Author: Amy Brost

44th Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Group Session, May 15, "Matters in Media Art III: Sustaining Digital Video Art" by Martina Haidvogl and Peter Oleksik

This talk announced the completion of the latest phase of the Matters in Media Art project focusing on digital preservation and assessment of digital video, and marked the official re-launch of the project’s website, mattersinmediaart.org. The website is the product of a collaborative effort over many years by teams of staff members from Tate, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the New Art Trust. In this talk, Peter Oleksik and Martina Haidvogl, media conservators at MoMA and SFMOMA respectively, provided a background and history of the Matters in Media Art project and walked the audience through the new website.

The New Art Trust was founded in 1997 by Pamela and Richard Kramlich, pioneering collectors of media art. In 2003 they approached the three museums with some funds to gather the four institutions together to discuss emerging practices in the care of media art, and the “Matters in Media Art” project was born. The first phase focused on lending and was launched in 2005. The second phase launched in 2008 and focused on acquisitions, and the third phase began in 2011. The scope of the third phase was originally going to be sustaining digital art; however, this proved too broad, as it could have included all digital art (software-based art, web-based/net art, graphics, and more). The effort was instead fine-tuned to focus on digital preservation and assessment of digital video. The speakers explained that the length of the third phase exceeded the other two not only because the original scope was too broad, but because the field was evolving so rapidly that material they were creating ended up in a constant state of revision. To address this, the group made two decisions: first, to launch a new website encompassing all phases of the project at this AIC Annual Meeting (to provide a much-needed deadline), and second, to create a dynamic resource that could evolve with ongoing input from the wider conservation community. They felt that the project should be a resource for multiple audiences and provide a framework for ongoing collaboration, rather than represent a single perspective and a static endpoint.

The new Matters in Media Art website is hosted on Github, situating the content in an open-source environment where anyone can make suggestions for revisions and additions. The group felt that moving away from closed platforms and static white papers would enable these resources to stay current despite the dynamic pace of change in the field generally. The text of the website was written by teams at the partner institutions and collaboratively edited during bi-weekly virtual meetings. The design team created mock-ups and design tests, coordinated user trials, and solicited and consolidated pre-launch feedback from users within and outside the conservation community. All the work on the third phase was done as a volunteer staff effort with no grant or other project-specific funding.

The speakers then walked the audience through the site in real time. They explained that materials from the first two phases required only minimal updates. The teams worked to ensure there is no outdated information from the first two phases on the site. The new “Documentation” section includes cataloging, condition reports, and assessing digital video. The new section on “Sustaining Digital Art” describes how to store digital works successfully. This section is framed by a survey as a first step that guides the reader through the rest of the section, enabling the reader to develop a plan specific to their needs.

The new material speaks to all audiences: individual, collector, and institution. Some in the audience remarked that this made the recommendations less focused and the site text-heavy. The speakers agreed that it was ambitious and emphasized that the teams want, invite, and need feedback to make refinements and speak to multiple audiences even more effectively.

Contribution guidelines were recently finalized on the website and include ways for users to provide feedback via Github or in a simple online survey. The speakers urged the audience to visit the site and provide their opinions. The project was also announced with a flyer provided to all conference attendees, to encourage anyone dealing with media conservation at their institution to consult this valuable new resource.

44th Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Group Session, May 15, "Videotape Deterioration Mechanisms and Conservation Remedies: A Primer" by Erik Piil

Erik’s talk provided a survey of deterioration mechanisms and the evolution of corresponding treatment literature, as well as some novel approaches to condition assessment and treatment.

He opened with a discussion of “sticky shed” syndrome, in which a hydrolysis reaction in an environment with high RH causes the binder layer on magnetic tape to become unstable. During playback, this softened binder leaves a residue on the playback heads, which can damage the tape and clog the heads. While waveform monitors and vectorscopes can’t help diagnose this condition, a less common scope, tracking RF (the unmodulated RF signal put into waveform) can give a kind of “EKG” of the video signal. Erik showed normal vs. abnormal RF envelopes — the abnormal one indicates head-clogging due to sticky shed. This causes loss of signal and eventually complete loss of image. RF monitoring can help differentiate between sticky shed and other issues, such as a transfer done with an overstretched tape, poor head alignment, and deterioration due to tape wear. For instance, abrasive wear (such as that caused by a particulate scraped down the tape) can cause a ripple in the RF but looks very different on the scope from the abnormal RF envelope caused by sticky shed.

Erik also described the damage that could be caused by abrasive wear. He described various surface cleaning methods that can be employed to remove particles that could cause abrasive damage during playback. These include cleaning open-reel videotape by wrapping dusting paper around the playback heads; however, some tapes have a carbon black back-coating that is susceptible to sticky shed, so it is important to verify that neither the magnetic binder nor the back coating are compromised before cleaning. Other cleaning methods have included using isopropyl alcohol to clean the tape during playback, and using Pellon on both the oxide layer and carbon black back-coating to trap loose oxide particles, along with a vacuum to draw those particles away. Surface cleaning machines integrating these methods can be purchased off-the-shelf (such as Bow Systems 432 open-reel videotape cleaner for enterprise-level use). Alternatively, Erik showed a prototype for a cleaning machine that he is presently testing with Video Data Bank (VDB). It uses open-source circuitry (Arduino-based), approximately $1,200 in parts, and custom spindles. The design is available on GitHub: epiil open-cleaner.

Erik discussed the history of thinking on the baking of tapes exhibiting sticky shed. While this may temporarily restore binder integrity to enable transfer of the content, it does not cure the condition, and is controversial. Some maintain that baking damages the behavior of oxide particles, as well as the mechanical behavior of the pack, while others see it as necessary in order to rescue content from deteriorating sources.

