I sailed a bit 'for the net looking for some juicy news to report on the pages of this blog, but I have not found anything that seem worthy of note ...
I decided then to let me run some "thinking out loud" ... so, to see if he was born a beautiful fruitful discussion (or even totally useless, but still interesting!) with the readers of Art & Science ...
I always thought that the degree course that has shaped us (And by "we", I mean certainly we in the team of Art & Science, but I suppose most of you who follow us on this blog!) Was born from the need to create a bridge, a point of contact between two companies that ran on two separate tracks: the world of conservation and restoration of cultural one hand, and world of scientific research applied to cultural heritage . And the more I penetrated in the topics of this course, the more I realized that I was really between two parallel universes, separated by a gulf as set out by the different cultural path that leads to the formation of their professional roles. But as the inhabitants of two universes felt really need a point of contact? Initially I thought the need was real, that both parties wish to understand each other better with each other. Well, on this beginning to have my doubts ...
I must say first that I already felt, (for setting the degree of Florence) and I feel more and more we (the beginning of the doctorate), much closer to the science of conservation in the world restoration of the practical and I almost always had to deal only with the reality of university research. I realize then that it had almost never taken a step in what is the "real world", the world of those who are in the forefront of the conservation of works of art, they put their hands physically.
However, despite my vision, so to speak, a bit 'part (in the sense of "not quite complete, but also in the sense of" more conducive to sympathize with one party of the matter "...) The impression I have is that of a scientific world that tries to convince a reluctant world of restoration of the practical necessity that it would aid the first . In a nutshell, it seems to me that the situation can be summarized as follows:
" I, a scientist, I try to convince you, the restorer, that what you do for centuries in the same way is not always good. Now you'd better begin To see first me and what I draw from the results of my analysis ... "
my part, I can only agree with the views of the scientist (the world's cultural heritage would certainly need to begin to approach problems with a more scientifically correct - these could offer advantages to works, and operators), but I can perfectly understand the distrust of the restorer to accept the intrusion of scientific ...
short, in a world where the restoration activity is still very related to the craft shops of the past (according, to tell the truth, to what little I could see and be told), no room for science?
While we are, I also say:
" should be and, consequently, the place should be found. Maybe not necessarily in the preliminary diagnosis of any restoration work (I agree with the fact often enough that the experience of the conservator), but certainly in the study of materials, factors of degradation and all that, if known at the chemical-physical (and not only phenomenological!) can minimize the renovation the work and operations designed to promote optimal conservation of art objects. "
That said, the word goes to anyone with an idea, an opinion, a shred of opinion to express on the subject. You are part of any parallel universe ... Open the debates!
