intervie SALVADOR MUOZ-VIAS

New Horizons for

Conservation Thinking
Interviewed by Christabel Blackman,
7th June, 2008

Salvador Muoz-Vias was born in Valencia

in 1963. He holds degrees in both Fine
Arts and Art History. After working as
a conservator at the Historical Library
of the Universitat de Valncia, he became
a young member of staff at the newly-
created Department of Conservation at
the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia.
In the late 80s and early 90s, he obtained
several scholarships including the Luis
de Santangel research prize which enabled
him to visit the Center for Conservation
and Technical Studies at Harvard Univer-
sity (presently known as Straus Center
for Conservation), where he carried out
research as a visiting scholar.
In 1991, Muoz-Vias presented his PhD., partially based on research made at
Harvard, a technical analysis of Italian Renaissance manuscripts which was sub-
sequently published by Harvard and the UPV. In those years, Muoz-Vias taught
both Paper Conservation and the History of Paintings Techniques at the UPV,
however in 1999, he was obliged to choose a single subject, and opted for Paper
Conservation. At that time, he was already beginning to analyze the prevalent
('classical') tenets of conservation theory. Following some rather tentative,
short articles on the topic, the book 'Teora contempornea de la Restauracin'
was published in 2003. Soon after that he began writing 'Contemporary Theory
of Conservation', which was published late in 2004. Salvador Muoz-Vias became
Professor (Catedrtico) in 2000 and presently, works both on conservation theory
and on paper conservation techniques.

e_conser vation

A visit to Salvador Muoz-Vias work place is a
discovery akin to an explorers encounter with a
long sought-after treasure. The Arts and Conser-
vation building of the UPV is circular and reaches
out its architectural enveloping arms like St. Peters
forecourt, to snuggle in the rasta-haired arts
students along with the white cloaked conservation
researchers. Professor Muoz-Vias' chambers, his
deskroom and laboratory are dimmed and silent
compared to the harsh revealing Spanish sun and
the convivial chaotic ambience outside. Salvador
strikes one as quietly spoken, a listener rather
than a dogmatic teacher; elegant and thoughtful,
perhaps the archetype of the absent-minded
professor. He is however a stream-lined thinker,
with a terrific capacity to anchor things straight
to their axial point and definitely doesnt waste
his words
What drew you in to conservation as a profession?
It was not a decision that was planned long
before it became a reality. I just naturally found
myself learning, enjoying and working in it and
that was that. I studied Art History and Fine Arts,
and this was an easy and natural way to join both
together.
You worked in investigation at Harvard Univer-
sity during your formative years. How did that
experience contribute to your thinking?
Looking back retrospectively, I think that that was
a really important time because I encountered
different ways to do things, different ways to ap-
proach problems, different ways to communicate
between conservation professionals and of course
there were a lot of resources available. There was
just everything I could think of, from the most
sophisticated scientific apparatus to the rarest
publication. It really changed my way of thinking
about conservation research and about knowledge.
e_conser vation
NEW HORIZONS FOR CONSERVATION THINKING
I was very lucky to be working with people who
were so open and cooperative, especially with
the then Senior Conservation Scientist Eugene
Farrell who was first a master and a teacher and
later a teacher and a friend.
What inspired you to write "Contemporary
Theory of Conservation"?
I had been working in both practical conservation
and teaching for some time, often trying to tackle
ethical problems that arose when approaching con-
servation ethics in the classical way; that is by
applying classical principles, such as, reversibility,
objectivity, respect for truth, minimal intervention
and the like. However I found that these classical
principles could seldom be fully applied. In order
for them to work, you had to not abide by them
at some given moment. Sooner or later it was
necessary to discard them to enable conservation
to be reasonable and acceptable. For some years
I tried to cope with this incongruity between the-
ory and practice, between what should be and
what could be. However I couldnt get free from
this theoretical itch. Finally I tried to put things
together and to create some coherent body of
thinking, which led me to write those books.
You introduce many new or rather outline many
existing yet previously undefined concepts in the
conservation field. For example, what do you
refer to by sustainable conservation?
This is a notion that has been put forward by other
authors such as Sarah Staniforth and Erica Avrami.
When they spoke of sustainable conservation,
they thought about economical aspects of conser-
vation, maybe about technical aspects. I would
include those aspects in my notion of sustainable
conservation. But I mainly refer to the fact that
conservation should not limit the variety of mes-
sages that observers or scientists or scholars can
25
INTERVIEW WITH SALVADOR MUOZ-VIAS
extract from a given object. Conservation should
be sustainable in that it should not make any
reading impossible or, to be more practical, it
should maintain as many meanings of that single
object as available as possible: it should not ex-
haust the ability of an object to transmit different
messages.
Why is authenticity important in conservation?
I dont think it is actually important, even though
many people may think it is. Authenticity, or Truth,
is important in many aspects of life, I mean, it is
a basic rule of behavior: like, 'Thou shalt not lie'.
However, in conservation we usually understand
authenticity in a very particular and peculiar way,
giving it a meaning which has nothing to do with
authenticity as we usually understand the term.
Basically, when we speak about an 'authentic'
object, or about the 'authentic' state of an object,
we are actually referring to an expected or pre-
ferred state of the object. Conservators often
alter or delete the authentic imprints of history
Prof. Muoz-Vias in his deskroom at the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia.
22
for the sake of 'authenticity'; the problem with
those imprints (a marred surface, a missing frag-
ment, a darkened varnish, you name it) is not
that they are not authentic, but that we do not
like them. We prefer the object to exist in a dif-
ferent state. Conservators thus modify reality
(which is undoubtedly authentic) to suit our
expectations, needs or preferences. So authen-
ticity is useful because it helps us to believe
that we are acting for some higher reasons (truth,
science, objectivity, etc.) and not that we are
simply implementing our own expectations or
preferences.
You criticize truth-based theories: does it mean
that conservators 'lie'?
No. What it means is that truth is not actually
a part of the equation, or that a conservator
cannot lie just by altering an object. Altering
an object and acknowledging and documenting
that change can be hardly considered as a form
of lying. If it were so, as classical, truth-based
e_conser vation

