Review: “Collaborating in the Public’s Domain”

 

Référence électronique: Richard McCoy, « Collaborating in the Public’s Domain », CeROArt, L’erreur, la faute, le faux, 2009, [En ligne], mis en ligne le 15 avril 2009. URL : http://ceroart.revues.org/index1159.html

http://ceroart.revues.org/

Introduction:  

I’d like to take a minute to bring your attention to an article by Richard McCoy, sometime blog contributor, and full time conservator at the IMA. The article is being published today in the online journal CeROArt, and is entitled “Collaborating in the Public’s Domain”. I’d like to say thanks for sending me an advance copy to review, comment on, and plug on my blog. I’d also like to say I particularly like the use of the apostrophe within the title – I do hope this choice of phrase “public’s domain” rather than “public domain” was intentional – as to my mind it’s highly informative.  

The article begins with a fabulous quote from Robert Irwin

“First we change, and then we change our practices, and only later do we think to collectively change our institutions – to bring them in line with who we have become”. 

Principally the paper is concerned with the application of Web 2.0 technologies to the world of conservation – an issue that has been under discussion on this blog now for some time, and a topic that has an ever growing corpus of writings within the conservation literature. The paper discusses recent changes that have been occurring within the museum world, and aims to demonstrate how conservators are well suited to adopt the new technologies being developed, and already in use. Within the comparative discussion of the history of conservation innovation, and public outreach, I was particularly struck by the comparison between the online increase in public access to conservation and the real life (or ‘offline’) increase in public access to conservation, in terms of exhibits, open lab’s, catalogue entries and publications. Richard McCoy’s article didn’t reference it but the book “Saving Stuff”  is a fabulous example of the idea of taking conservation to the public, and is a brilliant book. 

The paper discusses the many benefits of the Web 2.0 technologies, giving examples from both the Museum world and beyond. The paper suggests that Web 2.0 technology works because it is based on the sharing of information. In order to suggest that such technologies might be useful for conservation the paper illustrates how conservators are already incredibly adept at information sharing, as well as using the Web to facilitate this sharing.

The examples described are: 
* CoOL: Conservation OnLine
* SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture!
* CAMEO: The Conservation and Art Materials Encyclopedia Online
* INCCA: International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art
* Museumpests.net
* Inside Installations: Preservation and Presentation of Installation Art
* AMIEN: Art Materials Information and Education Network

The paper also suggests that in recent years many conservation (and other museum) projects have been developing that utilize either existing Web 2.0 applications, or their technologies, Richard McCoy states that “the amount of conservation content that is now published on blogs, YouTube, Flickr, and social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter is vast.  These tools give institutions the ability to interact directly with visitors anywhere in the world.” Importantly he also suggests that the way these tools are being used can facilitate in developing a more critically aware visitor, and one that is more adept at feeding back data into the system. 

So, What should We do:

The paper has several very useful suggestions for conservators (paraphrased below) the main thrust behind these ideas being that if conservation opens itself up to the world, then the world’s cultural heritage will benefit. What I particular like about these suggestions is that they indicate to me a view of conservation that is not concerned with academic careerism, or scientific on-up-man ship, but, instead concerned with the issue that brought most of us into this field in the first place: a concern for the long term survival of our cultural heritage. In so doing they take conservation back to basics. It would be great to see these suggestions taken up and discussed within the wider conservation world, as I am sure they are potentially viable and useful. 

The suggestions are:

1. Take conversations into the public realm: end the use of closed email lists.

The argument being that “the public” have shown an interest in our field and will inevitably have a whole host of interesting, useful, and different, contributions that they could make to the ongoing preservation of cultural heritage. If given the opportunity. 

2. Encourage ‘visitor’ documentation of heritage.

Several arguments are made, but, perhaps the most obvious question to ask is: What group of people within the museum are usually considered to spend the most time “looking” at objects? The answer would usually be considered conservators, however, the truth is of course Visitors – combined -the visitor as a group spends many thousands of hours more investigating the material culture on display.

