Social and Cultural Sustainability

Looking at the practice of conservation in the last decades we have seen a major change from material-centred conservation to people-centred conservation. While the material, or the physical objects, remain essential as a conduit between past, present and future, hindsight proves that many cultural objects and cultural sites are dependent on public engagement with them, not only for their maintenance but also for their continued significance and relevance.

In terms of sustainability of the activity it could be summed in these terms; what type of conservation, and for whom?

A people-centred approach means that we recognise the need to conserve objects because they hold value for people, groups or communities. Value can be multiform; historic, artistic, social, religious, affective, ritual, political… and the same object or site can hold simultaneously many values.

The concept of value is also subject to sustainability: retaining value may imply retaining use, particularly in the case of living heritage. Losing the potential of being used or practiced may strip an object or site of part or total of its value.

This has led institutions worldwide, and in Australia in particular, to establish a framework to assess significance as a necessary criterion for considering conservation. Significance 2.0 is a tool widely used to assess needs and attribute grants to fund conservation activities. In terms of future impact of the conservation activities, it is increasingly recognised that to be sustainable, conservation needs to engage with the community who either uses and maintains the heritage or is expected to visit the collection and engage with it.

Various ways of associating conservation, collections and communities have been and can be explored.

  • turning users into carers for religious heritage located in remote places such as village temples of the Himalayas, via illustrated and user friendly handbooks showing the effect, linking it to the cause and providing cheap and applicable solutions for remedy. It could be to call a carpenter, a plumber, or simply clean a drain or dust a statue, and could also be call a conservator. The main goal is to implement prevention by increasing awareness and empowering people to become an actor in conservation, at every level of the community.
  • involving community in risk assessment surveys, stating their needs and their resources, and integrating these in conservation plans that take into account community role and responsibilities.
  • involving community in decision making, by providing information and consulting on needs prior to operations concerning heritage
  • involving source community in proper conservation treatments, when meaning resides in continuous possibility or use or of worship, and knowledge is held by specialist craftsperson.
  • involving community in salvaging post disaster, interpretation and display settings, which in turn will facilitate public engagement and fundraising.
  • link conservation to preservation of traditional skills, not only on the object or site conserved, but by encouraging production of new craft from traditional techniques, in order to maintain the skills and promote the interest of the broader community, providing livelihood for craft communities.

These may involve reconsidering principles hitherto thought absolute, such as the possibility of access, the location and aspect of the display, the loan to communities, the reinforcement of objects to allow their ritual use by the community, the need to replace missing parts, the need to recreate images to regain legibility, and an acceptance of the evolving nature of an object or site. It requires flexibility of mind, based on solid structural tools such as significance and risks assessments, and good knowledge of intercultural and international ethical frameworks.

Only if it is purposeful will conservation be justified in the first place, and therefore be sustainable. Without community engagement, conservation loses social meaning, and the power to connect people and objects through time. (SC May 2020)

References and recommended reading

• Clavir, M. (2002) Preserving what is valued. Museums, conservation and First Nations, Vancouver, UBC Press

• Collections Council of Australia, (2009) Significance 2.0, https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/museums-libraries-and-galleries/significance-20

• Cotte, S. Dorji, S. & Nock, D. (2008) A handbook of preventive conservation in Bhutan (Himalayas), in ICOM-CC 15th Triennial Meeting Preprints, New Delhi, India,

• Dhar, S. (2006) Challenges in the context of the living sacred tradition of Mahayana Buddhism, in Saunders, D. (Ed.), The object in context: crossing conservation boundaries. Munich, London, IIC

• ICOMOS (1994) The Nara Document on Authenticity www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm.

• Kaminitz,M. & West, R. (2009), Conservation, access and use in a Museum of living cultures, in Richmond, A. & Bracker, A. (Eds.), Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, Elsevier Ltd, in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, pp197-209

• Peters, R. (2008) Approaches to access: factors and variables in Saunders, D., Townsend, J. and Woodcock, S. (Eds.) Conservation and access, IIC 22nd congress London, IIC, London

• Sully, D. (Ed.) (2007) Decolonising conservation, Walnut Creek, Ca, Left Coast Press Inc.

• UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/15164-EN.pdf

Member Case Studies

● Bakhri, S 2020, ‘Promoting Traditional Knowledge in Conservation: The Role of The Borobudur Conservation Office’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 95–105.

The article details the ways in which The Borobudur Conservation Office (BCO) engages with various communities across Indonesia to explore traditional conservation methods based on plant-derived materials. BOC researchers embed traditional knowledge into its social and natural context by ethnographic methods. Resulting publications have inspired scientific research on plant-derived traditional materials. Findings have led to the production of biodegradable and conservation grade essential oil mixes used by both traditional custodians and conservation professionals.

● Lewincamp, S & Sloggett, R 2016, ‘Connecting objects, communities and cultural knowledge’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 3–13.

