MORE THAN JUST BROKEN ARTIFACTS

Conservation Tips & Tricks | Selin Kahramanoglu

---

Imagine if the wings of Winged Victory were smashed into so many little pieces that it was impossible to recover. It is true that the statue’s head and arm are already missing, but the artwork is made famous by its wings. Currently housed at the Louvre, and dated to almost the 2nd century BCE, this statue demonstrates the essence of Hellenistic marble and artistry. The wings are the iconic part of the statue. They are at the very core of the statue’s significance. The wings are everything.

For conservators, this is a critical moment.

Do they make plaster replicas of the wings, and add it back to the statue so that it is whole again?

Or, do they leave it the way it is?

Statue of Winged Victory, also called Nike of Samothrace. Source.

When it comes to restoration, some of our conservation decisions will be questionable. People will agree with us, and people will certainly disagree too. Still, these tough decisions need to be made. Who is to stay which choice is right? In this post, we think about the general advantages and disadvantages to the restoration of artifacts, and how they are more than just broken objects. 

Source.

Advantages

There are a lot of reasons why we might choose to restore a damaged artifact. Especially if it is within the museum’s budget, expertise, and resources to do so, why wouldn’t we try to rescue it? The whole point of conservation is to try to keep the original state of the artifact as much as possible, so of course, conservators would try their best to accomplish that. 

To add, if an artifact is damaged while under the protection of the museum, the institution may wish to erase any evidence of the incident. A museum’s reputation is at risk when pursuing future acquisitions, if the museum has a history of not keeping good care of its artifacts. 

Generally, restoration helps…

• visitors envision the historical, original state of the artifact on display 
• forget that the artifact was ever damaged
• show that the museum has sufficient and up-to-date resources to assist conservation efforts
• demonstrate the knowledge and skill of the conservator 

Source.

Disadvantages

Here's where things get fuzzy. Choosing not to restore an artifact can be considered brave, forward-thinking, or more often, risky. If a museum decides to keep a damaged artifact on display, this might show visitors that the incident is now a part of the object's biography. Conservators might say that the damage has been done, and we need to acknowledge this history, not erase it.

Many people might disagree with this tactic, because the sight of the damage could overwhelm the entirety of the artifact. Perhaps, the broken outline is all you see, and any hope at restoring the whole artifact fades. Sometimes, visitors might be angered when seeing the damaged artifact on display, because it reminds us of the damage that had been unwillingly inflicted. However, should we try to subdue this anger? Couldn't this frustration add more significance to the artifact?

Briefly, the lack of restoration means...

• acknowledging the incident that caused the damage
• accepting that the original state of the artifact is now unattainable
• possibly insinuating that the museum does not have the conservation resources to restore it
• allowing visitors to think critically about not restoring every artifact

Source.

Whether we choose to save a damaged artifact, or not, the decision is difficult and with some consequences. The next time you visit a gallery with a damaged artifact on display, or an object that has had obvious repairs made, let's consider why a conservator might choose to present the object in that way. Maybe, there's more to the story?

See you next month for the next post!

Source.