Month: July 2014

42nd Annual Meeting – Paintings Specialty Group Tips Session, May 29

The PSG tips session at the 42nd annual meeting took place prior to the afternoon session on Thursday, May 29th.  The following recaps the twelve tips that were presented.  I’ve done my best to give you the most complete information possible, but please feel free to contact each tipper for more information or for clarifications.  You can also always enter your questions into the comment section below!
 
Tip 1:  “Texas Strappo” varnish removal, presented by Helen Houp
Helen began with a case study of a damaged painting with a thick varnish that needed to be removed.  The thickness of the varnish combined with the severity of the damage to the painting precluded the use of traditional methods of varnish removal.  A search for treatment alternatives led to the use of pressure sensitive tape for varnish removal.  The tape was applied to the top layer of varnish and then pulled away gently to remove a thin layer of material without risking the paint underneath.  It was also possible to use the tape to remove overpaint.  The method allowed for a controlled removal of the varnish and overpaint in layers without leaving behind significant residues.  I was unable to determine the type of tape that was used, but I’m sure Helen would be willing to provide details to those who may be interested.
Tip 2:  Reverse of Paintings Database, presented by Elise Effmann Clifford
Elise previewed a database for “Information on the Reverse of Paintings” that she has been developing in cooperation with the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, which will host the final site.  The goal for the completed database is to provide a searchable and expandable archive of shared information specific to the reverse of paintings with international access and contributions.  In the interest of security and permissions, a login will be required and it will be possible to make entries available to the general public or adjust privacy settings to limit viewing.  Members will be able to upload images with file size allowances up to 30MB.  Transcriptions and key terms will allow searches for details like canvas stamps, stencils, labels, and seals.  The project is destined for beta testing beginning some time in July 0f 2014.  People interested in taking part in the testing or submitting future contributions should email Elise.
The presentation of the database was followed by a brief question and answer period.
Q:  Will any of the information contained in the database be found through a general internet search?
A:  That will depend on the privacy settings.  There will also be terms and condition sections on the site as well.
Q:  Will uploaded images become property of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco once they are uploaded?
A:  No.
Q:  Will the database accept video?  What kind of images are accepted?
A:  It will not take video.  Right now it cannot take RAW images but will handle things like jpg, tif, etc.
Tip 3:  Filling cracks at the edges of canvas, presented by Kristin Robinson
Fine cracks along the turnover edges of a canvas can be very difficult and tedious to fill.  Kristen suggested using dried modostuc, which can be held in the fingers and gently rubbed over the cracks to fill them quickly and safely.  The dried material leaves very little residue and what remains can be gently wiped way.
Tip 4:  Edge lining iron support, presented by Kristin Robinson
Kristin followed her first tip with a suggestion for edge-lining.  A backing board or mat board can be folded into thirds to form a triangle, which can act as a rigid support for the iron to press against when applying an edge lining on folded margins.
Tip 5:  IMAT developments, presented by Nina Olsson
This tip focused on recent advancements of the IMAT project, which is the natural progression of an earlier project Nina introduced to the Paintings Specialty Group in a talk presented at AIC’s 38th annual meeting in Milwaukee.  IMAT refers to “Intelligent Mobile Accurate Thermoelectrical” mild heating devices.  The aim of the project is to provide conservators with a controlled and mobile tool for the structural treatment of materials.  It is worth noting that Nina is a paintings conservator but the IMAT was developed with a broad audience in mind, including but not limited to conservators of works on paper and textiles.  The details of the IMAT project are significant and advanced so this is merely a summary of what was presented at this tips session.  Links to more detailed information about the IMAT are included at the end of this summary.
The current IMAT team has developed working prototypes that should be ready for production within a few years.  The current focus is on low temperature applications that can be sustained for many hours at a time with a low voltage requirements (I wrote 70-150 degrees Fahrenheit and 36 volts, though these should be confirmed through additional resources).    The carbon nanotube heat source is galvanically insulated and has a thermosensor connected through bluetooth technology with a touch screen control for heating over time within a 0.5 degree Celcius fluctuation.  The mats will be flexible and come in various sizes, though any customizable size will be possible.
There are 3 IMAT forms at present.  The first is a standard mat that is opaque and does not offer any breathability.  The second is a black mesh mat with a gray polyurethane coating and thin silicone coating.  The third, which is still in development, is a transparent mat with silver nanotube technology.  A fourth incarnation–a textile-type mat of silk organza with silver nanowire–is next in line.
All questions regarding the history and current developments of the IMAT project can be directed to Nina Olsson.  Additional information can also be found via the following links:
PSG 2010 Postprints
imatproject.edu
H. Meyer, K. Saborowski, T. Markevicius, N. Olsson, R. Furferi, M. Carfagni. “Carbon Nanotubes in Art Conservation.” International Journal of Conservation Science. 4 (2013): 633-646.
Tip 6:  PSG Wiki, presented by Gabriel Dunn and Erin Stephenson