theories suggest, then we would have to admit
that we conservators lie all the time. Even rigattino
or similar tricks should be considered to be lies
from the point of view of classical theories: the
idea is that if we come close enough to a painting
we will be able to spot these additions, on the
other hand we would have to meticulously scan
the entire paintings surface to be able to spot
what parts of it were not original, which is just
a very unrealistic expectancy, to say the least.
So according to classical theories we should be re-
spectful to truth but at the same time we must lie.
However, as I said before, I dont think that truth
is all that important, because I dont think that
we can make an object 'false'. Truth depends on
what a person believes an object to be, and not
on the object itself; the object cannot lie. We
transform the object, but it does not mean that
we are lying: we do not hide that fact but publicize
it. Whatever state an object exists in is always a
reality. I mean it is what it is. Thats the tauto-
logical argument. Truth is always there within
the object. The fact that we do not like that truth
does not mean that it is not a truth. The fact that
we do not like the state of a painting which is
burnt does not meant that the true authentic
state of that painting is not burnt. The fact that
we do not like a statue which is broken does not
mean that the true authentic state of the broken
statue is not broken. So objects always exist in
a true state. Henceforth, what makes a restora-
tion good or bad is not the fact that it abides by
truth. Truth has nothing to do with conservation
theory; we are not dealing with truth. We are
dealing with preferences. We want an object to
exist in a given state. And we tend to think that
that preferred state is the true state of the object.
But it is not, because the object always exists
in a true state. A torn piece of paper is authen-
tically torn, it is really torn. So how can we
believe that the true state of a torn piece of
paper is not torn? That does not make sense.
e_conser vation
NEW HORIZONS FOR CONSERVATION THINKING
Truth has little to do with conservation. Conser-
vation is about bringing the object to a preferred
state. We adapt objects to our preferences and
thats it.
You say that contemporary theory of conser-
vation calls for a revolution of common sense.
Are classical theories not based on common
sense?
No they are not, definitely. In fact they are based
on very specific views that are not those of the
common people. They are based on the views of
specialists. Classical theories are made to satisfy
specialists, art historians, archaeologists, chemists,
physicists, but not necessarily the stakeholder,
user of the object, or the spectator. I think that
contemporary theories are now moving towards
this, well, they are aiming at bearing in mind the
views of the spectators, the layman and the views
of the common people.
Are you implying, whilst saying that, that common
sense is not applicable to these elitist groups?
No, no, no, it is not. These elitist groups, (and I
know well, I sort of belong to one of them) do
have some inner, particular ideas that are common
to us insiders but this common sense is not very
common, since it is that of specialists, a reduced
group of people. We have an idea of what is com-
mon sense within our own field of specialization.
When I speak of the revolution of common sense,
I am referring to common sense in the broadest
sense of the term that which applies to the vast
majority of people. For instance, to conserve some
layer of dirt that most people would find disgusting
over an object that most people find worthless,
as in archaeological conservation, is not common
sense. But then some not-so-common-one could
say, hey, Im an archaeologist and I do care about
conserving that layer of dirt because it could
23
INTERVIEW WITH SALVADOR MUOZ-VIAS
provide me with some information in the future.
This common sense stems from the specialists
point of view only, but that common sense is not
actually all that common, because most people
would want to remove that dirt. But then again,
a certain group of people with a, well, less-common
common sense may find that layer of dirt valuable.
Up until now, the views of the vast majority of
people were not cared about. Indeed sometimes
these views do not need to be cared about, be-
cause it may be necessary to conserve for those
specialists. However I mean to say that an object,
say a painting, may not necessarily be valuable
for an elitist group only, it can also have a sym-
bolic value for many people - the same applies
to a sculpture, a cathedral, etc. All these things
mentioned can be considered valuable for more
people, for reasons which are, indeed, truly
common sense.
Do you think that mass popularity of a cultural
asset can lead to a type of demagogic
conservation?
Yes, sure, that is a risk, but we dont want that
either It is not that we should just abide by the
will of the majority. Often, to avoid demagogic
conservation we do have to ignore the common
view of the people. This leads to a paradox. They
pay us, we work for them, but we just have to
ignore them. I think that this paradox can be
solved by suggesting that when we say that we
are working for users, the term 'users' includes
not only contemporary users, but also future users.
And we conservators are speaking for those future
users who do not have a voice yet.
Indeed you refer to this in your book as sustain-
able conservation, which we have been speaking
about. Do you think that your 'Contemporary
Theory of Conservation' offers a satisfactory
answer to the problems of conservation ethics?
24
I do not think that it is my theory of conservation,
I think that it is a theory that is in the air, like,
well 'Love is in the Air' but 'Conservation
Theory is in the Air'. There are many people who
think this way, and who have contributed to it.
I have formulated it and I have added my own
patches where I felt it needed patching. And yes,
I feel that it gives an answer to many problems.
Laudan, a philosopher of science, said that the
value of a theory is measured by the amount of
problems it can solve. I do think that this contem-
porary theory solves more problems than classical
conservation theories. However, there are prob-
lems that cannot be solved so easily, such as the
problem of measuring value. Subjective values
cannot be expressed in terms of numbers, and
thats a real challenge well have to cope with.
In your book, you criticize the notion of scientific
conservation. In your opinion, what role does
science play in conservation?
It helps conservators to have more data, to be
more informed. It should not substitute or replace
ethics. Science tells us things about how the world
works, how an object was in some more or less
remote past, it can hint how some particular
material will behave, but then again there are
many other factors that are not scientific, which
are usually more important than the information
that science can provide us with. For example,
we need to know not just the past state of an
object, but whether or not that past state of the
object is more desirable than some other states
of the object. This is something that science
cannot tell us. Science can tell us if a varnish is
aged or not, but it cannot tell us if we should
remove that varnish. So the most important
decisions have nothing to do with science, they
have to do with needs, expectations and people.
These are things that cannot be dealt with by
science; it should just act an auxiliary tool, be-
e_conser vation