I like the idea of teaching visitors about documentation methodologies, and encouraging the use of technology such as the no longer cost prohibitive IR photography. In summarising the net result this might have Richard McCoy uses the phrase “broader collaboration networks”, as these networks of educated public’s would be able to report and document cultural heritage on a grand scale, it is staggering to attempt to imagine the potential.

3. The creation of a world-wide catalogue raisonné of cultural property.

The idea of creating an international catalogue raisonné of cultural property is by far the grandest suggestion made in the article. However, drawing on current projects underway to create new open source databases for museums, and also in encouraging public collaboration, the potential really exists for the first time to undertake such an exciting task.

Comments: 

Importantly the article doesn’t ignore two very serious potential draw backs; the first to do with the fact that a lot of these technologies are not archival – and are in fact owned by corporations and thus could very easily fall prey to market forces, the second, that when working collaboratively there is always the potential for false or misleading information. However, it is rightly pointed out, that if internationally institutions set their minds to working collaboratively on such projects it would not be an impossible task to find adequate solutions to these issues; a system of reliability could be easily assigned to data, and institutions could easily build their own comparable systems to Flickr, etc. The emphasis would have to be on working together, just as processes have started for developing open source database systems, that will it is hoped become standard systems across the museum world.

Perhaps the most significant point that can be taken from the paper is that this process isn’t a pipe dream, but, should instead be considered a “foregone conclusion”. Today, we are living in a ‘read-write’ society and it is inevitable that the conservation discipline will eventually become part of that society. By considering these changes now, and considering how they could potentially benefit conservation, we would collectively be able to embrace change rather than simply accept change. 

To return to the quote by Robert Irwin that Richard McCoy used to start his paper, I think there is a lot of truth to the process described. Already conservators have begun to change ourselves and our practices, we can also see that changes are occurring within our institutions as they begin to develop positive opinions of these new technologies. Comparing the changes in the museum world to journalism Richard McCoy concludes that: “just like the museum professional, the journalist’s role is not changing, but clearly the information delivery method and the relationship with the end user is.” Within the museum world we don’t yet have our version of  ’citizen journalists’ but this is just a matter of time, and the institutions that recognise the changes and act early will be the ones that ride the crest of the wave of change.  Although it is not heavily discussed within the paper, I think it is interesting to note that those organisations that have developed, or are developing, these interests quickest are those that are structurally set up in a more conducive way for such technologies based on looser networked membership with non-permanent task based committees rather than hegemonic permanent institutional models. It seems to me that these new technologies then call into question the continuing validity of our organisational structures, and furthermore suggest alternative structures that maybe far more efficient, cost effective, and fit for purpose. Such ideas have been widely discussed within the Web 2.0 literature – including in posts on this blog. 

Conclusions: 

Although I disagree with the conception of ‘reversibility’ within Richard McCoy’s final statement (a conservation ‘ethical principle’ that to my mind is outdated) I couldn’t agree more with the concept of ‘failing with purpose’. In fact I think we as a profession could benefit from taking this idea and conceptualising it across the board,not just for Web 2.0. For example, old conservation repairs that are failing are often considered ‘bad’ or of ‘poor quality’ because we have developed new techniques, ethics, and approaches since they were undertaken. However, would it be more appropriate to not try to apportion retrospective blame and instead to study and marvel the ideas and approaches as significant steps in the cultural-historical development of the discipline of conservation, in studying these developments in themselves we could potentially learn much about our profession. Developing a culture of willingness to ‘try and fail’ and to experiment with the unknown, can ultimately benefit both the discipline and the cultural heritage. 

I hope the paper continues to help open up further discussion not only on the suggestions that are explicitly made within the paper, but, also on the many additional potentials that Web 2.0 holds for the preservation of cultural heritage.