In May of 2013 a core team of paintings conservators formed the Paintings Specialty Group Wiki Committee under the guidance of Chief Wiki Editor Erica James.  The group worked to bring organization to the PSG wiki page.  Gabriel and Erin presented the improvements that were made to the page and announced that the group is seeking contributions.  They encouraged the PSG membership to visit the site and consider submitting material or reaching out to be paired with a liaison who can submit material on their behalf.  Any questions or concerns about the PSG wiki can be directed to Erica James or any member of the current Wiki Committee listed on the main PSG wiki page.
Tip 7:  Fume extraction, presented by Robert Proctor
Rob presented a design for a fome-cor “cabinet” that he built to enclose a painting during varnishing.  The structure can fit around a painting to contain fumes, and hoses attached to the structure will remove the fumes before they escape into the studio space.
Another fume extraction tip involved the wheels on portable fume extractors.  Rob mentioned that the ones sold with the portable extractors are expensive and mark floors.  He suggested making a mobile base using wheels purchased at a home improvement store that will not mark the floors.  As a side note, he added that it is not necessary to purchase the proprietary prefilters for the portable units because those used for home air conditioning units work just as well.
I’m certain Rob would be happy to provide details for anyone who wants more information on his designs!
Tip 8:  Building your own microscope, presented by Ria German-Carter
Microscopes are expensive and can be an especially significant cost for conservators in private practice.  When faced with the task of acquiring a new microscope, Ria decided to put together her own.  She was able to find some good quality used components on eBay and save on additional parts by purchasing through amscope.com.  She built an inspection microscope with the following specifications for under $1000:

  • 8 inch working distance
  • articulated arm
  • different camera mounting tubes
  • LED lighting
  • fiberoptics

Unfortunately, I missed the specification regarding the microscope’s magnification.  Please contact Ria if you would like more details!
Tip 9:  Laser line for cutting batting and what to do with the scraps, presented by Chris Stavroudis
Chris gave a simple but effective tip to assist in cutting a straight line in batting material.  He placed the line across the batting and was able to cut a smooth line without needing the assitance of a physical straight edge.  He suggested using scraps of batting for cleaning dishes, lab tools, or as a less abrasive material for surface cleaning.
Tip 10:  More fume extraction, presented by….
I apologize to this tipster for missing their identity!  Please comment below if this is your tip.  It described the use of a dryer tube/trunk for fume extraction rather than buying a specialized trunk.  White mesh can be put ver the tube to make it less like a dryer tube and a PVC cap can be added to the end for finish and for weight.  An angled piece, such as those used for water heater tubes, can be used to create a swivel at the end of the tube.
Tip 11:  Proper ventilation, presented by Daisy Craddock
This wasn’t a traditional tip, but is still important information.  Daisy pointed out that exhaust systems, such as elephant trunks, need to exhaust to the outside of a studio because they don’t remove all vapors and may produce precipitants.  She also reminded us that microemulsions do not get extracted at all.
Tip 12:  Storage rack solutions, presented by Kate Smith for Gordon Lewis
Gordon was not in attendance at the tips session so Kate presented his images of a storage system that involved the use of foam board.  It appeared that the foam was used as an inexpensive alternative material to create slots in his storage racks.  Gordon may be able to provide more details about his tip if interested people wish to contact him.
 
