Author: Rachael Perkins Arenstein

From the Bench: Preservation of Art Objects Help Restore Historic Halls to Past Splendor

This post is part of the “From the Bench” series celebrating the work of conservators. Part scientist, part detective, part artisan, part caretaker, a conservator works to preserve the past for the future. This series features the voices of conservators who are working on IMLS-supported projects in museums across the United States. For more information about IMLS funding for museums see www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

 Valentine Talland, Senior Conservator, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum received a Conservation Project Support grant from IMLS in 2009 to conserve objects that were the highest priorities for preservation in two important galleries: the Titian Room and the Tapestry Room. The Gardner was engaged in a major capital preservation project, concluded in 2012, with two objectives: first, the systematic preservation of whole galleries, including the conservation of art objects and the restoration of architectural finishes; and second, the construction of an addition to the building to relieve wear and tear on the museum’s historic interiors and to house expanding museum programs. The Titian and Tapestry rooms were central to these goals as well as to enhancing the visitor experience and education programs at the Gardner. Generous support from IMLS provided for the following conservation treatments:

  1. Ten side chairs upholstered in 18th-century painted and gilded leather. Six of these chairs are positioned in the center of the Tapestry Room where visitor traffic is relatively high. These chairs were reupholstered with handmade leather, reproducing the original colors and design (called Corfus). The de-upholstered original leather coverings were stabilized, cleaned, and safely housed for study and storage. Four of these chairs are exhibited out of visitor traffic; their original upholstery was cleaned, conserved, and retained on the chairs.
  2. Bust of a Venetian Senator. This monumental marble sculpture was cleaned using the Gardner’s laser cleaner. It was remounted on a structural stainless steel pin. Prior to its reinstallation in the Titian Room, its gallery mount was re-engineered to safely support the sculpture’s weight.
  3. King Philip IV of Spain, by Velázquez, and frame. A complete conservation treatment and investigative analysis of the painting was carried out. This included X-radiography and comparative study with versions in the Prado and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The frame, originally from a suite at Kingston Lacey, was consolidated, cleaned and retouched.
  4. Namban Chest. This rare early Japanese lacquer chest was stabilized and cleaned. Treatment revealed original graphite scribe lines and brilliant mother-of pearl inlays. X-ray fluorescence analysis confirmed gilding on the silver mounts.

For more information on the Renzo Piano-designed addition to the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum and restoration of the Tapestry Room visit:

http://www.buildingproject.gardnermuseum.org/vision/tapestry-room-restoration

http://www.gardnermuseum.org/multimedia/featured_video?filter=4372

Stories of Success: A Collaborative Survey Shines Fresh Light on Korean Paintings

This post is part of the “From the Bench” series celebrating the work of conservators. Part scientist, part detective, part artisan, part caretaker, a conservator works to preserve the past for the future. This series features the voices of conservators who are working on IMLS-supported projects in museums across the United States. For more information about IMLS funding for museums see www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

By Katherine Holbrow, Head of Conservation, Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, CA

Shared expertise plays an essential role in good collections care. In Spring 2012, valuable support from IMLS enabled the Asian Art Museum to bring together an interdisciplinary team of experts to carry out a conservation survey of rare Korean paintings.

Korean paintings conservator Chi-sun Park and her assistant, Eun-Hye Cho, of Jung-Jae Conservation Center in Seoul, Korea, collaborated with Asian Art Museum conservators, curators, and translators to examine hanging scrolls, albums, and screens dating from the 14th to 19thcenturies. The team examined each painting, then identified conservation and curatorial priorities, evaluated scroll and album mounts, and discussed treatment alternatives.

Left to right: Asian Art Museum director Jay Xu, visiting conservator Chi-Sun Park, associate curator Hyonjeong Kim Han, and paintings conservator Shiho Sasaki discuss a Joseon dynasty painting.
Did you know that due to a tradition of under-floor heating, Korean folding screens typically have feet? Above, Chi-sun Park examines a Korean painting mounted as a folding screen. The mount uses a mixture of Korean and Japanese elements.

The project quickly grew beyond an assessment of treatment needs, sparking stimulating discussions of the broader ethical and aesthetic questions that surround the remounting of Korean paintings, including the following:

  • What characteristics do Korean mounts share with Chinese or Japanese mounts?
  • What elements are unique to Korea?
  • How can the mounts help tell the history of our paintings?

 Good conservation decisions require a cultural sensitivity to fine detail and a clear grasp of such abstract questions, even if there is more than one right answer!