Prof. Muoz-Vias lecturing at the British Museum,
'Contemporary Ethics of Conservation for the XXIst century'
Seminar in London, June, 2007.
cause it cannot guide conservation. It can tell
us to select a particular adhesive or to help us
make more informed decisions, but it cannot
make the decisions; it is we who make the
decisions.
What are your views on minimal intervention?
I have nearly finished the final version of a chap-
ter on that topic for a book which is being edited
by Alison Bracker and Alison Richmond, so this
is a topic that I am somewhat acquainted with.
What I have found is that either we do not actually
refer to anything minimal or we do not actually
refer to the intervention at large, but only to
some particular aspects of the intervention. If
we would sincerely abide by that principle we
would do nothing, because a truly minimal inter-
vention is just the slightest step away from doing
nothing. So it is obvious that the notion makes
e_conser vation
NEW HORIZONS FOR CONSERVATION THINKING
sense if we change its actual meaning. While we
do understand the notion and find it useful, it
could be better referred to with other terms.
What projects are you currently working on?
I am working on some theoretical texts on ethics
but I am also working on some interesting tech-
nical aspects of paper conservation. This is a field
that I do not want to abandon, not at all. It is
very nice to alternate between purely theoretical,
almost philosophical research, and the more
practical, technical research switching from
working with words to working with formulae
and physical principles, and with the hands, is
very refreshing perhaps the most important
privilege of working within a university is that
I can choose when to switch, and how often.
What publications are you working on?
I have recently completed a contribution on the
notion of authenticity for the chapter of a book
that will be published by Archetype. Besides that,
I am preparing a technical article on an often over-
looked (or plainly ignored) drawback of common
flattening techniques these techniques alter
Salvador Muoz-Vias with Joana Kosek, paper conservator
from the British Museum and James Black, director of Archetype
Publications and co-ordinator of International Academic Projects.
25
INTERVIEW WITH SALVADOR MUOZ-VIAS

