Values and Heritage Conservation

Research Report
The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles
Values and Heritage Conservation

Research Report

Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, Marta de la Torre

The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles

Project coordinators: Marta de la Torre and Erica Av ra m i
Logistics coordinator: Sheri Saperstein
Report editors: Erica Avrami and Randall Mason
Design/Production coordinator: Helen Mauchí
Copy editor: Sylvia Tidwell
Bibliography contributions: Randall Mason, Claudia Bohn-Spector and Hilary Dunne Fe rr o n e

Copyright © 2000 The J. Paul Getty Trust

The Getty Conservation Institute

1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1684
Telephone 310.440.7325
Fax 310.440.7702
Email GCIValues@getty.edu
http://www.getty.edu/gci

The Getty Conservation Institute works internationally to advance conservation practice in

the visual arts—broadly interpreted to include objects, collections, architecture, and sites. The
Institute serves the conservation community through four areas of activity: scientific research
into the nature, decay, and treatment of materials; education and training; model field projects;
and the dissemination of i n fo rmation through traditional publications and electronic means. In
all its endeavors, the  is committed to addressing unanswered questions and promoting the
highest possible standards of conservation.

The Institute is a program of the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural and philanthropic
institution devoted to the visual arts and the humanities that includes an art museum as well as
programs for education, scholarship, and conservation.
Table of Contents

Preface 1

Report on Research 3
The Spheres and Challenges of Conservation 
Conservation Perspectives 
Values, Valorization, and Cultural Significance 
The Need for a Conceptual Framework 
Exploratory Essays 13
Overview 
Stewarding the Past in a Perplexing Present 
David Lowenthal
Economic and Cultural Value 
in the Work of Creative Artists
David Throsby
Cultural Heritage and Globalization 
Lourdes Arizpe
Cultural Heritage, Liberal Education, 
and Human Flourishing
Uffe Juul Jensen
Cultural Fusion 
Erik Cohen
Preserving the Historic Urban Fabric 
in a Context of Fast-Paced Change
Mona Serageldin
The Making of Cultural Heritage 
Susan M. Pearce
Challenges for Heritage Conservation 
and the Role of Research on Values
Daniel Bluestone
Conclusions 68

Participants 71

Contributor Biographies 72

Appendix: Values Bibliography 73

Preface

Values are the subject of much discussion in contem- collaborate in and inform this work—and how they
p o ra ry society. In this postmodern, post-ideology, might be more effectively integrated in the future.
post-nation-state age, the search for values and mean- Such insight can, in turn, make conservation prac-
ing has become a pressing concern. In the field of tice more relevant to the societies of which it is a
cultural heritage conservation, values are critical to part, inform policy and decision makers about the
deciding what to conserve—what material goods will potential of conservation for fostering civil society,
represent us and our past to future generations—as and strengthen the role of conservation as a part of
well as to determining how to conserve. Even brief civil society.
c o n s i d e ration of a typical conservation decision In late , the  began development of a
reveals many different, sometimes divergent values at multiyear inquiry to explore the values and benefits
play: think of the artistic and aesthetic values of an of cultural heritage conservation. The research was
old building, as well as the historical values of its launched with a meeting held in Los Angeles and
associations, plus the economic values tied up in its R ive rside, Califo rnia, Ja nu a ry  to  ,    . Th e
use, and so on. In short, values are an important, meeting involved a multidisciplinary and multina-
d e t e rmining factor in the current practices and tional group of professionals and academics from
future prospects of the conservation field. the conservation and cultural heritage fields and
This report presents the results of research associated disciplines (see Pa rticipants section
on the subject of the values and benefits of cultural below). Meeting participants were asked to examine
heritage conservation undertaken by the Getty the state of knowledge about the multiple defini-
Conservation Institute () through its Agora ini- tions, roles, and meanings of cultural heritage and
tiative, as a means of articulating and fu rt h e r i n g its conservation; to look at the kinds of social and
ideas that have emerged from the conservation field cultural dynamics making the greatest impact on
in recent ye a rs. This tra n s d i s c i p l i n a ry re s e a rc h , conservation’s role in society, presently and in the
along with a parallel project on the economics of future; and to consider ideas, concepts, and research
heritage conservation, represents an effort of the themes that wa rrant fu rther study. Through an
 to advance understanding of conservation’s cur- online discussion that fo l l owed the Ja nu a ry    
rent role in society, to educate ours e l ves and the meeting, through correspondence, and through sev-
conservation community at large about the poten- eral commissioned essays, these ideas were honed
tial role of c o n s e rvation in the fu t u re, and, ulti- and debated.
mately, to strengthen the capacity of the conserva- The first part of this document, “Report on
tion field to enrich cultural life and the visual arts in Re s e a rch,” provides a summary of the ideas and
societies worldwide. ove ra rching themes that have emerged during the
The overall aim of  research on social and course of our research and meetings, in our ongo-
economic issues is understanding the processes— ing discussions with colleagues at the Getty,
specific and general—by which material heritage elsewhere in the conservation field, in academia,
conservation functions in the context of modern and in literatures from other disciplines that bear on
s o c i e t y, with the end of i m p r oving conserva t i o n conservation. The second part of the document,
practice and policy. By elucidating the ways in which “Exploratory Essays,” is a compendium of p ap e rs
we, as societies, professionals, and citizens, deter- on specific topics written by scholars who have par-
mine what to conserve and how to conserve it, we ticipated in this research. These essays explore some
hope to foster greater understanding of the work core ideas in greater depth and provide different dis-
that conservators do and of the ways in which other c i p l i n a ry pers p e c t ives on how broad s o c i a l
professionals, academics, and community members dynamics influence our understanding of cultural

