Month: May 2010

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Textiles Morning Session, 10:30am – 12:00pm

Comparative Approaches in Textile Conservation: the Whalley Abbey Vestments and the Whalley Abbey Orphreys

Leanne C. Tonkin, ICON/HLF (Institute of Conservation/Heritage Lottery Fund) Conservation Intern at the People’s History Museum, Manchester, U.K.

The first talk after the morning break was given by Leanne Tonkin and she discussed the 2007-09 treatment of the Whalley Abbey vestments and orphreys. These treatments were conducted as part of her training at the TCC.

Ms. Tonkin began with a brief historical background of the vestments. It has been 20 years since they were last treated, and a lot has changed in the field since then. At the time of their last treatment, the focus had been on cleaning to create a newer and fresher look. Ms. Tonkin had the opportunity to discuss the previous treatments with the conservator who performed them. When asked what should she would do differently now, the conservator’s response focused on surface cleaning and vacuuming: “The washing I’m not sure about; solvent dry cleaning I’m not sure about now…I’m tending towards hands-off….”

When compared to the altar frontal, it became clear that aesthetic was a bigger concern in the original treatment of the vestments. The altar frontal was found to be less altered from the previous treatments and exhibited more of the original handwork.

Current treatment included an SEM-EDS analysis which revealed corrosion where metal threads are joined. The appearance of the metal thread showed improvement after a cleaning treatment. Additionally, local humidification of the altar frontal was performed using Melinex barriers, moistened blotting paper, and Symatex.

The comparison of the treatments highlighted shifts in the ethics over time. Priorities during the last 20 years have changed in how textiles are viewed and treated.

_______________________________________________________________________

The Effects of Long Term Display on Previous Treatments

Abby Zoldowski, Assistant Textile Conservator, Peebles Island Resource Center, New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY

Ms. Zoldowski’s talk discussed two bedcovers at the Schuyler Mansion, which was occupied by the Schuyler family from 1763-1804 and was acquired by the state in 1911. Both bedcovers have undergone three previous treatments and faced a nearly continuous exhibition in-between. Ms. Zoldowski gave an in-depth look at the treatments over time and the effect the long term display had on them.

To begin with, bedcover #1 underwent a treatment campaign in 1976. An AT image was shown, and the initial condition was described as weakened, rotted, with losses and breaks. The records indicated a treatment with sodium perborate overnight, wet cleaning, extensive rinses, extracted, and then air dried with cheesecloth. It is not known how fibers reacted to this. Yellowing was probably decreased, but fibers were likely further weakened. The bedcover was placed back on exhibit after this treatment.

The second time it was taken off display was 1982-84. It was still described as weak and brittle. This time treatments were listed in 1982 as wet cleaning with Orvus, air dried (no drying cloth), crepeline overlay. Treatment was not finished at that time, so it was then again treated in 1984 with another wet cleaning with Orvus, air dried, (no drying cloth), and further stitching. Accumulated oils and surface grime were the reason for the second cleaning and stitching campaign. After treatment, it was requested that bedcover not be put back on display, but it was put back on exhibit anyway.

It was taken off display again for a third round of treatment in 2009. It was very fragile and prone to breaking when handled. It was surmised that the ’76, ’82 and ’84 cleanings may have altered the tension in the fibers. Conservators took off the crepeline overlay and tested the pH of the bedcover. The pH range was 5.1 (stuffed areas) to 4.8 (unstuffed areas) before treatment. Discoloration of the textile was treated with wet cleaning and this increased the pH to a range of 6.5 to 6.6 after treatment. However, it was noted that discoloration had not been altered significantly during this treatment. It was determined at this time that the bedcover could not withstand any more stitching, so it was rolled on a padded tube and finally placed in storage.

The first treatment of bedcover #2 in 1976 was almost the same as that of bedcover #1, with the addition of an acetic acid rinse in-between initial rinses and extraction. And, as was the case with #1, this bedcover was put back on display after treatment.

The second treatment occurred during the same time period as the first bedcover and included wet cleaning with water, air dried with drying cloth, local Stabilex overlays and local in-fills. Its condition was noted as fragile and exhibition recommendation was for 1 year, after which it should be placed in storage. However, it was instead left on display for 19 years.

The 2009 condition assessment of bedcover #2 noted that it was brittle from light damage and a number of holes were evident. Treatment was similar to that of the first bedcover. Discoloration was not significantly altered, nor was the pH range. However it was noted that the fabric had a softer hand after treatment. Bedcover #2 was also rolled on a padded tube and placed in storage.

