Flood. Fire. Tsunami. War. Attack. What curator has not feared a catastrophic event that could obliterate centures of painstaking collection development? In a post 9/11 climate, preparation for emergency has become integral to government administration and entered the national psyche.
But what is it that we should be protecting? What constitutes a national treasure or cultural heritage? And what makes it so valuable that taxpayer’s money needs to be used to keep it safe? And having made these decisions and come to the conclusion that this cultural treasure should be protected, what can be done to safeguard a country’s cultural heritage? And finally what is actually being done?
Moreover, on those thankfully rare occasions when disaster has struck, how effective have contingency plans proved and can they be seen as cost effective and sustainable in the long term?
Cultural heritage, public by definition
Terms such as ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘national treasure’ imply that ‘treasures’ are so significant to a people that they would be willing to exact measures to keep them safe, with any luck, forever.
Canadian architect Francois le Blanc offers a broad based definition of cultural heritage. It is interesting, he says, to think about the idea that anything could be considered a national treasure, provided enough people cared sufficiently to declare it so.
UNESCO reduces the scope of the definition to more manageable proportions: “Having at one time referred exclusively to the monumental remains of cultures, heritage as a concept has gradually come to include new categories such as the intangible, ethnographic or industrial heritage. A noteworthy effort was subsequently made to extend the conceptualization and description of the intangible heritage. This is due to the fact that closer attention is now being paid to humankind, the dramatic arts, languages and traditional music, as well as to the informational, spiritual and philosophical systems upon which creations are based.” (UNESCO)
For the purpose of this investigation we shall be thinking mainly about the vehicles which showcase objects that make up national, or even global cultural heritage, be they museums, galleries, or even designated areas, such as the Giza in Egypt or the site of the now destroyed Buddha of Bamiyan, Afghanistan.
A brief article published in 2001, shortly after the Bamiyan site was dynamited by Taliban fighters highlights that International Humanitarian Law also exists “to protect cultural objects and places of worship.” This is technically, though perhaps not in practice, one of the most powerful strategic drivers set up to safeguard objects and sites which are held to represent national and/or global cultural heritage.
Who should pay?
If we accept that cultural heritage is defined by the number of people who cherish an object, site, place of worship, etc (i.e. that national treasures are seen as such by the majority of the nation, or world heritage is named thus because nation-states agree that a treasure is so important it should be preserved for the global community), then it makes perfect sense for public funds to preserve and safeguard an object (etc.) that it is in the public interest to maintain.
However, one danger of this approach is where there is disagreement concerning what constitutes heritage and what is therefore worth preserving/safeguarding. This short paper outlines the Tunis experience (c. 1997) when decisions about urban renewal caused some of the city’s oldest buildings to be lost in favour of architecture that fit best with the dominant paradigm of those holding the purse-strings at the time much of the city was restored.
One very interesting point the paper raises is the role of tourism and how it relates to defining cultural heritage. Without the tourism industry the need for public subsidies to support museums, galleries, displays and heritage zones would most likely be too great to sustain. The impact of tourism cannot be underestimated and cultural tourism is big business that affects many unrelated sectors. Check out these NEA statistics for a big picture look at the tourism industry.
What can be done?
Disaster could strike at any time and in any form but by far the most common cause of damage to objects of cultural significance, particularly housed objects, is water as a result of either a leak or a flood. It is therefore not surprising that mush of the available information deals with this topic.
Information published by the Australian Museum is intended to provide nuggets of wisdom for others who may need to protect and preserve an ethnographic collection. In the risk assessment section the author lists extreme winds, earthquakes, bushfires, gas explosions and arson, before revealing that water has caused the most and most frequent damage to objects at this Museum.
The International Committee of the Blue Shield (ICBS), an organization that works to safeguard cultural heritage – branding itself as the Red Cross for Culture provide a range of services including forums for members to improve emergency preparedness by sharing experiences and exchanging information.
The ICBS operate under the terms of the Hague Convention 1954, although the security such a convention provides during times of war is clearly not something anyone would choose to bet upon their art, their money and especially not their life.
What is being done?
There abundance of innovative and dynamic initiatives that seek to combat the issues that are presentable in a disaster situation must be seen as a testament to the enthusiasm and dedication of museum and gallery staff, and the like.
Here are just a few interesting examples of programmes or initiatives that aim to prevent or reduce the impact of a disaster.
There is also an awareness, recognition and support of efforts made by conservationists who are working to protect cultural heritage. Preserve America is a high profile White House initiative set up to reward those who have worked to preserve American cultural heritage. On behalf of PA the President and PA’s chair Laura Bush recently handed out 4 awards, worth $12.5 million, to four beneficiaries – two in each category of Heritage Tourism and Privately Funded Preservation.
The best of the worst
A recent analysis of a fire that almost destroyed Columbia’s Museum of Contemporary Photography suggests no comprehensive risk assessment would probably have identified the hazard that allowed the fire to get going.
Following a fire which destroyed cultural artefacts being held at a Museum in South Australia a spokesperson for the Arts has asked for more funding from the Government to help restore the collection . This is no doubt a political move and not part of the Museum’s recovery plan. Incidentally the fire was started deliberately, something even the best laid plans cannot protect against.
The flooding of a museum in Whichita highlights the need for good planning. That artefacts were still being recovered a week after the flood reveals that museum staff were either unable or did not choose to implement emergency procedures. Fortunately it seemed like the insurance would pay out and the museum director sounds like a man who will not be waiting around for the same thing to happen again.
Also read how a small leak can lead to a (precisely defined) disaster.
Or find out what was involved in efforts to save priceless books in the aftermath of the infamous Florence Floods
Cost effective and sustainable: the holy grail
It is almost impossible to say whether plans to avoid or reduce the impact of disaster are successful without taking a detailed account of the extent to which such planning and organization has prevented and/or minimised the loss of cultural heritage. I could not find any authoritative data in this area. However, a recent Kyoto declaration on protection of cultural properties would indicate that the long-term sustainable protection of our cultural assets is the goal towards which policy makers and cultural conservationists should be headed Conferences
There are two major international conferences relating to this topic that coming up for the month of June, both organised by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property:
in the built environment (UK):
