If you were fortunate enough to hear this talk, you probably had the same thought I did: How can I get a job at the Yale University Art Gallery? In an action-packed twenty minutes, Carol Snow, Deputy Chief Conservator for the Yale University Art Gallery, took the listener on a fascinating tour of multiple conservation projects undertaken in conjunction with the Gallery’s 14 year-long renovation. The renovation itself involved three separate buildings, ranging in construction date from 1866 to 1928, and it dramatically expanded the Gallery’s exhibition, study, classroom, and conservation space.
The projects Carol chose to feature spanned an amazing range, and throughout her talk she emphasized the collaborative nature of each treatment and installation. Conservators, art handlers, exhibition preparators, and riggers – and in many cases engineers and architects – collaborated, as did artists. For an ancient Roman Mithraeum altar, for example, painted wall fragments were treated to remove old backing materials and then installed in their correct configuration in a newly constructed recreation of the altar. This was accomplished using an ingenious structure which allowed each fragment to “float” in place, supported. A scenic painter provided the final touches on the installation, integrating losses to give visitors a better sense of the altar’s original appearance and context.
Roman horse armor from Dura Europos (still backed with its original leather backing!) was installed on a fiberglass horse made from downloading a 3-D scan of a horse. A mosaic from a Byzantine church at Gerasa (Jerash, Jordan) was treated to remove the cracking concrete backing and newly mounted. Period rooms were investigated, pigments identified, and the wood panels dated by dendrochronology and then cleaned before installation. A fragile stained glass window by John LaFarge was supported and displayed on an interior wall using a clever system of hidden LED lights. For a slumping petroleum jelly dumbbell by artist Matthew Barney, conservators worked closely with the artist to recast a dumbbell from his original mold, using the correct composition of petroleum jelly.
Throughout the talk, the expertise and resourcefulness of the Art Gallery’s team was apparent. But it gets even better. At heart university museums are teaching collections, and although they serve to inspire the wider community, education and access are their primary missions on campus. Conservators are instrumental in achieving these goals, and Carol demonstrated this in spades. From her discussion of how a rooftop terrace was engineered to safely display outdoor sculpture, to her explanation of the Gallery’s clever use of steel-faced honeycomb panels and rare earth magnets to provide a simple and quick method for rotating displays of textiles, she highlighted the crucial role of conservators in achieving the Gallery’s mission. One of my favorite projects featured in this talk was a Marcel Duchamp Rotary Glass Plates sculpture. Conservators repaired a broken blade for this complex object, but then went on to assist in creating a working model of the sculpture which can be used for classes and workshops. Talk about engaging with artwork! Who wouldn’t appreciate seeing this in action?
In closing, I should say that I could not take notes quickly enough during this talk, and the projects I’ve mentioned here are not all-inclusive. So read the post-print! There’s something in this paper for every objects conservator, no matter your sub-specialty. There’s also something for any conservator interested in innovative solutions to tricky display questions or in ways of increasing context and access in the gallery. And if you’re looking for great models of teamwork in an institution, this is definitely for you. Congratulations to Carol and the YUAG team on a job well done.
Month: June 2013
41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, "Rethinking the Monumental: A Creative Approach to the Preservation of a Landmark Tony Smith Outdoor Sculpture,” by John Steele and Abigail Mack
This talk had so much to like: an incredible case study of Tony Smith’s massive Gracehoper, a great film clip featuring 1970’s Detroit, and a nuanced look at how community and stakeholder values influence the preservation of public art. But most valuable was the clear exposition of the collaborative decision-making process that went into creating a treatment plan for this Detroit landmark.
Gracehoper is owned by the Detroit Institute of Arts and sits on the Museum’s north lawn. It’s the largest of Smith’s sculptures to be fabricated during his lifetime and is roughly 22 feet high and 46 feet long, with a whopping 3,800 square feet of surface area. Smith designed a cardboard maquette for the sculpture in 1961, but the full-size version wasn’t fabricated until 1972. In a delightful short film clip, we were able to see the fabricated steel sections being trucked into Detroit and listen to Smith talk about the joy of seeing this monumental sculpture installed. Although not part of the clip shown, Tony Smith mused that Gracehoper, “looks like someone’s nightmare…I guess the reason that it’s not my nightmare is because it’s on the lawn of the Detroit Museum.”
- Gracehoper at the DIA
41 years later the sculpture is, if not a nightmare, then a very challenging conservation project. The painted exterior – meant to be a “dull semi-gloss” black specified by Smith – is now faded, streaked and disfigured by graffiti. Corrosion has created rusty staining and caused paint to lift. The sculpture now desperately needs conservation treatment not only to restore its appearance, but also to insure its preservation for the future; unless existing corrosion is removed and the surface recoated, corrosion on outdoor sculptures like this one will continue, eventually undermining structural integrity.
The project team assembled to develop a treatment plan included conservators John Steele and Abigail Mack; John is the DIA’s Conservator of Sculpture and Decorative Arts, and Abigail, of Abigail Mack Art Conservation LLC, specializes in the conservation of modern outdoor sculpture. Also on the team were the DIA’s Associate Curator of Contemporary Art, Rebecca Hart; James Sejd, President of the industrial painting company ASCo; and Sarah Auld, Director of the Tony Smith Estate. Together, they considered the monumental size of the sculpture, its current condition, Smith’s desired aesthetic for Gracehoper, and current coatings technology.
Adding to the complexity of the project was the fact that as the team weighed treatment options, the DIA was facing an important regional tax vote which would, if successful, support operations for the Museum over the next ten years (it was successful, by the way). The Museum could not afford negative public opinion, and the Gracehoper project team knew that their recommendations would need to be sensitive to cost and feasibility as well as conservation goals. This was no mean feat for research and treatment on a sculpture of this size. It’s also worth noting that the DIA did an amazing job of raising funds for this project; the cost of treating Gracehoper will be paid exclusively by grants and private donations.
Ultimately, the project team decided to treat Gracehoper on-site and to repaint the surface using a roller-applied high performance paint. But the simplicity of this statement belies the complexity of the decision-making process. The team investigated every aspect of the sculpture’s current condition and evaluated an amazing number of treatment options. They were guided by 2 primary questions: 1) Could the sculpture be treated on-site or would it need to be disassembled and treated in an off-site facility? 2) What paint would best match Tony Smith’s aesthetics while also meeting the team’s requirements for durability, application, maintenance, and availability?
