dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark

have very similar characteristics; however, slight
variations in temperature, in the composition of
the resin, or in the injection speed might result in
different traces. Photographic prints from the same
negatives will be different in their chemical or
physical constitutions: residual salts, structure of
the silver deposits, paper fibre organization, etc. The
European research project entitled “Fingartprint”
was specifically based on these micro-morphological
differences (11). Furthermore, time adds its marks
by creating or amplifying some differences,
providing each artefact with a singular and unique
history. This time dimension, which is indissociable
from materiality, generates specificity. A look
into collections of objects which were identical at
the beginning would reveal very different states
of deterioration that are often difficult to explain.
And history can sometimes give symbolic values to
common objects.
Still, multiplicity does not imply that different
copies of the same work are interchangeable: “same
same, but different”, as it is sometimes expressed
in Southeast Asia. It would be more appropriate
to define a “coefficient of similarity” to assess the
degree of association between two works, knowing
that such a value could never be equal to 100% and
would only decrease with time. It is characteristic
of matters to be unique in space and change over
time. Also, the replacement of a damaged part of
a work of art by a similar part in a better condition
can never be justified as pseudo-similarity, it relies
solely on the wishes or intentions of the artist.
However, such uniqueness of museum artefacts,
as defined by their materiality, would become less
relevant in the case of new technologies emerging
in the late 20th century. They introduce to museum
collections artefacts of a very different nature.
Industrial Technology
Dependence on industrial technology
The last major change was inherited from the
development of the electronics industry and
information technology. This is reflected in the
presence of technologically-based art works in
museum collections: their accessibility is determined
20
by playback devices. Audio, video, multimedia, and
time-based artefacts all require suitable electronic
interfaces (tape, CD, DVD players, VCRs, and
computers). The role played by this new industry
is growing significantly; it is no longer limited to
the process of creating the artefact, but extends to
its access, restitution, and recreation processes.
In fact, museum professionals have become very
dependent on industrial development if they want
to ensure the sustainability of this non-humanreadable
heritage (12). The recurring appearance
and accelerated development of new materials and
recording formats, both analogue and digital, is a
problem. Information stored in the early 1980s
becomes difficult to read if the media have not been
regularly taken care of, or if the information has not
been made more readable with new software. This
represents a significant requirement for investment,
equipment, and labour. These phenomena, which are
also experienced by a much wider audience than the
museum world, have raised general awareness (13,
14). We are now at the very start of the emergence
of the digital era. Standardization committees are
working on this issue; however, the economic and
technical advances do not always conform to such
standards and measures. The digitally-derived
artefact in collections poses not only technical
problems but also philosophical issues as to what
art embodies and what we should preserve. The
objective cannot be limited to the maintenance of
information carriers, as with traditional artworks.
Digital preservation goes beyond the strict lifespan
of materials (tapes, disks, etc.). The conservation
of a “digital heritage” is a dynamic process that
requires technological means for continuous data
transfer to new, updated information systems.
The notion of authenticity
This technological evolution has introduced artefacts
of a new genre to museums, requiring very different
approaches not only in conservation practice but also in
the terminology. Words like ‘original’, ‘reversibility’,
‘integrity’, ‘authenticity’, and ‘restitution’ must be
clarified (15). In fact, the move from material objects to
digital artefacts has changed the essence of works of art.
Nelson Goodman (16) distinguishes autographic arts,
such as paintings and sculptures, from allographic arts,