In terms of condition assessment, several research projects are underway to advance scientific understanding of deterioration mechanisms. Among these is the University of South Carolina’s development of a non-invasive test for sticky shed using ATR-FTIR. Not only does this kind of scientific research enable the field to develop best practices based on data rather than anecdotal evidence, it also gives practitioners much-needed tools for non-invasive condition assessment. Presently, condition assessment is largely accomplished through observation of playback, which can cause damage before vulnerability can be ascertained.

Throughout the presentation, Erik shared resources to consult that show the evolution of approaches to condition assessment and treatment of magnetic tapes:

  • Bharat Bhutan, “Mechanics and Reliability of Flexible Magnetic Media” Springer; 2nd edition (May 31, 2000)
  • Walter Forsberg & Erik Piil, “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out: Section 108(c) and Evaluating Deterioration in Commercially Produced VHS Collections” Annual Review of Cultural Heritage Informatics 2012-2013, Facet Publishing (July 2014)
  • Tony Conrad, “Open Reel Videotape Restoration” The Independent, AIVF, Volume 10, Issue 8, Number 8 (1987) – describes what was a pioneering treatment at the time for sticky shed
  • Charles Richardson, “The New “Non-Baking” Cure for Sticky Shed Tapes” ARSC Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Fall 2013) – makes a case against baking; advocates for adoption of the cleaning machine developed by the author

Erik invited the audience to visit GitHub to follow the progress of his affordable, open-source open-reel videotape cleaner, and to contribute or comment. This is an exciting project that will make a quality cleaning machine feasible for institutions on limited budgets. The novel use of the tracking RF scope and the look at historic as well as contemporary treatment literature for videotape conservation were two other highlights of this talk.

PMG Winter Meeting – "New Photo Histories in West Africa" by Erin Haney, Feb. 21

This was the final session of the 2015 PMG Winter Meeting.  Speaker Erin Haney is an art historian and co-founder/co-director of Resolution, which hosted the 2014 “3PA” workshop in Benin. During the Q&A afterward, one conservator remarked that her talk “reminds us why we do what we do.” That couldn’t be more true. She provided an exciting glimpse of family and private photograph collections in West Africa that have not been widely seen nor studied. The stewards of important West African photography collections have recently started to come together to explore strategies for their preservation as well as raising their visibility worldwide.
She began by saying that West Africa has valuable historic photographs that won’t come up on Google searches. The reason is simply that these photographs tend to be dispersed widely in private and family collections. There are very few cultural institutions, archives and museums that have enjoyed stability from the colonial era to the present day. Some institutions have lost all or part of their photographic collections in times of political upheaval. Instead, it is primarily families and private owners who have safeguarded that region’s photographic heritage.
Haney showed just a few examples that reflect the diversity of images that can be found in these collections. These include photographs made during the colonial period, the images made by the great, early studios (often now in family collections of their descendants), domestic portraits, group portraits, and events of social and political importance. There are images of the social elite and the wealthy, showing a materially rich and cosmopolitan West Africa that is seldom seen, and a history that is seldom taught. She showed a daguerreotype by Augustus Washington, who went to Liberia from the US and made daguerreotypes in cities all along the West African coast. There were photographs made by the Lutterodt family, which established a far-reaching network of family photography studios that operated from the 1870’s to the 1940’s. There were British colonial scenes, portraits by early French-run studios, portraits of West African women and their Bordeaux trader husbands, and debut portraits–young women dressed in the finest cloth, showing their readiness for marriage. More recent images included Gold Coast soldiers, independence movements, city skylines and infrastructure, and prominent political figures. These are but a few of the many treasures in these collections, spanning the 19th and 20th centuries. There is an extraordinary variety of subjects and photographic traditions.
She showed how photographs were made and remade in order to improve them and preserve them. Some photographs took on new meaning as memorial objects when the sitter passed away. These could be marked with crosses, mounted, and/or captioned by loved ones. Other photographs that had condition issues over time might be heavily overpainted to refresh them. In one case, a painting of a Dutch ancestor was remade by photographing it, in order to present it alongside a group of other family portrait photographs. The original image was not sacred. To study these collections, one has to understand how the images functioned when they were made and how they continue to function. Theirs is an iterative practice of artistry, which must inform preservation and conservation decision-making.
Of grave concern today is that these collections are at risk when the custodians feel they must sell or dispose of them to reclaim the valuable space they occupy in a private home, or generate much-needed income. Resolution communicates the importance of photographic cultural heritage to people in West Africa and around the world. The Benin workshop provided participants with the skills to document and manage their collections, while networking with others in the region working toward the same goals. The workshop involved nine countries in Francophone West Africa and is actively building partnerships and capacity to make a case for the ongoing support of photographic collections. There is a growing recognition of their critical importance for national identity, education and research. It was an inspiring end to this PMG Winter Meeting.

PMG Winter Meeting – "Cataloging Is Preservation: An Emerging Consideration in Photograph Conservation Programs" by Robert Burton, Feb. 20

