In her brief paper, "Effective Communication with the Museum Visitor," Jean Cadogan introduces the problems of balancing didactic information with the objects on display. While I agree with her point that each institution will need to identify which mixture of media will best serve their particular constituencies, there exists a powerful reservation to raise questions within the gallery walls. This reservation is rooted in the assumption that to raise questions (via didactic panels or wall text) will compromise the aesthetic purity of the installation, available space, and/or the "neutral" approach to content. These concerns are unfounded. Imaginative installation design, so often reserved for temporary exhibitions, can address the creative questions that are being raised in the scholarship without adversely affecting the space or appearance of the galleries. Regarding the issue of content, there is no such thing as a "neutral" installation. The mere selection and arrangement of objects in a gallery or series of galleries represents an argument of one sort or another. That said, it would be helpful if such arguments were articulated overtly, rather than assumed, so that the visitor can more fully consider the issues raised by the curator. Also, by compelling curators to publicly articulate their argument for one or a series of galleries, it would become more apparent how frequently the same questions are being posed within a museum. This is not to exclude questions of style, chronology, and aesthetics, but to make such matters one among others addressed in the galleries. Early Italian panels occupy a pivotal place at the end of what Hans Belting has labeled the "era before art." Resisting the temptation to treat them as "art" and to regard them as functional artifacts, much like items in a medieval treasury, will bring museum experience and scholarship closer in line with each other.
Of the issues not raised in this conference, but of importance to the broader issues of conservation, one must make note of the current forces that too often lead to potentially problematic treatment campaigns: temporary exhibitions, re-installations, and self-promoting sponsorship. While such forces can impact what, how, and when objects are treated, and have become a common problem at many institutions, they do not appear to have played a deciding factor in the problems associated with the Yale panels.
Approaches to Conservation sheds light on an important chapter in the history of modern conservation. Garland has assembled the papers skillfully and maintained the spark and liveliness of a panel discussion. In light of the exceedingly polemic debates that have erupted over the high-stakes, high-profile controversial conservation projects of the last two decades, the thoughtful analysis of the past and present treatment of the Yale panels represents a refreshing approach and much welcomed publication. This is not to say that there were not early and vocal critics to the conservation of the Yale panels, only that it is productive to examine the issues raised by these works free of intense public pressure. Although Approaches to Conservation stems from and deals at length with matters particular to the history and treatment of the early Italian panels at Yale, the issues raised in the volume bear on all art historians, conservators, and curators.
Phillip Earenfight is Associate Professor of Art History and Director of the Trout Gallery at Dickinson College. He publishes on duecento and trecento art, architecture, and urban planning. He is working on a monograph on the Misericordia Confraternity and its place on the Piazza San Giovanni in Florence.
