ABSTRACT

This paper introduces the distinction between conservation outputs and outcomes to frame thinking about conservation ethics, decision-making and practice. It proposes that prescriptive ethical principles or their narrow interpretation do not necessarily deliver outputs that meet desired conservation outcomes such as ‘authenticity’. It draws analogies between philosophical definitions of art forgery, conservation case studies and cases of known forgeries, to debate whether heritage conservation could be construed as a ‘forger’s art’ and, despite the contradiction of terms, conservation ethics as an ethics of forgery. Viewed from the perspective of output-outcome inconsistencies, the paper argues there are four potential types of unintentional conservation forgery. It proposes that effective mitigations of this risk reside in the broader interpretation of conservation concepts drawing from metaphysics and other branches of philosophy, and a shift to more outcomes-based conservation ethics. The paper concludes with initial reflections on what a more outcomes-based conservation ethics might look like and the opportunities that such a shift would present to the field.

摘要

本文介绍了保护产出和结果之间的区别框架对保护伦理、决策和实践的思考。它提出，规定的伦理原则或其狭义的解释不一定能提供满足预期保护结果的输出，例如“真实性”。它在艺术赝品的哲学定义、保护案例研究和已知赝品案例之间进行了类比，以辩论遗产保护是否可以被解释为“伪造者的艺术”，尽管术语相互矛盾，但保护伦理是一种赝品伦理。从输出结果不一致的角度来看，该论文认为有四种潜在类型的无意保护伪造。它提出，有效缓解这种风险在于对来自形而上学和其他哲学分支的保护概念的更广泛解释，以及转向更多基于结果的保护伦理。该论文最后对更多基于结果的保护伦理可能是什么样子以及这种转变将给该领域带来的机会进行了初步思考。