“Cataloging Is Preservation: An Emerging Consideration in Photograph Conservation Programs” was the first talk of the Biannual PMG Winter Meeting in Cambridge, MA, February 20-21, 2015.  Speaker Robert Burton began with a quote from his mentor Sally Buchanan, who stated, “Cataloging is preservation.” Burton went on to show how that is no overstatement. In a sense, the goal of all conservation is to preserve materials to enable continued access to them, and there is a direct relationship between cataloging and access. Descriptive records in prescribed formats, organized under controlled headings, make photographs discoverable. This in turn sparks research interest, helps institutions identify preservation priorities, and even helps them organize storage more efficiently. Burton showed that cataloging is the foundation of a comprehensive view of collections management and preventive conservation.
A good record should answer the questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how? It gives an institution administrative and intellectual control over its photographic materials. Whereas books and other text-rich objects are more self-identifying, photographs require additional data to be contextualized, and collecting this data requires a cataloger with the appropriate training.  A cataloger might be the first person to go through a photograph collection, and that person should possess visual literacy, an understanding of photographic processes, an ability to carry out basic preventive measures such as rehousing, and be able to bring objects in need of special care to the attention of conservators. Because different institutions have diverse approaches (different databases, digital asset management systems, missions, and constituents), catalogers must understand and apply data value standards to bring some consistency to searches for terms such as artists’ names, geographic place names, and so on. (Burton mentioned the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the Name Authority File from the Library of Congress as examples.)
Recent advances in digital recordkeeping and digital imaging have reduced the administrative burden of cataloging and have also reduced the need for over-handling photographic materials, which can result in handling damage. There are new technologies on the horizon that will help with cataloging, such as automatic captioning of newly created images, or giving photographers a way to record voice annotations as additional metadata. Nevertheless, catalogers will need to find a way to enter this information so it can be searched.
Without knowing its holdings, instititions will not be able to adequately value or safeguard their materials, nor will they be able to care for them. Uncataloged items are essentially invisible: vulnerable to loss, their condition and value unknown.
Burton acknowledged that few library school programs provide students with the opportunity to study photographic materials specifically.  He urged this audience to view cataloging as a preventive conservation method on par with environmental monitoring, housings, and the like. He traced the development of this thinking to the 2002 Mellon survey at Harvard, which in turn became the model for the Weissman Preservation Center’s Photograph Conservation Program, and then FAIC’s Hermitage Photograph Conservation Initiative. These surveys show that, by coordinating conservation, cataloging, and digital imaging, photograph collections are more accessible and in better condition. This positive trend should continue as more institutions adopt Susan Buchanan’s mindset: “Cataloging is preservation.”

ECPN April Meeting Minutes

The April minutes were just approved today; this was our first meeting since the AIC annual meeting.  An overview of the ECPN Informational Meeting held in Albuquerque is also on the AIC blog here.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, April 16, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Amy Brost (Communications Coordinator)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Rebecca Rushfield (ETC)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Amber Harwood (CAC-ECC Liaison)

Genevieve Bieniosek (Student Liaison, ETC)

Robin O’Hern (CSCP)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

 

 

