Month: June 2011

Ethical Considerations in Reproducing Furniture for Historic House Museums

David Bayne presented this paper on his experiences making reproduction furniture for display in historic house museums.  The rationale behind the reproduction of furniture is always to give a sense of wholeness to an interior, and in many cases there is sufficient evidence of what the furniture was like in the room to easily have the reproductions made.

However, in some cases the evidence is more difficult to find, for example the Frank Lloyd Wright’s Martin House where the original furnishings were not well-documented.  It is very important to the interpretation of the space, but there will be some guesswork in the execution of these reproductions and the David Bayne was grappling with his role in this negotiation as the conservator.

This lecture reminded me of the the lecture about the ‘Frankenstein syndrome’ by Salvador Munoz-Vinas during the general session.  There are hard decisions we make as conservators and sometimes we just hope that our personal moral compass will guide us down the right path.  I admire David Bayne for his honesty about his personal struggles in the use of reproduction furniture in historic interiors.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Changing Attitudes Towards Musical Instrument Conservation in Russia

Laurence Libin gave an overview of his impressions of the current state of musical instrument conservation in Russia. He visited St. Petersburg numerous times in the past 15-years and his interactions with museum staff and his knowledge of the history of the region have allowed him to come to some conclusions about musical instrument conservation in Russia.

Musical instruments are made to function and create music, and he sets this function as a rationale for the continued use of the instruments which may lead to their destruction.

He also cites the philosophical doctrine of fatalism, applied to musical instruments, means that the instruments, like people, are resigned to their fate and conservation is a lost cause. There is very little funding in Russian museums and many museum staff hold second or third jobs to make ends meet.

Even with these setbacks, there is a growing interest in musical instrument conservation in Russia and there is respect amongst museum professionals at the craft of the conservator. The ICOM International Committee of Musical Instrument Museums and Collections is helpful at creating appreciation and standards for collections. The speaker was generally positive about the future of musical instrument conservation in Russia.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, “The Macro, Micro, And Economics of Climate Control” by Dr. Fenella France, Library of Congress

Dr. Fenella France, Preservation Research Scientist at the Library of Congress, brought her expertise in preventive conservation to the topic of microclimates in cultural institutions, starting with the what, why, and where’s of microclimates, and ending with a presentation of an über-microclimate display and storage case: the “MOAC” (Mother of All Cases) for the iconic Waldseemüller map. Key points included:

  • A microclimate is a environment maintained in a small space that differs from its external environment. This might be at various levels of control within a building: the building itself, a room, a case, a box.
  • It is important to create specs for a microclimate based on an understanding of an object’s materials, history, and mechanisms of damage.
  • A specific object’s materials and cultural significance may dictate its need for a microclimate.
  • Issues which must be considered in planning a microclimate include the composition of the encasement, object access, environmental controls (active vs. passive), monitoring.

The Waldeseemüller map exemplified an object of highest cultural importance and value, which warranted an optimal microclimate for storage and display. Its fantastic encasement provided an anoxic environment, visibility of the object in storage and display, minimized handling, minimized oxidative and hydrolytic degradation, and access for monitoring of pressure, RH, T, and oxygen.  A few amazing stats about the case:

  • It was designed to maintain a 20-30-year seal.
  • It is a 2200 lb case within another case.
  • 92 bolts hold the tooled aluminum case together.
  • It has maintained 0-30ppb oxygen.
  • It has a flexible back to allow for changes in barometric pressure.

The encasement was an impressive, collaborative effort by conservators, engineers, architects, curators, and others. Although an estimated cost for the case was disappointingly not reported, I was impressed by the long-term planning that went into its design, as much as the elaborate, continuing monitoring and analysis conducted by the stewards of this object. Since the completion of the encasement in 2007, the durable case has proven to be effective and durable, as demonstrated by data generated by its monitoring systems. While I was duly wowed by the Waldeseemüller encasement, I would argue that France’s presentation of it as a “case study” was a little misleading. It was an exceptional feat of engineering and effort for an exceptional object. I was hoping for more discussion of more typical microclimate needs and solutions, probably covered in the Microclimate Workshop…

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – General Session, June 1, “Restoring the Spirit and the Spirit of Restoration: Dresden’s Frauenkirche as Model for Bamiyan’s Buddhas” by James Janowski.

Big Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley. Photo courtesy of Volker Thewalt.