An interesting observation was made Ms. Zoldowski at this point on the role of conservation and the conservator during the last 30 years. While recommendations for the removal of the bedcovers after the first two treatments were ignored, the recommendation after the 2009 treatment was followed. This suggested to the author that curators may be more willing to listen to conservators and pay more attention to object care today than they did 30 or even 20 years ago.

_______________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of Costume Supporting Forms for Major Exhibitions: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and First Ladies

Sunae Park Evans, Senior Costume Conservator, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History, Washington, DC

Ms. Evans gave a very engaging talk discussing forms created for various exhibitions of clothing from historical figures. A suit from Benjamin Franklin and a uniform of George Washington’s were the first items discussed. The historical significance of both was covered. Franklin’s suit had been in storage for a long time and had light damage from previous display. In honor of his 300th birthday in 2006, a suitable support was created and it was exhibited for 3 months.

Washington’s uniform had a bit of a different history as it had been on display almost continuously. The uniform came to the Smithsonian in 1883 and an 1889 photograph showed a man modeling the outfit. When placed on exhibit, legs and a head were often not included in the mount. However, during the 60’s and 70’s full figures with heads were created for display purposes. For recent exhibitions, historical accuracy became an important aspect in displaying these artifacts. In 2000, Washington’s boots were recreated by a bookmaker in Colonial Williamsburg who pointed out that Washington didn’t like pointy toed boots and preferred them rounded.

Furthermore, a (somewhat humorous) account was given about the groin area of the uniform and the proper positioning of the mount for exhibition. Ms. Evans delicately covered the subject, mentioning that tailors at the time would have asked their customers which side they preferred and then tailored the pants accordingly.

On the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, a suit of his was displayed along side one of Mary Lincoln’s dresses. Due to their height differences, they didn’t like being photographed together, so creating forms for this was a unique opportunity to see them side by side. The fully supportive form for Lincoln’s suit was contrasted to an image of the suit displayed in the 1920’s where it was simply hung on a hanger, with his hat on a table.

And last, but not least, an exhibition of First Ladies’ dresses in the 1930’s quickly became a very popular exhibit for the Smithsonian’s American History museum. A special gallery to exhibit the gowns was designed to minimize light and environmental effects in 1992. A 6 month rotation was recommended, but the gowns were kept on display for 14 years due to their popularity. They were then again reinstalled on exhibit in 2008 after the expansion/renovation of the NMAH.

A few examples were taken from this exhibition. In 1992 forms for first ladies such as Martha Washington, Julia Grant, and Helen Taft were built that show the limitations of mounting materials of that time. Those mounts were created from fiberglass. Better fitting mounts were created from ethafoam in 2008. The ethafoam, it was noted, is preferred because it is inert and lightweight. Stress and strain in the outfits were analyzed to create the most appropriate form for each situation.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Objects Morning Session, 8:30am

The Restoration, Treatment, Scientific Examination, and Re-treatment of an Egyptian Limestone Relief from the Tomb of Ka-Aper

Presented by Kathleen M. Garland, Senior Conservator, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

Right off the bat, Ms. Garland began her talk by admitting to occasionally feeling a need to be validated in treatment decisions by conservation science. I appreciated this as I think a lot of us feel this way from time to time.

After hearing a review of the history of piece, we learned that the relief was not in great shape when it was acquired. The surface of the stone was lifting off of the substrate, which made removing it from the wall difficult. Consolidation tests were performed in 1992 and it was found that methylcellulose and Kucel G darkened the stone the least, but they were not strong enough. In the end, it was consolidated with Butvar B98, 2% in ethanol/toluene.

After removal, it sat in storage for approximately 15 years due to a lack funding for research and treatment. Then the Mellon Foundation provided funding for research and consultations which allowed for comparison of the relief to other examples from the same tomb, such a piece in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Conservation scientists were also consulted and a variety of analysis undertaken to better understand what was happening at the surface of the stone and what treatments were previously done. Additionally, Egyptologists were also consulted for their expertise and knowledge.

The conclusion of the talk was that undocumented pieces such as this must rely heavily on advice from others in a variety of specialties. This is a theme that I have certainly noticed in a number of talks during this conference and one that undoubtedly cannot be overemphasized.