1
heritage conservation. The “Conclusions” synthe-
s i ze some of these ideas and issues and propose
topics for continued ex p l o ration. These topics,
along with the summary and essays, are meant to
p r ovoke fu rther re s e a rch and cre a t ive think i n g
about the future of conservation. The success of
such research depends, in part, on active dialogue
among a widening group of c o l l a b o ra t o rs. So
please join us in this conve rsation. We we l c o m e
your thoughts and suggestions; email us at
GCIValues@getty.edu.

Notes

. In accordance with the mandate of the J. Paul Getty Trust

and the mission of the Getty Conservation Institute, the
Agora was established with a focus on material cultural
heritage—that is to say, art, objects, art i fa c t s, buildings,
monuments, sites, etc. These limits (however artificial they
may be) were set because the Institute does not encompass
in its conservation work such manifestations of culture as
folklore, literature, music, and dance. The exploration of
the Agora involved the full spectrum of cultural heritage
and the range of tangible and intangible constructs related
to the concept of heritage. However, in the strategic devel-
opment of research and other activities, material heritage
and its associated constructs (tangible and intangible) have
been emphasized.

2
Report on Research

The Spheres and Challenges of Conservation tice, i n t e rd i s c i p l i n a ry collaboration is not often

achieved. If one were to map, simply and generally,
Underpinning this research is an assumption that the current shape of conservation policy and prac-
heritage conservation is an integral part of civil soci- t i c e ,  one would f ind a rather linear path with
ety. Cultivating this role should, ideally, be one of the different groups of professionals engaged in distinct
abiding concerns of our field. In some form, conser- steps along the way.
vation of material heritage is a function observable As re p resented in Figure  (see page ), at
in every modern society. Conservation shapes the some initial stage, a product of material culture—be
society in which it is situated, and in turn, it is shaped it an object or a place—is recognized as “cultural
by the needs and dynamics of that society. heritage.” This is, in fact, the beginning of a process
Yet how conservation is approached and of heritage creation or production. Whether through
u n d e rtaken varies from culture to culture. Th e academic discourse, arc h a e o l ogical exc avation, a
t e rm c o n s e rvation i t s e l f has varied meanings and c o m munity movement, or political or re l i gi o u s
connotations. In certain contexts, “conservation” t re n d s, interest is generated about the object or
has broad meaning, signifying the entire f ield or place in question, and momentum builds. The next
realm of cultural heritage preservation, from acade- step entails protection of the “product” through, for
mic inquiry and historical research to policy mak- example, designation as an historic site or acquisi-
ing to planning to technical intervention (this tion by a museum. This step often involves individu-
meaning is akin to the American notion of “historic als or groups, such as curators, heritage commis-
preservation”). At the same time, “conservation” is s i o n s, etc., who evaluate the signif icance of t h e
used to indicate physical intervention or treatment product. Next, those who own or have responsibility
specifically. This definition of conservation refers to for the product (collections managers, site man-
the more technically oriented functions of t h e agers, property owners, etc.) are charged with its
broader field. But the broader def inition re fe rs overall management. This may (or may not) lead to
more widely to conservation as a complex, diverse, a program of intervention or treatment to conserve
and even divergent social practice—and it is this def- the fabric of the object or place, involving conserva-
inition that needs to be foregrounded. t o rs, arc h i t e c t s, scientists, etc. And it may also
It would seem that the latter, more narrow include consultations made with communities and
d e finition of c o n s e rvation is an element of the other stakeholders, or decisions made by politicians
fo rm e r, more ex p a n s ive definition. Howeve r, in and investors.
practice, the work of intervention or treatment has As the diagram suggests, conservation policy
become somewhat disconnected from this broader and practice follow a sequence of steps that each
field and notion of conservation. Decisions about involves a separate sphere of professionals and players,
what to conserve and why are often taken indepen- often with little interp l ay among the sphere s.
d e n t ly from those dealing with how to conserve , Intervention, in particular, has become its own, very
and vice versa. This is due, in part, to the relative distinct sphere, focusing mostly on the physical aspects
isolation of different groups or spheres of profes- of heritage and often losing sight of the interconnect-
sionals that engage in the work of c o n s e rva t i o n edness of treatment to the preceding spheres.
(broadly defined). In the current climate of globalization, tech-
Professionals working in the broader conser- nological advancement, population mobility, and the
vation field are drawn from the sciences, the arts, the s p read of p a rt i c i p a t o ry democracies and market
social sciences, the humanities, and other areas— economies, it has become quite clear to the broad
reflecting the fact that heritage conservation is truly conservation community that these and other soci-
a multidisciplinary endeavor. All the same, in prac- etal trends are profo u n d ly and rap i d ly changi n g