the original dimensions of paper sheets; it has
been very interesting to discover, assess and
understand this phenomenon. A long overdue
book on the history of painting techniques is
also in the pipeline which I am coauthoring with
a fellow Spanish conservator. It should have been
finished long ago, since the project dates back
to the late 1990s, when I still had the privilege
of teaching that beautiful subject, but I have
been indulgently procrastinating upon it the
publishers are not happy with that. Further ahead
there lie several very appealing projects, such as
a book on conservation ethics and contemporary
art or an analysis of some aspects of Brandis
Teoria del restauro. However, these projects are
just that - I have deviated from your question,
since I am not actually working on them, but
just musing with them.
In your opinion, which is the best model of
education in conservation?
workshops. On the other hand, it is very difficult
to make sure that the interns will get hands-on
experience in the specific techniques that they
need, since professional workshops are not
concerned with teaching, but with solving pro-
fessional needs and with their own livelihood.
And then there is the fact that many labora-
tories just do not need or do not want interns
buzzing around; and those which often assign
the interns the most routine and boring tasks
the tasks that nobody wants to do. This is a
good lesson about how life is, but not about
conservation. Even though the attitude of the
conservators who host the interns may be easily
understandable and perfectly logical, this defies
the whole point of an internship. Of course, and
worst of all, it is very difficult to avoid. Thus, in
many ways, the model I am describing can only
be a purely ideal model. To tame these problems,
I would add to the equation the need to have a
strict system of student selection, and strict

I think that it should be similar to how physicians

are taught. That is the students have a heavy
load of hands-on practical work and a heavy load
of very different theoretical matters. And then,
when they finish, they start an internship for
four more years, alongside with experienced
experts from whom they are transmitted valuable
acquired knowledge and skills. This could be a
model for conservation not that I am advocating
for a six-year conservation degree followed by
a four-year internship: I am advocating for a
blend of theoretical and practical teaching, rang-
ing from sciences to humanities to conservation
techniques this is a real trademark of conser-
vation as a discipline which in my opinion is rarely
well-implemented. Ideally, it would be followed
by a strictly controlled period of work in real la-
boratories. The Bologna directive seems to call for
a four-year degree, but they tell next to nothing Salvador Muoz-Vias in his paper conservation workshop
about internships in real-life laboratories or at the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia.

