HLF Horizons of Heritage: Consultation Paper

Response from
The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation
of Historic and Artistic Works
(UKIC)

Please note: Our response is mainly concerned with portable heritage, namely all items which are not built structure, namely objects and collections, but including adornments to structures such as wall paintings and stained glass.

Question 1
We perceive a gap in this context which may hinder informed grant-giving for heritage objects. That gap is the lack of a rational approach to the retention of heritage objects. There is in effect no equivalent for objects to the listing of buildings.

Society calls on public guardians (the staff of museums, galleries, archives and libraries) to mediate the transition from possession (e.g. deliberate acquisition, failing to throw away) to active retention over the longer term (e.g. collecting, curating, preserving). The decision to retain heritage items is a heavy responsibility, usually with serious resource implications. Those guardians can only make properly informed decisions if they have at their disposal a wealth of information about the item itself, about what other similar items are already retained, whether in that institution or elsewhere in the country, and what its retention would cost.

The reality is that in general there is very little collected evidence on the distribution and relative merits of the millions of objects held in trust for the public. The designation scheme for museums is a blunt tool, which picks out a limited range of collections as of greater significance than others, but which does little to grade the importance either of objects held within those designated collections or those many more held outside.

It is surprising that with information technologies available over the last decades, so few of the country's total collections of particular object types are uniformly documented in a way which permits their comparison for significance, condition, etc. There have been notable attempts in recent years - for instance the work of the British Aircraft Preservation Society to compile a graded listing of aircraft - but these remain the exception. In some fields - paintings is an obvious example - one may assume that the knowledge of curators about the provenance and significance of related works is enormous, but with the reducing numbers of specialised curatorial staff and growing pressures on their time, especially outside the non-national institutions, even this degree of informal but informed control is unlikely to be available.

This Institute's interest in a logical and informed approach to collection management arises from its members' genuine concern that their energies and expertise should be focussed most effectively on artefacts which have been properly assessed for their importance, against professionally agreed criteria. At present this is not often the case, so that less rational pressures hold sway, e.g. short term display requirements, repairs to objects of lesser importance, while others of equal or greater significance languish un-cared for.

This Institute would like to see, and indeed would be happy to collaborate with the HLF and/or with other public or professional organisations in the heritage field in devising, an approach which would

• achieve a set of criteria with respect to different categories of heritage objects which will enable their significance and condition to be compared across the country
• develop methodologies for applying those criteria, and
• develop a rationale for the application of resources for the preservation of collections, in accordance with those criteria.

Various methodologies have already been developed which might form the basis for such work: the NPO Preservataion Assessment Survey; the Delta Plan developed and applied in the Netherlands over the past ten years; and an approach developed in relation to the built heritage by English Heritage, their Conservation Plans, see for instance Informed Conservation: Understanding historic buildings and their landcapes for conservation by Kate Clark

Supporting conservation
Question 2
protecting heritage at risk
As far as portable heritage is concerned, we do not have a clear picture of which is more at risk. An audit of the nation's collections and their condition is required as part of the audit of significance, described above. Firstly a consistent methodology needs to be developed for such an audit.

It should be clear that "at risk" does not mean total disintegration, though it can. It means degradation at an unacceptable rate.

improving training in conservation craft skills
We look forward to debate on this issue at the forthcoming seminar, based on your research over the last two years.

The areas ripe for investment are

• those disciplines and object types listed below (Question 3) for which there is little provision at present
• post-primary training (e.g. internships) and continuing professional development
• training for business and management skills for conservators
• training for the supervision of conservation volunteers
• training of architects in collaborating with conservators, and vice versa

establishing how we might support maintenance regimes to raise standards in looking after objects..
HLF's influence could be used to ensure that grants are used only where maintenance regimes are in place; and as part of projects to help establish such regimes.

The criteria and methodology of such regimes need to be established, and HLF could fund a project, perhaps in conjunction with Resource, to develop existing standards (e.g. those of the former MGC) and recent new benchmarking schemes. The well developed standards available for libraries and archives would be a useful model.

What might be added?
We suggest promoting conservation initiatives which both support conservation and use it to develop understanding and awareness of heritage and of the reasons for and the processes involved in its preservation. The Conservation Centre in Liverpool is an example which should be followed. Nowhere is the synergy between education, access and preservation better demonstrated. HLF should favour projects which involve similar approaches.

HLF should investigate whether the resources available elsewhere are adequate to the scientific research requirements for preservation of the heritage. Beyond the funding available through one of the Research Boards - scarce funding for large projects - it seems likely that shortage of funding for conservation research is limiting the effectiveness of preservation strategies.

