June 2011 – Page 11 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

39th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 2, 2011, “Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio’s Madonna and Child in the context of Leonardo da Vinci’s Studio Practice” by Sue Ann Chui

Ms. Chui presented a truly gorgeous Renaissance painting that came from the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts to the J. Paul Getty Museum for a collaborative research and conservation project. Immediately it was clear that the style was recognizable as influenced by Leonardo da Vinci. This was probably the reason for the misattribution in the 18^th century and earlier. With an array of beautiful photography comparing various paintings art historically, the very convincing case was made for the current attribution to Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, a student of Leonardo in his workshop in Milan at the turn of the 16^th century.

Mother and Child by Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio — BC: Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio (Italian, 1467 - 1516) Madonna and Child, about 1508 Italian Oil on panel Szépmüvészeti Múzeum

Previous restoration of cradling — Before Conservation: Back of Panel, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio (Italian, 1467 - 1516), Madonna and Child, about 1508 Italian Oil on panel, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum

Extensively but not expertly previously restored, Ms. Chui unraveled the condition of the panel painting layer by layer with excellent documentation from the international team that worked on this project. Each layer of discovery added further proof to Boltraffio’s authorship.

In fact, it seemed to me that the research and documentation discovery process on this painting must add to the collective knowledge on Leonardo’s techniques and teachings. Adding to that body of knowledge is always an exciting prospect. It was wonderful to see the evidence that Ms. Chui presented of the master’s hand in the manufacturing process and the design work. Specifically, I found the discussion on original fingerprints left behind in the imprimatura layers interesting, though no conclusion was insinuated that they were definitely by Leonardo.

While none of the conservation treatments were innovative, they were most interesting, well photographed and pleasantly presented. As you might expect, the quality of the conservation work resulted in maximizing the original beauty of a truly unique and beautiful image of this holy mother and child. It made for excellent technical entertainment much the way I found myself eagerly awaiting, back in the day, the arrival of the latest National Gallery Bulletin. Detailed, colorful cross sections, exceptional and easy to understand diagrams to clarify, photographic references and ties to other works of art and the fluid manner of Ms. Chui made this a 1^st class presentation.

After Conservation, Mother and Child, Boltraffio — After Conservation: Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio (Italian, 1467 - 1516), Madonna and Child, about 1508 Italian Oil on panel, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum

After conservation, verso, Boltraffio — After Conservation: Checkerboard pattern "stains" from removed cradling, note interesting support system, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio (Italian, 1467 - 1516), Madonna and Child, about 1508 Italian Oil on panel, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum

If you missed this presentation, then I’m sorry but it is impossible to do the material presented justice in this blog post. We can only hope that Ms. Chui publishes her material accompanied by all of the slides of her powerpoint (doubtful). Visually, it’s a great presentation but, in addition, the info needs to be searchable and referenced by others.

Contact Ms. Sue Ann Chui at schui@getty.edu and (310) 440 7023

Express yourself and reach out: “Like” this article by clicking on the thumbs up below, refer this posting to others you connect with via Facebook, Twitter etc.

Scott M. Haskins

Fine Art Conservation Laboratories (FACL, Inc.)

www.fineartconservationlab.com

best_artdoc@yahoo.com

(805) 564 3438

39th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 2, 2011, “A Neoclassical Mystery: The Technical Study and Treatment of an Iconic French Portrait” by Kristin deGhetaldi

There were three very interesting aspects of this presentation if you love the quality of high society French painting between 1775 – 1825… or there abouts:

First, Kristin gave a very nice art historical review of Jacques Louis David’s studio culture and influence, which included more than 400 students that studied directly with the master. She gave some really interesting comparisons between the styles of some of the students and David but ended up focusing on the work of a female student, Marie Benoist.

Second, Kristin focused on Marie Benoist as she presented the very interesting technical and historical study of a very intriguing “iconic” female portrait that was previously misattributed/unattributed and is logically attributable to Benoist, according to deGhetaldi’s research. Actually, I personally liked the portrait better than the David and other portraits that were shown for it’s interesting positioning and thoughtful mood. Flat out, it’s a great picture.

Third, the thorough conservation treatments of the portrait were interesting but not unusual. At the beginning of Kristin’s presentation of the portrait, I was hoping that she was going to let us see the differences through cleaning. I was not disappointed as the final conservation presentation and aesthetics were wonderful.