As a resident of metro-Detroit, I’ve watched the progress of this project with interest for several years. I was fortunate to have an insider’s look at the investigative process and clearly remember the massive whiteboard flow-chart in the DIA’s Objects Conservation Lab that tracked the group’s decisions as they worked through questions and weighed possible approaches. Although attendees of this talk didn’t get to see the whiteboard with all its scribbled queries and findings, John and Abigail’s talk suggested it by elegantly following the group’s comprehensive and carefully considered research. I suspect that this will be the most important and useful aspect of this paper for most conservators – not the details of the final treatment plan, since every painted outdoor sculpture is different and most are not as large as Gracehoper – but the way in which the team developed it.
For conservators considering similar projects with painted outdoor sculpture, or conservators considering ANY large-scale treatment project, this paper provides a great guide for what questions to ask and how to find the answers. Look for it in the OSG 2013 post-prints! Treatment of Gracehoper is slated to begin in July of 2013, so stay tuned to learn how it goes.
41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, “Testing the Waters: Applying New Techniques to the Cleaning of Acrylic Paint Film by Amy Hughes and Daria Keynan”
New York-based paper conservator Daria Keynan and Amy Hughes, third-year graduate student at NYU Institute of Fine Arts, shared exciting new contemporary cleaning techniques that have the potential for more effective and efficient treatment of paper-based objects by custom-matching the pH and conductivity modular stock solutions to the original object. This presentation was a wonderful and inspiring cross-specialty exploration of how paintings conservation techniques can be applied to paper conservation – and who doesn’t want more tricks up their sleeve?
Keynan was first introduced to the concept at the 2011 CAPS (Cleaning of Acrylic Painted Surfaces) workshop at the Museum of Modern Art. (I am now kicking myself for thinking that these workshops wouldn’t necessarily apply to my work as a book and paper conservator, so jealous!) To date there have been four innovative series of CAPS workshops supported by the Getty Conservation Institute to further the dialogue between theory and practice among conservation scientists and conservators as well as to introduce the concept of modular cleaning systems. Struck by her experience at the 2011 CAPS workshop and impressed by their use for treating acrylic paint films on art on paper, Keynan has further explored the use of pH and conductivity customization for other areas of paper conservation.
The CAPS workshop introduced several different cleaning techniques to minimize removal of surfactants when cleaning acrylic film surfaces. Acrylic paint and modern materials are scary (my word, not theirs.) Emulsions are often complex with many proprietary and artist-introduced ingredients. Colors react differently after drying, in treatment, and as they age. Some colors may be more sensitive to chemical and mechanical cleaning than others. Surfactants and other soft solids may never solidify, creating a tacky surface that can attract dust and grime. Conservation treatment, particularly aqueous treatment or mechanical cleaning with damp cotton swabs, can introduce immediate disfiguration like abrasion or swelling. Readily soluble surfactants can leach to the paint film surface or verso of the paper substrate. Treatment can also jumpstart deterioration that is not apparent until the future due to unknown chemical and mechanical consequences.
Of the many cleaning techniques available within contemporary conservation, Hughes and Keynan limited their presentation to the customization of pH and conductivity as a more finely-tuned and safer aqueous cleaning technique. They shared their methods by highlighting the treatment of works of art on paper brought to the Daria Keynan Paper Conservation in Manhattan for treatment where adjusted water – tweaking the pH and conductivity of the deionized water – was a key factor of success.
In the Garden (1986) by Paula Rego was surface cleaned to reduce dust and embedded grime altering the surface sheen. After dry cleaning with cosmetic sponges, Hughes tested various acrylic paint colors for pH and conductivity testing. Cylindrical pellets of cast agarose gel (recipe and supply information to be published in their BPG Annual post-print) were uniformly shaped with a medical-grade biopsy punch. (Heed Hughes’ warning, online image searches for “biopsy punch” are not for the weak-stomached!) The agarose pellet, acting like a poultice, was placed in contact with the acrylic paint film for 45 seconds to absorb the surface pH and conductivity. Agarose was selected because it imbibes the surface readings without visibly swelling the paint with excess moisture as in more aggressive techniques like local, direct application of deionized water. Keynan explained that the contact time of the agarose pellet can be matched to the estimated treatment time so that testing parameters can meet real-world treatment situations, increasing the predictability and reproducibility of testing results.
The pellet was transferred from the paper surface to the well of a pocket-sized, hand-held pH meter (Horiba Laqua pH Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the pH of the paint surface. A droplet of deionized water was then placed on the pellet and transferred to another pocket-sized, hand-held conductivity meter (Horiba B-171 Twin Conductivity/Salinity Pocket Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the conductivity of the paint surface. (As someone who absolutely dreads calibrating our cumbersome pH meter I was overjoyed to hear how easy these were to use – my purchase order request is already submitted.)
The conservators used the recorded pH and conductivity for a given area of the painted surface to identify the optimal working solution for cleaning. They selected from among a variety of premixed stock solutions that were created according to the CAPS workshop directions using deionized water, glacial acetic acid, and ammonium hydroxide in a range of ph 5-8 and conductivity 1000-6000 µS (micro Siemens.) Once mixed, the stock solutions can be stored in the refrigerator for up to several months. Keynan also reported that they often add several drops of an antimicrobial preservative for a longer shelf life.
The embedded material and dust on In the Garden released easily with 3-4 passes of lightly damp, pre-blotted cotton swab rolled over the surface. Hughes warned that since acrylic film is susceptible to abrasion it is important to monitor the paint surface during treatment. Cotton might not be appropriate for all acrylic surfaces so additional experiments with different swab materials may be useful. Similar success was seen in the mold removal and stain reduction of Maquette for Smoking Cigarette Relief (1983) by Tom Wesselmann.
Since Superstorm Sandy hit New York City in October 2012, Keynan’s studio has seen many complex treatments because of the unusual and unknown composition of the storm water which was often contaminated by sewage (uh, gross.) Many of the paper-based objects were stained with tidelines that were difficult to remove and fluoresced brightly under UV. Standard paper conservation techniques often visibly removed the tidelines but were deemed unsuccessful since under UV they shifted along the paper fibers or sank but were not completely removed from the paper support. She related that altering the pH and conductivity of her treatment water dramatically improved treatment results. Removal of the fluorescing blue tidelines (both external and internal) was achieved by local application of the adjusted water and using fumed silica poultices to block the formation of new tidelines.