Dare Great Things: Questions on the Restoration of a Series of Colonial Paintings

The fourth talk, Dare Great Things: Questions on the Restoration of a Series of Colonial Paintings, was presented by Conservation Scientist Federico Eisner-Sagüés and co-authored by Carolina Ossa-Izquierdo, Painting Conservator, Centro Nacional de Conservación y Restauración, Santiago de Chile

Eisner- Sagüés is a scientist who participated in the conservation of 17 large scale colonial paintings from the 17th century known as the Serie Grande de Santa Teresa. Owned by the Monasterio del Carmen de San José in Santiago Chile it is one of the few complete colonial series in Chile based on a previously conserved series of pictures painted by Espinoza de los Monteros. Inspired by Flemish engravings the paintings have been and continue to be very important to the religious mission in Chile. While many religious paintings and sculptures are seen as art today, these paintings still serve to indoctrinate the public when they visit the convent where they are located.

The author discussed the different actors that participated during the course of the major conservation project: owners, financiers, curators, conservators, and historians. The restoration took 20 months with a team of over 20 people with an objective to restore mechanical stability and original aesthetic, as well as to learn more about colonial painting. He briefly discussed his role as a scientist, to provide missing pieces that history could not. Before and after images were striking and the treatment process was observed by many art historians throughout the process.

An exhibition was held from August – September 2009 at the National Fine Arts Museum where the public expressed great interest in the paintings as well as videos displaying stages of the treatment. A book accompanied the exhibition and the press showed great interest in the show.

Today there are 17 colonial paintings in the Mother Teresa Monastery in Santiago, Chile. Before the exhibition three were in private hands, but the group has been united. As a result of the project there is now a new trained group of young conservation professionals in Chile. Those who financed the project received a copy of the publication and additional copies have been disbursed to libraries and institutions in Chile and around the world. One of the nuns at the monastery was somewhat skeptical at the beginning of the project, but now sees the purpose as the faithful enjoy praying in front of the paintings, while history lovers enjoy the imagery and the materials.

Eisner-Sagüés concluded by emphasizing how important the interdisciplinary approach was for this project and for Chile and left us with the words below.

Dare Great Things because often our actions begin with dreams and thoughts.

– Santa Teresa de Jesus

Flexible Thermal Blanket and Low Pressure Envelope System in the Structural Treatment of Paintings on Canvas

Nina Olsson a Conservator in Private Practice from Portland, Oregon presented her paper, co-authored by Thomas Markevicius of the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, on the development and use of a Flexible Thermal Blanket and Low-Pressure Envelope System in the Structural Treatment of Paintings on Canvas.

Olsson opened by asking what if you could roll up your device like a blanket and take it to a work site when treating a large format painting? She discussed the history of the hot tables and its use for lining while explaining her search for a 20th century heating device. She stressed that the key issues were minimal intervention when lining and relining and trying to replace existing methods with more selective approaches. There are currently hot tables of various sizes and models, but for the most part they have not changed since the 1980s. They are often so large that they can only be used in a fixed location.

Olsson then introduced the flexible silicone rubber thermal blanket from Instrumentors Supply located in Oregon City, Oregon. She has been using the blanket on paintings owned by her and colleagues since 2003. She explained that it essentially has shorter heating and cooling times and overall uniform heat as compared to hot tables.

She explained that the concept of a heated blanket was not new and showed an advertisement for a conductive rubber heated blanket by the US Electric Co. in 1944. Originally designed for military use the electric blanket was eventually available to the general public and has gone on to be utilized in the aerospace/space craft industry. Its use has included wrapping any number of objects to warm them, such as blood, and can even be found inside laser printers. Electric blankets are not new to conservation and are known to have been used as early as 1959.

The device Olsson was presenting was developed in conjunction with Instrumentors Supply. The blanket is made of silicone on the outside and is resistant to moisture. Internally there are etched wound wire foil heaters that are thin and lightweight with a total thickness of 1.4 mm allowing for great flexibility and the strength of fiberglass. The pads can be purchased at custom sized and shapes. A solid-state relay switch with a thermocouple can be used to operate the pad allowing for precise and steady temperature within .1% accuracy. It can be used at 120V or 240V determined by watt density requirements. The temperature parameters will not exceed a maximum temperature. It can be used with a solid state dimmer but with less accuracy.

Olsson went on to show thermal images to illustrate the overall even heating of the thermal blanket. While the hot table from the 1950s showed fairly stable heating IR thermography of the blanket was definitely more even with minimal fluctuations in temperature. The blanket hits target temperature in 12 minutes, while the table takes 20. She explained that engineers are currently working on advancements to the wound wire elements by laminating them with copper mesh which grounds them for improved safety and will provide for and overall even current.

