Conservation as a political weapon

Reading in The Times (July 6) the criticism addressed by Carmelo Abela to the previously Malta Centre for Restoration, we felt with a certain sadness that the main "failure" of the centre was not mentioned: it is not only that people, or more precisely politicians seem, still, to have very little idea of what conservation is about but it is, more dangerously, that the existence of the centre has given them reasons to think that they now know what conservation is about. In other words, an alibi to use conservation as a political weapon and cultural heritage as a hostage of the cheapest political arguments. At least for once, the floor should be taken by professionals who genuinely care for cultural heritage and its preservation.

When we read that the equipment at the centre was underutilised, that people there were trained in restoration techniques, we realised how little is known of what has been achieved in this centre. The equipment was underutilised, only if you measure the results by the metres of artefacts restored!

Conservation is not a technique. Conservators are not craftsmen. Training a good conservator "to reach excellent standards", as stated by Minister Zammit Dimech, takes an incredible amount of time, money and expertise. Why? Because, according to international guidelines, an accomplished conservator is someone who should have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in history of art or archaeology; who should have a level in chemistry at least equivalent to a second year university student in chemistry, if not a Bachelor; who in addition is specifically trained in material science to understand complex mechanisms of deterioration; who is disciplined enough to carry out incredibly meticulous, tedious and repetitive but necessary tasks; who yet has enough understanding of philosophy to appreciate why ethics in conservation are so strict, and what are his/her duties towards the public and future generations. Yet it is someone who has sufficient passion and enthusiasm to accept that these long years of training will not afford him or her the quarter of the salary of a doctor, a lawyer or a dentist.

That is why the centre could not and should not have accepted more students; it is why the centre has hardly been overly selective in its admissions; it is why the main efforts have been dedicated to build up a decent training school, up to academic standards, rather than to restore kilometres of artefacts to their "former glory", using craft techniques and well-known recipes.

In the few years of its existence, and mainly thanks to the hard work and dedication of its staff, both Maltese and international, the centre has managed to build a real academic training school in conservation, recognised by a University degree, something that only a handful of countries have achieved, especially around the Mediterranean basin. Maltese and foreign interns, from France, Germany, Poland, the US and other countries have regularly, and more and more frequently, been hosted by the institute while several Maltese students and members of staff have been sent for training to prestigious institutions abroad. International events such as the Cost G8 training school organised in October 2004 took place in Malta through the centre and slowly the school for conservation in Malta has begun to be known abroad, as a young but dynamic institution worth collaborating with.

Affording a training school in conservation is certainly a luxury, and maybe it is not one that Malta can afford. Not long ago a well- renowned conservation school closed its doors in Australia because it was not economically viable - the premises are now occupied by forensic science students. However, the conservation school could have been an interesting banner to make Malta known and recognised abroad and especially in the EU. In the long term, by strengthening the academic quality of the course and promoting research it might have attracted fee-paying foreign students.

As it stands, if priorities are switched from academic quality to productivity, a costly six-year investment (costly in terms of money and effort) will be lost, and the results jeopardised, which even by market economy standards seems foolish.