3
 Figure 1

The current shape of conservation policy and practice: in which the different aspects of conservation activity
often remain separate and unintegrated, retaining the sense that conservation is insulated from social contexts.

cultures and communities. The future challenges of many other government and nongovernmental agen-
the conservation field will stem not only from her- cies (s) have established policies for integrated
itage objects and sites themselves but from the conservation management, employing value-driven
contexts in which society embeds them. These con- planning methodologies that attempt to incorporate
t exts—the values people draw from them, the values more effectively in conservation decision mak-
functions heritage objects serve for society, the uses ing. Yet despite these advances, widespread integra-
to which heritage is put—are the real source of the tion of the spheres of c o n s e rvation policy and
meaning of heritage, and the raison d’être for con- p ractice has been slow. This is larg e ly due to the
servation in all senses. As society changes, so does rather fragmented and unbalanced body of knowl-
the role of conservation and the opportunities for edge that supports the work of conservation; also
c o n s e rvation to shape and support civil society. to the specialization of work in different disciplines.
These changed social conditions compel us to think As a field, we know a great deal about some aspects
expansively and realistically about the future stand- of conservation (science, documentation, listing);
ing of conservation in the social agenda. in other, important areas, we know very little (for
G iven these immediate challenges, many instance, economics, or the use of heritage as a foil in
conservation professionals and organizations have identity or political struggles).
recognized that greater cohesion, connection, and In the cultural heritage conservation field, we
integration are needed in the conservation field. As are consistently faced with challenges on three fronts:
suggested by Figure  (see page ), rather than a
disjointed sequence, the spheres of conservation • Physical condition: Behavior of materials and
ought to be integrated better and embedded with- s t ru c t u ral systems, deterioration causes and
i n their re l evant contex t s, so as to ensure that mechanisms, possible interventions, long-term
conservation remains responsive to ever-changing efficacy of treatments, etc.
cultural conditions.
In the last ten to fifteen years, the field (specifi- • Management context: Availability and use of
cally those involved in the conservation of architec- re s o u rc e s, including funds, trained personnel,
ture and archaeological sites) has made significant and technology; political and legislative man-
advances in grappling with these challenges in a holis- dates and conditions; land use issues, etc.
tic way. Through comprehensive planning for conser-
vation management, 2 integrated, interdisciplinary • Cultural significance and social values: Why an
approaches to the preservation of the built environ- object or place is meaningful, to whom, fo r
ment have developed that address the changed condi- whom it is conserved, the impact of interven-
tions of contemporary society. Australia , the tions on how it is understood or perceived, etc.
. . National Park Service, English Heritage, and

4
Figure 2

The potential future of conservation policy and practice: in which different aspects of conservation practice,
social contexts, and stakeholders are integrated, connected, and coherent.

Traditionally, the research efforts of the con- However, very little of this literature is applied to or
s e rvation f ield have focused on the fi rst front, developed in the context of conservation.
physical condition. Great strides have been made to Although there is a g reat deal of information
understand and arrest material deterioration. As a in related disciplines (anthropology, economics,
result, in the area of material science and technical psychology, philosophy, etc.) that can info rm the
interventions, a considerable body of information, work of c o n s e rvation, re l a t ive ly little re s e a rch
with specif ic applicability to conservation, has has addressed the specifics of cultural heritage con-
grown through the years. servation or has been undertaken in service of the
In the realm of management issues, some conservation field. In fact, the greater part of all con-
conservation-specific discourse has emerged from servation research still focuses on the challenges of
the law and economics fields. Most of this research, p hysical condition—namely, the deterioration of
though, has focused on issues of owners’ rights and materials and possible interventions—concentrating
finance, rather than on the complexities of resource on the objects as opposed to their contexts.
management within the field of conservation or on Every act of conservation is shaped by how
conservation as a “public good” within society. an object or place is valued, its social contexts, avail-
L i k ewise, one finds ex t e n s ive info rm a t i o n able resources, local priorities, and so on. Decisions
about canons of art-historical value, personal values, about treatments and interventions are not based
responsibility to future generations, material culture solely on considerations of physical decay; yet the
and its societal functions, heritage as embodied in lack of a coherent body of knowledge that address-
the natural environment, its stewardship, and so on. es and integrates all three fronts makes it ve ry