This lively debate, along with explanations of common types of scroll damage, strategies to extend the life of a painting mount, and repair options, was shared with senior docents and museum visitors in publications, tours, and lectures. Read more about the Korean paintings project on the Asian Art Museum website.

From the Bench: Rehoused Instrument Collection Is Once Again Instrumental

This post is part of the “From the Bench” series celebrating the work of conservators. Part scientist, part detective, part artisan, part caretaker, a conservator works to preserve the past for the future. This series features the voices of conservators who are working on IMLS-supported projects in museums across the United States. For more information about IMLS funding for museums see www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

By Catherine Sease, Senior Conservator, Peabody Museum of Natural History

             The Yale Peabody Museum’s collection of historical scientific instruments consists of approximately 4,000 instruments from a variety of scientific disciplines. Despite its significance, the collection has been completely inaccessible since 1991. At that time, due to the planned demolition of the building in which it was stored, the collection was packed up and, due to a lack of storage space, remained packed up until 2011. Over the years the boxes were extensively stacked and restacked and were moved at least three times, including the most recent move over seven miles. They have been stored in areas with uncontrolled climatic conditions, and have been exposed to drastic fluctuations in temperature and relative humidity as well as minor leaks and floods. These are all conditions that could easily cause the deterioration of the instruments.

             Because they were packed up, the instruments were unavailable for study, teaching, and exhibition. Their inaccessibility was further compromised by the inaccuracy of the catalog record. We knew that the catalog contained numerous errors; for example at least two percent of the collection was listed as missing. In addition, many instruments had accessories and parts that were not catalogued and some were packed separately from their primary instrument.

             Our IMLS-funded project enabled us to unpack the entire collection and rehouse it in new high-quality storage cabinets in a storeroom with climate control suitable for the long-term preservation of the collection. As each instrument was unpacked, the museum’s catalog was checked to verify that the description was accurate and all the pieces were present. Many were also photographed and the pictures were uploaded into the database. We now have a complete inventory of the entire collection on the museum’s database that is available to anyone with access to the Internet. The instruments are now spread out so that students and researchers can easily browse through the collection and see the instruments without touching them. They are now readily available for teaching and exhibit. Even though the project is not quite finished, we have already had requests for the loan of instruments for exhibits and professors are using instruments in their classes.

From the Bench: New Discoveries from What Lies Beneath

This post is part of the “From the Bench” series celebrating the work of conservators. Part scientist, part detective, part artisan, part caretaker, they work to preserve the past for the future. This series features the voices of conservators who are working on IMLS-supported projects in museums across the United States. For more information about IMLS funding for museums see www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

By Nancie Ravenel, Objects Conservator, Shelburne Museum

While there are two conservators on staff at Shelburne Museum to take care of its day-to-day conservation needs, some projects within the museum’s diverse collection require the talents of a specialized conservator. With funding from IMLS in 2010, we were able to hire paintings conservator Pamela Betts for 17 months to examine and treat a selection of paintings from the 50 best in our collection. In the course of her examinations, Pam made some very interesting discoveries. Here are a few:

  • A portrait of a woman hidden beneath a still life depicting oysters and a glass of ale painted sometime between 1855-1870 by Charles D. Sauerwein  revealed in an x-radiograph.
  • An x-radiograph showed that Henry Durrie had included his hands and maybe an artist’s palette in his self-portrait painted 1830-1839, but they were later painted out.
  • The local hospital that helps us out with the x-rays archives the digital radiographs that they take of the objects in our collection. Their radiological technologists know the paintings by their radiographs but may not know what they look like on the wall!
  • Using two different methods of infrared photography, Pam documented compositional changes that Jasper F. Cropsey made to his 1844 landscape painting depicting Greenwood Lake.
  • We found that it is possible to get reasonable infrared images of painting underdrawings by putting the appropriate filter on our digital camera. Expensive equipment isn’t always required.
  • The ornate Rococo-style frame on Rembrandt Peale’s Girl with a Tuscan Hat is at least the same period as the painting if it is not original to it.

Paintings conservator Pamela Betts (right) discusses her progress on William Merritt Chase’s portrait of General James Watson Webb (1880, collection of Shelburne Museum) with curatorial fellow Erin Corrales-Diaz.

