Talk:Art conservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
  • So I altered UK to look like the US Section. I think it works better. Will do the other countrues too asap. Also, I put in a ref for NYU... hope thats OK.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Richard McCoy, excellent idea about the Heritage Health Index, and the "Country by country look" there are definitely some interesting things I could include in the UK section, such as 'Renaissance in the regions'. I'll get on that asap.

Also, about the reformatting of the US courses... I think it works better that way, nice one! I think I should go through and reference the UK courses as you have done for the US.

One thing - footnote 6... it just says insert footnote here.. can you add in the footnote you preferred. It's for NYU.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Okay, I cleaned up some text, and then added section that allowed me to talk about the Heritage Health Index for the US. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to include, but I argue that it's a good model for other countries to look at, this taking an index of the 'health' of a country's heritage.

I'll try and add some text to the External links next.

RichardMcCoy 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Sam Bellamy you are a wizard.

RichardMcCoy 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So I edited it in the way I thought... I hid the other links, but didn't remove them... I don't know what a couple of them are, or why they might be there? Anyways... what do you'll think.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


  • I was just thinking amongst those external links there are a few that could be kept as they are useful... such as CCI, DCOM, these are international conservation institutes... I was wondering if we could have a section after associations that could include these? Just thinking out loud for now.
    • The external links should have some actual relevant function.
    • I was thinking we could break down the external links into useful sections - (bear with me I'm still thinking this through) but something like:
      • History of Conservation
      • Scholarly Journals.
      • News
      • Conservation Materials and Suppliers.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


  • I agree... the external links are superfluous in a lot of ways.
    • There are a bunch of conservation associations, which could simply be moved to their appropriate place.
    • Things like the lunder center shouldn't be there at all (why one SI lab over every lab in the world??)
    • Things like COoL should be more significant.
    • Some of the others are links to online examples of conservation (or similar) and could be included within the text of the article and then be in the references section instead of the external links.

I will begin doing some changes, and see how it goes.

ps.. Sorry, RM but SB is my internet name, and has been for many years, and will remain so. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet" :)

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Something needs to be done about the external links. There are just too many that don't really add up ...
  • Anybody know of any artworks that have articles that mention conservation work? I can't think of any ...

RichardMcCoy 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see another picure on the article, but we still need a good one for a lab ... but it's hard to say what would represent all of art conservation. Maybe we should just remove the current picture, because it's really not describing anything. Yeah, I think I'm going to remove it.

I think we should look at CoOL to see what could be incorporated here. http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/

Thanks, Walter for bringing the ethics business over here. RichardMcCoy 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Note, it's my thought that folks should use their real names when editing. But just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Thanks Richard. Sam Bellamy is Dan, by the way. I was thinking we really need to find a source for images. I love the CoL addition to the ethics section. Anyone know how to get rid of the 'too many external links' thing? I don't think its too many... it was in my first edit (I got a little carried away and put everything as external). It would be cool to have one of those BT/AT type images. I was also thinking we could have a section on "controversies" there is a good write up of one if you wiki 'Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes'.

--Sam Bellamy (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it would be useful to have a different picture of a conservation lab that shows more of the equipment used (and perhaps a conservator in action!)...or at least a lab that is cited so it is clear what the picture is of. Photos of conserved works would also be great.

CristaPack (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Dang .... nice work, Sam Bellamy!

RichardMcCoy 03:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I added some more sub categories to specialization and then added a conservation materials section. RichardMcCoy 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs)
  • I've done a little more. My thought is that this article should be about the broad topic of conservation and include all specialities of conservation. Individual articles could be made about the specialities at some point. For sake of ease, I've used the AIC's speciality categories.

Check out a few other articles related to conservation: Preservation (as related to library science): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation_%28library_and_archival_science%29

Media preservation

02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Okay, I've started a major overhaul of this page. The first thing I did was seperate conservation and restoration into seperate articles. The rest was just minor stuff.

Next, there needs to be a better description of the profession and then move beyond that.

I'd love to see a better picture of a conservation lab then the one currently used ...

RichardMcCoy 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spunth 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)One can not say that the opposite of art restoration is art destruction when restoration is not, in fact, bringing the orignal art work back or saving it. It simply invents a new version, a close approximation, of the original or how we imagine the orignal once was. One of the great writers in the field, John Ruskin, (The Seven Lamps of Architecture,1886) called restoration the ultimate destruction. Preservation and conservation, at their core, are closer to an opposite of destruction.


This article is in the beginning stages and needs a lot of work. This is a fairly complex field, one that is charged with the care of cultural property. Ricardisimo 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact 100 years after Ruskin's book are passed, and the people who don't work in the field, talk more and more. Please come in any institute for art conservation and talk with some Professional C-Restorer. Our work is changed in the last 20 year, new method, new product, new scentific diagnostic method are introduced in the practice of the field; to respect not only the original skin of the object but every kind of sign of the time (called "Patina")that we found on surface. Rob_cons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.30.35 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)