Additional selling points included that the blanket can be used locally or overall, with suction, vertically, and with an envelope system. Sample treatments were then shown which included on site treatment of two large-scale murals. Olsson concluded by recapping that the blanket is easily transportable, easy to store, and low cost. And in the future there is potential for the elimination of the internal wiring. Scientists in Tokyo are working on an ultrathin, stretchable, transparent mat with a rubber like matrix that can conduct electricity and stretch up to 7%!

The silicone blankets are about $1000.00 for 36″ x 66″. Again custom sizes can be made and the control unit/box is separate but I believe it came in under $1000.00. This blogger thinks that overall this blanket seems like a great alternative for anyone with a small studio, who needs to do work in situ, and/or who can’t afford a more traditional hot table.

The author was distributing contact cards during the Paintings Luncheon so that those interested in the blanket could contact her with questions. She can be reached at ninaolsson@earthlink.net

[Bloggers Note: Prices and product specifications may not be exact. Please contact author for more information]

Debbie Hess-Norris, Henry Francis DuPont Chair of Fine Art ice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education and Chairperson, Art Conservation Department University of Delaware

“Challenge and Strategies in the Preservation of Photographic Collections: Here, There, and Everywhere Across the Universe”

Hess-Norris participated in the Salzburg Global Seminar Connecting to the World’s Collections: Making the Case for the Conservation and Preservation of Our Cultural Heritage, a joint IIC and IMLS presentation in late 2009. This was a continuation of the IMLS Connecting to Collections national initiative, and brought together people from across the globe to talk about the current state of photographic collections and preservation. The Salzburg Declaration was later released. PDF’s of the sessions and more information can be found on the IIC website.

Hess-Norris gave an information rich presentation. My notes are mostly bullet points as I was trying to keep up with her. Hopefully her presentation will be written up somewhere. The main overall themes from the conference were:

–paradigm shift form traditional perception of culture as elitist

–must work to build international connections and include policy makers and the public

–avoid knowledge and storage of knowledge in silos, collaboration is essential

–learn from indigenous peoples to keep their culture alive; teaching must not be impose but requested

–increased use of technology, blogs, social networks, websites

–work top down and bottom up

–cast global challenges as opportunities not barriers, be flexible and allow for compromise

–heritage preservation must be represented in forthcoming climate change treaties

–must balance preservation and access

Hess-Norris covered these themes from the conference and the subsequent conversations that have been happening via email.

–Advocacy and public awareness

–Conservation in developing world

–Indigenous communities, access and cultural rejuvenations

–Emergency preparedness

–Collaboration

–Sustainability

–Keep discussion going

The Salzburg Declaration

–affirmed value of cultural heritage

–urged cultural heritage sector to work together

–integrate cons activities into economic initiatives

–raise public awareness

–strengthen research, education and exchange of knowledge

–responsible conservation strategies

Theresa Anne Voellinger, Paper/Photograph Conservator, NPS Harpers Ferry Center

“National Park Service Service-wide Initiative for the Preservation of Film-based Media: Update and Presentation of Multimedia Training Program”

This is the fourth year of this project which seeks to provide stable cold storage for film based materials and train NPS staff in how to identify, package and store these materials. There is an estimated 30 million items in the NPS system that could benefit from cold storage. They are working with 250 Park sites, about 100 of whom have collections that will get individual freezers. The other sites will get training, including the new web-based training module(also available on videotape from NPS).

The training covers the purpose of cold storate, identification of different media and deterioration characteristics, purchasing a freezer, packaging materials for cold storage, blanket purchasing agreements, etc. The tool combines written and video documentation.

Three Conserve O Grams on Cold Storage for Photograph Collections have also been developed.

An Overview 2009

Using an Individual Freezer Unit

Vapor-Proof Packaging

Presented by Dr. Bill Wei, Senior Conservation Scientist of Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, and representing work by others cited in the program

Dr. Wei presented primer on electrocleaning and he notes the he stumbled into this project. Part of project on Objects in Context – cleaning and perception.

This project uses case studies over the next four years to find out what is acceptable and what is readable? Dr. Wei has been looking at paintings, photographs and outdoor sculpture.

General philosophy – bring conservators and art historians and scientist together to collaborate.

Electrochemical cleaning – brief summary presented including simplified explanation of reduction and oxidation. Interesting diagram showed PT as the wand rather than Ag. Electrolyte selection and level of conductivity (potential) is key. Potential = Current x Resistance. With daguerreotype one moves the potential but in industry variable is current density. “Pen” can be used. Allows one to control the cleaning rate at a safe potential. Allows one to work locally. Distance is another variable.