The last example Keynan shared was a sample of naturally aged 2-ply paper board. (This was exciting, anyone else ever stare blankly at a nasty tideline on an illustration board and just sigh?) Traditional and adjusted treatment waters were applied with cotton swabs in several passes to clean the surface with varying results. Traditional deionized water cleaned less and was uneven, leaving a soft and vulnerable surface. The solution set at pH 6.6 and 6,000 µS glided more easily and had more even results. It also felt more controllable when working. The third sample solution set to pH 5.5 and 14,000 µS gave the most effective cleaning but in real life would probably not need three passes. After drying, the surface readings for all three areas had almost identical conductivity and pH readings.
Keynan concluded that by matching a pH- and conductivity-adjusted solution to the surface of the object it is possible to create a near chemical equilibrium at the surface to eliminate leaching from or depositing into the paint film. In treatment, using adjusted solution equals maximized cleaning efficiency with less wetting out of substrates, less pigment transfer, less repeated action, less loss of surface texture, and reduced distortion of the working area. Conservators have always adjusted pH for various uses, but by measuring the conductivity we can tailor our treatments to the physical needs of the object material with more refinement and subject it to less invasive treatment. Adjusted waters are an incredibly useful tool for improving and refining treatments in our conservation practice.
Hughes and Keynan’s presentation was an approachable and exciting take on the contemporary research going on in the field of conservation science and paintings conservation, especially as led by Chris Stavroudis (freelance paintings conservator in Los Angeles) and Richard Wolbers (Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation) in, well, all things related to cleaning painted surfaces and the Modular Cleaning Program.
Other presentations at the AIC meeting in Indianapolis such as “Mass Spectrometric Imaging of Acrylic Emulsion Paint Films: Engineering a Microemulsion-Based Cleaning Approach” (Paintings + Research and Technical Studies Thursday, May 30) show that the MCP and CAPS research continues. During the question-and-answer period Dr. Anthony Lagalante (Villanova University) shared that he and Stavroudis had recently recorded a video about using and calibrating the meters – it was on the cutting room floor, but will be posted to the CAPS website soon. Lagalante also sent me a link to their illuminating Studies in Conservation article that is currently available as a pre-print:
C.E. Dillon, A.F. Lagalante and R.C. Wolbers “ Aqueous cleaning of acrylic emulsion paint films. The effect of solution pH, conductivity and ionic strength on film swelling and surfactant removal” Studies in Conservation 57(1), (2014). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/sic/pre-prints/2047058412Y.0000000076
The concept presented by Hughes and Keynan in “Testing the Waters” has the potential for wide application for all book and paper conservators. Working with stock solutions is a fast and economical lab practice. Customizing treatment solutions increases the workability and effectiveness of the treatment. Many of us in the room instantly coveted the easy-to-use digital meters as we thought of the hassle of calibrating traditional models. I’m intrigued by how this research can be applied to aqueous treatments meant to introduce alkaline reserves to acidic paper.
This was a welcome multi-disciplinary presentation that encouraged conservators from other specialty groups like PSG and RATS to attend the BPG program. I am not alone in hoping for more presentations like it at future meetings so we can all benefit from the exciting things happening in all areas of our conservation community.
41st Annual Meeting, Discussion Session, June 1st, 2013: Engaging with Allied Fields: Teaching Conservation in Allied Academic Departments and Degree Programs
If you missed this engaging session, you probably have no idea that it included 11 different talks, presented “lightning-round” style, and 2 lively discussion sessions (in fact, the session was so engaging that I neglected to take photos, which I had very good intentions of doing!).
Organized by Suzanne Davis and Emily Williams, the idea for this session came through their discussions with colleagues and their realization that those engaged in teaching conservation to non-conservation students in academic settings are not currently sharing resources, goals and feelings about this work. Their goal was to begin a dialogue about these topics between those involved with and interested in this topic. To provide a foundation for their session, they recently conducted an online survey entitled “Teaching Conservation in Allied Degree Programs”. To read more about this and to access the initial survey report, follow this link to Suzanne’s blogpost.
The first round of speakers included Gregory Dale Smith, Renee Stein, Cathleen Baker, Heather Galloway, and Emily Williams. I’m including a brief summary of each of their talks, with links as possible, below. Each of the talks was 5 minutes, and both the speakers and the organizers did a terrific job keeping their talks within this brief time frame!
Gregory Dale Smith is the Otto N. Frenzel III Senior Conservation Scientist at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. He unfortunately could not attend the session, so Suzanne presented his slides on his behalf. His presentation focused on a project for a course for graduate students in Indiana University-Purdue University (IUPUI)’s Chemistry and Biological Chemistry Department and the Forensic and Investigative Sciences program entitled “CSI: Conservation Science Indianapolis.” In this course, he had students carry out a technical examination of a purported 1874 Alfred Sisley painting. The museum had suspicions about its authenticity, so the project benefitted not only the students but also the museum. The project included provenance research, analysis, imaging, and a final report, and there are blogposts on the topic on the IMA website. Through this course, Greg hoped to transmit to students the interplay of connoisseurship, conservation and science. While they did not come to a definite conclusion in the end, the students were particularly engaged due to the fact that it was a real object and a real issue for the museum.
Renee Stein is the Chief Conservator at the Michael C. Carlos Museum and is also Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Art History at Emory University. Conservators at the Carlos have always been involved in teaching, and the course that Renee is teaching is now an issue-based and topical seminar. The course attracts mostly art history majors, and the goal of the course is to introduce them to issues in conservation-to the why, not the how. Renee also mentioned that the Carlos Museum is also exploring how the museum can help to teach science, and they are now doing this through a course focusing on the analysis of ancient art course, which is very forensic and analytical, and geared toward undergrad chemistry majors. Two other courses that are being taught on conservation include an imaging course and a freshman seminar on art and nature. A list of these courses and other conservation opportunities for students at Emory are listed here. Also of note are the podcasts that have been developed by the Carlos and are available on their website by following this link.