Portrait by Marie Benoist — The "Iconic French Portrait"

The plentiful photographs, of course, made Kristin’s presentation that much more enjoyable. And the thorough technical analysis with documentary microscopic studies of greens particular to that time period and location that will aid future researchers in authentication clues.

Contact Ms. Kirstin deGhetaldi at k-deghetaldi@nga.gov

Express yourself and reach out: “Like” this article by clicking on the thumbs up below, refer this posting to others you connect with via Facebook, Twitter etc.

Scott M. Haskins

Fine Art Conservation Laboratories (FACL, Inc.)

www.fineartconservationlab.com

best_artdoc@yahoo.com

(805) 564 3438

39th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session: “Retaining the Unknown: Ethical Considerations and Treatment of a South African Beaded Textile”, Sarah Owens, 11:30AM – Noon

This was a final student project by Sarah Owens, who had returned to school to study textile conservation.

The textile had been donated in 1908 to the Bristol City Museums and Art Gallery, United Kingdom. It was now being prepared for storage and/or long-term display.

The artifact was assumed to be a wrap skirt, but in fact this is part of the unknown: over the years it had been modified in such a way, by the addition of a large tear and a slit in the “waistband”, that it was unclear as to how it had been worn previously. It was entirely possible that this piece could have been a head wrap, a bodice-wrap, or even a baby-sling. Sarah showed a key photograph of 2 women from South Africa, which indicated very clearly that each of these other possibilities was indeed viable. After a very clear, step-by-step description of condition and treatment, the post-treatment photos showed that the decision had been made to leave the later alterations in place, because it was possible that these alterations were in fact made by the original wearer. Leaving them in place allowed for multiple interpretations of this piece, and asks us to avoid pre-judgments as to its use.

This was a reminder to me of something Frances Lennard had said, in her introduction to the panel discussion on “Why We Do What We Do”. She had said, and I think it is worthy of being engraved somewhere:

“Interventions are ethics in practice”.

Although this was a student project, it was very important as an example of a very advanced thought-process:

The decision NOT to intervene by removing the alterations in this piece was itself an example of ethics in practice.

By retaining the unknown part of the history of this piece, it reminded me of the practice of “proving the null” – something I used to think was impossible! Thank you, Sarah!

39th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session: “Why We Do What We Do: Ethics and Decision-Making” Panel Discussion, Thursday, June 2, 10:30-11:30AM

This panel featured 4 textile conservators, 2 in private practice (Julia Brennan and Mary Wasserman) and 2 working for large museums (Susan Heald and Christine Giuntini). All have written a chapter in the forthcoming book by Patricia Ewer and Frances Lennard, on the topic of textile conservation.

Julia Brennan started off, with a description of how she conducts herself on her many overseas conservation projects, many times working in less-developed countries. She made the point that ethics to her means having a sensitivity and understanding of another set of values. It requires having respect for, and developing trust with other parties, in order to create a partnership, which leads to progress and thus accomplishment of the objective. For her, it is helpful to remember that each artifact is more than that – it can also be a living relic. She referred back to something that was said during the workshop on Tuesday, regarding Best Practices for CAP surveys: “Don’t let ‘perfect’ get in the way of ‘good’, and finds that this helps her when she finds herself often working with less-than-ideal circumstances. She also mentioned that she is often bound by unwritten agreements of confidentiality, which, if she were to break them, would be a severe ethical infraction. It was a nice discussion, where the sensitive nature of her work was apparent.

Next, Christine Giuntini spoke mostly about her experiences at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, wherer she works with curators and designers almost exclusively. Their collaboration guides her decision-making, and affects why she does what she does. She also illustrated her comments using several slides from work from the early 1980s. Exhibits of ethnographic pieces were presented then as pieces of fine art, a different approach than is usually taken today. As she said, “you do the best you can, based on the information that you have”, and that we use information to change and inform the decisions we make as conservators. Context is key, and this idea kept coming up over and over again, with each of the 4 speakers. Christine asked us all to remember – especially the yonger conservators – that there was a time, pre-Ethafoam, when we were all using blue-board on wooden frames to make supports, and this was common practice. Our decisions and practices were shaped by the availability of materials, some of which were not even invented then!