Can this (electrolytic cleaning) be controlled? Yes. Note differences between simple metal and daguerreotype are more complex. Gold layer is not continuous. Mixed electrode.

CONCLUSIONS:

Not saying he is “for” this method of cleaning but trying to make it less mysterious.

Examination of silver tarnish – using sterling silver plates that were exposed to barium sulfate. Looked at different cathodic potentials.

Examination on original plate. -1.3volts potential used. PT electrode. (Note these are very expensive.) Change in larger particles under magnification – they are present but broken up. These may be oxide particles. This is simply a proof of concept. Image is more readable and no major change to surface.

Additional research required. Are there copper deposits on the surface? Silver deposits? What is the significance of the degradation of the larger particles under magnification – this research will continue and focus beyond electrochemical and using a variety of techniques.

Ethical question of cleaning not addressed but we must all consider and be well versed in conservation theory as presented during our (excellent) general sessions.

Restoration ethics – perception and readability – all key. Blind perception testing will ensue using different methods for evaluation by conservators.

In terms of future research keep in mind the potential presence of coatings. Dr. Susan Barger examined the micrographs presented in the talk (from an image purchased on EBay) and explained that this is a not-so-good daguerreotype owing to variety of particles that are not well formed. She further noted that etching visible may be from cyanide cleaning. Will further examine vertical and horizontal cleaning.

3rd IIC Roundtable

“The Plus/Minus Dilemma: The Way Forward in Environmental Guidelines”

Thurs., May 13, 2010, 4:30-6:00 p.m.

This panel discussion was blogged live for the IIC News blog. The session’s transcript will be made available through the IIC and AIC website, and video will be made available on the Indianapolis Museum of Art website.

Maxwell Anderson (moderator), the Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO of Indianapolis Museum of Art

Anderson started the discussion by asking the question whether the 70F and 50% rH, plus or minus a few degrees/percentage points is reasonable or fully understood. Three areas of discussion are needed, longevity of cultural heritage, financial impact, and the carbon footprint that maintaining this standard requires. Anderson urged candor in describing our environments, flexibility with each other’s communities (engineers, administrators, scientists, conservators, etc.), and the realization that the technical capacity of many museums is not adequate to maintain this standard. Many museums were built at a time when human comfort, not longevity of collections, was primarily important.

Nancy Bell, Head of Conservation Services, National Archives, London, and Principle Investigator of the Environments, Guidelines, Opportunities and Risks (EGOR) Initiative.

Recent regulations for carbon reduction targets prompted the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) sponsored Science and Heritage program Research Cluster, EGOR: Environmental Guidelines Opportunities and Risks initiative. The group reviewed the environmental standards and served as a catalyst for change. The group identified and prioritized research gaps in order to better understand the relationship of damage to the environmental standards. They hope to develop a new, risk-based standard that looks at light, humidity, temperature and pollutants.

Karen Colby Stothart, Deputy Director, Exhibitions and Installations, National Gallery of Canada

Stothart talked on the environmental issues as they pertain to exhibit and lending programs. Her institution has adopted a more flexible approach that balances preservation and use. They have chosen a winter setback to 44% rH plus or minus 3% in winter, which is down from their summer set point of 50% rH. The shift occurs over three months. The temperature is set at a constant 71F plus or minus 2 degrees except in their cold storage areas. Traveling exhibits and loans have shaped their thinking on this issue, they circulate 20-25 exhibits each year and their guidelines contain set points depending on the media being exhibited. She urged that a less rigid standard can give an institution flexibility in what they can exhibit.

Cecily Grzywacz, Conservation Scientist, Chair of ASHRAE committee on museums, galleries, archives and libraries

Grzywacz stated that no true standard exists for temperature and relative humidity and no one set point fits all collections. [blogger’s note: there is an <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards/kfile_download?id%3Austring%3Aiso-8859-1=Z39-79-2001.pdf&pt=RkGKiXzW643YeUaYUqZ1BFwDhIG4-24RJbcZBWg8uE4vWdpZsJDs4RjLz0t90_d5_ymGsj_IKVa86hjP37r_hKQ00ioOP35Wl5gNMun0zdCStKIwLCgDUOXaOYMJLIaF

“>ANSI/NISO standard for exhibiting library and archival material, but this was not discussed.] Many people within an institution decide on set points and we must include them all in the discussion and communicate effectively with each other. She also feels that a lending organization should not require more strict environmental control that what they have at their home institution.