Since 1986, Shelburne Museum has had the honor of being awarded 16 Conservation Project Support grants. These have run the gamut of the activities supported:

  • improving environmental systems and storage furniture
  • conservation surveys and treatment
  • training both for new conservators and the conservators on staff

The common tie among the projects is that grants from IMLS have allowed us to innovate and collaborate in ways that would not have been otherwise possible and confer benefits for years after the project is complete. We’re excited to be able to share these discoveries with our visitors, especially those radiological technologists from the hospital who learn about the paintings in Shelburne Museum’s collection through their x-rays.

From the Bench: Literally Hanging by a Thread

This post is part of the “From the Bench” series celebrating the work of conservators.  Part scientist, part detective, conservators work to preserve the past for the future.  This series features the voices of conservators who are working on IMLS supported projects in museums across the United States.  For more information about IMLS funding for museums visit www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

By Meg Loew Craft, Senior Objects Conservator, Walters Art Museum

The Walters Art Museum was delighted to receive a bequest of over 165 Southeast Asian works of art from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in 2002. The objects complement and enhance the Walters’ Asian collection, which is focused on the arts from China and Japan. This diverse gift includes manuscripts and manuscript cabinets, lacquer Buddha sculptures, painted textile banners, ivory seals, and porcelain teapots, to name a few.

The new collection was stored in a climate-controlled, secure facility, but it was offsite, which made the art works difficult to access, study, examine, and integrate into museum programming. A grant from IMLS permitted us to gain access to the Duke objects, examine each piece individually for treatment and storage needs, and correlate curatorial and conservation priorities. A symposium was held that brought Southeast Asian scholars and conservators together to discuss the Duke Collection. Focusing attention on the collection has enabled rehousing of two-thirds of the collection into onsite museum storage and encouraged creative thinking on how to incorporate the Duke objects into current and future exhibition galleries.

A new fire suppression system slated for installation in Hackerman House, our mid-1860s historic building housing Asian art, will necessitate moving the artwork out of the galleries in the near future. This is an opportunity to treat and put some of the larger sculptures and paintings on display in the museum. Information from the survey is being used to help refigure the displays for reinstallation. This is especially significant for eight to ten sculptures and paintings that are too large to fit in our in-house storage area.

Burmese sculpture of Buddhist adorant. Photo courtesy of Walters Art Museum. Accession number 25.240.
Burmese sculpture of Buddhist adorant. Photo courtesy of Walters Art Museum. Accession number 25.240.

This Burmese sculpture of a Buddhist adorant, has been examined during the IMLS survey, given the highest priority by both curators and conservators, and will be treated this fall. The carved wood adorant is covered with lacquer and heavily decorated with gold leaf and glass mirror inlays. The jewelry and flames made of leather similarly adorned are the weakest elements. The leather is water-damaged, distorted and brittle. The cracked leather has been crudely repaired – it is literally hanging by a thread.

Back view shows the broken belt. Photo courtesy of Walters Art Museum. Accession number 25.240.
Back view shows the broken belt. Photo courtesy of Walters Art Museum. Accession number 25.240.

Without the support of IMLS, attention would not have been focused on the Duke Collection. The survey has generated excitement and exposure for these treasures. We anticipate bringing these objects to light with continuing research, online digital images, chats in the conservation window, and display in the galleries – thanks to IMLS.

From the Bench: New Blog Series Highlights the Work of Conservators

IMLS, the American Institute for Conservation, and Heritage Preservation, welcome you to a new blog series, “From the Bench.”

Every day in museum, library, and private labs across the country, conservators go about the work of ensuring that the objects that define us are protected and preserved for the benefit of our own and of future generations. They create the first lines of defense against forces that would otherwise see the materials we hold dear reduced to unrecognizable dust, smears, or puddles and thus quieting their stories.

Conservators are first-rate scientists and detectives, working at every scale from the sub-molecular to that of massive building environments and using tools ranging from the simplest swabs to those that rival well-outfitted chemistry and physics labs anywhere. The discoveries they make—sometimes in the course of routine documentation and other times as part of a rigorous scientific protocol—reveal hidden histories and prompt new lines of inquiry every day.

It’s easy to understand why conservators say their work is gratifying. Routine and predictability are punctuated with astounding breakthroughs. Most of all, to them, their work in caring for objects is most valuable because it results in increased access and learning for now and long into the future.

IMLS is proud to support conservation work, and we are delighted to help sponsor this opportunity for conservators to tell about their work from the bench. We hope you enjoy the series.

