{"id":3876,"date":"2012-06-01T09:52:06","date_gmt":"2012-06-01T14:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.conservators-converse.org\/?p=3876"},"modified":"2012-06-01T09:52:06","modified_gmt":"2012-06-01T14:52:06","slug":"aic-annual-meeting-2012-the-great-debate-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.culturalheritage.org\/conservators-converse\/2012\/06\/01\/aic-annual-meeting-2012-the-great-debate-part-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting (2012): The Great Debate – Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you read the previous Great Debate Part I post<\/strong> feel free to skip this introduction and jump down to the meat of the post, the team\u2019s statements below,\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Kudos go to Richard McCoy<\/a>, Conservator of Objects & Variable Ar<\/a>t at the Indianapolis Museum of Art <\/a>for instigating and moderating the first Great Debate at the AIC 2012 Annual Meeting<\/strong>.\u00a0 This session consisted of two Oxford-Style Debate sessions of 30 minutes each on a chosen topic.\u00a0 Each debate session consisted of initial presentations from each team, then members of the audience were allowed to ask questions and each debate team was given time to respond, followed by closing arguments.\u00a0 Before the debate the audience was polled by a show of hands on who agreed or disagreed with the statement.\u00a0 After the debate the audience was asked whose opinions were swayed so that a winning team could be chosen.\u00a0 This method for choosing a winner elicited some amusing debate in and of itself with Richard exclaiming in mock exasperation \u201cYou are supposed to debate each other \u2013 not me!\u201d<\/p>\n

This dry introduction doesn\u2019t represent the fun and excitement that ensued during the actual debate.\u00a0 I can\u2019t remember any sessions at previous AIC meetings that elicited raucous laughter, huge applause, and cheers and boos from the crowded room.\u00a0 Richard projected a huge stopwatch on the screen to time the statements and I can only imagine how nervous it made the debaters because it got my pulse racing just watching it!\u00a0 Richard was very clear that debaters were chosen for their willingness to participate and were not necessarily representing their personal views on the topics.\u00a0 This was notably pointed out in a \u201cgotcha\u201d moment when the Affirmative team asked Negative Team member Hugh Shockey if he would be willing to go without the fabulous microscope stand donated by a tour visitor!<\/p>\n

The participants must be complemented on their willingness to put themselves forward and get into the spirit with a bit of trash talking and theatrics (Hugh\u2019s dark glasses and Richard\u2019s big (read geeky) floppy bow tie.\u00a0 I think this exemplified that it is possible to debate topics of real importance within our profession and professional society without rancor or taking ourselves too seriously. This session was clearly a crowd favorite and I hope it will be repeated at future meetings.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Below is the statement for the second debate topic and text or talking points from the two teams.\u00a0 The second debate will be included in a separate post.\u00a0 Please feel free to weigh in yourself by commenting here on the blog.<\/p>\n

TOPIC #2: <\/strong>Having conservators perform treatments in the gallery is the most successful way to generate funding for museums and raise awareness about the profession<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

For the affirmative:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n