Stefan Michalski, Senior Conservation Scientist, Conservation Research, Canadian Conservation Institute

Michalski outlined the four main issues the environment causes, biological (mold, etc), mechanical (cracks, etc.), chemical (rates of decay) and physics (the current model assumes multi-layered materials). The truth is that this model is not representative of all objects, it over estimates damage to some materials, and underestimates damage to others. Environmental damage reports are largely anecdotal and he feels that most collections can handle a wider range of fluctuations in humidity.

Terry Drayman-Weisser, Director of Conservation and Technical Research, Walters Art Museum

Drayman-Weisser asks whether U.S. conservators are stubbornly sticking to outdated standards when some research has shown no damage when wider shifts in rH do not harm materials? She would like to see us re-evaluate our standards for environmental and economic reasons. More research is needed because the empirical evidence does not comport to scientific conclusions. All objects do not need the same environmental controls and should be divided by material type. We need to advocate for judicious use of wider rH parameters and seasonal settings when possible and practical based on reliable and reasonable data.

The Conservator Behind the Curtain

This workshop was presented by Conservators in Private Practice. Because of our diversity and wide range of professional experience, there is always something to be learned from these CIPP workshops. This year’s participants were asked to bring in a “homework assignment” before attending, namely to describe what it is that we do as conservators. Led by Susan Lunas of Many Moons Book Conservation in Eugene, OR, we broke into groups of three to brainstorm about how best to describe ourselves

to a potential new client.

My group included Jill Hari and Matthew Brack, who are both on ten month fellowships at the Straus Center, Harvard Art Museums in Boston, MA. We talked about how to tailor descriptions toward the individual client, and agreed that the first step in contact with new clients is simply listening in order to determine who they are and what they need. Conversely, we can’t just assume the new client knows who we are and what we do.

Five guest speakers gave informal talks on the subject of building a private practice. Scott Haskins and Rick Vogt shared the opinion that marketing through print advertising had been expensive and brought little or no response. Scott is a big advocate for social networking and maintains a blog about conservation projects in his Santa Barbara, CA studio. He also started a website to promote his book, Save Your Stuff.

Rick Vogt, of FC Vogt Co in Richmond, VA, talked about the importance of building company values and local relationships. He stressed presenting ourselves in a

compelling manner, following up after treatment and keeping track of clients. According to Rick, the biggest reason a client leaves is not unhappiness with a treatment, but because the client doesn’t feel “valued.” Rick recommends being sure to complete work on time, have good communication, and remain accessible to our clients.

Jeanne Martinez-Kilgore, a book and paper conservator in New Mexico, shared her experience with volunteerism as both a way to share expertise and to develop a client list. Unfortunately, over time, her volunteer activities escalated to a point where she had to step back and reassess the types of services she could afford to provide at no charge. As noted recently on the CIPP dist list, she recommends presenting short topics to small community groups such as schools or churches as a form of public outreach with a minimal investment of time.

Maria Valentina Sheets shared the story of how her disaster response to an electrical fire at the Biblical Museum in Houston, TX grew into a highly publicised long term angel project for treating the museum’s collection. She eventually created a long range plan for the collection and set up an on site conservation studio which enjoys broad support from the community.

John Crowe calls himself a “successfully recovering conservator.” After a stint in Colonial Williamsburg, he became the Director of the Chipstone Foundation, a private organization in Milwaukee that is dedicated to showing its late founders’ Decorative Arts collection. Under his direction, Chipstone has partnered with the Milwaukee Art Museum in an innovative collaboration. John has also created an online Decorative Arts Library which went digital with 700 visits in 2001 and currently boasts 1.8 million users.

On that note, this technophobe is attempting my first blog…

Daisy Craddock

www.craddockpaintingconservation.com

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Wooden Artifacts Morning Session, 8:30am – 10:00am

The 1855 Restoration of a 16th Century French Dressoir

Joseph Godla, Conservator, The Frick Collection

Better late than never. At least that’s what I’m hoping for, as I post this one week after the talks were given. And I was almost 10 minutes late to this first talk of the morning wooden artifacts session on Thursday, May 13. In my defense, a lack of laptop/internet and Milwaukee traffic are to blame, in that order. And perhaps a deficiency of coffee…

But, I digress. The first talk that morning was given by Joseph Godla and was entitled “The 1855 Restoration of a 16th Century French Dressoir.” When I arrived, Mr. Godla was discussing the history of a French Dressoir belonging to the Frick collection. It was clear that the piece was popular as it had been published at least a dozen times in the last hundred years. The dressoir was last owned by Mr. Henry Clay Frick and is now a part of the Frick Collection. An interesting historical side note was that the dealer who sold Mr. Frick the piece actually sold it before the dealer himself had purchased the piece.

