Maria Pia Coccia and Maria Manganaro.
A universal interdiction stands in museums worldwide: DO NOT TOUCH. This imperative is so customary that it is perceived almost as a sacred postulate. However, its raison d’être is not in sacred scriptures but rather in the very nature of matter: unstable, alterable, and perishable.
Human skin is not neutral. Contacts deposit water, salt, fatty acids, and sebum: an invisible biological trace that, over time, alters whatever it touches. Sweat accelerates the oxidation of metals, degrades surface patinas and protective coatings, rendering originally glossy and brilliant surfaces dull and progressively porous.
From a scientific standpoint, the degradation produced by touch depends on the constituent materials of the artwork, their porosity, the conservation environment and any treatments sustained over time. In the case of bronze and metal alloys, the chlorides present in sweat can promote corrosive phenomena; instead on porous stone surfaces, organic residues can fuel the growth of microorganisms and chromatic alterations.
Furthermore, the abrasion caused by repeated friction can progressively wear away historical patinas and decorated surfaces.
For this reason, touch is normally interdicted in museums. This is not to defend the sacred aura surrounding the artwork but to slow down its deterioration.
Indeed, in Western tradition, the conservation of the original object holds not only an aesthetic value, but a cultural and scientific one. Within the materials of the artwork – pigments, binders, fibers, patinas, execution techniques and traces of past restorations – there is an essential wealth of information for historical knowledge. Destroying that physical matter means losing opportunities for knowledge.
In recent decades, however, tactile museums and accessible experiences have challenged a model based almost exclusively on vision. In particular, the work of Aldo Grassini and the Museo Tattile Statale Omero (Omero State Tactile Museum) brought a radical question back to the forefront: is touch truly incompatible with art?
The answer does not consist of denying the issue of conservation but of rethinking the relationship between contact and the artwork.
The Omero Museum collects artworks that were conceived from their origin to be explored through hands. These are not replicas specially made for the purpose but original artworks donated so that contact could be an integral part of their fruition. Artworks that accept the wear and tear and transformation produced by the tactile experience.
Therefore, touch itself is not interdicted. Unaware, indiscriminate and cumulative contact is interdicted.
Contemporary conservation does not eliminate contact: it regulates it. For this reason, restorers, conservators and scholars handle artworks following strict protocols and utilizing personal protective equipment. Even during tactile tours, the experience can be regulated through hand-washing, the use of gloves or the selection of more resilient materials.
Furthermore, scientific diagnostics could allow us to distinguish between handleable works, works accessible only on specific occasions and works that are too fragile to be touched. In many cases, 3D scanning and three-dimensional reproductions already enable a risk-free tactile experience for the original pieces.
In this sense, the Omero Museum does not solely represent an inclusive exception to the museum ban. It proposes a different concept relating to art: a tactile experience that is anticipated, designed and accepted.
Western tradition tends to recognize an unrepeatable value in the original artifact. We do not wish to transmit solely the image of the artwork but its actual historical matter.
For this reason, the “do not touch” rule does not derive from the will to separate the public from art but from the attempt to preserve what time has been delivered to us.
However, it should not turn into an absolute dogma but rather into a conscious practice capable of reconciling preservation, accessibility and knowledge.