5
d i fficult to assess and incor p o rate these other, of contemporary society suggest that the conserva-
equally important factors in the work of conserva- tion field will only keep pace with recent trends if,
tion professionals. Likewise, this makes efforts to collectively, we reexamine the core concepts of her-
coalesce and connect the field at large and its multi- itage and conservation. Echoing a great deal of social
disciplinary constituency formidable. science and humanities research on culture in the
As a field, we have come to re c og n i ze that postmodern era, heritage should be considered a
conservation cannot unify or advance with any real ve ry fluid phenomenon, a process as opposed to
innovation or vision if we continue to concentrate a static set of objects with fixed meaning. Building
the bulk of conservation discourse on issues of phys- on this insight, heritage conservation should be rec-
ical condition. Conservation risks losing gr o u n d og n i zed as a bundle of h i g h ly politicized social
within the social agenda unless the nontechnical processes, intertwined with myriad other economic,
complexities of cultural heritage preservation, the political, and cultural processes.
role it plays in modern society, and the social, eco- Historically, cultural heritage—its very exis-
nomic, political, and cultural mechanisms through tence and its function within a society—has been
which conservation works are better understood taken for granted. That societies should save old
and articulated. things has been a matter of tradition, to be accepted
Th u s, the unmet need is for re s e a rch that and respected, and the reasons are not examined
explains how conservation is situated in society— too closely. The norms dictating what things quali-
how it is shaped by economic, cultural, and social f ied as heritage we re ve ry stable—these we re
forces and how, in turn, it shapes society. With this notions like “masterpieces,” “intrinsic value,” and
type of research, the field can advance in a positive “authenticity.” However, in the last generation, cul-
way by embedding the spheres of c o n s e rva t i o n tural consensus and norms have been replaced by
within their relevant contexts, informing decision- an atmosphere of openly contentious and fractious
making processes, fostering links with associated c u l t u ral politics. Some of the best scholars h i p
disciplines, and enabling conservation professionals regarding conservation and society presents com-
and organizations to respond better in the future, pelling evidence of precisely the opposite of what
through both practice and policy. Such re s e a rc h , was previously held true: that heritage, at its core, is
coupled with strategic planning for how better to p o l i t i c i zed and contested, and thus conserva t i o n
i n t egrate conservation in the social agenda, will must not hide behind its traditional philosophical
ensure that the next generation of conservation pro- matters of faith. (It should also be noted that the
fessionals will be educated and equipped to deal intense recent interest in professional ethics is
with conservation broadly and holistically. another part of the development of critical perspec-
tives on conservation. See the bibliography herein
Conservation Perspectives for a wide-ranging sample of such scholarship.)
At the heart of contemporary, interdiscipli-
There is tremendous educational and practical poten- nary, critical research on heritage is the notion that
tial to be realized by integrating and contextualizing cultural heritage is a social construction; which is
the spheres and work of conservation, not only as a to say that it results from social processes specific to
self-contained science or technological endeavor but time and place. As noted, scholarship on culture in
as a social practice. Conservation is continu a l ly the past generation or so reinforces the notion that
changing, mirroring the fact that cultures are con- c u l t u re is a set of p r o c e s s e s, not a collection of
s t a n t ly in flux from the local to the global scale. things. Artifacts are not static embodiments of cul-
As social and cultural change intensifi e s, gre a t e r t u re but are, ra t h e r, a medium through wh i c h
demands are made to conserve heritage as a brake identity, power, and society are produced and repro-
against unwanted change and even as a means of duced. Objects, collections, buildings, and places
effecting change. Heritage is one of the mainstays of become recognized as “heritage” through conscious
culture, art, and creativity. In any case, the cultural decisions and unspoken values of particular people
context dictates that the pressure to conserve, and and institutions—and for reasons that are strongly
the stakes in doing so, rise dramatically. This is our shaped by social contexts and processes. Thus, the
current climate. meaning of heritage can no longer be thought of
Insights gleaned from social theory, historical as fixed, as the traditional notions of intrinsic value
inquiry, and policy-related research about the nature and authenticity suggest. Museology scholar Susan