26 e_conser vation
 NEW HORIZONS FOR CONSERVATION THINKING

'numerus clausus'. Not just because it would

enable to improve the teaching and instruction,
but also because it would allow the teachers and
the students to be much more selective about
those all-important internships.

How do you see the implementation of the

Bologna process in higher education? Do you
believe it will bring about an improvement to
the actual models of conservation education
in Spain?

No, I dont think so. Each European country has

its particular issues and the issues in Spain will
not be solved by any particular education quali-
fication system, such as that which the Bologna
directives call for. After Bologna we will have more
or less the same problems, except that we will
have new degrees which have slightly different
durations from those we have now. For example,
one of the main problems which currently exists
has to do with the fact that in Spain conservation
is taught both by universities and by "Escuelas
Superiores" (which are tertiary education insti-
tutions outside the university). In fact, and
following Bologna, the "Escuelas Superiores"
already have their four year degrees which have
just been approved by the Ministry; while the
Universities already have their post-graduate,
Bologna-style degrees, and will soon have their
four-year graduate degrees. However, both the
Escuelas and the Universities refuse to cooperate
together to unify these degrees: each party seems
to the other as a menace or even an enemy. It
is a problem that will not be solved by anything
from Bologna; unfortunately the problem will
remain. However, the Bologna process is not to
be blamed for it: its goals were not to solve all
of these problems, but to implement a homoge-
neous higher education system all across Europe,
and, in my opinion, this is something that has
been successfully achieved.
Professor Salvador Muoz-Vias concludes his inter-
view with the air thickened by the variety of thought
provoking ideas that have been offered forth. His
complex concepts are simplified down into digestible
units in the same way that conservation processes
are isolated into more manageable steps. He belongs
to the innovative vocational thinkers that are paving
the way for changes on a more communal and uni-
versal level in the conservation sphere, changes that
are slowly being reflected in the collective attitude
of our profession. Undoubtedly we will keep hearing
his words reverberate amongst the movement of
the contemporary visionary kaleidoscope of new
notions in conservation.
Christabel Blackman (b. 1959, Australia) holds a
Masters Degree in Conservation and Restoration of
Cultural Patrimony (UPV, Spain) specializing in
easel painting and a Diploma in painting restoration
from the Istituto per l'Arte e il Restauro, Italy. She
lives in Valencia, Spain, where she is a free-lance
senior paintings conservator.

e_conser vation 27
 No. 6, September 2008 LICENCE

ISSN: 1646-9283

Registration Number Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5

125248 Portugal
Entidade Reguladora
para a Comunicao Social You are free:
to Share to copy, distribute and transmit this work
Property
e-conservationline, Teodora Poiata

Periodicity
Bimonthly
Under the following conditions:
Cover
Photo by Anca Nicolaescu - THF
Detail of mural painting from Red Jampa Lhakhang Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner
- Leh, Ladakh, India specified by our licence, best by linking to CC website.

Executive Editor
Rui Bordalo

Editors
Teodora Poiata, Anca Nicolaescu Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial
purposes.
Collaborator:
Anca Dina

Graphic Design and Photography

Anca Poiata, Radu Matase
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build
Execution upon this work.
Teodora Poiata

Address
Rua Peixinho Jnior, n 9, 1 D
2770-163 Pao de Arcos
Portugal
e_conservationline informs that the published information
www.e-conservationline.com is believed to be true and accurate but can not accept any
legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may
All correspondence to: occur or make any warranty for the published material,
general@e-conservationline.com which is solely the responsability of their authors.