Sometimes conservation is more than the technical care of an object.  Sometimes, the working solutions to treatment of cultural heritage must rely on judgments, choices, and values unique to a people and a time.  James Janowski raises many ethical and philosophical questions in his presentation on the possible reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.  He asks his audience to balance the needs of the historical record with religious and cultural values.

The Bamiyan Buddha’s were located along the silk road in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan.  These statues were the largest likenesses of Buddha’s in the world.  They had survived past damage from soldiers, weather, and time.  They were true survivors.  All that ended with the 2001 acts of cultural barbarism by the Taliban.  The cruel and wanton destruction of the Buddhas have left us with empty niches.  But much of the original material is still located in the valley as fragments of all shapes and sizes.  Could the Buddhas be reconstructed from original and replacement materials?  Should they be reconstructed?

Janowski turns to the destruction and reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche as a model for the Bamiyan Buddhas.  The Frauenkirche was the most original protestant church constructed in Dresden.  During World War Two, the allied bombing damaged the church. The subsequent fires reached 1000 degree Farenheit and caused the church to buckle and crumble.  The church was much beloved by the people of Dresden.  The ruin served as a symbol of the culture and community.

Beginning in 1989 and 1990 the people of Dresden called for the church to be rebuilt as an “archeological reconstruction.”  The reconstruction resulted in much debate, but the project was approved in March 1991.  The reconstruction continued until October 2005 when the church was re-consecrated.  Architectural stone and elements were salvaged from the rubble and carefully cataloged.  Forty-five percent of the reconstructed church was made from original stone

The reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche was considered a rousing success.  The process recharged the community.  The original and non-original materials were clearly distinguishable, so as not to erase the historical events that took place.  In the end, the project was adjudication between competing values.

Janowski argues that the integral restoration of the Buddhas with remaining original fragments should be considered in the future despite the 30-50 million dollar price tag. He notes that there must be a balancing of the religious and cultural values with the historical documentation of the event.  He also offers consequential values.  The reconstruction will have economic and political value and can serve as a unifying thread to the country.  He feels that at least one of the Buddhas could be reconstructed leaving the other as a “witness” to the destruction.  Janowski believes that the meaning and values of a restored sculpture outweigh the shock of the empty niches.

Janowski pushes the audience to think outside the box.  He forces us to think through the steps ahead and the possibilities beyond the norm.  [Blogger’s note:  on March 11, 2011, UNESCO told the Afghan government it does not support a rebuild project, citing concerns over funding priorities and authenticity. ]

Open Positions on the ECPN Committee

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network seeks three new committee members:

1-year term, beginning in September 2011, submission deadline August 25, 2011

Chair, Vice-Chair, and Outreach Coordinator

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) works with various AIC committees to address the needs of conservation professionals with fewer than 7 years of experience. This includes pre-program students, graduate students, and recent graduates. The committee seeks to increase participation in AIC amongst emerging conservators.

The chair position coordinates monthly conference calls, writes agendas for these calls, oversees projects like: the mentoring program, the student research repository, and is responsible for editing all published material about the group. The chair represents the committee to the board of directors and at the Internal Advisory Group meeting, and collaborates on projects with other AIC committees and with representatives from conservation graduate programs.

The vice-chair is a new position that will oversee all of the ECPN activities at the AIC annual meeting (ECPN informational meeting, happy hour, portfolio session, and any new activities) and the yearly ANAGPIC meeting (there is a speaker each year from the ECPN who attends the ANAGPIC meeting). The vice-chair will also be a logical candidate for taking over the chair position after their one-year term.

The outreach coordinator is in charge of all social media communication including the ECPN blog, Facebook page, Flickr site, and other projects that involve outreach and communications. The outreach coordinator works closely with the communications coordinator, currently Amy Brost. The outreach coordinator may also take over the chair position after completion of a one-year term.

The ECPN communicates primarily via email correspondence and monthly conference calls. The committee meets in-person annually at the AIC meeting.

Please submit a brief statement of interest and your resume to Rose Cull, Chair, AIC-ECPN, (roseemilycull [at] gmail [dot] com) by August 25, 2011.

Questions about committee activities can be directed to Rose, or ECPN’s current outreach coordinator: Heather Brown (hnmbrown [at] yahoo [dot] com)

For more information about the ECPN see: www.conservation-us.org/emerging.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting- Objects Session, June 3, “Balancing Ethics and Restoration in the Conservation Treatment of an 18th Century Sewing Box with Tortoiseshell Veneer,” by Lori Trusheim.