Thanks for the tips, everyone!

Meet the Speakers! ECPN’s Upcoming Webinar on Preparing for Graduation Education in Art Conservation

ECPN’s next webinar, Beyond the Prerequisites: Preparing for Graduate Education in Art Conservation is quickly approaching! This Wednesday, July 16 at 12pm EDT, representatives from five of the North American graduate programs in art conservation will discuss what makes a strong applicant and ways you can grow as an emerging conservation professional.
You may have seen their names on the program websites, but we thought you might like to get to know the speakers a little better before the webinar. Each program representative has provided a short bio to help you become better acquainted!
And there is still time to register — just follow the link below. You will have a chance to submit questions for the Q&A session when you complete the registration form, but you can also send us your questions by leaving a comment on the ECPN Facebook page, or by commenting below on this blog post. You can also submit your questions via email to Megan Salazar-Walsh, ECPN Chair, at salazar.walsh@gmail.com.
Registration link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/177805026
Let’s meet the speakers!
Margaret Holben Ellis is the Eugene Thaw Professor of Paper Conservation, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University.  She also serves as Director, Thaw Conservation Center, The Morgan Library & Museum.  She is currently Vice-President and Fellow of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works of Art (AIC), Fellow of the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC), Accredited Conservator/Restorer of the International Institute of Conservation (ICON).  Professional and academic awards have included the Caroline and Sheldon Keck Award (2003) for a sustained record of excellence in education, the Rutherford John Gettens Merit Award (1997) in recognition of outstanding service to the profession both conferred by the AIC, and a Fellowship from the American Academy in Rome (1994).  She has published and lectured on artists ranging from Raphael and Titian to Pollock and Lichtenstein with her research on artists materials similarly far-ranging.  She is a graduate of Barnard College (1975 B.A. art history, magna cum laude) and the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (1979 M.A. art history; Advanced Certificate in Conservation).
James Hamm has taught paintings conservation in the Art Conservation Department at SUNY Buffalo State since 1986. He earned his M.A. degree and Certificate of Advanced Studies in Art Conservation in 1978, in the earlier iteration of the Buffalo program operated by Sheldon and Caroline Keck, as part of the Cooperstown Graduate Programs. Between graduate school and the beginning of his tenure at Buffalo State, James and his wife Patricia Hamm (’75) operated a successful private practice near Albany, New York. Professor Hamm has an ongoing interest in authentication issues and the detection of fakes and forgeries in paintings. Working closely with colleagues in the department, he regularly examines paintings using modern imaging techniques and sophisticated methods of materials analysis, in conjunction with an educated eye, to address questions of age and authenticity. He also applies the knowledge gained from the study of art materials and the processes of their degradation, to the improvement of materials and techniques available to modern artists. As a part of this work, he was awarded a U.S. patent for a rigid painting support for artists and has recently developed a pigmented wax-resin system for filling losses in paintings and objects. He has lectured and published on a wide variety of conservation topics. In 2007, Professor Hamm was honored with the President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has supervised students who have become conservation professionals at museums all around this country and a few overseas, as well as those who have established successful private practices.
Rosaleen Hill is the Director of the Queen’s University Art Conservation Program. Prior to joining Queen’s University in 2013 she taught at the School of Library and Archival Studies at the University of British Columbia and in the Conservation of Cultural Materials program at the University of Canberra in Australia. Rosaleen has taught more than 40 workshops and seminars for conservator and allied professionals and has consulted widely for archives, museums, libraries and other heritage institutions.
Debra Hess Norris is chair of the Art Conservation Department at the University of Delaware, director of the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation, and professor of photograph conservation. Debbie has taught more than 125 workshops and seminars for conservators and allied professionals globally including in Peru, Columbia, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Russia, Ireland, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Morocco, Abu Dhabi, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and India. She has published over 35 articles and book chapters on the preservation of photographic materials, conservation education, ethics, and emergency planning. Debbie served as president of the American Institute for Conservation from 1993 – 1997 and chairperson of Heritage Preservation from 2003-2008. She currently serves on the boards of Heritage Preservation and the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts in Philadelphia, and the Advisory Committees for the FAIC Hermitage Photograph Conservation Initiative, the Mellon Collaborative Photograph Workshops, and the American Friends of the National Gallery of Denmark, among others.  In 2002, she was inducted into the University of Delaware’s Alumni Wall of Fame and in 2004 she was appointed as the Henry Francis duPont Chair of Fine Arts. She is a Fellow in the AIC and the International Institute for Conservation, and received the 2008 AIC University Products Award for distinguished achievement in the conservation of cultural property and the Caroline and Sheldon Keck Award for Teaching Excellence.
Ellen Pearlstein is one of the founding faculty and is associate professor at the UCLA/Getty Master’s Program in Archaeological and Ethnographic Conservation, which accepted its first students in 2005. Beforehand, Ellen spent 22 years as a conservator at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in New York City, and she taught classes at the Conservation Center of the IFA. Ellen teaches classes in organic materials conservation, conservation and ethnography, and preventive strategies at UCLA/Getty. Her research focuses on tribal museums and values for cultural preservation; effects of environmental agents on ethnographic and natural history materials (including understanding and preventing light damage in feather work); reinstating context for museum materials found ex situ; and curriculum development within conservation education.

