In the years leading up to January 1, 2000, a growing fear of global chaos and shutdown emerged as the world’s computer programmers noticed a seemingly minor glitch in how we noted the date. By shortening it from “1993” to just “93” they saved lots of disk space and, consequently, lots of money. However, what happens at midnight when the year turns from the year 1999 to 2000 or, in shorthand, “99” to “00”? This became known as Y2K, the fear of a worldwide computer meltdown resulting from an inability to correctly report the date.
Any computer still employing this shorthand would risk data loss, software errors, or even rendering the computer unusable. Not sure in what century the data exists, the world’s infrastructure would disintegrate overnight. Bank records, credit cards, air traffic control, hospitals, etc. would potentially lose the ability to use their computers and service their public. A true apocalyptic scenario in which daily life collides head on with its future. This, thankfully, did not happen on a mass scale, thanks to an immense amount of resources and people who worked incessantly to avoid this outcome. When the clock turned to 12:01am and we greeted the year 2000, the parties continued uninterrupted and we were not simultaneously stabbed in the back. Was it an overreaction or was it strategic planning and execution that led to the safe, seamless transition into the new millennium?
This perfectly exemplifies the “preparation paradox” wherein through careful and thorough preparation one prevents a problem and, consequently, creates the sense that the intense preparation was actually an overreaction. This phenomenon readily reflects the risk mitigation efforts of professionals who steward the world’s cultural heritage.
If you build a castle with a moat but never get attacked, was it actually necessary to build or simply so formidable that no one bothered to attack?
I only recently learned that “preparation paradox” or the “paradox of preparation” is a real term but immediately understood that my colleagues and I embody it. The common museum crate perfectly represents the idea, for example. They cost a lot of money and have an intricate, bespoke design derived from oceans of research and experience. For a large exhibition, crating budgets can easily maraud into six-figure financial onslaughts that make you question their worth. And, many of those crates only get used for one exhibition. However, when you write “No change” on the condition report, you are publicly thanking that crate.
On the other hand, critics/the accounting department might say that we overbuilt the crate – that we could achieve the same results with a less-expensive, less-elaborate model. A savvy registrar knows that in the short term this is true for many objects. After all, museum crates are synonymous with the highest level of quality and design for a reason. Galleries, conversely, are known for their more utilitarian models given the sheer amount of and often one-way nature of their shipments. The goals of each entity differ.
Damage to an object accumulates over time. Eating food high in cholesterol does not lead to immediate health problems. Those problems manifest as one continues to consistently indulge and the body ages. Deterioration in objects, similarly, may not manifest until later when one wishes that they had used a high-quality crate from the beginning.
At last, we arrive at the Paradox of Preparation, and while we cannot say with 100% certainty that using the elaborate and expensive crates for decades would have prevented the poor condition of an object (obviously, many other factors complicate the calculation), we do know that the the rigorous tests they undergo demonstrate that they form a formidable moat around the object and protect it from the siege of the invading environment.
Instead of lamenting this phenomena that casts doubt on our risk-mitigating protocols, however, remember when you date your condition report “2022” instead of “22” that it could all play out differently. Eventually, you may not write “No Change” on the condition report. Although, it might appear that you overspent and overbuilt the crate because nothing happened, should you do the opposite and not devote enough attention to the dangers in your habits, you actually risk heart attack.