Trusheim’s presentation clearly guided listeners through the processes involved with the treatment of a sewing box in a private collection. This talk addressed the main conference theme of the AIC meeting and explored how the Code of Ethics can be applied to aid treatment decisions. I particularly enjoyed how thoroughly Trusheim outlined the steps involved with procuring replacement materials, as well as how the owner’s expectations have influenced the treatment.

 

39th Annual Meeting- Objects Morning Session, June 3, “Treatment of Donald Judd’s Untitled 1997: Retention of Original Acrylic Sheets,” by Eleonora Nagy, Bettinal Landgrebe, and Shelley M. Smith.

This talk outlined a treatment that overcame current assumptions and preconceptions regarding the conservation and restoration of Judd’s minimalist sculptures. The presenter, Eleonora Nagy, introduced a newly devised conservation treatment carried out on Untitled 1997, which enabled conservators to retain the original acrylic sheets that are integral to the work. I had no idea that these sheets were so often completely replaced in traditional restoration treatments of Judd’s work. This treatment was elegantly explained from start to finish, illustrated with excellent photographs of all stages of the work. A comprehensive outline is provided in the AIC program abstracts. I really enjoyed the thorough approach that was taken in order to research Judd’s fabrication methods and materials, available sources of replacement materials, and ultimate sensitivity to the authenticity of the original materials.

 

39th Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 31, “Best Practices for Conducting General Conservation Assessments” by Mary Jo Davis, Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko, Michael Emrick and Wendy Jessup

The workshop was organized by Heritage Preservation and provided a practical look at conducting conservation assessments for small-sized museums. The particular focus was on carrying out CAP assessments, but much of the information would be really useful for an overall look at any collection.

The morning portion of the workshop was a series of presentations, starting off with an introduction to CAP surveys by Sara Gonzales, who is the coordinator for the Conservation Assessment Program. The focus of the CAP program is to provide general assessments of small to mid-sized museums that will help those institutions with practical and realistic ways to implement preventive conservation. The Heritage Preservation website has all kinds of useful information regarding specifics about the CAP program, with lots of FAQs and so forth, so for more details, take a look at http://www.heritagepreservation.org/CAP/index.html.

The next presenter of the morning was Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko, who spoke about working with small museums. Presently the executive director of the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, ME, she also has previous experience at several small museums in the Midwest and has been through the CAP process several times. Cinnamon gave an overview of how to approach the staff of a small museum. After defining a small museum and the type of environment frequently found, she discussed four main strategies for successful interaction – (1) put staff at ease, (2) understand board politics, (3) understand the museum’s resource base and (4) create achievable recommendations.

Mary Jo Davis spoke next about communications and reporting, going from the initial phone interview to the completed report. M.J. gave lots of really useful details to think about in planning a site visit and provided examples of an agenda for the two days of an on-site assessment. Presenting prioritized and achievable recommendations was also stressed in this presentation, as was keeping the language simple, the tone positive and making sure to be sensitive to efforts the museum has already made.

Wendy Jessup also addressed the process of doing a CAP survey, as well as reviewing the museum environment. She spoke about the survey process not only as an opportunity to put together a report outlining conservation priorities, but also as an occasion to educate the staff and other stakeholders of the museum. Additionally Wendy spoke about collaborating with the architectural assessor and how each of those assessment reports (or a combined report) can complement one another. She stressed thinking about potential capability of a building to perform as the primary protector of a collection and how to structure environmental control for the objects within that capability – taking into account the vulnerabilities of the collections. If possible, she suggested getting a sense of the environmental data before going – even if all that is available is the outside data (she recommended http://www.pemdata.org for ambient info). The presentation finished with the thought “Don’t let perfection get in the way of good,” which I think she got from someone else, but I didn’t write that part down fast enough. Apologies for not giving proper credit – I like the thought though, so I am still including it.

The last speaker for the morning part of the workshop was Michael Emrick, an architect with lots of experience in CAP building assessments. The building assessor is brought in to a CAP survey when the structure is historic and he discussed this process a bit. The two main areas he focuses on as a building assessor are the condition assessment and maintenance of the building, particularly since maintenance is often something museums aren’t necessarily thinking about.