Case studies involving two community-run museums are presented. The collaboration between conservation experts and the Returned and Services League LifeCare War Museum in Narrabeen and Islamic Museum of Australia in Melbourne are discussed within the contact zone theory framework. The ways in which two-way knowledge sharing enhances the interpretation and social/historical value of cultural material are described.

● Sloggett, R & Middleton, J 2018, ‘For mutual benefit: cultural materials conservation and local government—a case study’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 65–73.

The partnership between the Bathurst Regional Council and the Grimwade Centre at the University of Melbourne is presented as a model for community-based conservation. This partnership has been mutually beneficial for the regional community and the professional conservation community as the various projects presented a learning opportunity for emerging conservators while at the same time providing the community access to conservation expertise.

Connecting to Community

Navigating spaces between cultural heritage and Indigenous source communities, involves engaging in relationships that are dedicated to enhancing the life and meaning of cultural collections. Engagement begins with the Indigenous source community. The significance in what is not seen, but is constantly present in stories, knowledges, traditions, perspectives and customs transcends time, and is crucial to ensure the physical security and intellectual and cultural essence of cultural heritage is retained and sustained (McCarthy, C, 2011).

Cultural sustainability involves understanding, awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences. It privileges intrinsic aspects of Indigenous culture, where orality, collaboration and community life is at its centre. Changing the focus by placing people at the centre, acknowledges and respects the cultural autonomy of Indigenous peoples, and, the right to self-determination through practices that recognise and respect Indigenous knowledge’s, cultural diversity and traditional practices (McCann, E, 2020 unpublished research).

The role of source communities in the care and management of cultural heritage, is a process that actively acknowledges the connections between cultural material, and the natural world, therefore access to cultural heritage is also integral to cultural maintenance and community wellbeing. A more sensitive approach, does away with rigidity and opens up space for more honest, authentic interaction, and robust, relevant and respectful conversation. It also removes the distance between all involved and humanises conservation practice. People-centred conservation, starts from the community in the decision-making processes; working from the centre outwards, through interaction that elevates Indigenous perspectives, and emphasises ‘ways of doing’ with relevance to ancient practices and unique epistemologies. (EMcC July 2020)

References and recommended reading

UN General Assembly, “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People’s”, 2 October, 2007.

Member Case Studies

● Hamilton, S & Paton, S 2015, ‘Boorun’s Canoe’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 105–115.

An art project which involves the building and floating of a traditional bark canoe is chronicled. The conservator worked with the Aboriginal Elder and his family members from the beginning of the process through to the acquisition of the canoe by Museum Victoria and the relationship extended into the continued care of this heritage object. The project enabled the intergenerational transfer of cultural knowledge and demonstrated the positive outcomes of respectful and culturally sensitive collaboration with Indigenous communities.

● McCann, E, 2020, Guidelines for engaging with Moana-Wan Solwara Collections at Museum Victoria, unpublished research.

● McCarthy, C, 2011, Museums and Māori: Heritage Professionals, Indigenous Collections, Current Practice, Te Papa Press, Wellington NZ.

● Meredith, A, Sloggett, R & Healy, J 2016, ‘Reconstructing the archive: Access, documentation, conservation’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 14–25.

Two case studies based on research conducted by phenomenological methodology are presented. The artist-run archive of Warlayirti Artists’ Centre in Balgo and the performative works of the Australian artist Brook Andrew aim to disrupt the hegemony of text-based colonial archives to reclaim control of Indigenous subjectivities. Reconstruction is put forward as an ethical conservation approach in the preservation of such performative artworks and archives. Key to this approach is the artist interview tool which helps to incorporate the artist’s view of reconstruction to the conservation process.

● Nolan, L 2018, ‘Bark paintings conservation: Eucalyptus tetrodonta properties, bark harvesting and various mounting systems in the Northern Territory’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 96–106.

A review of the evolution of the bark painting mounting methods that are developed and/or used by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (MAGNT) is provided. The review references the traditional bark harvesting and preparation processes demonstrated by traditional owners. The aluminium mounting technique is recommended based on the traditional knowledge of the qualities of the bark.

● Waters-Lynch, I, Sloggett, R, Crocombe, M & Melpi, L 2015, ‘The Significance of Continuity and Change: Understanding and Preserving Aboriginal Catholic Church Art in Wadeye’, AICCM Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 13–22.

This case study highlights the broader challenges in conserving art held in remote Indigenous communities. Funding for the conservation of Indigenous artworks which are at risk of irreversible deterioration is very much dependent on these works fulfilling the primary and comparative criteria of the Significance 2.0 framework. The article discusses the limitations of this framework in the context of the Old Church Paintings by the Indigenous artist Nym Bunduck.

Digital access to collections

Navigating spaces between cultural heritage and Indigenous source communities, involves engaging in relationships that are dedicated to enhancing the life and meaning of cultural collections. Engagement begins with the Indigenous source community. The significance in what is not seen, but is constantly present in stories, knowledges, traditions, perspectives and customs transcends time, and is crucial to ensure the physical security and intellectual and cultural essence of cultural heritage is retained and sustained (McCarthy, C, 2011).