Cathleen Baker is a Conservation Librarian and Exhibits Conservator at the University of Michigan Library and Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Information. Cathleen discussed one course that she taught with the goal of to introducing students to the concepts of conservation. She achieves this through lectures and supplements them with hands-on activities with books, and instructs students on the uses of adhesives, cleaning and repairs. She expressed that she has been surprised and encouraged that her students are fascinated by materials and objects in today’s very digital/virtual world.
Heather Galloway is a Conservator at the Intermuseum Conservation Association (ICA). She is currently preparing to teach a course in the joint PhD program between Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Museum of Art. She has taught several other courses, and she described one which was geared toward upper level students and taught completely based in the museum galleries. This was not a practical course, and all of the written work required of the students was based on observations and research. She wanted them to focus on what they might learn if they had the opportunity to examine an object firsthand. In this course Heather also removed paintings from the gallery walls and had students examine them out of their frames and under different light sources. The ultimate goal of this course was to introduce students to the complexity of judgments and collaboration necessary for conservators to make decisions, and to build a more sympathetic audience among our future allied professionals.
Emily Williams is the Conservator of Archaeological Materials at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and she discussed a course she has been teaching at the University of Mary Washington, entitled “Introduction to Conservation.” Because of Emily’s specialty, she imparts a heavy emphasis on archaeological materials but also tries to incorporate information about other materials as possible. Her goal in this course is to lay the foundation for future collaborations rather than train conservators. Due to Emily’s experience that many archaeologists in the Mid-Atlantic region think of conservation as all hands-on and something that they can do with just a little bit of training, she discussed the challenge that she sees in teaching this course, between balancing hands-on, practical work with other activities. She explained that her students always want to do more practical work, and this may be because she teaches this course as a 3-hour class. In addition to including hands-on activities, Emily incorporates debates and discussions into her classes. At the end of her presentation, she posed the question that she is pondering herself-through this course, is she achieving her goal of creating well-informed future collaborators or is she reinforcing the notion that the best and most important parts of conservation are hands-on?
Following this round of talks, Suzanne and Emily posed 2 sets of 2 questions or ideas each to the audience. Some of these were created from comments pulled directly from the survey recently conducted. We were seated in groups at round tables, each assigned with a letter A or B-the letters designated which questions we were to discuss. I’ll write more about this, and the second discussion session, after summarizing the second round of speakers.
The second round of speakers included Richard McCoy, Erich Uffelman, Ian McClure, Sanchita Balachandran, Karen Pavelka, and Suzanne Davis.
Richard McCoy is former Conservator at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and he has taught at IUPUI and recently was asked to create a course for Johns Hopkins online. Richard’s first course at IUPUI was project-based, focused on collections care and on documenting all of the public artworks on the university campus. To do this, he co-founded the WikiProject Public Art for his students to document the sculptures, and used Flickr for the photo management. He found that using Wikipedia and Flickr also worked as an advocacy tool for the artwork. In a second course, Richard had his students document all of the public art in the Indiana State House. In his last course, he focused on survey and research, and had his students research the historic Madame Walker Theater, create an excel database of their survey, and reorganized the theater’s museum. Richard is now creating a course for Johns Hopkins online in museum studies. This course will be entitled “Core aspects of conservation- a 21st century approach” and will have a goal of teaching students how to look at art, and also have students gather more resources for sharing with others on this topic.
Erich Uffelman is faculty at Washington and Lee University in the Department of Chemistry. Erich presented a record number of slides in 5 minutes, illustrating his course “Science In Art: Technical Analysis of 17th Century Dutch Paintings.” This is a 2-part course that is conducted over a year, ending with a trip to the Netherlands. This course covers both the art historical aspects as well as the scientific and analytical work that is involved in conservation. Erich has been publishing about this course since 2007, and his publications include resources as well as the strengths and limitations of the approaches used in teaching this course. Erich ended his presentation by mentioning the Chemistry in Art workshops offered through the National Science Foundation, taught by Dr. Pat Hill. These workshops are geared toward university faculty and other educators and focus on how to integrate chemistry and art into a curriculum.
Ian McClure is the Director of the Center for Conservation and Preservation, Yale West Campus and Susan Morse Hilles Chief Conservator at the Yale University Art Gallery. He discussed several ways in which his department is involved in teaching, including an undergraduate course focused on the technical examination of art. The goal of this course is to teach students about various methods of investigation and to help them understand how to interpret their observations. In addition to this course, they also work with postdoctoral students in computer science. One of their recent initiatives is teaching teachers in the Summer Teachers Institute in Technical Art History (STITAH). This project is supported by the Kress Foundation.
Sanchita Balachandran is a Conservator and Curator at the Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum and is a Lecturer in Near Eastern Studies at the university. Sanchita explained that the museum is used frequently for teaching, and a majority of her time is devoted this work, as she teaches one course per semester. She is teaching a seminar “Examining Archaeological Objects”more regularly, and she also teaches in other departments. Sanchita shared some of her main goals in her courses, which include: sharing excitement about objects with students, teaching students how to look at objects and make original observations, and instilling a sense of wonder in her students. Sanchita mentioned that one of the challenges that she has faced in teaching in this capacity is that not having a PhD is difficult in an academic environment, and makes it more difficult to apply for research funding. She ended her presentation with the idea of the “conservator identity crisis”. She explained that now that only 10% of her time is dedicated to treatment, she thinks a lot about what defines a conservator–someone who does treatment regularly and thus practices what he/she teaches, or someone who is able to teach about these issues but in some ways is far removed from the hands on aspect?
Karen Pavelka is a Conservator and Lecturer in the School of Information at UT Austin. As a full-time faculty member, she teaches 2 courses per semester. Courses that she teaches integrate conservation into the I-school curriculum, and include a paper lab course and classes that focus on disaster salvage, risk management, and preservation management. Karen pointed out that her classes are popular (they fill up within the first minute of being offered!) and often have waiting lists. Her courses are mainly geared to grad students focusing on library and museum studies. Karen stated that her goal in these courses is to integrate conservation into these students’ worlds, and impart the idea that everyone is responsible for preservation, but also to help them understand when to call a conservator-essentially, to help educate these students so that they become valuable and well-informed colleagues. Karen described one project that she has created for her students called the “annoying object exercise”. She created fragile, oddly shaped objects and then asks students to design and build a support for these objects which can be produced quickly, cheaply, and easily.