 
We are looking forward to learning from this amazing group of conservation educators on Wednesday!  If you miss the webinar, it will be posted afterwards on the AIC YouTube channel.  Keep an eye out for an announcement when the link becomes available.

42nd Annual Meeting, Collection Care Session, May 29, 2014, “The Future of Risk Assessment: Developing Tools for Collections Care Professionals” by Beth Nunan

Beth Nunan of the American Museum of Natural History described an almost 10-year approach to gather data across the many departments of the museum, using the cultural property risk assessment model (modified for AMNH). No one wants their risk assessment survey to sit on a shelf, and one thing is for certain: if the data cannot be compared across collections, the data will stay unused and uninterpreted. Even if the data is used, it can be called into question if the tools that captured and analyzed the information are perceived as biased.
Here are some of the takeaways from the AMNH approach:
1) The more complex the collection program at a museum, the more difficult it is to comprehensively apply and manage a risk assessment project. At the American Museum of Natural History there are millions of specimens ranging from vertebrates to botanical specimens and including libraries and archives.
2) There is a trend that AMNH is following about being able to compare risk assessment data with other like museums. Sharing risk assessment data and finding benchmarks across the museum field is becoming important; so risk assessment surveys should consider what will be the common data points shared with other museums, and what the definitions of those data points are.
3) Once tools are developed they should be shared with other professionals to amplify the use of the tools at other institutions. Groups like Collection Care Network and others are seeking to standardize templates and tools in order to facilitate comparison.
4) Partners are crucial to the success of risk assessments. Partners are frequently allied professionals, such as curators, librarians and archivists.
It’s clear that AMNH has many challenges in developing the tools it has used for risk assessment, but I expect we will hear much more from the conservators there as they promote their tools and lead other natural history museums towards this smart way of evaluating risks.

42 Annual Meeting-Joint Session: Paintings and Wooden Artifacts, May 31st, "Modern Materials and Practice in Gilding Conservation", Hubert Baija