6
Pearce, for instance, suggests that cultural heritage is heritage is thus a medium for the ever-evolving val-
cognitively constructed and that “the notion of cul- ues of social groups (be they families, communities
tural heritage embraces any and every aspect of life residing in certain places, ethnic groups, disciplines
that indiv i d u a l s, in their va r i o u s ly scaled social or professional groups, entire nations) as well as indi-
groups, consider explicitly or implicitly to be a part viduals. Social groups are embedded in certain places
of their self-definition.”3 and times and, as a matter of routine, use things
All the same, a postmodernist tendency to (including material heritage) to interpret their past
reduce cultural heritage to simply a social construc- and their future. In this sense, conservation is not
tion runs up against the widely held understanding merely an arresting process but a means of creating
that heritage is in fact imbued with some universal, and recreating heritage.
intrinsic qualities. Despite the tenor of identity poli- Though this pers p e c t ive on conserva t i o n
tics and the pull towa rd cultural re l a t iv i s m , challenges some widely held, traditional notions, we
a n t h r o p o l ogist Lourdes Arizpe argues the mu c h - in the conservation field have come to re c og n i ze
debated point that cultural heritage—in addressing that we must integrate and contextualize our work.
the deepest, shared human longings for love and Conservation is a process that consistently recreates
beauty and cooperation—has universal significance, its product (cultural heritage), accumulating the
or etic meaning, in addition to its more culturally marks of passing generations. As such, it must be sit-
bound emic meaning. Philosopher Uffe Jensen also uated in its larger social contexts—as part of t h e
suggests that the need for access to one’s culture, l a rger cultural sphere; as a basic phenomenon of
one’s heritage, crosses all cultures and contributes to p u blic discourse; as a social activity constantly
human flourishing and happiness in the Aristotelian reshaped by forces such as globalization, technologi-
sense. As related to these values of human happiness cal developments, the widening influence of market
and societal peace, there is a universal quality to the ideology, cultural fusion, and myriad others. This
notion of cultural heritage that transcends relativistic process-centered model of conservation is at the
interpretation but that is equally bound up in speci- heart of the future relevance of our field. It could
ficities of time and place. This is a major axis of serve as a basis for orienting practice, formulating
d ebate, and each side suggests a ve ry diffe re n t and analyzing policy, understanding economic
approach to determining cultural significance as part forces, and generally ensuring that conservation is
of the conservation process. “significant” for society at large.
All sides of the contingent-universal debate
agree that heritage and its conservation (traditionally Values, Valorization,
defined) play definite, even essential functions in and Cultural Significance
most, if not all, societies. Yet the concept of conser-
vation is itself p a ra d oxical. As David Lowe n t h a l Values and valuing processes are threaded through
notes in his essay below, “Heritage is never merely the various spheres of conservation and play an enor-
c o n s e rved or protected; it is modifi e d — b o t h mous role as we endeavor to integrate the fi e l d .
enhanced and degraded—by each new generation.” Whether works of art, buildings, or ethnographic
As with all other social activities, conservation is not artifacts, the products of material culture have differ-
objective; it is biased by the values and perspectives ent meanings and uses for different individuals and
o f various individuals and interest g r o u p s. communities. Values give some things significance
Architectural historian Daniel Bluestone cautions over others and thereby transform some objects and
that change must be understood as part of the rich- places into “heritage.” The ultimate aim of conserva-
ness of heritage and that, in the work of conserva- tion is not to conserve material for its own sake but,
tion, “understanding change is as important as rather, to maintain (and shape) the values embodied
understanding original intent.” Conservation is a by the heritage—with physical intervention or treat-
complex and continual process that involves determi- ment being one of many means toward that end. To
nations about what constitutes heritage, how it is achieve that end, such that the heritage is meaningful
used, cared for, interpreted, and so on, by whom and to those whom it is intended to benefit (i.e., future
for whom. The decisions about what to conserve and generations), it is necessary to examine why and how
how to conserve are largely defined by cultural con- heritage is valued, and by whom.
texts, societal trends, political and economic forces— Cultural significance is the term that the con-
which themselves continue to change. Cultura l servation community has used to encapsulate the