Question 3
Which type of heritage at risk?
Those types of heritage object at most risk are those
(i) whose storage and condition have received too little attention and resources over the years, including for example:
   transport collections,
   industrial collections,
   natural history collections,
   19th and 20th Century paper and books
   textiles and monuments in churches
   graveyard monuments
and
(ii) for which there is inadequate dedicated expertise
   transport - air, rail road, water
   industrial collections, especially machinery, tools
   natural science
   books
   musical instruments
   photographs
   scientific instruments
   19th and 20th century manufactured artefacts, especially plastics
   20th and 21st century information technology equipment and digital media
   modern materials

other resources
Funding is not readily available for improving storage on a significant scale. Major and urgent investment is required for larger artefacts so that - for instance - no transport vehicles, including aircraft, of heritage value should be stored or displayed permanently out of doors.

Alternative funding is to some extent available for improving the provision of expertise - in the form of training - but institutions do not see sufficient return to make the investment in the relatively small numbers for which there is an existing demand. The demand is small because the need for expertise in these disciplines/materials has not been articulated, nor posts created. Meanwhile these collections probably decline.

The training potential of some of the large institutions has not been developed because of pressures on budgets, and lack of stimulus from the sector. The Science Museum, for instance, has a potentially signficant contribution to make to training, but this has to be a low priority.

Question 4
"Times of crisis" barely applies to conservation of the portable heritage, which rather declines gradually as a result of neglect or hostile environments. Hence emphasis on preventive maintenance (a term more applicable to built and natural heritage) needs to be balanced with condition monitoring, management of the environment, conditions of access, display and storage.

Question 5
Sustainable development
Conservation is itself a sustaining activity, but of course no-one could argue with demanding that conservation interventions, maintenance regimes and environmental management comply with the principles of sustainability. It is fine to make this a key criterion, but this should be done in such a way as not to distort the primary purpose of a project, or to impose impossible constraints, superfluous bureaucracy or disproportionate additional expenses. Making applications to the Lottery Fund is perceived as demanding enough already, without adding another layer of requirements.

Broadening the range of heritage

Question 8
We support a more flexible approach to definitions of heritage. However, individuals' or communities' current perceptions of importance and value have to be tempered by historical criteria and by objective assessments of future importance, not to mention national or even international perspectives. A more fruitful approach might be to require an assessment or statement of significance which balances all the many factors which apply, taking account of local, regional and national value, historical, aesthetic and scientific criteria, and future use and prospects.

Such an approach has already been essayed by the Conservation Plans espoused for built heritage in the Burra Charter and by English Heritage, and should now be applied to other aspects of the heritage, including objects.

Your current plan's aim that every community…be able to point to at least one project which has benefited is somewhat artificial, and risks generating inappropriate initiatives while depriving important and imaginative projects elsewhere. Heritage is a product of the unequal, disparate and often undemocratic activities of individuals and communities. It is a mistake to try to impose on this diversity and this richness a blandly equitable template.

We support broadening the range to include 'intangible' heritage. There are of course intangible connotations for all tangible objects, including evidence of customs., traditions and oral history. A policy to conserve pure intangible heritage would be difficult to implement across a wide range. More realistic might be to ensure that projects explain, respect and where appropriate make explicit the intangible. This would influence the way in which heritage items are made accessible. People's generally strong response to the intangible in turn strengthens their appreciation of the tangible.

Work in partnership with …organisations to meet mutual objectives
No doubt all responding organisations would agree with this. This Institute, with its unique involvement in actively conserving heritage - its members work directly with the objects themselves - is more than ready to work with HLF in those many areas where we share objectives. We are already working with you on training and education, and would be glad to extend this to other areas of policy and implementation. The very recent restructuring of our committees means that we can call on a wealth of conservation professionals from across the full range of cultural heritage activities.

Encourage take up …in areas.. which have not had an equitable share…
As indicated above, we believe HLF should continue to be aware of and raise awareness of inequalities, but should not slavishly try to fill gaps. It should be certain of the reasons of inequitable take-up before investing ever more in promotion.

Question 9
Heritage value
There is growing evidence that individuals in society - if asked - support the retention of heritage, and are prepared to pay a price for that. A recent research project Valuing Our Recorded Heritage (forthcoming in Cultural Trends, PSI) (consultants EFTEC, Advisers: Carole Milner and Mirjam Foot) showed the extent of individuals' willingness to have their taxes spent on retaining the heritage. The research done for Power of Place demonstrated the importance individuals place on heritage as part of their environment. It could be part of HLF's strategy to broaden and deepen that research, to obtain a more accurate gauge of society's valuing of their heritage. This could be used both to underpin and inform its broad strategy and also, depending on the findings, to strengthen the case for the continued allocation of HLF funds.

Out of such research would emerge one set of standards to be applied for enduring heritage value. Other standards already exist within the professional community which stewards our collections. HLF may need to find a systematic way of tapping into the richness of this expertise.