Hubert Baija, Senior Conservator of Frames and Gilding, has been responsible for overseeing the conservation of the frame collection at the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam since 1990. Numbering over 7000 frames that are now accessioned and inventoried as works of art in their own right, Baija has had the opportunity to treat frames of different styles and condition issues. During his presentation, he discussed three treatments. He emphasized the need for close study and observation of the original materials, understanding the appearance and intended effect created by the frames in their original lighting situations, and choosing reversible materials in a creative way. He noted that a treatment need not be overly involved to successfully reintegrate the gilding.
His first case study was the treatment of a Louis XVI oval frame (1777-89) that was original to the portrait it framed. The discussion addressed the past practice of covering worn gilding with bronze paint, that later had been retoned with a dark glue/pigment layer to match the discolored bronze. These layers significantly altered the intended appearance of the frame, by negating the play of dark, light, and reflectance across the complex surface. Baija demonstrated that by removing the glue and bronze paint layers (using simple solvent mixtures), only a minimal amount of inpainting was necessary to reintegrate the gilded surface. While the improvement to the frame was impressive, the appearance of the painting when displayed in the frame was also significantly improved by the intervention.
Baija’s second example demonstrated his skill as an artisan, his keen observation, and his determined investigation of a little know technique that had previously been overlooked. He stylistically identified a pair of auricular frames carved from lindenwood to c.1660-1665. Both frames had significant worm damage, had lost smaller portions of carved decoration, and were overpainted and overgilded. Only small areas of the original gilding remained intact–between 5 and 30%.
The original gilding was done using a type of mordant gilding that is not known from historical texts and has not been identified before. Using SEM-EDX imaging of cross sections, the technique was characterized: the bare wood was prepared for gilding using a thick glue layer (1 mm Th), followed by a pigmented emulsion layer, to which the gilding was applied.
Noting that the tradition of gilding in the Netherlands had been lost since the 1580s, and that more traditional (and stable) gilding techniques would not be reintroduced to the Netherlands until later in the 17th century by French Huguenots, Baija surmised that this unusual technique was in use—only in the Netherlands–for a relatively short period of time. After his initial characterization of the technique on these frames, he has since identified other examples on Dutch frames and furniture that are stylistically dated to 1650-1680. Because the technique was inherently unstable given the response of the thick glue layer to changes in humidity, many pieces gilded using this technique have subsequently been overgilded.
After cleaning the frames of non-original layers, the carved losses to the wood were reconstructed using paper mâché /methyl cellulose mixture, mixed with water. The material can be handled like clay to buildup the appropriate forms. The paper mâché shrinks slightly, allowing for application of Modostuc finishing layer. Because an isolating layer of Paraloid B-72 had been applied to the original wood surface, the paper mâché fill remains easily reversible. Shallower losses were also filled with Modostuc.
Most creative was Baija’s approach to inpainting to create the illusion of distressed gilding. Noting that the original thick glue layer would only be very slowly soluble in water, gouache was chosen to provide a brown base tone over areas of lost gilding and structural reconstruction. Islands of worn gilding were recreated using mica pigments mixed with Schminke watercolors, masterfully creating the illusion of a worn gilded surface. Final toning was done using ethanol soluble dyes in Mowilith 20. Toning could also be done using Gamblin Conservation Colors, PVA, etc. Coincidently, the dating of the frames was confirmed and the paintings and frames temporarily reunited, when an early 20thC. photograph of the frames paired with their original paintings was identified. The paintings are signed and dated 1661.
In his final example, Baija described an approach to reintegrating an area of loss in the gilding on a panel painting by Lorenzo Monaco, Stigmata of St Francis, c.1420. The area of damage was on a stepped join that was filled using Modostuc and prepared for gilding with acrylic bole from the Kolner system. Baija emphasized the importance of selecting a gold that was the correct color, but lighter in tone than the final appearance needed. He noted that any toning layers/coatings would take away from the intended appearance of the gilding—imitation of solid gold. By simply inscribing the cracks in the newly gilded loss, using horizontal lines to disrupt the vertical disruption of the loss, the gilding was effectively knocked back to the correct tone. Minor glazes to create the effect of dirt in the cracks were then applied.
Each of these treatments demonstrated issues that are common to conservation of gilded objects. Gilded surfaces are often overgilded or painted with bronze paint to recreate the impression of gold. Alternatively, gilded surfaces tend to be toned dark, either to reintegrate corroded bronze paint or to tone back gold that may seem too garish or is disrupted in other ways.
Baija’s approach is one that brings back the appreciation of frames as works of art, rather than as just accessories to paintings. It emphasizes the need to understand the original and aged appearance of the gilding, and to recover what is left of the original. His approach is one that acknowledges the frames—like objects and paintings–should be treated in reversible ways, using conservation materials distinguishable from the original materials. It thereby breaks from the traditional approach of regilding frames using traditional materials and techniques. He encourages the exploration of new materials, the use of reversible layering systems, and acknowledging the patina of time and use. An overall theme of the talk was one of reintegrating the gilding only to the level of the best-preserved area of original gilding.
For those interested in furthering their understanding of gilding and approaches to gilding restoration, Baija teaches two workshops at the Campbell Center in Mt Carroll, Illinois. “Traditional Gilding” and “Gilding Restoration” combine lecture and practical work in the studio. I attended both workshops over the last two summers, and as a result have improved my treatment approach for gilded frames. I highly recommend them.