7
multiple values ascribed to objects, buildings, or land- c u l t u ral, spiritual, aesthetic, and others), each of
scapes. From the writings of Riegl to the policies of which has correspondingly varied ideals, ethics, and
the Burra Charter, these values have been ordered in epistemologies. These different ways of valuing in
categories, such as aesthetic, religious, political, eco- turn lead to different approaches to preserving her-
nomic, and so on.4 Through the classification of val- itage. For instance, conserving a historic house
ues of different disciplines, fields of knowledge, or p r o p e rty according to historical-cultural va l u e s
uses, the conservation community (defined broadly) would lead one to maximize the capacity for the
attempts to grapple with the many emotions, mean- place to serve the educational function of telling the
i n g s, and functions associated with the material stories; the primary audiences in this case might be
goods in its care. This identification and ordering of local schoolchildren and the local community, for
values serves as a vehicle to inform decisions about whom association with this old place and its stories
how best to preserve these values in the physical con- makes a significant contribution to their gr o u p
servation of the object or place. Though the typolo- identity. By contrast, conserving the same site to
gies of different scholars and disciplines vary, they maximize economic value might lead to a conserva-
each represent a reductionist approach to examining tion approach that favors revenue generation and
the very complex issue of cultural significance. tourist traffic over educational and other cultural
However, this process of valuing is neither values. Thus, parts of the property might be devel-
singular nor objective, and it begins even befo re oped for parking, gift shops, and other visitor-sup-
the object becomes “heritage.” With reference to p o rt f u n c t i o n s, instead of i n t e rp reting and
F i g u re , one can see that some fraction of t h e conserving historic landscape or archaeological ele-
material culture produced or inherited by society ments of the site; the overall conservation strategy
(artistic as well as utilitarian) becomes defined and might be driven by creating a popular (marketable)
recognized as heritage through designation. How experience, as opposed to creating one that focuses
does this happen? The creation of cultural heritage on educational use by a target audience of school-
is largely derived from the way people remember, children. Neither option can be viewed as a priori
organize, think about, and wish to use the past and better or more appropriate than the other, as the
how material culture provides a medium through appropriateness is dependent upon the values prior-
which to do this. The stories invested in objects, itized by the community, or “stakeholders” involved
buildings, and landscapes, by individuals or groups, (professionals, public, government, etc.), and the
constitute a currency in which the valorizing of cul- context in which the effort is undertaken.
tural heritage is transacted. The subtle distinction Conservation (narr ow ly defined) has com-
between valuing ( ap p reciating existing value) and monly been viewed as that which follows the act of
valorizing (giving added value) speaks to the inter- heritage designation—that is, a technical response
ventionist and interpretative aspects of the simple after a place or object has already been recognized as
act of identifying something as heritage. Simply having value. The underlying belief has been that
labeling something as heritage is a value judgment preservation treatment should not, and would not,
that distinguishes that object or place from other change the meaning of the heritage object, yet the
objects and places for particular re a s o n s, and as traditional practice of conserving—of p re s e rv i n g
such, the labeling adds new meaning and value. the physical fabric of a heritage object—does in fact
The process of valorizing begins when indi- actively interpret and valorize the object. Every con-
v i d u a l s, institutions, or communities decide that servation decision—how to clean an object, how to
some object or place is worth preserving, that it rep- reinforce a structure, what materials to use, and so
resents something worth remembering, something o n — a ffects how that object or place will be per-
about themselves and their past that should be trans- ceived, understood and used, and thus transmitted
mitted to fu t u re genera t i o n s. Through donation to the future. Despite such postulated principles as
of an object to a museum or through the designation minimum intervention, reversibility, and authentici-
or listing of a building or site, these individuals or ty, a decision to undertake a certain conservation
communities (be they political, academic, or so on) i n t e rvention gives priority to a certain meaning
actively create heritage. But this is only the beginning or set of values. For example, decisions in the man-
of the process of creating and valorizing heritage. agement of an arc h a e o l og ical site may invo l ve
Heritage is valued in a variety of ways, dri- stabilizing one stru c t u re but exc avating through
ven by different motivations (economic, political, another to expose an earlier structure below. Each