  1. Roll call — Molly took roll.
  2. Officer update – (Molly) Abby Aldrich decided that she will have to step down from her position as co-Professional Education and Training. Gwen will take over her responsibilities, and the committee is happy to welcome Gwen in her new role as co-Professional Education and Training.
  3. Minutes Approval (Molly) – March meeting minutes were approved.
  4. ANAGPIC (Molly, Megan) – Presentation and fliers were a great success.  Megan felt her presentation went well, and she was approached by a few people (including Jennifer Morton, and others) who wanted to become involved.  Joyce Hill-Stoner was interested in coordinating with the interview series to bring those interviews into the oral history project.  Amber will follow up with her.  Megan felt the presentation at ANAGPIC was a great way to share news of our initiatives (ECPN and ECC), which were well received and raised awareness.  Columbia, Penn, and UT-Austin were having architecture student events this month, and the ECPN flier was distributed.  Will follow up with Avigail to see how it was received.
  5. Network Guidelines (Molly) – CCN and ECPN are now designated networks, as opposed to specialty groups or committees.  New guidelines are being drafted by the Board to describe how the networks function.  As Stephanie indicated, it will not change how ECPN has operated.  ECPN was the first network, so when the Collections Care Network (CCN) approached the Board about becoming a network, the Board began to consider what makes the networks unique.  This is a positive development based on the success of ECPN.  Networks are wide-reaching groups meant to reach out to conservators in all specialties, and have a broader scope, and fewer limitations versus specialty groups and committees.  AIC is working to put in writing how the networks function, to formalize the category, and this is why the current operations of ECPN will not be affected by the guidelines.
  6. AIC Annual Meeting Poster (Megan, Carrie, Amy) – Megan is producing the actual poster layout and the latest round is looking very strong.  Carrie polled the group about how to handle the companion blog post.  Feature each interview as a post?  Or condense into a question with multiple answers?  Amy suggested an “overview” blog post with links to the individual interview blog posts.  Carrie added that there could also be links there to getting started with social media and other tools.  Thanks to those who solicited content for the poster.  Molly and Amy volunteered to help with copy-editing the individual blog posts.  Amy’s flier will have two parts: highlights of the poster sections, and notes on how to get started with outreach initiatives.  Amy will have the poster produced at FedEx Office in Albuquerque and pick it up.  She will pay personally and submit a reimbursement form to AIC.  Ryan will send her the reimbursement form.  For the Poster Session (4-4:30 Thursday) Megan and Eliza are free to pitch in as needed, and Amy and Carrie are free to be at the poster, or tag-team.
  7. Portfolio Session (Carrie) – Have the location, a list of presenters, and several established conservators participating also.  Took names last year as people arrived in the room, so they could be polled later.  That was very valuable.  There was a mix of conservators at all levels last year, so it was an educational and networking opportunity for all levels.  Carrie felt that there should be a notebook and someone standing with it, to encourage people to ‘sign-in.’  Gwen volunteered to do ‘check-in’ as well as sit with her portfolio.   Molly offered to support Gwen at check-in, or Gwen could be a back-up to Molly.  Ryan suggested checking off names on the printed Attendee List, which requires less information to be collected.  Email addresses can be married to the checked-off names later on. All agreed this was the best check-in approach.  Anisha will post the location to the Facebook event and send a reminder a week in advance.
  8. Informational Meeting (Molly) – Have a chance to introduce people, to put faces with names.  Have a sign-in sheet to collect information.  Provide an overview of activities going on at the meeting, and ongoing projects, and opening the floor for discussion/feedback.  Last year was run much like a monthly call – each officer spoke about their initiatives.  The Chair, Rose Cull, did an introduction.  Very popular session last year – ran out of chairs.  Provide copies of the ECPN flier as a handout?  Print an agenda?  Ryan remembered that there was no printed agenda last year.  It was thought it would be a committee business meeting, but the officers kept it more general when the large turnout was observed.  Eliza felt that feedback was critical and asked about last year’s session.  Amy recalled the post-meeting survey generated the most feedback, rather than the Q&A at the informational session.  Perhaps a written survey to have in the room?  Or break out into smaller groups?  It will help that the Happy Hour is right afterward.  Molly asked Anisha to update the Facebook event with room location and post a reminder a week in advance.  Ryan will email the room name to Anisha.
  9. Happy Hour (Megan, Anisha) – Will be held at Marble Brewery, a short distance from the Hyatt, from 6-10 pm, immediately following the informational meeting.  Have a reservation and the group is expected to be 20+ people.  Molly suggested a confirmation a week in advance.  Anisha will follow up with the restaurant. Molly asked Anisha to update the Facebook event with room location and post a reminder a week in advance.
  10. Angels Project (Molly) – Sandoval County Historical Society Angels Project is also on Tuesday (8:30 – 2 pm or 4 pm) with provided transportation.  There are still openings – contact Molly or visit the website to sign up.  Will not conflict with the informational meeting for ECPN, if anyone is interested in attending both.
  11. Liaison Updates
    1. There will be an upcoming article in AIC News on Sustainable Practices.
    2. Emergency Committee is sponsoring a workshop on Tuesday, 9 am to noon, and it will be a Disaster Response Workshop (CERT member – free; otherwise $79).  Experts from FEMA on hand, and others.  Posted on the website and circulated on the ECPN website.
    3. Objects Group will not be having a meeting with archaeological materials this year.
    4. CCN is still looking for volunteers for notetakers on May 9 ‘Outreach to Allies’ session.  Molly will pass along any volunteer names to Joelle Wickens, CCN Chair.
    5. WAG is adding a new advisory committee (if approved) and will include an emerging conservator, to broaden officer structure and provide a mentoring opportunity.  Focus on wooden artifacts preferred (panel paintings, furniture, etc. – as long as primary membership is in WAG).  To suggest someone, contact Molly.
  12. Forum Calls (Molly) – Updates to come.  Check Writeboards on Basecamp for more information on how topic selection and technology selection are developing.
  13. Mentoring Program (Eliza) – Finished reviewing applicants and matched 13 of 20 applicants.  Ryan will reach out to them this week.  Reached out to all specialty groups to ask for assistance to promote a call for mentors for the remaining 7 applicants.  The goal is to match all 20 applicants by the annual meeting, so they can connect with their new mentors at the meeting.  Mentoring program Toolkit is nearly complete, and a protocol based on the recent process will make the next cycle run smoothly.
  14. Student Research Platform (Carrie) – New term “platform” instead of “database.”  Will work with Eliza to look at the range of platforms that have been considered (AATA, AIC website, CoOL), and keep working on new, revised proposal.  Sections in development include description, target audiences, features (searchability, etc), maintenance needs, cost estimate, etc.  Carrie will work with all in the working group, and with Gwen, to develop the proposal.  No deadline for the proposal yet, from Eryl, but Molly suggested we set a date for sometime after the AIC annual meeting, perhaps the end of May.  Need to check in with Eryl to see if that is a good timeframe.  Want to keep the momentum going.
  15. PR Toolkit (Molly) – Working on the Wiki to develop content for the toolkit.  Some of the discussion section has working sections, which will be migrated to the main page before the annual meeting.  There will be a flier to announce the project in the conference bag (Ryan is working on this), and the project will be discussed with the membership at the annual meeting on Friday, from 4-5 pm, at the “Next steps” session, to describe the project and also to solicit content.
  16. ECC (Amber) – Thanks to everyone for collaborating on the flier and session at ANAGPIC.  ECC looks forward to future collaborations.  ECPN (Molly) extended our thanks to ECC for all their efforts as well.  CAC has a monthly conference call, but ECC does not.  Molly indicated that someone from ECPN could participate in ECC calls, when they begin.  More collaboration and cross-linking could be done via Facebook and the blogs.
  17. Next Call (Molly) – Molly suggested skipping the May call since the officers will meet at the Annual Meeting.  The next call would be June 18.

 

Next call: June 18, 2012 at 1pm ET

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Amy Brost

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 11, “The Photograph Information Record” by Erin Murphy and Nora Kennedy

At last month’s AIC meeting, I had the pleasure of attending several of the PMG sessions, including this one on the Photograph Information Record, or “PIR” for short.  The form was introduced in 2009 following several years of collaboration between the Photographic Materials Research Group, photograph conservators, and colleagues in conservation science, collections management, and curatorial.  The goal was to create an international standard for an artist’s questionnaire, to collect essential information to aid in preservation efforts. The result was a concise, two-page form.  A completed PIR covers the history and context of creation, ownership, exhibition, conservation, and publication of a photograph, and provides information about the tools and processes of image creation, printing, and finishing.  It asks artists to discuss what aspects of the work they consider integral, and gives them an opportunity to provide a statement about the creation and preservation of the work.

In this session Erin Murphy, photograph conservator at the New York Public Library, reviewed the history of the PIR and discussed its present stage of development.  Many institutions around the world have formally adopted the PIR, and now plans are underway to collect feedback from users in order to develop the next generation – a new and improved form.

French, Spanish, and Japanese versions are available, with more translations in the works.  For some committees working on translations, it poses a real challenge to agree on terminology or create terms in the language that didn’t exist before.  Some mentioned that those discussions may be suitable for the wiki, and for the glossary project.

Future goals include expanding the visibility and availability of the PIR on the web.  Right now, the form is available in several languages as a free download on the AIC website at www.conservation-us.org/PIR.  ICOM-CC-PM members can access it on the ICOM-CC website.  The form can also be found on a few other sites, such as a gallery or library here and there. A secondary PR campaign will also help raise awareness and encourage more institutions, galleries, and photographers themselves to adopt this valuable tool.  Some attendees suggested potential audiences, including photography curators, and the registrars’ groups of AAM and ICOM.