So that’s how laser cleaning works

In his July 10, 2014 New York Times article,“Nearly 3,500 Years Old, an Egyptian Monument Gets a Laser Cleaning”, about the cleaning of “Cleopatra’s Needle” (the Egyptian obelisk that stands in Central Park behind the Metropolitan Museum of Art), David W. Dunlap provides a very clear, concise explanation of how laser cleaning works. Anyone needing to explain laser cleaning to a lay person might well appropriate this –with credit to Dunlap, of course.

It is like deja vu all over again

According to recent articles in The Wall Street Journal (“Iraq Conflict Menaces Heritage Sites”, by Matt Bradley, June 28-29, 2014 and “Creating New Monuments Men”, by Melik Kaylan, July 3, 2014), Iraq’s museums and monuments are once again in danger of destruction. This time it is by insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) who have issued a decree saying that any and all sites and objects that veer from the dictates of Islamic law are to be destroyed. It was just eleven years ago in 2003 that Iraq’s cultural heritage was imperilled during the U.S. led invasion. Unfortunately, to quote Yogi Berra, “it is like deja vu all over again”.

Should conservation and politics mix?

The five Caryatid statues in the Acropolis Museum (Athens) have been cleaned of centuries of pollution in a three and a half year conservation treatment program utilizing lasers and are now on display in time for the fifth anniversary of the museum’s opening. Liz Alderman noted in an article in the July 8, 2014 issue of The New York Times (“Acropolis Maidens Glow Anew”) that the cleaning and display are being used to press Greece’s case for the return of the sixth Caryatid and the other Parthenon treasures in the British Museum as they show that Greece is capable of properly caring for the pieces. Whatever side we are on in terms of the ownership of these works, what are our feelings when conservation becomes a tool of politics?

Does it make sense to do cosmetic treatments when the foundation is crumbling?

The Naumburg Bandshell in Central Park, built in 1923 and the site of free outdoor concerts is in desperate condition. According to an article by Kia Gregory in the June 25, 2014 issue of The New York Times (“Gold Touches Up Sullied Band Shell in Central park”), cosmetic cleaning and regilding were recently completed in time for the summer 2014 concert series. While the cosmetic treatment cost $15,000 and a full structural conservation treatment would cost $5 million, does it make sense to spend money to make the surface look nice when the structure beneath is crumbling?

Putting conservation front and center

In her Wall Street Journal article about the preparation of objects for display in the National September 11 Memorial & Museum (“Restoring the Ruins”, June 25, 2014), Lee Rosenbaum focuses on conservators Steven Weintraub and John Childs and how they dealt with their mandate to preserve the objects that were destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center while maintaining the integrity of the destruction. It is good to see an article about a museum in the general press that puts the work of its conservators front and center.

In search of lost voices

The May 19, 2014 issue of The New Yorker contains a fascinating long article by Alec Wilkinson, titled “Annals of Sound: A Voice from the Past”, which describes in layman’s terms the optical metrology techniques that Carl Haber, an experimental physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory developed to “play” century and a half old wax cylinder recordings. This story of the search for lost voices is a model of writing for the general public. If conservators partnered with professional writers, would we be more successful in getting our message to the public?