Suzanne Davis is Head Conservator at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan. Suzanne gave an abbreviated version of her presentation so that the rest of the session could be used for discussion. Just briefly, Suzanne discussed that she teaches a conservation unit in a theory-based, graduate-level museum studies course at the university. She posed the question, WTH (what the heck) should she be doing with these students? Should she be teaching them to think about conservation in a critical way, which is what she has been doing, or should she be giving them practical advice/tips so that they can make more informed decisions about using conservation services and resources in their future careers?
On that note, Suzanne and Emily moved everyone into the second period of discussion, again with 2 sets of questions for the audience to ponder.
Discussions topics included (but were not limited to):
– What are the costs and benefits of adjunct teaching?
– How do you see the role of conservation and conservation science in education for allied professionals? Do you see it as providing enrichment and/or as an aid in developing critical thinking skills? Do you want to produce more educated consumers of conservation resources and services? What are your personal end-result goals for the classes you teach?
– Salvador Munos-Vinas and other scholars have argued the need for more theory in conservation and conservation education. What is your opinion? Does a lack of theory in conservation affect conservators’ ability to engage with education in theory-rich fields such as archaeology, art history, and museum studies?
After discussions amongst our groups, Emily and Suzanne opened the session up for some quick discussion at the end.
Some of the points that came out of this discussion included:
– there is a need for conservation specific teaching resources
– those who are teaching would find it helpful to look at other syllabi
– in general the audience was interested in more teaching instruction and strategies in the form of a webinar or workshop – the workshop idea was more popular
– there are a lot of guest lecturers not full time teaching – people would like more information about how to convey a single talk or 2 in a larger course
– resources that do exist include:
- an email listserv for conservation educators, which has been fairly dormant but you can contact Rachael Arenstein or Emily Williams if you’d like to join – the pre-requisite for joining is that you must be teaching in an academic setting
- AIC’s YouTube channel-this is also a place for those making videos to share them
- AIC’s Facebook page and AIC wiki
- Coursera, Khan academy, Stanford Teaching Commons
Suzanne and Emily promised that they will eventually publish the discussion from this session, so stay tuned for that!
41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, May 30, "The Materials, Techniques, and Conservation Challenges of Richard Serra’s Oil Stick Prints" by Im Chan
I knew very little about Richard Serra’s works on paper prior to Im Chan’s interesting presentation. She had the challenge of examining and housing a collection of Serra’s enormous oil stick prints at the National Gallery of Art.
First she explained how the prints were made using a combination of screen printing and oil stick. The oil stick itself was actually an adaptation of proprietary paint sticks that Serra would melt down, adding linseed oil and wax to make a large soft brick that could be drawn across the paper or pushed through a silkscreen, giving the print surface a thick texture. Im recreated the mixture and described it as being like butter. As an amateur artist, the idea intrigues me, but as a paper conservator, it sounds a bit horrifying! But I was impressed to learn that Richard Serra actually prepared his papers with a coating of Golden acrylic gel medium to protect the paper from oil penetration, and some prints even have acrylic gel between layers of ink. Naturally, however, there is some yellowing of the paper, and the media itself is also tacky.
The scientific analysis of her presentation dealt with the problem of the oils. She explained that oleic acid usually oxidizes to azelaic acid as it ages, but if it does not then the media will remain tacky and malleable, vulnerable to indentations and dust. The free fatty acids in the oils can migrate to the surface of the image and appear as cloudy efflorescence, marring the visual uniformity of the black ink field. She mentioned that when stored with cover sheets, many of the prints had transferred media and efflorescence to those cover sheets as well. Framed prints did not have glazing, and thus they were vulnerable to dust.
Im Chan’s work involved identifying and analyzing the problem, not actively treating all of the prints, and I could sympathize when she said it was difficult to resist getting her tweezers out to pick off all the dust and stray fibers stuck to the ink surfaces. She and her colleagues planned storage systems that would allow the prints to breathe, such as a box made of honeycomb board that had a sheet of microchamber paper across an opening in the lid to allow the exchange of air but to trap offgassing elements, having mentioned earlier that the prints had a strong smell of linseed oil, as I can well imagine!
Incidentally, the next day Joan Weir presented a talk on displaying another Richard Serra work on paper with some similar problems. It was quite interesting to hear her talk after Im Chan’s scientific presentation, so I already had a good understanding of what the artwork was like. That talk was:
(Contemporary Art Session 1) “When Conservation Means Stapling: Touring an Unsupported, Unglazed, 9ft x 21ft, oil paint stick on Paper to Three Venues” by Joan Weir.
41st Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st, “The Gordion Table Circa 2011” by Rick Parker
The Gordion table is one a multitude of artifacts, including more than fifty pieces of furniture, excavated from Phrygian tumuli in the 1950’s. The wooden objects were almost immediately warped and damaged by a large influx of moisture within the tomb. In the 1980’s a large scale conservation project began in Ankara to rescue the table and associated objects. The first time I read about the Gordion Table, and saw images of it conserved and reconstructed, I began to wonder how it might have looked when first entombed in the Phrygian Kingdom 2,700 years ago.
Luckily for me, Rick Parker has taken it upon himself to replicate the table based on original drawings and literature. A number of difficulties were encountered along the way and occasionally artistic and creative liberties were taken, for both technical and aesthetic reasons. The wood, for example, was sourced from Kauri logs from New Zealand which were 40,000-60,000 years old. He later used resin from this wood to varnish the table. This decision seems to relate more to personal taste as the original table was carved from boxwood, juniper and walnut. Additionally, while doing the work he found modern era power tools to be virtually useless and had to fabricate more appropriate tools. The way the table was constructed meant it was very difficult to join the components and get them all to stay in plane. Interestingly, the original table has a hole in one of the legs that has been drilled and then plugged above another hole where the strut is attached. Rick found, when making the table, that his original measurements led him to attach the strut higher on one leg which then kept the table top from being able to sit flat on the legs. Like the original maker, he also had to fill this hole, drill another, and move the strut down.
Based on his own knowledge of ancient craftsmanship Rick believes the original makers must have had more skill, and more complex tools, than are currently attributed to them. To him, Simpson’s assertion that an adze was used to carve the legs is a point of contention. He also debates the idea that the table would have been portable, his reconstructed version being very awkward to move. In some ways the ability to handle this modern replica is one of it’s greatest assets. It also stands alone as a unique and beautiful object. Rick thinks of the original table as a work of art and while his version may not be an exact replica it lends a sense of reality to an otherwise mysterious object.