Another goal is to see if improvements can be made to the PDF format.  Form fields in the PDF make it easy to complete the form, but the information is not easy to import into museum databases.  The PIR’s creators would also like to see access to the PIR expand within institutions to reach more departments and researchers.

It’ll be exciting to see the new directions that the PIR form takes in the coming months.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – ECPN Informational Meeting, May 8

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) Informational Meeting provided both a great introduction to ECPN and updates on the group’s activities.  Attendees broke out into small discussion groups for second half of the meeting, with ECPN officers facilitating discussions on current initiatives and encouraging feedback and ideas.

At the start of the meeting, the officers whose terms ended over the past year were recognized (Rose Cull, Heather Brown, Amber Kerr-Allison, and Amy Brost).  Two new officers were announced – Gwen Manthey, new Professional Education and Training co-officer and Angela Curmi, new Communications Coordinator.  There are also liaisons in ECPN that work with other AIC committees, geographical regions, and with Canadian emerging conservators (CAC-ECC), and they were introduced.  The officers then gave an update on the key initiatives underway in ECPN: the Mentoring Program, student research platform, outreach through the blog, Facebook, and proposed Forum Calls, and the new PR Toolkit on the AIC wiki.

Then, the attendees broke out into small groups to discuss their thoughts about ECPN’s current programs, and what topics and initiatives are of greatest interest to them.  Here are a few ideas that had broad support at the meeting:

  • Create a quarterly email newsletter (most said that email was the best way to reach them, rather than the blog or Facebook page)
  • Make it clearer how to sign up to be on the ECPN email list
  • Provide more opportunities for ECPN to work on the wiki, perhaps by helping to make content more media-rich (add images, etc)
  • Make the AIC website more user-friendly, and send ideas to the AIC website task force
  • Broad support for the student research platform, and interest in contributing content.  Everyone really liked the idea of a student research platform which could function as a central location for finding all student research. Many were comfortable with the idea of submitting and seeking out either abstracts or full-length papers. If abstract form was selected, including the author’s contact information so the researcher could potentially ask them for more information was preferred.
  • Would like to see ECPN help with centralizing conservation education programs, employment opportunities, internship and fellowship announcements, and help with identifying potential funding sources for post-graduate internships
  • Help identifying possible internship and fellowship opportunities in private practices
  • Increase professional development opportunities, ie, distance (web-based) learning, short-term internships, etc.
  • Consider the needs of international pre-program interns and students, perhaps with online resources for them
  • Interest in a LinkedIn group for ECPN
  • Enthusiastic about the new Forum Calls to begin in 2012

The next regular ECPN meeting will take place via conference call on Monday, June 18 at 1 pm ET.  For more information, visit the ECPN page on the AIC website.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – AIC Wiki Meeting, May 9

The AIC Wiki meeting provided active wiki Creators with the chance to connect faces with the names they’ve seen contributing over the past year, and everyone introduced themselves to the group. AIC’s e-Editor Rachael Perkins Arenstein noted that roughly half of those present were new to the wiki, and at the meeting to learn how to get involved.  She began by providing a brief background on the history of the wiki.

 

SG’s and the “Wiki Edit-a-thon”

There was an update on each specialty group’s use of the wiki.  The specialty groups shared their strategies for building participation in January’s “Wiki Edit-a-thon.”  The event was a great success, as Rachael described in the March 2012 issue of AIC News.  There were 137,000 hits to the wiki during the month, 59 new articles were added, and over 100 supplemental pages.  PMG had surveyed members and then set up two categories to populate during the event.  One day per week was scheduled as a “write-in” day, when members knew they could email each other to confer as they posted their content.  The Book Group in BPG set up a sample page for Creators to refer to, and it jump-started the creation of other pages.  EMG set up an outline and template, and then scheduled a single “write-in” day for everyone to join in.  Some groups, such as WAG, ASG, and the Paper Group in BPG, used the event as an impetus to identify people to spearhead their SG’s nascent wiki efforts.  OSG expanded their template, nearly doubled their number of Creators, and expanded content on a variety of topics, as well as adding new ones.  CIPP and TSG both realized that their Listservs had threads that would make great pages, so that will be a next step.

 

New Developments

The wiki software is outdated, and plans to update it are in development so that video can be embedded and the citation tool can be improved.  The wiki home page was reorganized, and there is significant interest in translating some of the wiki pages.  The first request came for a Russian translation of some of the content.  The translation will also be available on the AIC Wiki.  There’s interest in a Spanish translation of the Paper catalog.  A section on “The History of Conservation and Conservators” is in development and will include interviews from the FAIC Oral History Project.  Quality control and peer review were discussed, and what processes might be set in place across SG’s.  A working group is in formation to propose a series of headers (such as the “Draft” header currently in use) that would designate the stage of peer review for each page.  Contact Rachael (Rachael [at] amartconservation __ com) to join the group.

 

 

Getting Involved

An online tutorial is available for those interested in learning how to post content, and Rachael encouraged potential wiki Creators to get in touch with her to get added to the wiki email list.  The goal is to make the wiki a go-to resource for professional content for conservators, by conservators. One important note is that no one forfeits their rights to content they post on the wiki (the copyright agreement is what is used for post prints).  Members should feel that publishing on the wiki is a respected and valuable contribution to the field.

 

A key message of this session was this: your ongoing efforts to expand the wiki, whatever your time permits, are valued and appreciated!

 

To stay informed of updates on the wiki, visit the AIC wiki at www.conservation-wiki.com and scroll down to the Getting Started section.