Guidelines for grant applications for collections care and conservation projects will be available on the IMLS website in mid-October.  Applications are due through Grants.gov on January 15, 2013. For more information on these and other funding programs, please visit http://www.imls.gov/applicants/available_grants.aspx.

New Website: “How to Digitally Archive and Share Historical Photographs, Documents, and Audio Recordings”

Information was sent to the AIC office on a relatively new website Preserving History: How to Digitally Archive and Share Historical Photographs, Documents, and Audio Recordings that provides practical, technical guidelines for creating archival digital files for historical photographs, documents, and audio recordings. The site describes methods and workflow for preparing the master files for presentation and covers the use of inexpensive consumer technology as well as more expensive professional technology, addressing the  cost benefits of the different levels products. The website is aimed at historical organizations, families, and individuals, and should be particularly useful for anyone working with budget limitations.

The topics covered include:

  • The value of preserving original historical items and using good digital copies.
  • Digitization “best practices” developed by museums, archives, and libraries and less expensive, less complicated “good practices” that may be acceptable for some archive projects;
  • Strengths and weaknesses of five common scanning software programs and specific workflow, steps, and settings for using the software to create archival images;
  • Use of the consumer level Photoshop Elements software and professional level Photoshop CS when creating master archival images and for preparing images for presentation;
  • Use of the consumer level Nero WaveEditor software and the higher level Adobe Audition software for preparing recordings for presentation;
  • Suggestions, workflow and settings for creating historical slide shows using consumer level and more advanced slide show software;
  • Copyrights and related legal rights with attention to pivotal provisions for historical items including inheritance of copyrights and the fundamental change in copyright ownership for professional photographs before and after 1978;
  • Technical information and recommendations on color management, effective resolution of scanners, using copy stands with cameras, and batch processing of images.

James Kennedy, the site’s creator first began working with historical items over 12 years ago after retiring from a career that spanned non-profit organizations, government, academics, and industry, working with involved data analysis and systems analysis, programming, and management for data processing systems. While his initial interest was family history, his work soon expanded to include developing digital archives and displays of historical information about a small Amish/ Mennonite town.

He remembers useful technical information and guidelines were difficult to find when he first started out. Meeting with the digitization group at the Denver Public Library was a breakthrough for sorting out the inconsistent opinions and for finding reliable information about appropriate digitization practices. However, extensive study of manuals and trial-and-error learning was still required to actually apply the practices with the various technology and software.  Hopefully this site will provide useful information for small institutions and historical societies as they begin tackling their own digitization projects.

For more information visit http://archivehistory.jeksite.org/

Collections Matter – IMLS Blog post

The previous blog post  “Respond Now to IMLS Grant Guidelines” gives information on the AIC Board of Director’s response to IMLS’s proposed grant revisions and outlines ways in which you can, and should, make your voice heard.  For more information on the topic also read the June 1 post Collections Matter on IMLS’s blog from Connie Bodner, IMLS Senior Program Officer.  In her post she describes her experience at AIC’s recent annual meeting,  mentions the proposed changes to the grant guidelines and highlights some of the recent Conservation Project Support recipients.

If you have ever applied for an IMLS grant (or intent to in the future) don’t let the opportunity pass to provide informed feedback!

Respond Now to IMLS Museum Grant Guidelines!

If you have not yet done so, please respond now to the request from IMLS posted below.  The AIC Board of Directors agree that that the proposed new grant guidelines pose a real threat to conservation funding and the long-term care of collections.  It is imperative that IMLS hear from the conservation community—from individual conservation professionals as well as from AIC as a whole.   AIC is submitting a response on behalf of the organization.  Some points taken from it include:

  • By merging Museums for America (MFA) and Conservation Project Support (CPS), there will no longer be a funding source dedicated to conservation.
  • Although multiple applications will be permitted by IMLS, multiple submissions from institutions will ultimately compete against each other.  Exhibition or education proposals, for instance, would be pitted against conservation proposals.
  • If museums focus their grant writing efforts on the support of exhibitions, education, and community outreach, the grants will provide important support for annual programming budgets, yet these funds will do little to support museum missions to preserve and make their permanent collections accessible in a more lasting way.
  • One January 15 deadline for all proposals puts a great burden on museum staff members, particularly for those working in smaller institutions.

While AIC applauds IMLS for considering changes to improve its grant services, combining the CPS and MFA programs and instituting a single application deadline will have unintended consequences that will result in museums placing less emphasis on conservation of collections.  AIC urges IMLS to consider leaving CPS as a separate program or combining it with collections stewardship.

