ives Gilman spoke of the development of appreciative acquaintance (as opposed to cognitive acquaintance) as the objective of an art museum. See Museum and Work of art. CONNOTATION (fr. Connotation, sp. Connotación), n. – Meaning given to an exhibit by its environment – in particular its connection to other exhibits. Connotation is the opposite of denotation, which is the primary meaning an exhibit is supposed to carry. However, with the exception of a few rare works of art created for their own sake, no exhibit carries a meaning of its own. As John Cotton Dana observed in 1927: Objects are silent. They can tell their story through labels, guides and catalogues. Hence, an exhibit’s connection with one or more others, or with the physical environment in which it is displayed, creates a new meaning for each of these. Thus, exhibits that are grouped together by type will have different connotations depending on the classification criteria applied (morphological or functional) – just as the systemic opposition of exhibits from different cultures, performed by Jacques Hainard through his ‘museology of rupture’, generates still more connotations. See Exhibition. A.D. CONSERVATION (fr. Conservation, sp. Conservación), n. Definition: The umbrella term ‘conservation’ refers to a set of cross-disciplinary recursive activities that aim to safeguard and make cultural heritage accessible for present and future generations. It may focus on the preservation of the material fabric of an object, the perpetuation of its experience by audiences, as well as its intangible values and discourse. It may also concern the perpetuation of ‘heritage objects’ that are not identified with one discrete physical artefact, such as performances or rituals. In this sense, conservation is a process of knowledge production that, in each individual action, enacts decisions about what an object is, what it has been, and what it can be. Conservation encompasses various types of actions, including collection care, preservation, preventive conservation, restoration and remedial conservation, among others (cf. preventive conservation; preservation; remedial conservation; restoration). The use of the term itself may be context specific. In countries with Latin traditions, for example, the term conservation may lose relevance for restoration, which is more widely used and understood by both practitioners and the general public, while in other contexts the term conservation-restoration may be preferred. ‘Preservation’ may also be employed to refer to the overall set of activities aimed at safeguarding museum collections, built heritage and sites, having also gained relevance in the conservation of contemporary art due to the strong association with the field of digital preservation. The conservation process Conservation can be described as both an intention – with the overarching goal of keeping objects safe, as integral as possible, and accessible – and a construed practice involving the set of actions and measures needed to actualise that intention. The word ‘object’ in this article may refer to any entity that serves as the focus of conservation activities, including artistic works, cultural artefacts, structures, sites, rituals and CONSERVATION 87 practices. Both as intention and as practice, conservation is defined by a moment of action, or what the theorist Cesari Brandi (Brandi 2005) defined as ‘a methodological moment’ (Brandi used the term ‘restoration’, not ‘conservation’, which illustrates the contextual variations suggested above). Conservation is therefore a process, a recursive and never-ending inquiry. It first acknowledges the object as a manifestation of a cultural practice that is worth conserving, and second realises the historicisation of that given object, ensuring the transmission of its materiality or experience (which includes its intangible features) into the future. The processual nature of conservation makes this practice akin to a movement towards the object, which quickly turns into a dialogue between the conservator, the object, the values and significances associated with its interest groups and the many material possibilities its future might entail. Practices of conservation vary with the type of objects being conserved, the context, the interest groups it is associated with, and the cultures of care that underpin the forms in which conservation is materialised. For more traditional artefacts, such as a Roman vase, this may include the control of environmental conditions, minimisation of handling, preservation of its condition or physical appearance or interventions in its material fabric that would make it more easily interpreted – all within the limitations of its materiality and condition. When working with culturally sensitive objects, or those originating from Indigenous or other non-hegemonic traditions, on the other hand, conservators may need to incorporate other fields of knowledge into their practice by opening decision-making processes to representatives of interest groups associated with different values embedded in the object. For cultural practices that reside in the vernacular, consisting of instances of spoken word or bodily action, such as intangible heritage, or those that are created to unfold over time, such as artworks that rely on technological means to be manifested and experienced, conservation may consist of creating the material conditions for these works to occur now and in the future. The conservation process includes a broad range of recursive stages, which are documented using traditional and innovative methods. First steps usually entail both the understanding of the raw materials and techniques used in the production of objects and the changes of these materials related to where the objects have been and how they have been used and valued. This, of course, includes current contexts. The process may also involve activities related to preventive conservation (cf. preventive conservation), such as monitoring or management of the environment or material changes of objects, risk assessments, disaster preparedness, as well as remedial or preventive measures that could be applied to their material fabric (cf. remedial conservation; restoration). Scientific conservation The advent of scientific conservation, a derivation of modern scientific theories, is among the factors that allowed for the certification of the profession (Muñoz Viñas, 2005). It also provided conservators and other scientists with knowledge about the materials and techniques used by artists, as well as a deeper understanding of deterioration mechanisms and how to respond to them. The way the profession was regarded also shifted. Previously regarded as artisans due to the discipline’s original