Susan Heald spoke next, and she referred to both the tangible and intangible aspects of Cultural Heritage. She specifically referenced the UNESCO convention of 2003, which specifically talks about the need to safeguard both tangible and intangible aspects of culture. At NMAI, where she works, they see themselves as the custodians of heritage, not the owner. She also compared the CCI 1986 Conference on the Care and Preservation of Ethnographic materials, where very few native people were in attendance, with the 2007 Symposium on the same topic, which featured a much larger number of presenters being native people. She closed by referencing the AIC Code of Ethics from 1994, which talks about the necesity of having an informed respect for property, and also the 2004 ICOM Code of Ethics, which states the need to take into account the interests and beliefs of the community – the source of the heritage. It was a good reminder that we really do have a concrete basis for the belief system that we all should hold, if we consider ourselves to be professional conservators. Some pretty serious people have given these concepts serious thought, and have produced documents upon which we base our actions as professionals.

Finally, Mary Wasserman spoke of her experience in Florence, Italy, where she has been practicing textile conservation for a very long time (that’s what she said!) The case study that she wrote about for the new book took place in a historic house over a period of 10 years. It included the need to replace a collection of silk banners which had been hung from the ceiling, but which were returned to their place of origin, thus necessitating the creation of reproductions. Photographic reproductions were made and printed on new silk fabric, which were then fabricated into banners and re-hung on the ceiling, where the originals had been originally. Mary stressed that this was a collaborative effort between 2 teams of conservators, and this collaboration guided the decision-making throughout this very long project. Being well informed of the topic before even starting the work was key to her work, which echoed what Christine had just said: you do the best job that you can, with the information that you have.

In the ensuing general discussion from the floor, various comments were made – it’s difficult to repeat them all, but here are some snippets: Context trumps all in decision-making….. it all comes down to the availability of materials…..sometimes you find yourself deviating from your training, depending on the audience you are working with and their level of sophistication and differing values….. it’s not YOUR collection, it’s THEIR collection……There is no right or wrong, it’s what’s best in the context of the present ?…. this attitude extends to working with very small museums, without any paid staff (this echoes what was said during the CAP workshop: the worst thing you can do is to come into an all volunteer situation, and tell them everything they have been doing is wrong!!!)…the success of our outreach depends on a change in attitude, and the development of respect for local context and resources….. question: is it ethical for an institution to hold collections when they don’t have the staff to care for them?…..conservators have to be flexible, in order to work with all kinds of situations, and to develop achievable goals wherever they find themselves (another echo from the CAP workshop!) Final question: is it ever ethical to leave out the words when writing a condition report – and just rely on photographs?

This panel discussion was time well spent, and everyone was sorry to hear that time was UP!!!

39th Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 31, “AIC Workshop: Museum Mannequins” by Helen Alten

The workshop began on time. We were provided an advance copy of the general workshop notes with advice to skim or read prior to the workshop. Very helpful! There was a large amount of material covered. The workshop was a survey of many different techniques used in exhibitions from many locations. The PowerPoint presentation was full of images, bullet points, along with references to additional handouts provided during the workshop. Showcased what works well and what does not work.

The presenter, Helen Alten, used a combination of lecture and hands-on-activities to give participants a clearer idea of the techniques being discussed. Most helpful, as we moved through a variety of techniques. The presenter also invited participants to discuss their experiences, questions, and mount solutions in the workshop.

Participants had varying levels of experience, training, and areas of specialty. Group work during these activities was encouraged and added additional brainpower to working through what were new techniques for many of the participants.

Wide range of information covered from anatomy, mount making decision process, nice bibliography, Patterns of History, and research. Additive and subtractive constructions, as well as other rigid subforms, finishing techniques, plus, hands, legs, and stands, hair, and mount attachment methods were discussed.

There are times when the literature and the lecture becomes significantly clearer after hands-on opportunities are completed. Participants were asked to bring a garment to use for a hands-on session. Hands-on sessions were possible thanks to tool kits provided which eliminated the need for participants to bring sharp, cutting, heating, and large sized tools that may have been very difficult for travel. Hands-on sessions included: Measuring Costumes, Flat Form Mannequin, and Ethafoam Mannequin via LaRouche/Peacock Combination Method.

An extra bonus included a history of undergarments. With time running out Helen encouraged those of us still to stay for a quick casting and molding exercise using alginate and plaster.

