Editorial - Size Matters

If this issue of the Journal has a theme it is size. Do differences in size of object, project or collection lead to differences in approach? The term 'critical mass' is often used to suggest that size is important to the success of an organisation or a specialist group within that organisation. Very small groups do not have the stability to ensure continuous development of knowledge and skills. In a small group each individual may carry an excessive administrative burden. In a larger group the open discussion of problems amongst people with differing backgrounds leads to innovative solutions. The conservation profession has low critical mass, but this may be more due to the modest size of its ambition than to the small number of people who would be conservators.

If you consider both the size and the value of historic and cultural objects then you could consider four broad categories; large/ high-value, large/ low-value, small/ high-value and small/ low-value. There may of course be many more intermediate groupings. Different sorts of people feel they have the right to interfere with, or make decisions about, objects which fall within these four different categories. Traditionally conservators have not worked happily in all fields, indeed they predominantly work in the small size/ high-value area. If an object is too big for two people to lift, it becomes a problem that only a few specialist conservators would want, or be able, to deal with.

The treatment of very large/ high-value objects tends to be managed by architects rather than conservators. The treatment of large/ low-value objects, which includes many industrial and mechanical artefacts, is mostly performed by volunteer enthusiasts and only rarely supervised by conservators. The treatment of small/ low-value objects, if it done at all, is often carried out within whole collections using standard repetitive procedures. This is work for technicians (in the pejorative sense of the word) and may, at best, be supervised and managed by archivists, librarians or curators who have no practical experience and little theoretical training.

The definition of conservator that is implied by the current accreditation process tends to confine the activities of anyone who aspires to the title 'professional conservator'. A professional conservator is a knowledgeable decision-maker not a mere mechanic. A conservator is a specialist, and to branch out into new specialisms needs new training and fresh accreditation. The accredited conservator is currently involved in practical (usually interventive) treatments or can prove considerable previous practical experience.

It is rather difficult for a conservator who still wants to be called 'conservator' to take on the management of large projects, especially if they do not relate to their previous practical experience. A significant number of trained conservators have moved on to management, particularly project management, positions. However a significant number of these feel that the word conservator defines a role much smaller than the one they have taken on. This is not a problem that architects suffer from.