 

ECPN March Meeting Minutes

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, March 19, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Amy Brost (Communications Coordinator)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Sarah Barack (Co-Chair, K-12 Outreach Group and ETC)

Rebecca Rushfield (ETC)

Emily Williams (Chair, Education and Training)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Amber Harwood (CAC-ECC Liaison)

Genevieve Bieniosek (Student Liaison, ETC)

Eryl Wentworth (Executive Director, AIC)

Morgan Gilpatrick (Communications Director, AIC)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG liaison)

Avigail Charnov (ASG)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

 

 

  1. Roll call — Molly took roll.
  2. Minutes Approval (Molly) — February meeting minutes were approved.
  3. CoOL Discussion (Eryl) – Steady work on CoOL since taking over in 2009.  Worked with stakeholders to reimagine what CoOL could become.  Discussions with web developers resulted in three solid proposals.  One was selected, Happy Cog, that are leaders in web design and development, also in education.  Used to working with large-content sites.  Now looking at how to fund CoOL over the long term – from planning and implementation to sustainability over time.  Do not want to repeat the Stanford situation.  Initial planning grant will come with assurances that there are funds to carry through implementation to sustainability.  Mellon Foundation, and NEH Challenge Grant, a 3:1 match, and go out to additional funders.  This is part of a series of phone calls to talk to stakeholders, like ECPN members (students, emerging conservators), about their use of CoOL.  What is useful to us about it?  How could it be used in the future – how could it be enhanced?  Think in terms of CoOL and the DistList.

A. Q & A – Do we use it?

  • Molly uses the DistList regularly, but not CoOL, because she already knows the resources she’s looking for.  Has bookmarks for key sites already.
  • Sarah uses it a lot, both resources, in her private practice.
  • Amber, a recent graduate from Queens program in Canada, often used CoOL as a resource and she looks at the DistList quite regularly.
  • Eliza has a similar experience to Molly.  She uses CoOL to help fill in the gaps after a visit perhaps to AATA first.
  • Morgan asked if we look for specific information on materials or treatment problems.  Carrie, an objects conservator, often goes to the objects distribution list.  She often turns to Google but then ultimately lands on a CoOL page.  So, indirectly, some research routes lead to CoOL.
  • Eryl mentioned that CoOL internationally might be used more than in the U.S., where conservation literature might be more difficult to access.  There is a large international audience for this site

B. What would make CoOL more useful, and make you use it more often?

  • Concern that the site is outdated and hard to navigate.  It could be more useful if less complicated.
  • Carrie mentioned that enhancing searchability would be helpful (like AATA).  Google makes it easier to search, and often, CoOL pages come up in results.
  • Eryl mentioned that one key goal is making the site more navigable, and searchable.  Keep it viable and up-to-date by having an international core group of editors or  “curators” who commit for a term of time to manage a specific area.  They will make sure that the area is up-to-date, with the key links, working links, etc. to make it a “go-to” resource.  There is a digital public library that’s being planned.  It’s at the task force stage right now, but it’s the type of thing that CoOL could be on, but may not be able to wait.  CoOL needs to be reinvigorated now.  The DistList is very active and vital now.

C. Do you know of similar resources anywhere that provide information that CoOL provides?  What resources could CoOL provide that would be useful?

  • Question about whether or not the Wiki dovetails with CoOL.  LeeAnn has been doing a lot of work on the Objects page of the Wiki.  Collaboratively created content, in a structure.  General as well as specific information.  That’s one example.  It also is not very searchable.  Eryl responded that there is not a clear line between AIC and FAIC.
  • Stephanie mentioned that CoOL is described as a platform, not a website.  The student research repository platform proposal could be weaved into CoOL on an international scale.  This does not exist anywhere right now.  Would make it a go-to research for students.  There may be other ways that CoOL could fill the need to unify, and connect, information and professionals in ways not available elsewhere.  Not possible to do that kind of thing with the Wiki.  AATA is not for student work.
  • Stephanie went on to say that, while everyone utilizes the DistList regularly, what can be done that’s new to draw people to CoOL?
  • Molly uses collections online, searchable, ID databases, like fiber ID.  Perhaps add that to CoOL.  Could be more of an information hub.
  • Carrie mentioned that CoOL occupies a unique place to redirect people to other locations.  Maybe not so much of a repository, but a pathway, for many different endpoints.  That would be very relevant and useful.  The resources may exist online, but CoOL could connect them.
  • If sites are not all collected in your bookmarks, you can’t access them easily when away from your own computer.
  • Grant programs end, and sites disappear.  Eryl imagines that CoOL could be a place for grant program website “orphans.”
  • Conservation newsletters that don’t have a home online could be added to CoOL.
  • Sarah mentioned that CoOL could be a repository for curriculum resources.
  • Perhaps include the bibliographies and learning tools from the FAIC workshops.
  • ECPN could forward links and content that they’re thinking of, to Eryl for reference.

 

D. Other websites, outside of conservation, to use as models?  Any that have the kind of tools and searchability that you think is a great way to manage a lot of content?  Just an example, or aspect of a site, that would be a good model.  (Such as medical sites, etc.)  Eryl will send some links of the things they’ve been looking at. ECPN will think about this and forward ideas.

 

E. Eryl felt the discussion was helpful.  She is pulling together materials to show potential funders, and show how CoOL is different from other sites and resources, and how it will fill a unique need.  Will require an endowment of at least $3,000,000.  As a well-funded, sustainable resource, CoOL will be a major initiative, but won’t take the focus off of other FAIC initiatives.

 

 

F. Carrie mentioned that the conversation about the student research repository will be ongoing, in light of the work planned for CoOL, and the survey results from the programs.  A proposal will be forthcoming.

 

G. Follow-up: Molly will post a document to Basecamp, and she will compile any responses received via email, to deliver to Eryl.

