Conservation Washing

Since 2023, I have developed the concept of “conservation washing”, which exploits the vulnerability of heritage and art to argue against the relocation of an artwork. Conservation washing is most often used to justify the seizure of an artwork or heritage piece, or to prevent its return, on the basis that it can only survive in a Western museum. Thus, conservation washing suggests that physical preservation is the ultimate goal in the heritage sector and that this can only be achieved in one specific way. Conservation washing is the instrumentalization of conservation by politicians, often despite the will of conservators themselves.

Conservation washing has existed since the 18th century as a means of legitimising museum activities and the relocation of collections. In fact, conservation washing is historically inseparable from the history of museums, which use it to establish their legitimacy. This argument emerged during the Napoleonic Wars, when French troops took artworks, books, and scientific objects all over Europe. In this context, the French authorities argued that the arts had to be saved and liberated from oppression — which meant taken to Paris and housed in the newly founded Louvre Museum. Art could not be preserved where it was created, for instance in Italy, and only French institutions could preserve it in the best possible way.

While most museums in Europe and the United States do indeed provide good conditions for the conservation of heritage, art and material culture, they have defined these terms themselves, including controlling access or freezing of collections. Under pressure from Indigenous experts and activists, certain institutions, particularly in the Pacific and the United States, do not impose these standards anymore, but rather propose relaxations of existing protocols (for example, by limiting air conditioning or inviting artists and Indigenous experts into storage facilities). However, today, the conservation washing argument is still used when concerns are raised about access or demands for restitution. In this context, artworks and objects are either said to be too fragile to travel back, or restitution is made conditional on the implementation of conventional conservation standards.

I contrast Conservation Washing with Restorative Justice, an approach that places Indigenous rights and expectations at the center.