Cultural sustainability involves understanding, awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences. It privileges intrinsic aspects of Indigenous culture, where orality, collaboration and community life is at its centre. Changing the focus by placing people at the centre, acknowledges and respects the cultural autonomy of Indigenous peoples, and, the right to self-determination through practices that recognise and respect Indigenous knowledge’s, cultural diversity and traditional practices (McCann, E, 2020 unpublished research).

The role of source communities in the care and management of cultural heritage, is a process that actively acknowledges the connections between cultural material, and the natural world, therefore access to cultural heritage is also integral to cultural maintenance and community wellbeing. A more sensitive approach, does away with rigidity and opens up space for more honest, authentic interaction, and robust, relevant and respectful conversation. It also removes the distance between all involved and humanises conservation practice. People-centred conservation, starts from the community in the decision-making processes; working from the centre outwards, through interaction that elevates Indigenous perspectives, and emphasises ‘ways of doing’ with relevance to ancient practices and unique epistemologies. (EMcC July 2020)

References and recommended reading

Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material (AICCM) 2002, Code of Ethics and Practice, AICCM, Tasmania.

Beentjes, G 2013, ‘To Treat or Not to Treat: Decision Making in Preparing Archives for Digitization’, in P Hatchfield (ed), Ethics & Critical Thinking in Conservation, American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works, Washington, DC, pp. 23–47.

Greene, M 2004. ‘The Messy Business of Remembering: History, Memory and Archives’. Archival Issues, vol. 28, pp. 95-103.

International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICMOS) 1994, Nara Document on Authenticity, ICMOS, Nara.

Matero, F.G 1993. ‘The Conservation of Immovable Cultural Property: Ethical and Practical Dilemmas.’ Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, vol. 32, pp. 15–21.

Pearce, S. 1992, ‘Objects Inside and Outside Museums’, in Museum Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester University Press, pp. 15–35.

Sloggett, R 2014, ‘What is ‘conservation’? An examination of the continued relevance of ICOM-CC’s The Conservator-Restorer: a Definition of the Profession.’ In ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Preprints, Melbourne, 15–19 September 2014, ed. J. Bridgland, art. 1905, 8 pp. Paris: International Council of Museums.

Tse, N. et al. 2018, ‘Preventive Conservation: People, Objects, Place and Time in the Philippines’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 63(sup1), pp. 274–281.

Member Case Studies

● Tse, N. et al. 2018, ‘Preventive Conservation: People, Objects, Place and Time in the Philippines’, Studies in Conservation, vol. 63(sup1), pp. 274–281.

Tse et al. suggest that conservators should be trained in the use of social media to assist in representing multiple object narratives (or social memories) (2018, p. S276). Social media allows for a non-static way of sharing the narratives surrounding collections digitally due to its high audience interaction and ability to be updated and managed consistently.

The idea of social memory suggests that in understanding how meanings change over time, digital access to collections should be kept readily updated to reflect and respect the views of stakeholder groups and the community (see: Greene 2004, p. 99). Knowledge can be sustainable in this way. The Nara Document on Authenticity posits the idea that there are no fixed criteria for authenticity, and that each culture needs recognition of the ‘specific nature of its heritage values’ (ICMOS 1994, p. 47). This idea of authenticity allows for a ‘socially responsive’ approach to conservation (Sloggett 2014, p. 3). Modern conservation, thus, allows for the idea that our opinions of what is and is not authentic is specific and can change based on the context and values systems of the time (see: Pearce 1992, pp. 26-30). Matero illustrates the nature of changing attitudes and authenticity through contending that sites and objects become ‘different, divorced from their past by the present’s historical consciousness’ (1993, p. 18) This consciousness, as such, is the prevalent determining factor influencing how conservators will make their decisions through assessing authenticity and an object’s meaning, and how viewers will interpret meaning through an object’s display or interaction and commit that meaning to social memory (Matero 1993, p. 18; Greene 2004, p. 101).

● Beentjes, G 2013, ‘To Treat or Not to Treat: Decision Making in Preparing Archives for Digitization’, in P Hatchfield (ed), Ethics & Critical Thinking in Conservation, American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works, Washington, DC, pp. 23–47.

When viewing historical documents through an online archive that have been digitised, there is discourse on concepts of: Literal copies and Authentic copies

Digitized or scanned documents in archives are literal copies of the information or a material, but they are not the ‘authentic’ copy (i.e the original document) in the sense that not all the parts of the document have been transferred over. One may not see the original material components of watermarks, some colours and the details in seals and stamps through scans and digitization (Beentjes 2013, p. 44). As an example, Beentjes outlines how a digitally rendered scan of a Japanese illustration does not show the detailed work of the chalk or paper that is unique to the document in reality.