For more information about the conservation of the original table see:
Payton, R. (1984) ‘The Conservation of an Eigth Century BC Table from Gordion’, in N. Brommelle, E. Pye, P. Smith, and G. Thomson, (eds.), Adhesives and Consolidants: Preprints of the Contributions to the Paris Congress, 2-8 September 1984, pp. 133-137
Simpson, E. (1983) “Reconstructing an Ancient Table: The ‘Pagoda’ Table from Tumulus MM at Gordion.” Expedition25, no. 4: 11 26.
Spirydowicz, K. (1996) ‘The Conservation of Ancient Phrygian Furniture from Gordion, Turkey’ in A. Roy and P. Smith (eds.), Archaeological Conservation and its Consequences: Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen Congress, 26-30 August 1996. London: IIC. pp. 166-171
For information on the Gordion site and the artifacts in general see the wikipedia page which has excellent references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordion_Furniture_and_Wooden_Artifacts
The University of Pennsylvania also has a very in depth website detailing the site, the furniture, the tumuli and their associations with the historical King Midas:
http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/
41st Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, May 31, “Examination, Technical Study, and Treatment of Funerary Stelae from the Roman-Egyptian Site of Ternouthis” by Caroline Roberts, LeeAnn Barnes Gordon, and Cathy Selvius DeRoo
Caroline (Carrie) Roberts presented an interesting talk about a multi-year collaborative project that demonstrates the real impact that surveys and technical studies can have on collections. In less than two years, the authors were able to survey a collection of 200 limestone stelae, assign treatment priorities, identify the agents of deterioration, suggest environmental guidelines, carry out treatments, and develop an informed treatment protocol.
The project began with the survey of the collection of limestone stelae by then 3rd year intern LeeAnn Barnes Gordon and continued as part of Carrie Roberts’ fellowship project at the Kelsey Museum. LeeAnn and Carrie collaborated with scientists in analytical laboratories at the University of Michigan and at the Detroit institute of Arts, including co-author Cathy Selvius DeRoo. Through their hard work and successful collaborations, the authors were able to accomplish an impressive amount and significantly improve the condition and long-term preservation of this invaluable collection.
Carrie first introduced the history of this collection of funerary stelae excavated in 1935 from the Roman-Egyptian site of Terenouthis. You can find some of this info on the Kelsey website here… and here:
She then spoke about the condition issues identified during the survey, which included stone delamination, surface powdering, biological staining, and peeling, darkened coatings. There were several types of salt efflorescence present including spiky salt crystals and more round gypsum like-salts. Spot tests identified chlorides and sulfates. Interestingly, research conducted into the archival holdings of the museum produced some incredibly relevant information regarding the past treatment of the pieces. A transcribed 1941 lecture by the archaeologist indicated that Duco cement was used to stabilize the stelae as they were excavated. The presence of cellulose nitrate was later confirmed using FTIR on samples of the darkened and peeling coatings.
As a result of the survey, approximately ¼ of the collection was determined to be high priority for treatment. These stelae received further study to characterize the deterioration and identify a treatment protocol. Testing was carried out using a barrage of analytical techniques including FTIR, XRF, XRD, specimen culturing and DNA analysis. The results allowed identification of soluble salts (calclacite- a calcium chloride acetate salt produced from interactions with offgasing materials + halide salts), characterization of stone properties (clay component within limestone- possibly responsible for delamination), and ID of the biological growth (black staining identified by DNA as Epicoccum nigrum of the class dothideomycetes, lichen not identified- no DNA present).
The treatment protocol that was developed through testing included:
-Consolidation of the limestone with CaLoSil (150nm particles of lime hydrate Ca(OH)2) in n-propanol. Testing was conducted using CaLoSil, Paraloid B-72, and Conservare (Ethyl silicate) consolidants. CaLoSil was most successful as it reduced powdering after 1 application without darkening stone. It is presumed to penetrate deep into the stone due to the small (nano) particle size.
-Structural stabilization using Paraloid B-72 (in 85:15 ethanol/acetone) injected into delaminating cracks. Not many of the stelae had extensive delamination but Paraloid B-72 was found to successfully stabilize cracks and areas beginning to delaminate.
-Desalination by poulticing with Arbocel paper pulp. This method was considered challenging/problematic and so the environmental controls were considered the best method of preventing future problems from soluble salts
-Coating reduction was accomplished by applying acetone followed by blotting.
-Biological staining was reduced by swabbing with ethanol; however, this was not found to be fully effective.
-Environmental parameters were set based on the equilibrium RH of the identified salts. The recommendation was to stay below 75% humidity, which is the equilibrium of halide salt and below that of calclacite (79%).
Carrie finished with some questions for future research, including: how is the CaLoSil distributed in the limestone after consolidation? What is the nature of the clay component in the limestone? What are the possibilities for reduction of the biological staining? And what is the best method for treating the stelae that had been stabilized with cyclododecane in 2009 when the collection was relocated to the current storage area.
Overall a very informative talk that hopefully will inspire similar in-depth survey and treatment projects!
41st Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 29, "Flip, Flap, and Crack: The Conservation of 400 Years of Anatomical Flap Books by Meg Brown”
Meg Brown gave an engaging talk about a 2011 exhibition at Duke University that showcased the flap anatomies in their collection.
Though there is no standardized terminology for these works (“moveable books”, “anatomical atlases” and “fugitive sheets” numbering among their aliases), Meg defined flap anatomies as “paper based, printed images with more than one layer illustrating an aspect of human anatomy” for the purposes of her talk. She discussed the history of flap anatomies, spoke to the common conservation problems of these unique materials, and gave tips on exhibiting them.
**I have included images of some of the works Meg spoke about (or similar works). I will give the same warning that she did – many of these images depict the naked human form. If that is not something you wish to see, do not keep reading**
Flap anatomies began in the 16th century, and were primarily printed in Germany. It is thought that they were used by barbers and surgeons as reference guides, for dissection was rare even where it was not outright illegal.
The first known flap anatomy (then known as a fugitive sheet) was printed in 1538 by Vogtherr, Heinrich. Duke University holds a 1539 copy of one of his works. The illustrations were hand-colored. Copies of this work are generally in good condition for a number of reasons:
The paper stock is high-quality
The top layer, which shows the skin level of human anatomy, is large enough to protect the smaller layers.