8
decision affects how visitors experience the site and often not undertaken when conservation interven-
how they interpret and value the architectural forms tions are planned, or when it is, it is frequently limit-
and elements; these decisions likewise reflect how ed to the one-time composition of a statement of
those responsible for care and protection interpret significance by an archaeologist, historian, or other
and value the forms and elements. In the realm of expert. Why is it that assessment of cultural signifi-
objects conservation, the issue of repatriation also cance is not more meaningfully integrated in conser-
captures such competing values. For instance, ethno- vation practice? As mentioned prev i o u s ly, with a
graphic objects associated with Native American body of information and a research agenda focused
groups are often collected in museums. There, the primarily on issues of physical condition, conserva-
objects are conserved (and stored and/or displayed) tion education ra re ly invo l ves training in how to
to arrest decay, so that they may be viewed and stud- assess complex meanings and va l u e s, whom to
ied by both scholars and the public. This course of involve in such an assessment, and how to negotiate
action champions the value of the object as a means the decision making that follows.
of providing information about and understanding Still larg e ly rega rded as a technical ra t h e r
of a certain Native American culture from outside than a social endeavor, conservation has failed to
the culture itself. Yet many Native American groups attract significant input from the social sciences. As
prefer that these objects be returned, so that they mentioned prev i o u s ly, despite emerging policies
may be reburied in accordance with their spiritual that promote value-driven planning for conserva-
beliefs. These options reflect different sets of values: tion management, there is a limited body of
one gives priority to the use of the object as a means knowledge regarding how conservation functions in
o f p re s e rving cultural tra d i t i o n s, the other to its society—and specifically regarding how cultural sig-
material form. nificance might best be assessed and reassessed as
Values also inform policy decisions. Consider part of a public and enduring conservation process.
a hypothetical government agency with responsibili- Cultural significance for the purposes of conserva-
ty for managing the listing of official landmarks and tion decision making can no longer be a pure ly
investing public funds in preservation projects. A scholarly construction but, rather, an issue negotiat-
number of competing interests—competing va l- ed among the many professionals, academics, and
u e s — t y p i c a l ly vie to be ex p ressed through these c o m munity members who value the object or
decision-making processes. Different culture groups place—the “stakeholders.”
and political factions lobby to have their memories Because of the complexity of contemporary
and messages sanctioned by government policy. To society, it is important to recognize the diversity of
add complexity, economic values might trump these potential stakeholders—they include, but are not
competing cultural values—projects are wo rt h limited to, the individual, the family, the local com-
investing in, the logic goes, only if they are financial- mu n i t y, an academic discipline or profe s s i o n a l
ly self-supporting. community, an ethnic or religious group, a region, a
These examples clearly illustrate that the nation-state, macrostates (such as the European
values of i n d ividuals and communities—be they C o m munity or the North American Free Tra d e
conservators, anthropologists, ethnic groups, politi- Area), the world. Relations among stakeholders at
cians, or otherwise—shape all conservation. And in various levels are both intimate and tense; they some-
the conservation process, these values, as represent- times build affiliation and community and other
ed in the object or place, are not simply “preserved” times sow discontent. Motivations for the valoriza-
but are, ra t h e r, modified. The meaning of t h e tion (or devalorization) of material heritage vary
object or place is re d e fined, and new values are among these stakeholders. Broader cultural condi-
sometimes created. tions and dynamics (for instance, marketization,
What is the usefulness of such an insight? technological evolution, cultural fusion) influence
A n a ly t i c a l ly, one can understand what values are these interactions. Continuity and change, participa-
at work by analyzing what stories are being told. And tion, power, and ownership are all bound up in the
analysis of meanings (which is to say, cultural signifi- ways in which cultures are created and progress.
cance) thus provides an important kind of knowl- The effects of these phenomena of cultural
edge to complement documentation and analysis of change and evolution are manifested clearly in the
material conditions as the contexts for physical treat- heritage conservation arena. Rapid transformation
ment. Yet the assessment of cultural significance is in this technological age often has a dramatic effect

9
on the dual forces of continuity and change, exacer- important role in modern society. The care and col-
bating political tensions among stakeholders. In lection of heritage objects and places is a universal,
conservation, this is manifested, for instance, in the c r o s s - c u l t u ral phenomenon, part of eve ry social
prominent role of the “suburban sprawl” issue in group’s imperative to use things, as well as narra-
American historic pre s e rvation, or the lures and tives and performances, to support their collective
pressures that come with worldwide development of memory. Yet there is little research to support why
tourism sites and industries. This dilemma can be cultural heritage is important to human and social
made worse, since decision makers are having to development and why conservation is seemingly a
take actions affecting heritage in shorter and shorter vital function in civil society. The benefits of cultural
time frames, and the interests of local constituencies heritage have been taken as a matter of faith.
(as well as those of future generations) can easily Recognizing that the “discipline” of conser-
vanish from consideration. vation is, in fact, a loose amalgam involving the
Lourdes Arizpe suggests that, for all conser- social sciences, the humanities, the hard sciences,
vation decision making, one must look at who is and public policy, but one with a limited body of
valorizing cultural heritage and why. “Governments knowledge about its functions and influences within
value it in one way, elite national groups another, society at large, the field is attempting to develop
different from local populations, academics, or busi- with g reater cohesion and connectedness. To
ness people. To know what is the best strategy to achieve this, the conservation field needs to know a
preserve cultural heritage, we need to understand great deal more about the nature of the role of con-
what each of these groups thinks and the relation- s e rvation in society—how it is changing, wh o
ship between these different groups.” It is in our best participates, and so on. At a more empirical level, we
interest, as conservation professionals, to facilitate need to know how the values of i n d ividuals and
some sort of agreement or understanding among communities are constructed with regard to cultural
these different stakeholders about the cultural sig- heritage, how these values are represented through
nificance of an object or place as part of common an assessment of cultural significance, and how the
p ractice. An understanding of s t a k e h o l d e rs’ va l- concept of cultural significance can play out more
ues—which define their goals and motivate their e ffe c t ive ly in conservation policy and pra c t i c e ,
actions—provides critical insight for the long-term, through better-negotiated decision making.
strategic management of heritage resources by both Broadly, we lack any conceptual or theoretical
the private and the public sectors. overviews for modeling or mapping the interplay of
To conserve in a way that is relevant to our economic, cultural, political, and other social con-
own society in our own moment, we must under- texts in which conservation is situated. Pragmatically,
stand how values are negotiated and determine how this kind of synthetic overview or framework would
the process of analyzing and constructing cultural make clear how different disciplines can contribute to
significance can be enhanced. There is also a paral- conservation research. Likewise, it would provide a
lel obligation, beyond preserving what is relevant to context for and help to integrate the varied spheres of
our own time—that is, preserving what we believe conservation work, with the ultimate aim of eluci-
will be signif icant to f u t u re genera t i o n s. Th e dating how conservation can be made more effective
prospect of stewarding for future generations the in serving society.
material markers of the past, imbued with the What would this fra m ework do? It wo u l d
cumulative stories and meanings of the past as well model the social impacts and influences of c o n-
as of the present, is the essence of conservation. s e rvation, just as ecological models create an
With wide acknowledgment that culture is a fluid, understanding of the natural environment to inform
c h a n g e a ble, evolving set of processes and va l u e s environmental conservation. What would it consist
and not a static set of things, the conservation of o f ? A set of t h e o r i e s, documented pattern s, and
cultural heritage must embrace the inherent flux processes that outline how material cultural heritage
but not lose sight of this immutable cross-genera- and its conservation work within modern society.
tional responsibility. Taking as its starting point the broad perspective of
conservation and its varied spheres of activity, the
The Need for a Conceptual Framework model would, in effect, present a theory for describ-
ing (though not predicting) how heritage is created,
To recap some of the main issues addressed herein: how heritage is given meaning, how and why it is
The conservation of material heritage plays an contested, and how societies shape heritage and are