closeness to the arts and crafts, most conservators now have a formal education and are considered specialists on par with other professionals in the sector. The principle of ‘reversibility’, for example, was underpinned by this scientific focus, as it implied unique skills and knowledge, such as the power to ‘undo’, which strongly contributed to the development of the discipline during the 1970s and 1980s. It has long been deemed unattainable, however, and replaced by an emphasis on ‘minimum intervention’ and ‘re-treatability’ (Appelbaum, 2007, pp. 353–359). Although the perception of what may or not be minimal or re-treatable will depend on a broad range of contextual factors, both ‘minimum intervention’ and ‘re-treatability’ are essential concepts, as they acknowledge 88 CONSERVATION the potential destructive power of conservation and introduce a sense of ‘relativity’ to the practice (Appelbaum, 2007, p. 305; Muñoz Viñas, 2005, pp. 188–190) (cf. remedial conservation; restoration). conservation process becomes more inclusive, focusing on the values of people related to the material under conservation rather than only on the material itself. Values and significance From conservation to communication Conservation has evolved considerably since its theoretical foundations were first laid down in the 19th century, arguably being consolidated in the 1960s through Cesare Brandi’s Teoria del Restauro (first published in Italian in 1963, but only translated into English in 2005 by Cynthia Rockwell). Since then there have been many growing questions regarding contemporary ways of thinking about art objects, matter and materiality. Brandi’s ideas were echoed in subsequent conservation charters. The first of those was the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964), in which the aim of the discipline of conservation is defined as the preservation and revelation of aesthetic and historic value, which should be based on respect for original material. The Charter focuses on ideas of authenticity and integrity, and argues, for example, for new additions (introduced as part of the conservation process) to be distinguishable from the original material – clear influences of Brandi’s work. If conservation consists of measures and actions, it is inevitably constructed by decisions. Not only are these decisions influenced by their contexts (and hardly undisputed), but the complexity of the issue is expanded by the need to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives that surround the object. Muñoz Viñas (2005) refers to the growing awareness of the multiplicity of perspectives that surround objects, as well as their importance, as the ‘communicative turn’. Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre (2000) explore the idea from a different viewpoint in a research report in which conservation is argued as a discipline that crosses into different spheres of interaction and intervention, and involves many types of interest groups. It identifies new trajectories for conservation that have a more social and humanistic orientation, where the Layers of significance and values play essential roles in contemporary conservation, as they represent the interests of the different groups of people relating to the object being conserved. Values are dynamic social constructions that vary according to context, time and who is expressing them, why, where and how. Significance is defined by the values relating to the object in question. Different value systems have different denominations for the types of values one can find in association with cultural heritage objects, but these are usually attached to culturally and historically contingent understandings of the importance of certain aspects of objects in relation to others (e.g., historical, aesthetic or religious values) (ICOMOS, 2013). Understanding the significance and values attached to objects allows conservators to make decisions that may also reveal further tangible and intangible features. This implies that, regardless of context, all conservation actions and stages should consider the provenance of objects, their histories and biographies, and the different uses that have been given to them over time. As the understanding and embodiment of cultural heritage values changes, conservation decision-making processes should engage with representatives of interest groups such as owners, audiences, originators or descendants of originators, experts from different fields of knowledge, and users, among many others. While values are at the centre of this approach to a communicative way of conserving objects, there is also an awareness that the inclusion of a wide range of interest groups in the decision-making process is, however, complicated both by ideology and logistics. This perspective, as well as others that refer, for example, to the idea of the universal museum, the object’s true nature, or even the common heritage of humankind, however, should consider the colonial legacies of museums and their dynamics of CONSERVATION 89 power, which often give more relevance to the perspectives of dominant interest groups, such as museum professionals, experts or collectors. In the last decades of the 20th century, however, the impact of political activism and postcolonial studies began to resonate in the world of museums. As a consequence, interest groups previously excluded from decision-making began to find channels to voice their opinions about issues related to them, including the stewardship of collections originated by their ancestors. The process has been slow and is far from completion, however, as demonstrated by Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy’s report of 2018, which examined the legitimacy of holding collections with contested provenance and recommended appropriate measures that included restitution to their countries of origin. Nonetheless, conservators working with culturally sensitive collections have been developing a strong body of knowledge to support participatory approaches to decision-making and collaborations with different interest groups for at least 30 years (Peters, den Boer, Johnson & Pancaldo, 2020). In Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations (2002), for example, Miriam Clavir elaborates on how these changes have helped to bring the human element to the fore of discussions and prioritise values and voices that have been historically excluded from the museum sphere. Her focus is on how to bring people together with people, not only with objects. Emerging artistic practices should also be considered here, as they have persistently challenged prominent perspectives about authority and expertise, and advocate for conservation decision-making to include a broader diversity