The top layer is well adhered.
Johann Remmelin (c. 1613) produced highly technical flap anatomies that were believed to have been created for students and professionals. His images were highly valued, and they were republished and stolen for many centuries.
Remmelin’s works also owe their survival to high quality paper and a large/well-adhered top layer. The top flap layer is a full printed sheet with the flap area hand cut before adhesion. Interior pieces were adhered by tabs or even left loose within the protective covering of the surface sheet so that they could be removed and inspected. Instructions to the binders for this practice survive to this day.
In the mid-1800s, Edward Tuson produced his Myology. The flap anatomies in this volume are produced with multi-directional tabs that provide resistance against lifting it. Meg described the sensation of lifting the flaps as akin to muscle tension!
Myology was a lithographic print, which was hand coloured.
Myology displayed small bits, such as veins and muscles in addition to organs.
Two decades later, George Spratt published a flap anatomy that served as an instructional for midwives. Like the Remmelin volumes, Sprat used the sandwiching effect of full pages for both his base and surface sheets. Spratt’s base page was blank, and the surface sheet was slit – allowing the layered tabs to be adhered in between the two, sandwiched sheets.
Beginning around the same time that Spratt was educating midwives, Frederick Hollick created the first mass-market flap anatomies. He continued to publish into the early 1900s. His volumes were intended to educate the public at large. As you can see, the surface layers became quite a bit more demure once the flap anatomies were marketed for public consumption.
Quality of paper and construction went swiftly downhill, as publishers sought to make economical mass-market flap anatomies. As a result, the flap anatomies of Hollick and his successors are in much worse condition than earlier works.
Gustave Witkowski followed in Hollick’s footsteps. His flap anatomies were part of a larger trend of popularized science. New technologies like die cutting and double-sided color printing helped economize Witkowski’s editions. Minimal adhesive was used, because die-cutting allowed many diagrams to be cut from one sheet. Unfortunately, the new technology of wood-pulp paper also insured that his editions are extremely brittle and fragile today.
Exhibiting such fragile, three dimensional works is difficult proposition. How does one best display the intricate layers while providing gentle support? Meg’s answer came from a colleague – and thus her talk came with handouts! Meg used small rolls of a light-weight mylar to support the flaps. The mylar was flexible enough that the flaps could determine their own angle of open-ability and clear enough to be no detriment to the layers beneath.
To accompany Duke University’s exhibition, Meg prepared a Flap Book Biography, a supplemental online exhibition and a video as well!
Thanks to Meg for a fantastic talk.
P.S. Marieka Kaye of the Huntington Library gave a talk on their use of facsimile flap anatomies for their Beautiful Science exhibition. Long story short? Make your facsimiles STURDY. Laminate the pieces. Use elastic thread. Make multiple copies for replacement parts. (You can imagine which pieces go missing most often). The blogpost on her discussion group talk can be found here.
41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, “Establishing Conservation in an Unconventional Venue in Okinawa” by Anya McDavis-Conway
Ms. Conway’s paper presented multiple themes: the establishment of a new conservation lab, brief history of Okinawa, and cultural materials and their subsequent materials research and treatment. What is particularly different about the first theme is that the Conservation Laboratory was begun without a museum collection. The laboratory was established within the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) – a new, international research university staffed with 50% Japanese and 50% international staff. OIST applies advanced technology while using an interdisciplinary approach to higher education, and includes giving back to the Okinawan community in its mission statement. OIST President Jonathan Darfan was interested by the merging of art and science and wanted the conservation lab to be an important part of community engagement. Thus, with the establishment of the conservation laboratory, it was incumbent upon the conservator to find her museum collection partners.
Anya described this process as “setting up conservation in reverse”, and stated that the Okinawans were rather suspicious of her. I can believe their skepticism: “why would I want to had over my collections to a non-Okinawan” (prevalent in an island with a history of occupation) or: “Why are you doing this for free?”. Anya took time to visit the museums, got to know the only Okinawan conservators, a paper conservator named Toma-san and his son. She learned from him and other museum staff that all other treatments would either not get done or would be sent off the island (likely to Japan). Occasionally there was someone on Okinawa who would do lacquer repairs, and I wondered if they would be the gold repairs that we see on Asian ceramics sometimes.
Eventually Anya found two partners in the Yomitan Village History Folklore Museum, a small historical museum focusing on the small port of Yomitan. The other was the Tsuboya Pottery Museum. In the Yomitan museum, there was a definite need for collections improvements and conservation. The museum is located next to Zakimi Castle, which meant that there were also archaeological finds, in addition to historic, in the collection. There is also a traditional house, which was presented kind of like a period room (but house).
Tsubo means pottery in Okinawan (the Tsuboya Museum), and the curators there are very interested in pottery technology. Anya’s lab and connections in OIST are a perfect fit for their interests, and she discusses, later, the pottery research project they begin together.
Once Anya began getting treatments, she quickly realized that she needed more space than her 1/2 counter in OIST’s biology lab that she was given initially. I must think that they intended to provide more space, but perhaps wanted to wait until the projects actually came. OIST ultimately provided a decent lab space and some analytical equipment. Anya worked with the physicists to obtain such equipment: a Raman with a horizontal exit so objects can be placed next to it for analysis without sampling them, FTIR with ATR and, coming soon, a p-XRF. Jennifer Mass, the scientist from the Winterthur program, was also able to consult, in person, in the analytical set-up.
Interesting investigations were discussed. The first described looked at the leather on sanshins, which are three-stringed instruments that look a little like a banjo. They were originally played at the Royal Court, but now are played by more and more people. The sound box of the sanshin is usually covered in python skin, which is imported from the mainland. The two that were brought into Anya’s lab, however, were not made with python. Their origin was not easily detectable, so Anya worked with Sasha Mikayav, a scientist at OIST, to look into DNA sequencing for identification. The skins were ultimately too contaminated to provide good data, and Sasha recommended liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry instead. They prepared a sample from a cowhide from a music store as a control/test, and this was successfully identified as bovine. They will analyze other types of skins as they obtain them, and then test the sanshins after. But the fragile leather could wait no longer, and losses were filled with Japanese tissue toned with Golden acrylic emulsion paints and tacked in place with methyl cellulose. She made appropriate storage boxes and mounts for the sanshins after treatment because she thought it would begin a conversation about collections housing. I am curious if this worked, as it was an interesting decision.