10
shaped by it. It would also create typologies of con- important because of the meanings and uses that
servation decisions, responses to these decisions, and people attach to these material goods and the
the different stakeholders that become involved in values they represent. These meanings, uses, and
conservation decisions. The model would outline values must be understood as part of the larger
the variety of g e n e ra l i z a ble social processes that sphere of sociocultural processes.
combine to give heritage relevance and currency in
societies—and sometimes create obstacles to such • Conservation should be framed as a social activi-
p r o c e s s e s. Th ey would likely include collective ty, not only as a technical one, bound up with and
memory; nationalism; constructing identity through shaped by myriad social processes (the subjects of
art, design, and visual media; cultural fusion and social sciences and humanities), as are all aspects
other ways of effecting and representing cultural of culture and the visual arts. This framing is crit-
change; market dynamics and commodification of ical to enabling the conservation field to realize
culture; policy making; state politics versus local pol- the goal of supporting a civil society and educat-
itics; and so on. Most, if not all, of these processes ing—with a balanced body of knowledge—the
have been theorized and documented on their own, next generation of conservation professionals.
in separate disciplines, but they have not been
brought to bear on material heritage conservation • As a social activity, conservation is an enduring
with the express purpose of mapping how the “ecol- process, a means to an end rather than an end in
ogy” of heritage conservation works. itself. This process is creative and is motivated
The challenge is how to get an analy t i c a l and underpinned by the values of individuals,
handhold on this complex process without being institutions, and communities.
reductionist. No single theory will fully explain the
creation of heritage. Indeed, the goal should not be • Heritage is valued in myriad and sometimes con-
to erect a unitary theory of heritage creation or to flicting ways. These different means of valuing
argue that visual culture and cultural heritage are influence negotiations among various stakehold-
produced in one particular way. This is an important ers and thus shape conservation decision mak-
point: a theory that heritage and visual culture are ing. Conservation, as a field and as a practice,
produced in one particular way could imply that must integrate the assessment of these values (or
there is one particular and best way to conserve it or cultural significance) in its work and more effec-
to reach conservation decisions. Research and pro- tively facilitate such negotiations in order for cul-
fessional experience tell us otherwise. In re a l i t y, tural heritage conservation to play a productive
there are many pathways connecting social process- role in civil society.
es and the work of conservation. Despite the reality
of cultural relativism, there is nonetheless a recur-
rence of themes in the process of heritage creation/ Notes
c o n s e rvation that suggests clear patterning that
could be revealed through a combination of concep- . In this instance, as throughout the report, reference is made
tual and empirical research. to the field of conservation as practiced in the Western
Research by the  and its collaborators has world, namely Europe and the Americas.
identified some fundamental ideas and concepts that . Also known as heritage management, cultural re s o u rc e
would contribute dire c t ly to the development of management, site management, and so on.
such a framework:
. This comment was made at the 1998 meeting that launched
• To assure the relevance of all conservation work ’s research on the values and benefits of cultural heritage
c o n s e rvation; it was quoted in an unpublished intern a l
to society, the field should continue efforts to report of the meeting. Other uncited quotes in this section
integrate and contextualize the varied spheres of are from the same source.
cultural heritage conservation.
. Typologies for values related to cultural heritage have been
• As we relate the varied spheres of conservation, put forth in publications by Ashworth, de la Torre, Hutter
and Rizzo, Kellert, Lipe, Riegl (for full citations, see the
we must continually recognize that objects and Appendix). These works represent a sampling and are by no
places are not, in and of t h e m s e l ve s, what is means a definitive word on the diversity of values.
i m p o rtant about cultural heritage; they are

11
12