 

4. Annual Meeting

  • Flyer – Amy will post the revised flyer to Basecamp by the end of this week.  Ryan indicated that he can add the new liaisons to the officers page at www.conservation-us.org/ecpn.
  • Poster – Carrie has gotten 10 responses to the questionnaire.  Content so far is very diverse, and she has posted the content received to date on Basecamp and also has the JPEG images they provided.  Have responses on treatments in public galleries, another on outreach tools, lots of different outreach tools represented.  May be best to summarize the activities we received, and put the majority of the content on the blog.  There will be a future working group call.  Amy volunteered to design the poster, as she did last year, but is open to other volunteers if anyone else would like to have the experience.  Anyone wanting to help with the design phase can email Amy.  Carrie will try to put the images on Dropbox to share them with us.  Stephanie suggested a paper handout with the links that people can carry.  Amy can send the poster and handout for production and whoever is setting up the poster can bring both items.
  • Portfolio Session – Nine people so far, representation from all programs except Columbia and Penn.  Will have some (perhaps 4) more experienced conservators there to talk about what employers are looking for in portfolios.  BPG and ASG were contacted to present portfolios, but ASG has many conflicts this year, with many students giving papers.  Still will look for ways to bring in ASG.  Emily Alliz is giving a paper in the ASG session, and Carrie would like to see if she would participate in the portfolio session.  However, the presentation for ASG is different, because they produce a thesis and presentation instead of a portfolio.  Perhaps evolve the Portfolio Session into another format next year, because we want to engage as many students from as many programs as possible.  The Portfolio Session will be in a room, but Molly will email Ruth to ensure that the room can accommodate the 14 speakers, and Ryan mentioned an alternative could be the corner of the exhibit hall.
  • Happy Hour – Anisha said that the conference hotel bar requested confirmation of the event.  Anisha to connect with Molly and Ruth, to ensure that the space will work, upon Ruth’s return from Albuquerque.
  • Outreach for ECPN – At Columbia and Penn, Avigail will pass out the flyer, which will be ready for ANAGPIC.  Since many ASG students cannot attend AIC this year, maybe the information can help them prepare for next year.
  • Angels Project – Sites have been selected, and the dates will be Tuesday, the workshop day.  Usually the Angels Project is the Saturday after the meeting, so this was done to accommodate the sites.  An email went out from AIC about the Angels Project.

5. ANAGPIC – Eliza heard back from Michele Marincola, and ECPN and CAC-ECC will be able to do a 5-minute presentation and distribute a double-sided flyer.  She will let us know the due date for the flyer.  Megan will represent the group.

 

6. Communications officer vacancy – No applications received yet for that position.  Amy received an email inquiry.  The deadline is a few weeks away, so people may be waiting to apply.  If you can think of anyone, refer them to Amy or Molly for more information and the position description.  Molly will post a brief announcement on the DistList as a reminder.

 

7. PR Toolkit project – Wiki training session with Rachael Arenstein last week.  AIC Wiki page under Work Practices, and the Toolkit page is started, with the outline up.  It is called the “Public Relations and Outreach Toolkit.”  Will work on the Discussion area, to start.  Must have author privileges to contribute, which Rachael sets up.  Working on the outline and some of the content before Annual Meeting, and a flyer for the AIC Annual Meeting conference bag.  Would be nice to have something in each area by the Annual Meeting, so it looks like it’s really starting to be populated.  Perhaps post to the blog some of the contributions we’re looking for.  It’s evolving, and will be happening over time, but have enough in there to show people how valuable this resource will be.  Anyone interested in the project should reach out to Molly to learn more and participate.

 

 

Next call: April 16, 2012 at 1pm EST

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Amy Brost


 


ECPN February Meeting Minutes

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Abby Aldrich (co-Professional Education and Training)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff)

Robin O’Hern (CSCP)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG liaison)

Lauren Bradley (PSG liaison)

Emily Williams (Chair, Education and Training)

 