How have the collections for which you are responsible benefited from IMLS conservation support in the past?  What impact on collections care do you envision with the implementation of the draft guidelines being presented by IMLS?

Speak up!  Now!

Thank you,

Meg Craft, AIC Board President

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2012

IMLS Press Contacts
202-653-4632
Kevin O’Connell, koconnell@imls.gov
Mamie Bittner, mbittner@imls.gov

Draft Museum Grant Guidelines Available for Public Comment

Washington, DC—The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is seeking public comments on the draft guidelines for the FY 2013 Museums for America and National Leadership Grants for Museums programs. The guidelines for these programs have been revised to align with the IMLS Strategic Plan.  We are seeking comments to assess how well these guidelines accomplish the following goals:

To see the guidelines use these links:
Museums for America
National Leadership Grants for Museums

The comment period will end on Friday, July 6, 2012.  Please send comments to comments@imls.gov. Final guidelines will be posted no later than October 15, 2012.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting (2012): The Great Debate – Part II

If you read the previous Great Debate Part I post feel free to skip this introduction and jump down to the meat of the post, the team’s statements below,…

Kudos go to Richard McCoy, Conservator of Objects & Variable Art at the Indianapolis Museum of Art for instigating and moderating the first Great Debate at the AIC 2012 Annual Meeting.  This session consisted of two Oxford-Style Debate sessions of 30 minutes each on a chosen topic.  Each debate session consisted of initial presentations from each team, then members of the audience were allowed to ask questions and each debate team was given time to respond, followed by closing arguments.  Before the debate the audience was polled by a show of hands on who agreed or disagreed with the statement.  After the debate the audience was asked whose opinions were swayed so that a winning team could be chosen.  This method for choosing a winner elicited some amusing debate in and of itself with Richard exclaiming in mock exasperation “You are supposed to debate each other – not me!”

This dry introduction doesn’t represent the fun and excitement that ensued during the actual debate.  I can’t remember any sessions at previous AIC meetings that elicited raucous laughter, huge applause, and cheers and boos from the crowded room.  Richard projected a huge stopwatch on the screen to time the statements and I can only imagine how nervous it made the debaters because it got my pulse racing just watching it!  Richard was very clear that debaters were chosen for their willingness to participate and were not necessarily representing their personal views on the topics.  This was notably pointed out in a “gotcha” moment when the Affirmative team asked Negative Team member Hugh Shockey if he would be willing to go without the fabulous microscope stand donated by a tour visitor!

The participants must be complemented on their willingness to put themselves forward and get into the spirit with a bit of trash talking and theatrics (Hugh’s dark glasses and Richard’s big (read geeky) floppy bow tie.  I think this exemplified that it is possible to debate topics of real importance within our profession and professional society without rancor or taking ourselves too seriously. This session was clearly a crowd favorite and I hope it will be repeated at future meetings.    Below is the statement for the second debate topic and text or talking points from the two teams.  The second debate will be included in a separate post.  Please feel free to weigh in yourself by commenting here on the blog.

TOPIC #2: Having conservators perform treatments in the gallery is the most successful way to generate funding for museums and raise awareness about the profession

For the affirmative:

  • Vanessa Muros
  • Camille Breeze
  • Kristen Adsit

 Opening Statement:

Obviously having conservators perform treatments in the public eye is the best way to raise awareness of the profession and funds for an institution.

These exhibitions cause more people to visit the institution.  In 2006 before they started performing in-gallery treatments, the UK conservation nonprofit National Trust had 35,000 annual visitors.  6 years into a campaign to prioritize in-gallery treatments whenever possible, they now average 72,000, an over 50% increase in visitorship.

In-gallery treatment gets the undivided attention of visitors, and engage people more fully than is possible with other outreach methods. The interpersonal interaction with a conservator is also more impactful than a more mediated method of outreach, such as videos or publications.

In-gallery treatments demystify the role of the professional conservator and the process of caring for our cultural heritage. Even other workers inside the institution can understand the role of the conservator in a new way when they are able to witness a treatment in process, as paintings conservators at the Indianapolis Museum of Art pointed out after their 2009 in-gallery treatment of Sebastiano Mainardi’s 1507 altarpiece.

These interventions further generate public interest through increased press coverage of such treatments. According to Suzanne Thomassen-Krauss, the lead conservator of the National Museum of American History’s public treatment of the Star Spangled Banner, that project generated more than 1,500 clips in national and international newspapers, radio and TV.

