The concept of “original” in Conservation Theory Fake? The Art of Deception revisited
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |