Curated Decay (2017) argues that some things are worth preserving, whereas other things can’t be preserved; better by far to watch them rot

This post concerns Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving (2017) by Caitlin DeSilvey.

Update: In this post, uploaded on Dec. 21, 2017, I speak of being at ease with uncertainty. I have thought of this further. To my earlier comment (included in the text which follows), I would add that there are other times, aside from when I feel at ease with a lack of certainty, when my own preference is for a considerable degree of certainty – by which I refer among other things to predictability.

Such a preference would depend on the state of affairs under consideration in a particular instance. The first thing would be to define clearly what is meant when we speak about certainty, and about predictability

Two books dealing with certainty have attracted my interest. One is The Certainty Illusion: What You Don’t Know and Why It Matters (2025) by Timothy Caulfield. Another study addressing certainty is Question Authority: A Polemic About Trust in Five Meditations (2024) by Mark Kingwell.

As well, I’ve been reading The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource (2025) by Chris Hayes. Attention is connected, in a manner that I’m dimly aware of, with how we position ourselves in our everyday lives with regard to certainty. An excerpt reads:

In fact, the greatest civilizational challenge humans face or have ever faced, the warming of the planet from human activity, has proven so difficult to solve in large part because it evades our attentional faculties. “It’s always been a problem,” legendary writer and climate activist Bill McKibben once told me, “that the most dangerous thing on the planet [CO2] is invisible, odorless, tasteless, and doesn’t actually do anything to you directly.” At least not until it’s too late.

The Sirens’ Call notes that information, which appears limitless, consumes the attention of its recipients – attention which appears profoundly scarce.

It also occurs to me that a concept with a close relationship to attention is the matter of mindfulness.

I am intrigued, as well, with the concept that media in its various forms operates as an extension of our minds; the underlying formulation, in this context, is that our minds extend beyond our bodies.

I am also intrigued with the role that attention plays in determining. for instance, voting intentions in Canada – as described in an April 14, 2025 Politico article entitled: “What the Polls in Canada Are Really Saying: A top Canadian pollster explains how Trump completely upended the election.”

The gist of the article is that “what got everyone’s attention” in Canada, with regard to recent messages coming from south of the border, has had a profound impact on federal election polling in this country.

Many people have comments regarding the topic of attention: A Feb. 3, 2022 New York Times article is entitled: “Why Can’t We Pay Attention Anymore?”

An excerpt (I have omitted links embedded in the text) reads:

If we’re looking for hope, I have two suggestions. The first is that we consider what transcendence might look like, if resistance is futile. It’s a tough time for kids nowadays, but it’s plausible that our young people are savvier, more critical and better at focusing under extremely distracting conditions than their parents. Let’s hope so.

Second, although all the issues these books confront are real, they are part of a much larger problem, which is capitalism itself, or at least the incentives it creates for folks like Nir Eyal. To address that would mean turning to even bigger, less personal dilemmas, like the way automation is quickly replacing entry-level jobs, or private equity is using automated eviction algorithms to optimize the profit on their hundreds of thousands of homes, creating a homeless and jobless underclass in its wake. Runaway technology is here, and in many ways it’s worse than a lack of focus or will — but if we can connect the two, then perhaps we have a chance to improve our future.

The article refers to two studies:

STOLEN FOCUS
Why You Can’t Pay Attention — and How to Think Deeply Again
By Johann Hari

THE LOOP
How Technology Is Creating a World Without Choices and How to Fight Back
By Jacob Ward

[END OF UPDATE]

*

You can access a London School of Economics review of Curated Decay (2017) here.

Not all things can be preserved

I am highly taken by the concept underlying Caitlin DeSilvey’s study.

The concept is most interesting. In a nutshell, DeSilvey notes, some potential heritage sites are not going to be preserved, no matter what.

Sometimes, that is, transience and impermanence – as demonstrated through, for example, the imposing power of rot, decay, deterioration, and erosion – have the upper hand.

Under such conditions, what does a person, trained within the framework, mindset, and worldview of “preservation,” as it is traditionally configured, to do?

The book is positioned as an experiment. It’s a work in progress.

For some readers, the lack of a definitive conclusion, in Caitlin DeSilvey’s study, may be irksome. I would not know. At times I feel at home with uncertainty and ambiguity. For that reason, from my perspective, the lack of a conclusion in this case warrants celebration. The lack of a conclusion, in fact, is the underlying theme of the study.

Trees and metal intertwined

At an early chapter, the author refers to a situation where a tree at an abandoned site has over the years incorporated chunks of abandoned machinery into its bark.

I was reminded, when I read this passage, of situations in my local neighbourhoods, where parts of metal fences have, similarly, been incorporated into the barks of trees. I now see that metal-and-wood configuration from a different perspective, having read the above-noted passage.

The book is a work of art. It prompts a person to look at things anew. I recommend it highly.