of interest groups (van Saaze, 2013). Conclusion As the conservation process never ends, the variables defining conservation actions are dynamic, never cease to evolve, and may be influenced by a broad range of factors. More sophistication has been introduced to the process since the need to consider the views of more diverse interest groups is increasingly acknowledged by the museum world. Despite all the innovations from the last decades, however, contemporary conservation is still grappling with the nature of the variables involved in these efforts. As they are non-quantifiable and often uncontrollable, providing evidence for their beneficial impacts is not always straightforward. Nonetheless, as a process of knowledge production that strongly links theory and practice, conservation is particularly well suited to developing approaches that may make collections more relevant for contemporary and future generations. Renata F. Peters, Hélia Marçal, Stephanie Auffret and Brian Castriota Bibliography Appelbaum, B. (2007). Conservation Treatment Methodology. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Avrami, E., Mason, R., & de la Torre, M. (2000). Values and Heritage Conservation: Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 5–30. Retrieved from http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/ values_heritage_research_report.html Brandi, C. (2005). Theory of restoration. In Basile, G. (ed), Theory of restoration. Firenze: Nardini Editore. Clavir, M. (2002). Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press. ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Retrieved from https:// www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf ICOMOS. (2013) [1979]. The Burra Charter, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance. Retrieved from https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/ The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf Muñoz Viñas, S. (2005). Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Oxford; Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Peters, R. F., den Boer, Iris L. F., Johnson, J. S., & Pancaldo, S. (Eds.), (2020). Heritage Conservation and Social Engagement. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/168814 Sarr, F., & Savoy, B. (2018). The Restitution of African Cultural Heritage. Toward a New Relational Ethics. In Restitution Report 2018. Retrieved from http:// restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf van Saaze, V. (2013). Installation Aart and the Mmuseum: Ppresentation and Cconservation of Cchanging Aartworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 90 CONSERVATION (PASSIVE) See Conservation (preventive), Conservation (remedial), Preservation and Restoration. CONSERVATION (PASSIVE) (fr. Conservation passive, sp. conservación pasiva), n. – A set of practices and actions that aim to keep objects/ structures in stable and sound condition without intervening directly into their material fabric. The term is in increasing disuse, as the contemporary conservation literature usually situates similar actions and approaches under the remit of ‘preventive conservation’, which is preferred. See Environment and Conservation (preventive). R.F.P. CONSERVATION (PREVENTIVE) (fr. Conservation preventive, sp. Conservación preventive), n. Definition: ‘Preventive conservation’ is one of the terms under the umbrella of ‘conservation’ and refers to a set of cross-disciplinary recursive activities and policies that aim to safeguard and make cultural heritage accessible for present and future generations. Preventive conservation encompasses all actions or measures aimed at preventing loss of/to an object, collection or structure, where loss (both partial and total) is understood as undesirable change or alteration in materials, concept, function, experience or other qualities or attributes. Aim(s) or intended effect(s) are what qualify a set of activities or policies as preventive conservation. Examples of preventive conservation may include environmental monitoring and control; risk assessment and management (e.g., pest management and disaster preparedness); handling and maintenance procedures for storage, exhibition, packing, transport and use; artist or stakeholder interviews; documentation; replication; stockpiling of consumables or legacy equipment; redundant digital storage and fixity monitoring; capacity building and the transmission of tacit knowledge. Intent, risk and context Within conservation literature preventive conservation is generally framed as the measures View publication stats that maintain a stasis or fixity of an object’s material fabric or appearance and prevent further undesirable alteration through interventions into an object’s surrounding environment, such as, for example, the way it is stored or displayed. This set of actions are contrasted with interventions or treatments carried out on the material fabric itself aimed at remedying loss (see Remedial Conservation) or aimed at returning an object to an alternate state/appearance (see Restoration). However, preventive conservation may not solely be concerned with fixity of an object’s material fabric; for many artworks, digital objects and other cultural heritage, maintaining other aspects – such as integrity of concept or function – may be the focus of preventive conservation. Preventing loss may therefore be achieved by ‘managing’ the change (Pullen, 1999; Villers, 2004, p. 9) of an object’s associated material elements. Preventive conservation, as the name suggests, puts the onus of practice in the act of preventing loss or any kind of undesirable change. In contrast to remedial conservation, which pertains to actions that aim to reverse, correct or ameliorate loss, preventive conservation assumes that the main goal of the action is to avoid further damage or manage change for aesthetic, functional or other reasons (Pullen, 1999; Villers, 2004, p. 9). This does not mean, however, that preventive conservation consists only of actions that indirectly affect the object. Indeed, the main difference between remedial and preventive conservation is not the type of actions done by the conservator (interventive or not), but the overarching aim or intent of those actions. While in some contexts cleaning an object may be intended as a remedial action, cleaning to minimise the deterioration of its material fabric, for example, would fall under the category of interventive actions that are aligned with an overarching goal of preventing further damage or limiting the impact of agents of deterioration. The notion of ‘agents of deterioration’ is a key concept in the preservation of cultural heritage: it assumes that deterioration is not something that simply happens to objects but, in fact, is