Fun Factor: (Scale 1-5; 1=zero fun through 5=best fun ever, involves good cake)

Fun Factor Rating: 4, even without cake! Met new people. Able to share potential mount techniques.

Recommendation: Sign-up if you have the opportunity. Go for a full workshop/course of longer duration (week or longer). It is worth the time.

Tip: Provide an experience gauge for participants in workshop announcement. Way too much info and hands-on activity to cram into 6 hours, make it 7 hours. We used the time to our best advantage but ran-over by 45 minutes and left out some hands-on activities.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Links to photos

Photos from AIC’s Annual Meeting are being uploaded to our Flicker site as time permits. Each photo below represents a set. So far I’ve posted photos from the reception at Philadelphia Museum of Art on Wednesday night, the Manikin workshop, and Thursday’s portfolio review session. There will be a lot more coming, so please check back regularly to this post or go directly to our Flicker site (at www.flicker.com/photos/aic-faic/) to view additional photos.

Museum Manikins Workshop (click on this photo to view the entire set)

The reception at Philadelphia Museum of Art, June 1 (click on this photo to view the entire set)

Portfolio Review Session (click on this photo below to view the entire set)

ECPN Officers (click on this photo below to view the entire set)

May Meeting Minutes

p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0in; }ul { margin-bottom: 0in; } p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0in; }ul { margin-bottom: 0in; }

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

May 19, 2011

Conference Call Attendees:
Rose Cull

Ryan Winfield

Karen Pavelka

Heather Brown

Carrie Roberts

Amy Brost

Rebecca Rushfield

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon

I. April Minutes

a. ECPN April minutes approved.

II. AIC Meeting 2011

a. Portfolio Session (Carrie) – Amber will send out the final notice on Monday to participants and will include the event location. Ryan will email it to her – it is Room 415, 4th floor. Buffalo will have 2-3 participants, Delaware will have 4, other programs will have at least one. Per Ryan, the 1-1:30 coffee break was canceled, so the committee agreed that the Portfolio Session should run during the 10-10:30 morning break and 3-3:30 afternoon break. Ryan will change the conference program guidelines to reflect this change.

b. Survey (Rose/Ryan) – ECPN members should review the survey (set up in Survey Monkey) that will be given to attendees at ECPN events following the AIC meeting. Rose will send it out to the full committee following the call. Provide comments/feedback to Rose and Ryan. Email addresses of participants will be collected at all ECPN events at AIC.

c. Meeting of the Graduate Programs (Carrie) – Primary discussion topic will be the student research repository. Stephanie Lussier of ETC, Carrie, and Amber will deliver a summary of the proposal, and then open the floor for discussion, which will be moderated by Eryl Wentworth. Will perhaps record it. Discussions will be used to develop the proposal, which is evolving. Topics for discussion: Types of documents (paper or/and posters?) How material will be submitted? What role will programs play in the vetting process? How are we going to sustain the site? Should there be a committee devoted over the long term to overseeing it and maintaining/expanding it? Should the database be part of CoOL or be its own separate entity? If it’s not on CoOL, how can it be funded? Carrie will forward agenda to ECPN members. Rose proposed adding Graduate Student Liaisons to the agenda for the meeting, in terms of a broader goal to connect students to what ECPN is doing. Get them involved in ECPN initiatives, not only the student research repository, but activities across the board.

d. ECPN Informational Meeting – Ryan provided the meeting location: Room 406, 4th floor. Rose asked that each committee member provide agenda items to her for this meeting. Amy, Heather, Carrie, and Amber should provide agenda items by Wednesday of next week.

e. Poster Amber picked it up. She should either download and complete the form for reimbursement from the AIC website, or provide her receipt to Ryan who will complete the form. Amy will connect with Amber and install the poster on Tuesday morning, if possible. Exhibit hall closes at 5 pm. Amy has a tour from 12:30-5:30, so if the poster cannot be installed before 12:30, alternative arrangements will be made. Amy to bring push pins. Ryan provided the space number: #18. Exhibit hall opens officially on Wednesday, 6/1 at 10 am. Anyone interested can join Rose during the poster session. Poster presenters are expected to stand by their posters for an “Author in Attendance” period, during the final coffee break (3:00 to 3:30 PM) on Thursday, June 2.