This is a great way to showcase the complexity and centrality of the conservators role in the museum.  Once you have engaged an audience, you have the opportunity to create a complete and nuanced understanding of our work.  However you will only get that chance if you first have their attention, and the best way to get that attention is by performing in-gallery treatments.

Public conservation treatments directly generate funds for the museum.

  • A great example of this comes from this year’s Angels project at the San Miguel chapel in Santa Fe. The project manager Jake told me of a donor who both gave money and volunteered his time as a direct result of seeing the restoration work that was already taking place.
  • As our opponent Hugh Shockey should know, the first fellowship at the Lunder Center was funded by a donor who saw Amber Kerr-Allison treating a painting

Giving to support in-gallery treatments amounts to more bang for your buck.  It not only enables a specific conservation intervention to be performed, but it also amounts to funding for education and outreach.

This can generate goodwill within the conservator’s institution since other departments such as education and marketing also benefit from the in-gallery treatment project.  That kind of goodwill can help enable the Conservation department to achieve other goals.

In-gallery treatments demonstrate that funding for conservation is a good return on investment. By showing the painstaking process of treatment, documentation and outreach, it demonstrates to the viewer that we’re multifaceted professionals who much be resourceful, and why treatment can take so much time.

And the results of your donation are tangible, which further engages donor and allows some ownership of their donation and the project

Honestly, how can they argue against this? What else could be more effective at raising awareness of the profession than showing and talking to people about what we do?  What other means of giving benefits the donor and the institution more?

 

For the negative:

  • Suzanne Davis
  • Hugh Shockey
  • Sharra Grow

Opening Statement:

Having conservators perform treatments in the gallery is NOT the most successful way to generate funding for museums and raise awareness about the profession.

Because:

  • The quality of treatment done on site is never the same as that done in the lab, therefore, conservation is at a disadvantage at representing itself in the galleries.
  • What kind of awareness do we want the visiting audience to have?
  • By treating artwork in the gallery, visitors have a skewed understating of where/how conservation is done, taken out of the context of the studio/lab where all needed supplies and conditions are provided for the best treatment… for example, working away from the organization of the lab presents treatment as disorganized and haphazard as it requires frequent shuttling of tools and materials not originally anticipated for conducting treatment
  • The experience and perception of each visitor is dependent on interaction with the conservator leaving accurate understanding of the treatment outside the conservator’s control if the visitor chooses not to interact. Seeing a work mid-treatment denies the visitor the opportunity to experience it as intended by the maker. Without a full understanding of what they are seeing, they can question the stewardship of the museum in caring for its collection.
  • The stress of managing treatment and public interaction necessarily creates a distraction, which misrepresents treatment protocol, and neither treatment nor public interaction are done to the best of the conservator’s ability.

Further, we would ask; who is the target audience when doing treatment in the gallery?

  •  Conservation on display in the galleries cannot generate awareness on its own without addition publicity channels, as visitation to the museum is already limited to self-selected patrons, thus negating the idea that conservation in the galleries is what generates awareness.
  • In addition, the giving potential of the visiting public is limited and is therefore not an ideal source of fundraising, as it is widely understood that wealthy individual patrons are more capable of supporting the expensive endeavor of conservation. And public display minimizes the incentive for higher level donors seeking exclusive access and experience in the museum.

Today we are not debating whether or not treatment in the galleries may be a nice idea and possibly worth pursuing. We are arguing whether or not performing treatments in the gallery is the most successful way to (1) generate funding and (2) raise awareness about the profession. Our points clearly show above that it is NOT.

RESULTS…

As with the first topic, the majority of the room’s packed audience agreed with the Negative Team when polled before the debate.  Yet once again, the Affirmative Team won the debate as the “after” poll showed that they convinced more people to change their opinion.  I did ask a question of the debaters and and said that I personally am not sure whether in gallery treatments are the “best” way but every institution I’ve worked out brought their big ticket donors into the lab for VIP tours so it seems to me that Development Officers find what we do to be compelling at bringing in the funds!  The Negative team nimbly stepped around my question and answered the question that they wanted to answer!  But I must admit that I love working in the gallery and interacting with the public.  I find that some visitors are very insightful and knowledgeable and others ask questions that are completely inane.  It is a good reminder that we have lots of audiences at any given museum or site and that we have to figure out ways to serve them and the collections.   Have you worked in a visible conservation lab or done in gallery treatments? Let us know about your experiences!