The other major project begun is the pottery analysis project undertaken by Anya, OIST and the Tsuboya Pottery Museum. They are beginning to characterize pottery – both individually and as a group – using pXRF and XRD. They will be working with an Okinawan geologist to look at sources, tempers and inclusions using thin sections and traditional petrography. This project is the beginning of a long collaboration, as Okinawa has a long history and tradition of pottery making, and it has never before been systematically analyzed. Importantly, Anya wants to know if anyone in the audience had Okinawan pottery in its collections. If so, she wants to know! Please contact her if you have information on Okinawan pottery and/or specimens in your collections. Her information is in the AIC directory.
41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 31, “Intersecting Conservation Approaches to Ethnographic and Contemporary Art: Ephemeral Art at the National Museum of African Art” by Stephanie E. Hornbeck
In this paper, Stephanie discusses similarities between conserving ethnographic and contemporary works of art. She includes previous discussions about the two types of conservation and the variety of viewpoints associated with them, demonstrated, visually, through case studies of treatments of both traditional and contemporary art.
Stephanie briefly discussed her training, which began at the Guggenheim before working at more focused ethnographic collections. She has worked for several years for the National Museum of African Art (NMAA). This museum originally housed just traditional arts, but, in the 1990’s, also began collecting contemporary art. They now have a collection of over 600 contemporary works of art, and I believe she said this is the largest collection of contemporary African art in the United States (or the world?). She and her colleagues Steve Mellor and Dana Moffett have found that these contemporary works, while using materials common to non-African contemporary art, also draw upon materials from traditional African arts.
Both traditional arts and contemporary art are often composed of ephemeral material (sometimes by design, sometimes not) – composite media, repurposed materials, and inherently fragile materials. Conservation is often directly opposed to ephemeral art. While Stephanie proposed that this statement has been addressed many times previously, there are as many different opinions on how to deal with contemporary art and ephemeral materials. The opinions posed in this paper are Stephanie’s own.
Stephanie presented a number of case studies to discuss their approach to ephemeral materials as well as to highlight similarities between traditional and contemporary art. The first examples were of a traditional, wooden artifact by Olówè of Isè, and a contemporary ceramic piece, Untitled 1, by Magdelene Odundo, in 1994. In the former, there was a darkening of the surface of the bowl, which conservators thought might be a resin applied later in its life and might be inappropriate to the artifact. Analysis showed that the dark material was in fact a gum-carbohydrate mixture – one that could have been historic. The artist, Olówè, died in 1938, however, and could not be interviewed about it.
Magdelene Odundo’s Untitled 1 is a beautiful, pristine ceramic vessel with a rich, earthy-red and smooth surface. What soon became apparent, were areas of lime within the clay body that would swell and cause the ceramic above to pop off, resulting in a pit with a white dot in the middle (the lime). [This is exactly what occurs in pottery from Southwest United States.] These areas mar the pristine surface intended by the artist. In this case, as opposed to the wooden figurine, the artist could be interviewed. Popping from lime inclusions can be avoided by different firing conditions and temperatures, but with these different techniques the shape and color of her pieces would change. This was unacceptable to the artist, who decided to accept the consequences of the lime popping in exchange for the color and shape she desired in her works.
In documentation, there are surveys for living artists: Maters in Media Art (Tate Modern), the Guggenheim Museum’s Variable Media Approach, and those available through INCAA. In these surveys, there is an anthropological aspect. For instance, inherent vice (present in both traditional and contemporary arts) can be intentional – or not. In Ghada Amer’s Hunger, from the “Earth Matters” exhibit currently on display until January 2014, “HUNGER” is spelled out on using seeds and plants in the grounds of the NMAA. The letters will change with different plants in different seasons, and will naturally decay.
Artist-Conservator interactions are possible perhaps more easily with contemporary pieces, though the inherent vice can be the same. In Henreique Oliveira’s Bololo from 1991 was destroyed after the exhibit (it was a huge piece(s) of brazilwood installed to appear as if it were growing out of a wall, filling the gallery in serpentine forms). Willem Boshoff’s Writing in Sand from 2005 consisted of white sand spread over the floor with black sand letters forming a text. The public was able to touch the piece, and the artist liked that the public could damage it; still, the meaning of the piece was intent on its words, so they had to be restored. This occurred about once/week, and by the end of the exhibit, the sand was mostly gray.
In the conservation of ethnographic objects, treatments are often conservative, though problems many be similar to those encountered in contemporary works. Berni Seale’s (Searle?) To Hold in the Palm of the Hand is a 2006 installation, and incorporated powdered henna on its surface. Stephanie had to replace this henna (after finding an appropriate source) while on display. Conversely, Powdered pigment would not be replaced on a traditional object, such as a Zulu hat that also had a powdery, red pigmented surface.
Regarding artist intent and conservation treatment, sometimes contemporary materials require more immediate conservation. 1997’s amendment to AIC’s Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice were amended with Commentary 23, paragraph D, to provide rationale for greater intervention. Stephanie Hornbeck, however, fells the commentary is too vague and broad, and can be contrary to conservation principles. (Louise Nevelson’s Dreamhouse XLIII, 1993, at the Miami Art Museum is a dilemma for Stephanie.) For contemporary art, how far into the past and future do invasive treatments, such as repainting, apply?
The Getty has a publication entitled The Object in Transition, which is available online for the public and discusses specific examples. Pretty much, pieces must be evaluated on a case by case basis, but the outcomes are truly variable. There is a dilemma between accepted standards and “case by case” bases for treatment, and this is a really interesting point that I think conservators should consider more deeply.
The VARA act came into being in 1990. This discusses copyright law and ownership. VARA 106 A (c) (2) is an important paragraph. In Europe, the future of a given piece is guided by the artist; in the United States, it is guided by the owner. This has a great influence on the direction for conservation in the two continents.
—
Q&A: there was an interesting discussion about when treatments on ethnographic collections became more restrained. Sanchita Balachandran offered an interesting insight, stating that some of that restraint occurred when museums changed from being “owners” of the collections to “stewards” of the collections.