The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Carvalho, Salomé de
Data de Publicação: 2010
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160
Resumo: There are several blurry questions in contemporary Conservation Theory. Remarkable contributions from the past now seem insufficient and a stronger theoretical structure is required. Conservators and restorers rely blindly on concepts taken for granted; such is the example of “original” which is the basis of so many decisions and intervention methodologies. Do we really understand the meaning of “original” and why it is so important to our work? What consequences may derive from the misinterpretation of this concept? This paper proposes an approach to the term “original”, seeking answers in a historic analysis, revisiting a remarkable publication by the British Museum, Fake? The Art of Deception, a catalogue from a 1951 exhibition re-published in 1990. In opposition to “original”, we aim to analyze the relationship Man has had with fakes, forgeries and copies over time and how they can be helpful when defining “original”.
id RCAP_93d77f18674aa23e481eec0f6a95bba8
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7856
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisitedEl concepto de “original” en Teoría de la Conservación - Fake? The Art of Deception “revisitado”O conceito de “original” em Teoria da Conservação – Fake? The Art of Deception revisitadoThere are several blurry questions in contemporary Conservation Theory. Remarkable contributions from the past now seem insufficient and a stronger theoretical structure is required. Conservators and restorers rely blindly on concepts taken for granted; such is the example of “original” which is the basis of so many decisions and intervention methodologies. Do we really understand the meaning of “original” and why it is so important to our work? What consequences may derive from the misinterpretation of this concept? This paper proposes an approach to the term “original”, seeking answers in a historic analysis, revisiting a remarkable publication by the British Museum, Fake? The Art of Deception, a catalogue from a 1951 exhibition re-published in 1990. In opposition to “original”, we aim to analyze the relationship Man has had with fakes, forgeries and copies over time and how they can be helpful when defining “original”.En la Teoría Contemporánea de la Conservación hay muchas cuestiones pendientes. Aparte de las aportaciones del pasado, las premisas teóricas siguen siendo insuficientes y se hace necesario disponer de un sólido marco teórico. Los conservadores-restauradores dependen en gran medida de conceptos tomados como paradigmas; ejemplo de ello es el concepto de “original”, que es la base de diversas decisiones y metodologías de intervención. ¿Entendemos realmente el significado de “original” y por qué es tan importante para nuestro trabajo? ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias de la incomprensión de este concepto? En este artículo se propone un acercamiento a la expresión “original” a través del análisis histórico, revisando una publicación extraordinaria del Museo Británico, Fake? The Art of Deception (Falso? El Arte del Engaño), un libro publicado por primera vez en 1951 y reeditado en 1990. A diferencia de los “originales”, es nuestra intención explorar la relación entre el espíritu humano y los falsos, falsificaciones y copias, y como puede contribuir a la definición de “original”.Na Teoria contemporânea da Conservação existem múltiplas questões confusas. Aparte notáveis contributos passados, as premissas teóricas são ainda insuficientes e torna-se necessária a existência de uma estrutura teórica sólida. Conservadores e restauradores confiam cegamente em conceitos tomados como paradigmas; tal é o exemplo do conceito“original”, o qual é a base de várias decisões e metodologias de intervenção. Compreenderemos realmente o significado de “original” e porque é ele tão importante para o nosso trabalho? Quais são as consequências que derivam da incompreensão deste conceito? O presente estudo propõe uma aproximação ao termo “original” pela análise histórica, revisitando uma publicação notável do British Museum, Fake? The Art of Deception, um catálogo publicado inicialmente em 1951 e republicado em 1990. Em oposição a “original”, pretendemos explorar a relação entre o espírito Humano e os falsos, falsificações e cópias, e de que forma pode contribuir para a definição de “original”.Universidade Católica Portuguesa2010-01-01T00:00:00Zjournal articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7856Estudos de Conservação e Restauro; No 2 (2010); 124-135Estudos de Conservação e Restauro; n. 2 (2010); 124-1351647-209810.34618/ecr.2.3147reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/ecr/article/view/7856https://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/ecr/article/view/7856/7893Copyright (c) 2010 Salomé de Carvalhohttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarvalho, Salomé de2022-09-22T10:29:07Zoai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7856Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T15:57:13.538043Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
El concepto de “original” en Teoría de la Conservación - Fake? The Art of Deception “revisitado”
O conceito de “original” em Teoria da Conservação – Fake? The Art of Deception revisitado
title The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
spellingShingle The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
Carvalho, Salomé de
title_short The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
title_full The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
title_fullStr The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
title_full_unstemmed The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
title_sort The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
author Carvalho, Salomé de
author_facet Carvalho, Salomé de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Carvalho, Salomé de
description There are several blurry questions in contemporary Conservation Theory. Remarkable contributions from the past now seem insufficient and a stronger theoretical structure is required. Conservators and restorers rely blindly on concepts taken for granted; such is the example of “original” which is the basis of so many decisions and intervention methodologies. Do we really understand the meaning of “original” and why it is so important to our work? What consequences may derive from the misinterpretation of this concept? This paper proposes an approach to the term “original”, seeking answers in a historic analysis, revisiting a remarkable publication by the British Museum, Fake? The Art of Deception, a catalogue from a 1951 exhibition re-published in 1990. In opposition to “original”, we aim to analyze the relationship Man has had with fakes, forgeries and copies over time and how they can be helpful when defining “original”.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv journal article
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7856
url https://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7856
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/ecr/article/view/7856
https://doi.org/10.34618/ecr.2.3160
https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/ecr/article/view/7856/7893
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2010 Salomé de Carvalho
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2010 Salomé de Carvalho
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica Portuguesa
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica Portuguesa
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Estudos de Conservação e Restauro; No 2 (2010); 124-135
Estudos de Conservação e Restauro; n. 2 (2010); 124-135
1647-2098
10.34618/ecr.2.3147
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130440210055168