  1. Roll call — Eliza Spaulding took roll.
  2. Minutes Approval (Molly) — January meeting minutes were approved.
  3. Specialty Group and Committee Liaisons Reports (Molly) – Hoping to institute an update from the specialty group and committee liaisons on every other call. Anisha will take over Molly’s role of reaching out to the liaisons before every other call and soliciting updates. Liaisons also can submit updates to Anisha to report.
    1. LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG) – Would like to host a wiki meeting Tuesday evening of the annual meeting, hopefully after the ECPN meeting. Results of the wiki edit-a-thon last month: objects group reached all of their goals. They increased participation to over 50 people, updated entries, and more work is underway. 16 emerging conservators were involved in various aspects of the objects wiki edit-a-thon. If anyone else is interested, getting in touch with Rachael Perkins Arenstein continues to be the best way to become involved. Reaching out to your specialty group or a training program are other options. Perhaps ECPN could help facilitate these other modes of communication? Continue to think about incorporating the wiki into the mentoring program? June and July are possibilities for another edit-a-thon. Lee Ann needs to confirm this with Rachael. Stephanie asked LeeAnn if she would write up a blog post highlighting the contributions of emerging conservators in the edit-a-thon and encouraging other emerging conservators to become involved. LeeAnn will do this and agreed that the positive contributions of emerging conservators need to be highlighted.
    2. Robin O’Hern (CSCP) – CSCP working on three projects: wiki, organizing a lunch during the annual meeting on sustainable conservation practices, and sent a survey gauging how conservators use sustainable conservation practices in their work environments. Molly added that CSCP should feel free to use the ECPN Facebook page and blog to promote their events.
    3. Lauren Bradley (PSG) — PSG Reception Sponsor a Student Campaign: the goal is to have all students and emerging conservators attend the reception for free this year–those interested in attending should contact the AIC office directly. This is a new, unprecedented movement! Call for PSG Nominations is out: the call ends Friday (February 24). Anyone interested in pursuing a leadership role within the PSG, should contact Nicholas Dorman: nicholasd@seattleartmuseum.org. PSG is looking for contributions to the tips session: tips would include any interesting/new/innovative uses of materials/treatment techniques/etc. AIC PSG Business Meeting: Thursday, May 10 @ 7:30AM — complimentary breakfast, sponsored by Gamblin Paints. Would be a great way to learn more about the activities of the PSG group and about ways to become involved.
    4. Amanda Holden (TSG) (through Molly) – The TSG is going to start publishing their Postprints on the AIC website only (and no longer distribute CDs to the membership).  Next year they’ll also be looking for anyone who is interested in joining the Postprints editing team.  If anyone is interested they can contact Amanda and she can go into more detail about what they do and ideas that they have for the Postprints (AHolden@imamuseum.org)
    5. Lisa Nelson (Health and Safety) (through Molly) – remember Health and Safety is here as a resource. Please contact the committee with any questions. Respirator fit test during the annual meeting; those interested can sign up through registration.
    6. Molly – Still looking for liaisons for EMG, CIPP, ADG (archaeological discussion group), PMG, CCN (collections care network), and RATS.  Please email Molly if you have any suggestions for liaisons for these groups.
    7. Regional Liaisons Update (Megan and Anisha) – Have been working to recruit liaisons from different specialties from around the country. Writeboard on Basecamp of all of the liaisons. First conference call is: February 28, 2012 at 12:30pm EST. Goal of call is to discuss the purpose of gathering the regional liaisons and how they can host gatherings and reach out in general. Many are already affiliated with their regional groups, which should help with this. Molly suggested making this first call open to everyone so those who might be interested can learn a little more, too. Anisha agreed and will work to promote this. She also will confirm the conference call time and number with Ryan.
    8. PR Toolkit Project (Molly) – The AIC Board asked ECPN to create a toolkit for how conservators can promote themselves through a variety of media. Liz Schulte (Paper Conservator and former BPG Chair and AIC Board member), Abby, Megan, Amy, Ruth, Ryan, Stephanie, and Molly are working on this. They will start to develop content on the wiki, then migrate it to the AIC website. AIC would like some content by the annual meeting, but understand this will be an ongoing project. Rachael will lead a wiki training session on either March 9 or 16. An example of something they might create is a template for how to write a press release. Other issues they’re tackling are determining clear terminology for communication, and social media and internet protocols and ethics.
    9. ANAGPIC 2012 (Eliza) – Reached out to Michele Marincola at NYU in January about ECPN giving a brief presentation at the conference or submitting a flier. Michele replied saying the conference was packed, but would check with the other program directors to see if they could squeeze in a presentation by ECPN. Followed up with Michele three weeks later to check in and express that CAC-ECC would like to collaborate on either a presentation or flier. Have not heard back yet. Stephanie has been working with Debbie Hess Norris behind the scenes to see if this can be moved forward. We could start to draft a flier in anticipation that will be a possibility.
    10. AIC 2012 Meeting
      1. ECPN Poster Update (Carrie) – Working group had a call last week. Reviewed the list of potential contributors. Created a list of questions for them to answer the content of which will be included on the poster and companion blog posts. These questions have been sent out. Hoping to have a draft of the poster by mid-March. Amy will be helping with the design of the poster. Will send the draft of the poster to the contributors for their input before printing.
      2. Portfolio Sessions (Carrie) – Currently have 6 participants. Still need contributors from Buffalo, Queens, Columbia, and Penn. There will be two portfolio sessions during the annual meeting. One of the sessions will overlap with the Poster Q&A during the last break on Thursday. This happened last year and seemed to work okay. Please let Carrie know any thoughts on how to organize the sessions in terms of specialties and programs. Molly suggested using the specialty group liaisons to solicit for additional contributors. Names of the liaisons can be found on a Writeboard on Basecamp. Stephanie and Carrie discussed in the past inviting advanced conservators to speak about portfolio presentation from an employer’s perspective. One way to include them would be to have them stationed in the portfolio session rooms and let emerging conservators know they can bring their portfolios to them for feedback.
      3. Forum Call Survey (Ryan and Molly) – Survey asked about how people felt about having forum calls on a quarterly basis and what topics they’d like to see presented. A brief summary: there was overwhelming interest in the idea; equal interest in all topics; especially interested in certain topics such as next steps after graduate school and setting up a private practice. Wednesdays for 30 minutes to 1 hour was the preferred day and time limit. Many people wrote in comments: would like ECPN to assist recent graduates more, more resources about going into private practice, would like to see forum calls featured online so those in different time zones can access later. Would like to hold our first forum call before the annual meeting. Starting a private practice/contract work is one idea for the first call. Could invite a small group of private and contract conservators to share why they started working independently and what challenges and opportunities are available to them. Other ideas for forum calls: new resources in conservation publications venues; self-advocacy (Stephanie and Debbie have been discussing); over saturation of conservation job market and the future of the profession. Molly will organize a working call soon to discuss the first forum call. Stephanie added that discussing starting a business is a complicated topic and that the discussion should be kept general and made clear that this call will not be about how to actually start a private practice, which could be tackled on a later call when there is more time for development of this idea. The timing of this call is nice—right before the annual meeting when colleagues reconnect and as students are graduating and thinking about job options. If anyone is interested working on the forum calls, email Molly.
      4. Mentoring Program (Eliza) – Recently received the results of the letters and surveys we sent out. Ryan, Stephanie, Molly, and Eliza spoke on February 14th about the results. Were able to make some immediate matches, and would like to work with the rest of the working group/review committee to make the remaining matches. Need more mentor applicants. Gwen is working on writing up a call for mentor applicants, which we’ll reach out to the specialty group liaisons to see if they can post. Are hoping to have matches completed by mid-March. Continue to work on revising the mentoring program in general as well in time for the annual meeting.
      5. Student Research Platform (Carrie) – Have heard back from almost all of the program directors about their interest in supporting this project. Waiting for a few more responses. So far, the responses have been mixed. Those who responded in support of the project said they would be willing to review submissions internally and in terms of the actual structure of the platform would like to see access to links as opposed to full text. Will schedule a call this week for early March. A special thank you to Rebecca Rushfield, Megan, and Molly for helping to solicit responses from the program directors.

 

Next call: March 19, 2012 at 1pm EST

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Eliza Spaulding