Broadly speaking it should be possible to apply the standards already used for designation more widely, but setting the cut-off at a lower level. In the case of objects, however, the existing designation scheme is of limited use. As mentioned above, a valuable starting point would be an assessment of significance since significance is a key component of value.

Question 11
Acquisition of objects created in the last twenty years
While we accept the difficulty with regards to acquisition, it has to be recognised that many recently made objects are highly unstable (chocolate, animal dung, photographs, etc). There should therefore be minimum impediment to supporting the conservation of recently created objects, so that they may survive long enough for their enduring value to be assessed.

Increased access, education and social inclusion

Question 12
Public access to and involvement in the conservation of objects is a proven way of arousing their interest in the protection and well-being of the heritage. Throughout the world, this approach is bringing increased benefits as the techniques for engaging the public with the thought processes of conservation become more sophisticated.

Insight into conservation generates curiosity and raises important questions: Why are we keeping this? What is it made of? Who made it and why? What stories can it tell? What is wrong with it? What are the options for intervention? What are the scientific and technological issues? What are the aesthetic and intellectual issues? What are the risks of display? What is going to happen to this object next? Experience shows that once they see conservation in action people are stimulated to ask more and more questions which once answered leave them with deep and rewarding insights and a sense of engagement with their heritage of a completely new order.

One of the educational benefits of such an approach arises from the interdisciplinary nature of conservation, bringing together considerations of material science, environmental science, aesthetics, political, social, technological or natural history, geography, geology and much else. The possibilities for this approach to illuminate the national curriculum, for instance, have barely been explored.

We believe, therefore, that considerable emphasis should be given to your third key area supporting projects which break down barriers to engagement with the heritage and that conservation is an important route to such engagement.

Question 13
The community of heritage professionals, including those involved with conservation, is remarkable for its under-representation of non-white practitioners. Strategies should be supported for changing this situation.

Question 15
UKIC accepts these as a workable division of strategic priorities

The role of HLF

Question 16
Building broader public support for the value of heritage…
and
Raising the profile of heritage amongst opinion-formers

The latter will of course affect the former. Promoting the value of heritage needs to go deeper than building political platforms to bolster financial support for preservation. Communication professionals should help explore how people can themselves appreciate the deeply humanising qualities of heritage - tapping into memory and cultural origins, calling for visual awareness - how these help defend their lives from the de-humanising pressures of the time, strengthen communities and cultures, enrich lives and maintain civil society.

As we have discussed above, we believe that heritage preservation opens a door to such engagement of an order which static display of objects in show-cases cannot achieve. We hope that HLF will wish to support the development of the debate on the importance and public profile of conservation.

Working with others to ensure…funding raises standards and quality…promotion of best practice and the provision of enhanced training opportunities.

There is a wealth of potential initiatives embraced under this heading, many of them technical, which UKIC is well placed to explore in collaboration with HLF.

We particularly draw attention to the recent introduction of accreditation within the conservation profession which is setting a high standard and which is being taken up in significant numbers. This is will make it possible to place contracts only with those conservators whose work has been peer-reviewed, who comply with the profession's standards of practice and ethics, and who maintain their professional development.

To a similar end the Conservation Register, the national database now operated by this Institute, already provides a vital route to conservation practices of quality, one that is available to everybody requiring such services, and thereby raising standards for the care of heritage objects in both public and private ownership. It is intended that within four years only those practices in the charge of fully accredited conservators will be on the Register.

In pursuit of its objectives, we believe that HLF's recognition of accreditation and of the Conservation Register and their importance for raising standards and promoting best practice should form an important part of its strategy for the coming years.

We have listed above those areas in which we believe enhanced training opportunities should be promoted, and look forward to working with you on these.

Question 18

The major part of the country's portable cultural heritage is in private ownership, not in public institutions. Viewed as part of the total national heritage asset, it is important to ensure that the same high standards are applied to its care as to that part of the heritage in public ownership. Support for high standards, expressed for instance through the promotion of professional accreditation, the Conservation Register, and the provision of training, will help to achieve this.

Delivery

Question 19
As already mentioned, this professional body has the capabilities to help in the delivery of HLF's agenda. It should be stressed that the Institute exists to promote the well-being of the heritage, as well as to support its members.

Question 25
As mentioned, research projects would be useful on the valuing of heritage and on methodologies for comparing items across the country, to consistent standards, in order the better to allocate resources to their preservation. Investigation is also required into the funding base for conservation research.

In conclusion, we hope that the Stewardship Strategy now being prepared by Resource will be capable of informing HLF's forthcoming strategy for the care of portable heritage items.

Thank you for involving us in this consultation. We hope the above is a helpful response.

The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation
August 2001