An early restoration campaign dated to 1855 is known from documents accompanying the piece. At that time losses were infilled; however, these were kept to a minimum and replacements to the piece were very conservative. Mr. Godla went on to discuss a letter he had received during his research from someone who stated they “had one just like it.” After Mr. Godla went to see this piece he concluded that it was fairly similar in style, but the dimensions were unique in that they were identical. This led Mr. Godla to believe that the maker of this piece had the Frick piece in their possession.

An additional interesting bit of information was presented as Mr. Godla showed an image of an inscription that was found in the dressoir. It is obscured by pressure points and a scuff mark, but it gives a date of 1574 and a yet unidentified signature.

An informative question and answer session followed which gave the audience some insight into how the dressoir was taken apart – including the back, which Mr. Godla stated was digitally removed.

____________________________________________________________________

The Treatment of a Carved and Painted Buffet by Paul Gauguin and Emile Bernard

Julie Simek, Associate Paintings Conservator, Kuniej Berry Associates

As a fan of Paul Gauguin, I was very excited to see the title of this talk and intrigued to find out more about the buffet. I had never previously heard about Gauguin or Bernard creating furniture and I was interested to see if the two-dimensional style they are known for would translate into a furniture piece, or if it would be completely different from anything I’ve seen by them.

The first part of Ms. Simek’s talk covered the history of Bernard and Gauguin’s partnership. It was a well matched pairing as both were interested in broad areas of color and they heavily influenced each other, as is evident in their paintings. Gauguin is credited with teaching Bernard how to carve. Both artists signed and dated the buffet; however, there are questions as to the attribution of individual panels. To help in this identification, panels were compared by Simek to the paintings of each of artist.

The condition of the buffet included lifting paint and losses. The losses allowed an ink underdrawing to show through in some areas. There were also coatings present on the surface; however, it needed to be determined if these were artist applied before any removal could be considered.

Analysis included a cross-section sample, which revealed that there was no ground present beneath the paint. Additionally, FTIR analysis identified the top layer as a wax, which is interesting because it is known that Gauguin preferred wax to varnish on his paintings.

For treatment, solutions and cleaning techniques were adjusted as needed in each area of the buffet to preserve layers original to the artists. A varnish layer was used over the existing paint to protect the layers and as a barrier for further in-painting. This restored continuity and depth to the piece and helped to bring the buffet out from relative obscurity to an important piece in the museum’s exhibit.

_______________________________________________________________________

A Conservation Collaboration: The James Monroe Gilded Ceremonial Armchair

Rick Vogt, Conservator, F.C. Vogt Company

The order of the morning session talks was switched around and Rick Vogt was moved up to the 9:30 time slot. I found Mr. Vogt’s talk to be very engaging and well organized, though I will admit to a slight bias. I was fortunate to have gained my first conservation experiences while working for Mr. Vogt at the F.C. Vogt company a mere five years ago!

The James Monroe gilded ceremonial armchair comes from the James Monroe Law Library and Museum in Fredericksburg, Virginia. When assessing the chair for treatment, Mr. Vogt immediately recognized the need for research and collaboration to successfully address the needs of the piece. He quoted Barbara Applebaum’s text, Conservation Treatment Methodology, in explaining his concerns for the piece: “Unless sufficient attention is paid to the object’s non-material aspects, we may end up preserving the material but not the object’s meaning.”

The collaboration was large in scope, comprising 12 people with varying degrees of involvement. It included conservators from various areas of specialty, White House staff who provided documents about the chair; and curators with information on the Monroe family history. A specific time frame guided the project and required a good amount of organization to get the project done on time and to standard.

The first step of the project was information gathering and two types of data were needed:

. Non-material information –> Style characteristics, Specific history of the object

. Material information –> Visual analysis, Microscopic analysis

After discussing the history of the armchair, Mr. Vogt gave an overview of the condition assessment which included some insect damage, a twisted seat, losses of fabric and other issues affecting the overall stability of the piece. He also noted there were variations in the surface coatings on the wood which indicated multiple gilding and coating campaigns.

To treat the piece, Mr. Vogt created a new seat frame which was fit over the original. Araldite was used to replace toes that were lost on the feet. Insect borings were consolidated during the gilding conservation campaign and the wood was re-gilded and coated at that time. The chair was then sent out for upholstery conservation. Fragments of the original fabric covering were discovered under the existing upholstery, so a fabric was selected that was believed to closely match the original in both color and style.