The afternoon portion of the workshop was a hands-on session at a nearby small museum – The Fireman’s Hall Museum (http://firemanshall.org/). The museum houses a collection of objects encompassing the history of firefighting in Philadelphia and ranges from small scale objects to fire engines. Additionally there are a number of archival materials in the collections. It is housed in a 1902 firehouse with a 1977 addition at the back. Run by the Philadelphia Fire Department, has a small but devoted staff, most of whom are part-time or volunteer. Although a usual CAP assessment takes place over two days, we got to experience the super quick version over the afternoon.

The workshop attendees broke down into four groups and rotated between the four presenters, each of whom mainly focused on the aspect of the general assessment that they presented in the morning. During the morning all of the presenters highlighted the importance of emphasizing the good things the museum staff is doing and not just what they are doing wrong, and the advantage to that type of approach became very clear during the afternoon portion of the workshop. We had the opportunity to speak with many of the staff members and some of the volunteers at the Fireman’s Hall and their enthusiasm and passion for the museum and its collections were obvious. Although time was short, we had a good chance to see how a survey was conducted and the types of interactions and thought processes involved.

Many thanks to all for a very interesting day!

New Sensor Network Protecting Art in NY Museum

In this photo provided by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Paolo Dionisi Vici, associate research scientist in the Department of Scientific Research at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, left, and Hendrik Hamann, Research Manager at IBM, discuss a new environmental sensor system that will be deployed at the Clositers Museum in New York, Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Hamann holds an example of one of the sensors that will monitor the climate in the museum and help preserve its walls. (AP Photo/Metropolitan Museum of Art)

NEW YORK (AP)The Metropolitan Museum of Art is announcing Thursday that a network of wireless environmental sensors designed to prevent damage to the collection is being tested at its Cloisters branch.

Read more about the new monitoring program and the need for climate control for the collections in the June 8, 2011 Associate Press story by Jim Fitzgerald on the AP website.

39th Annual Meeting- Archaeological Discussion Group Business Session, June 2

The Archaeological Discussion Group (ADG), a working group of the Objects Specialty Group, has maintained a presence at the AIC annual meetings since 1998. This year’s meeting had roughly 25 people in attendance and was co-chaired by Susanne Grieve and Claudia Chemello. It began with an official review and approval of the 2010 meeting minutes. Conversation quickly moved to the content of the new ADG page found on the AIC website. A small group volunteered and was selected to compile a concise ADG mission statement.

The atmosphere of the meeting was casual despite being fast-paced. A series of “outreach tools” were discussed including the ADG webpage. Vanessa Muros, who is organizing the webpage, announced that she is accepting submissions of photographs of archaeological conservation to use on the page. AIC (through the ADG) is participating in “booth swaps” with the Archaeological Institute of America for the organizations’ respective annual meetings. Future booth swaps with the SAA and SHA organizations are also being considered. The ADG group hopes to create brochures/handouts to use as part of the ADG’s booth content at AIA starting next January 2012. This year’s “Day of Archaeology” is July 29th, and participation is open to all who work, study, or volunteer in archaeology including specialists like conservators – so check it out and contribute if you can!

Social media was discussed briefly, and the general consensus was that sites such as Facebook or Twitter are preferred platforms for general information for the public, while the wikis should be reserved for professional content. The group encourages fellow archaeological conservators to create and/or edit Wikipedia and Preservapedia entries on “archaeological conservation”. There was talk of using the AIC wiki page to organize a list of currently practicing archaeological conservators that work in the field. This would provide a way for conservators to connect with each other, and the co-chairs agreed that they would move forward with organizing such a feature on the wiki. The group is also concerned with making it easier for archaeologists to connect with conservators. To this end, it was agreed that the “Find a Conservator”[6] tool on the AIC website could be improved to include a checkbox for archaeological conservation fieldwork. However, this tool is only available for AIC members with Professional Associate or Fellow status and will thus be restricted to a large percentage of archaeological conservators who work in the field who do not yet qualify for this status.

The ADG group is considering an additional format to future meetings at the AIC annual conferences that would facilitate more interaction among those in attendance. The general concept would be a forum for interested individuals to share a brief overview of current fieldwork or projects. It might be modeled on “lightening-round” discussions where each speaker has ~5 minutes to summarize their work. I think this would be a great idea if there were enough time. Another idea might be an activity similar to the “tips” sessions that other specialty groups conduct at their meetings.