f. Flier – Ryan is having it printed for the conference bag.

g. Outreach – Heather already created Events in Facebook, and will post the Portfolio Session also. She will update the Wall, and the blog post is completed. Ryan will send out the email reminder.

h. Meeting Attendance – Additional meetings that will be attended by ECPN members are: Publications Committee (Amy), Education and Training (Carrie, Amber, and Karen), ECPN meeting (Rebecca Rushfield from the ETC), RATS meeting (Stephanie Porto). Rose & Amy will attend the Wiki meeting – if others are interested this meeting is 5:30-7 pm on June 2nd after the AIC business meeting. Amy will attend the Heritage Preservation Meeting on Wednesday at 4 pm.

i. Blogging at the AIC Meeting – Rachael needs bloggers. Has BPG and OSG. Looking for more people who are attending other sessions to blog. Karen suggested sending a message to chair of each session to call for volunteers. Rachael has done that, per Rose. Rose to email Rachael and let her know that people could write a summary and she would turn it into a blog post. Not sure why people are hesitant – the note-taking or the posting? For the AIC blog, has some kinks – introduction to Philly blog post going up soon. Heather will follow up with Rachael.

III. Position Vacancies – Chair, Vice Chair, and Outreach positions will be turning over and will transition by September. Heather will write a position description for Outreach and send it to Rose before the informational meeting at AIC.

IV. Mentoring Program – Rose and Ryan are drafting an e-mail to send to PA’s and Fellows to get more mentor applications. Some people applied and never heard back, probably due to legacy issues with the previous system. Rose will follow up with them and ask them to apply again. Karen added that she has heard the same – Karen will send something out to BPG to encourage people to apply again. The AIC Annual Meeting is a good opportunity to ask people in person. Karen would like paper forms to hand out to people. Ryan indicated that the revised forms are up on the website to download and print out. Rose will distribute hard copy forms as well.

V. Updating the AIC Website – Discussed at the Education and Training meeting. Stephanie Lussier indicated that the group is seeking suggestions from ECPN. Areas for updates include documents on the Education & Training page and “How to Become a Conservator.” Rose will set up an area for ECPN feedback on Google Docs.

VI. CAC – Rose will follow up with Stephanie to find out if anyone else from the Canadian group is coming to AIC, and to explore more ways to collaborate.

VII. IAG Meeting 2010 – Rose reminded everyone to take a look at the minutes from the November 2010 meeting of the Internal Advisory Group, to get a sense of the issues of importance for the organization as a whole.

VIII. Discussion – Rebecca made a general comment that she felt ECPN was a valuable resource, one that she would have appreciated when she first started. She hopes that students and recent graduates take full advantage of what the committee has to offer.

a. She asked about member numbers, and ECPN has around 500 people in the AIC mailing list (who checked the box to receive ECPN information), over 300 Facebook friends, and around 30 people attended last year’s informational meeting. The group has many stakeholders and is growing.

b. K-12 initiatives are being discussed by ETC to increase the number of people who appreciate the field and are interested in it. Rose responded that there is a tremendous need for conservation, and a discussion of how ECPN can help meet this need followed: (1) Perhaps a mentor program for small institutions on fundraising; (2) Engage the regional centers to help small institutions; (3) Advocacy that can help increase funding for the field; (4) Explore alternative funding models based on social media (example, Kickstarter.com)

c. See the poster at AIC about the value of conservators which has statistics about the profession and its past, and future

d. Brainstorming can be part of the ECPN meeting at AIC

IX. Early Career Support – Point was raised that there is a need for funding in the intermediate phase between student and Professional Associate (PA). Per Karen, the PA requirement was added to some funding to encourage PA status, but it does create a gap in funding eligibility. ECPN can help support emerging conservators seeking PA status. Also, in the ECPN statement about “what we do” it says we facilitate people’s transition to PA. Helping with the application? Maybe develop a “How to become a PA” FAQ sheet? Some people don’t know the steps or the benefits. Rose could call someone in membership to talk about this. Rose will speak with Tom Edmondson and Martin Burke. Ryan indicated that the PA evaluation committee has a different structure – the members process/approve applications. Function-oriented, and not interested in growth, per se. They try to remain impartial. Rose will develop talking points for ECPN informational meeting. Karen mentioned that acquiring PA status could be the point at which members move out of ECPN.

