A model of conservation-restoration documentation for easel paintings

Na temelju komparativnog istraživanja zastupa se novi metodološki koncept dokumentiranja stanja i rada na štafelajnom slikarstvu. Sustav metodološki ispravno usustavljenog stjecanja informacija o baštini, te sređivanja i kontekstualiziranja informacija u znanje omogućuje stjecanje ispravnijih spoznaja o samoj baštini i ispravnijeg definiranja prijedloga konz-rest radova. Znanost struke treba izgraditi u struci samoj (kako je to uspjelo medicini) a ne je tražiti u znanosti nekih drugih pomoćnih struka odakle dolaze izrazi Science for Conservation ili Science in Conservation. Predloženi „Science of Conservation and Restoration“ se temelji na dvije izvorne autorove spoznaje. Prva je da prirodoznanstvenici mogu bušiti i lomiti baštinu svojim analizama dok god ne steknu savršeno točnu i jasnu sliku o sastavu i stanju svih materijala, ali to ni na koji način ne jamči da će predstojeći konz.-rest zahvat biti znanstven ili uopće primjeren. Druga spoznaja je da metodologija i opisi postupaka moraju biti materijalizirani da bi uopće mogli postati znanje i dostupni za provjeru. Ta se spoznaja oslanja na definiciju znanosti tj. da bi neki proces bio znanstven, morao bi počivati na sustavnoj metodologiji stjecanja i sređivanja znanja, te na provjerljivosti. Konz.-rest. proces se materijalizira fizičkom izvedbom, ali metodologija s popisom uporabljenih materijala i opisima postupaka može se materijalizirati samo odgovarajućim dokumentacijskim sustavom kao preduvjetom i zalogom vlastite znanosti struke.A new methodological concept of documenting the condition and treatment on easel painting(s) is presented on the basis of comparative research. A system of methodologically accurate and organized acquisition of information, and filing and contextualization of information to obtain knowledge, enables the acquisition of more accurate information about the heritage itself, and a more exact proposal of conservation-restoration work. The knowledge of the profession needs to be developed within the profession itself (as has been done successfully in medicine), and does not need to be looked for in the science of some other auxiliary profession from which come definitions Science for Conservation or Science in Conservation. The proposed “Science of Conservation and Restoration” is based on two ideas of the author: The first is that natural scientists can “prod” and “crack” heritage with all sorts of sampling in all the relevant places and layers, get a perfectly clear picture of the composition of all the materials, but that does not guarantee that the conservation-restoration activity will be scientific or adequate for that matter. The second conclusion is that the methodology and the descriptions of procedures must be materialized before ever becoming acquired knowledge and available for review. This viewpoint relies on a definition of science, i.e. for a process to be scientific it must rely on a systematic methodology of acquisition and organization of knowledge, and on verification. The conservation-restoration process is realized via physical construction, but methodology with the catalogue of materials used and descriptions of procedures can only be realized with an adequate documentation system as a prerequisite and with an investment in the science of one’s own profession