Throughout his discussion, Mr. Vogt stressed the importance of collaboration to conservators in private practice and smaller institutions. These professionals may not have access to the same resources that those in larger institutions do. Recognizing one’s own capabilities and utilizing others with different abilities and specializations is important for a successful collaboration and helps to ensure every aspect of an object is conserved for future generations.

Mr. Vogt stated at the beginning of the talk that he is willing to share slides and/or text of his research. He can be reached at fcvco@verizon.net.

I was familiar with Rob Waller’s writings and work in the area of Risk Assessment and was excited to have the opportunity at the 2010 AIC annual meeting to take his workshop and learn at the feet of the master! I have worked with colleagues at a large institution that did go through the process and it was interesting to see what was involved and learn a bit about their findings. My own private practice is heavy in preventive care and I think that familiarity with these kinds of risk management tools can be very useful for institutions. I hoped that by taking the workshop I would someday be able to offer this as a service for small or mid-size institutional clients. In short, I wanted to really learn how to “do” a risk assessment.

After participant introductions and an overview of why an institution would do an assessment Rob introduced the basic elements of the program. We started first going over the ten agents of deterioration:

Physical Forces

Fire

Water

Criminals

Pests

Contaminants

Light and UV radiation

Incorrect temperature

Incorrect relative humidity

Dissociation (sometimes also called custodial neglect)

This breakdown is now well known in the field and many participants were comfortable with this.

Most of these risks can then be divided into three types:

Type 1 – rare in frequency and catastrophic in severity

Type 2 – sporadic in frequency and intermediate in severity

Type 3 – constant in frequency and gradual/mild in severity

Groups of workshop participants brainstormed about specific risks, their potential outcomes and then categorized them by type which was a fun and dynamic exercise.

Next we began to learn how to “do the math”. Assessing the risk for a collection is done with the following basic formula:

The total magnitude of risk (MR) = the fraction of the collection susceptible (FS) x the loss in value (LV) if the risk should occur to its full extent x the Probability (P) of the event occurring x the Extent (E) of the event. Or, in short MR = FS x LV x P x E.

Rob had participants work on short exercises that helped us understand how to calculate each of these elements of the formula. Assessing what portion of a collection is susceptible to a particular risk seems straightforward until you get to a material you aren’t really expert in. It forces you to confront the boundaries of your own expertise which is always troublesome and interesting! Understanding how to calculate the loss in value is a bit harder. What kind of value – display, research? If you aren’t an entomologist can you make the determination for a collection of natural history specimens? If you are the curator can you determine how much value is lost when a watercolor is faded? Understanding how to compose a team to actually answer these questions in important in getting the work done.

There was an interesting discussion on what words mean when assessing the “P” probability of risk. What I mean when I say a specific risk is “rare, sporadic or constant” might be very different from my supervisor’s definition. When my supervisor presents my assessment that a certain risk might happen occasionally or sporadically to the Director did she mean the same thing? So Rob went over ways in which we can standardize our terminology when we talk about the frequency of occurrence of events. Finally Rob has us work on getting our heads around how to figure out “E” the extent of an occurrence.

Groups of participants were each given a shop in the convention center’s adjacent mall for which we were to do a mini-assessment. This exercise forced us to work as a team to put our fresh understanding of these terms into practice. We were glad that we had a calculator with us, but doing the math in the end was the easy part – figuring out the values for each category was challenging but, presumably easier with experience.

The workshop had a large number of Spanish and Portuguese participants and Amparro Rueda provided translation into Spanish. Clearly there is a good deal of interest in this topic in Central and South America. The need for translation slowed down the pace of the workshop but, in the end, that may have been an unexpected boon – allowing the English speaking participants time to take good notes and really absorb the content without being overwhelmed when too much is packed into too short a time.

Each participant received a handbook from Rob (who is now retired from the Canadian Museum of Nature and works through his new company Protect Heritage Corp). Along with great notes and off-prints, the packet contains exercises that I hope that I can find time to do to reinforce this new knowledge.

At the end of the day I asked Rob what an institution needs to have in place to make it a good candidate for doing a full collection risk assessment. He went over some of the attitudes, staffing and processes (e.g. like having a good collection inventory) that are basic requirements. At the end of the day I left thinking that many small institutions that I work with are far from needing a program like this, but that there should be a way to combine some of this more rigorous approach into simpler surveys. I may not be ready for conducting an assessment yet, but I look forward to gaining more experience and experimenting with some of the techniques in this important area of preventive care.

Rachael Perkins Arenstein