Note on accommodations at AIC: Rebecca Rushfield can share her room on Tuesday and Wednesday night for $10 per night. Email Rebecca if you or anyone you know is looking for a room to share. For the 2012 AIC Meeting, consider reaching out to more established conservators in advance to see if they would be willing to share their rooms.

Next call will be June 16 at 1 PM EST.

Respectfully submitted,

Amy Brost

39th Annual Meeting – CIPP Seminar: Obtaining Work Through The Insurance Industry

Written and Video Review of the 2011 CIPP Seminar – Philadelphia

“Claiming Your Piece of the Insurance Pie”

There was at this seminar an excellent cross section of insurance experts that are intimately associated with the art conservation field: George Schwartz our fearless CIPP leader and Vice Chair last year (our new Chair For 2012) who teaches on this subject; Sylvia Leonard Wolf of Fine Art Appraisers and Consultants, NY, NY; Barbara Chamberlain, Director of the Central Region USA, Art Collection Mgmt for Chartis Insurance from Palm Beach, Fl; Mary L. Sheridan, Assistant Fine Art Manager, Chubb & Son, a division of Federal Insurance Co. from NY, NY. Let me also give an honorable mention to Gordon Lewis whose wealth of experience in working with insurance companies in many capacities, his contacts, his coordination of and for this meeting, his input during the meeting is much appreciated.

George’s presentation the first two hours was an excellent primer in understanding how the insurance field works in settling claims. His depth of detail and the valuable information he presented in his PowerPoint we hope will be available online soon. Much or all of his information seemed to be a direct result of working with the insurance industry for decades in the capacity of an art conservator (sorry about the reference to your age George) and being a teacher on the subject. Perhaps this is not the place to try and summarize his presentation and I won’t try. If you would like to contact George call (561) 912 0030 or george@conservart.com www.ConservArt.net

See his video clip:

Sylvia Leonard Wolf, who teaches her subject at NYU, spoke from her extensive experience as an appraiser and how appraisals impact claims and treatments that conservators perform. She works closely with conservation issues and spoke eloquently and on subject while presenting important issues that conservators must be sensitive to. A couple of key points she made are that conservators should always remember:

*Always get paid for everything you do (bill out at full rate) for your expertise, consultations and services when working on issues for insurance companies.

* If you are looking to network for contacts, appraisers refer conservation work.

You may contact Sylvia at www.sylvialeonardwolf.com, (845) 679 6363, SylviaLWolf@gmail.com

Barbara Chamberlain, Chartis Insurance, gave a terrific presentation and the audience was well served by her openness to respond to questions. Her staggering responsibilities regarding high-end collections clients was most interesting. She confirmed the high regard that Chartis has for the Conservation Field and indeed considers it an essential part of the team to service their clients. It was very interesting to hear the priorities Chartis has to care for and prepare collections in order to avoid damage… not just respond to damage. She is available for you to contact her at (561) 623 4050 and at barbarae.chamberlain@chartisinsurance.com See her video clip:

Mary Sheridan, Chubb & Son Insurance, was very open and personable about her company’s efforts with high end art collections and clients. Many similarities between Chubb and Chartis in how they care for collections and respond to needs were expressed. Mary’s discussion and her participation in questions and answers were invaluable and very entertaining. Her extensive experience with art conservation was evident and she spoke on subject and to our profession’s interests. She is available for you to contact her at (212) 612 4384 and mlsheridan@chubb.com

In summary, I think it was generally expressed among attendees and presenters that a follow up effort would be beneficial to art conservators in order to better understand how to get work from insurance companies, as there are many different sources from which a conservator can receive work. See the following video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYpkA7b3tM&feature=youtu.be

If you have suggestions for the 2012 CIPP program in Albuquerque, NM, contact Judith Tartt of Art-Care (www.art-care.com), new CIPP Vice Chair and program organizer.

Express yourself and reach out: “Like” this article by clicking on the thumbs up below, refer this posting to others you connect with via Facebook, Twitter etc. Please pass the link for this blog post along to other conservators.

Scott M. Haskins, Professional Associate AIC

Fine Art Conservation Laboratories (FACL, Inc.)

Best_artdoc@yahoo.com

805 564 3438