Call for papers
2011 ANAGPIC Student Conference Special Session
Conservation/Conservation Science Lightning Round
Delaware Art Museum
Saturday, 16 April 2011
On behalf of the Association of North American Graduate Programs in
Art Conservation, the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in
Art Conservation invites submissions for a Conservation/Conservation
Science Lightning Round to be held during the 2011 ANAGPIC Student
Conference in Wilmington, DE.
The preservation and conservation of cultural heritage is inherently
interdisciplinary, and its scholars may be found in a variety of
disciplines ranging from art conservation and archaeology to
materials science and nanotechnology. This session invites
submissions from current North American doctoral students and
post-graduate researchers that relate to technical art history or
the preservation of art, historic architecture, and cultural
heritage, broadly defined. "Post-graduate researchers" includes
students who have graduated from a Master's program and are now on
advanced internships carrying out research. The
Conservation/Conservation Science Lightning Round will consist of 12
speakers, each with five minutes to present an illustrated summary
of their research to current conservation graduate students,
followed by a Q&A session for all speakers.
Please submit proposals (abstract of no more than 250 words, contact
information, and institutional affiliation) or any inquiries to
anagpic.lightning [at] gmail__com
Submissions must be received by 10pm EST on 5 January 2011.
Speakers will be notified in February 2011.
Chris Cole
Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Conservation Education
Department of Art Conservation
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
443-223-5933
Author: Ryan Winfield
Hazardous Chemicals: Agents of Risk and Change (1800-2000) – Call for papers
Call for papers to be delivered at the workshop
Hazardous Chemicals: Agents of Risk and Change (1800-2000)
Conveners: Deutsches Museum Research Institute; Department of History, Maastricht University; and Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society
Location: Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany
Date: 27-29 April 2012
The Research Institute of the Deutsches Museum, the Department of History at Maastricht University and the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society are planning a joint workshop to be held at the Deutsches Museum, Munich, in April 2012 dealing with the history of hazardous chemicals.
Chemistry is undoubtedly a science with a great social and economic impact. During the past two centuries millions of new substances have been described, and thousands of them have become novel industrial products. In several cases the scale of production, together with by-products and wastes, has led to previously unknown effects on human health and on the environment. Growing awareness of the impacts of hazardous substances on the economy, society and the environment has stimulated new scientific insights, discussion of risk perception, and new legislation. Advances in analysis and detection of chemicals have played a large role in this respect. Since the 1960s, industrialized countries have adopted a framework for assessing and regulating toxic chemicals that remains in force today. By this means attempts have been made, with varying degrees of success, to control individual pollutants using scientific and technical tools, including risk assessment, toxicological testing, epidemiological investigations, pollution control devices, trace measurements, and waste treatment and disposal technologies.
The present workshop will focus on the interaction between (a) the growing presence of hazardous substances in the economy and the environment, and (b) the cultural, scientific, regulatory and legal responses by modern society to these hazards. In each paper a specific chemical, or group of related chemicals, will take centre stage: from the start of its industrial production, via the proliferation of its uses, and the discovery of its effects on workers, consumers and/or on the biosphere, to attempts to control its emission and use, including the development of alternative products. The workshop will focus in particular on the history of specific chemicals which have had a profound impact on the way in which ecological and health effects have been perceived. Using a ‘biographical approach’ it will trace the entire ‘life history’ (production, use, problems, risk assessment, management strategies, and disposal) of those hazardous substances, culminating at the point at which
legislative controls or alternative technical pathways were finally established. The focus will be on the main period of chemical industrialisation (ca. 1800-2000).
Examples of substances that have had profound effects on ecological thinking and on legislation, and which would be welcome candidates for analysis using this kind of ‘biographical approach,’ are: Arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, nitrates, cyanides, sulphur dioxide, radioactive substances, DDT and other halocarbons (including dioxins), aniline and aromatic amines, benzene, azo dyes, vinyl chloride, CO2, PCB’s, and CFC’s.
Of course, papers on other important cases are also most welcome!
In all cases, we prefer papers having a global or at least an international outlook; national overviews could certainly also be of great value. However, studies which have a regional or local focus are unsuitable in the context of this workshop.
Since the approach to this topic is interdisciplinary, chemists, toxicologists, historians of science and medicine, environmental historians, sociologists and scholars, active in environmental organisations, etc., are all invited to participate and to contribute a paper.
Papers that satisfy the final reviewing procedure will be published in a volume with the working title Hazardous chemicals: Agents of risk and change (1800-2000). Papers should be no longer than 10.000 words. The conference language will be English.
The Rachel Carson Center will cover the travel cost and accommodation expenses for all participants invited to deliver a paper. The conference will take place in the Kerschensteiner Kolleg of the Deutsches Museum in Munich.
For the present we would like those interested in participating in the workshop to forward an abstract of the proposed paper, of approximately 600-800 words, as well as a CV. Please send these documents to the three organizers of the workshop: (Ernst Homburg, Elisabeth Vaupel and Paul Erker before 1 July 2011.
Papers will be pre-circulated and should be received no later than 1 February 2012.
Summary of OSG-list discussion about Wall Street Journal Article
The sculpture and court case featured in a Wall Street Journal article, was followed by blog posts by dalyconservation, the 1709 blog, Bloomberg.com, and the AIC blog. It also began a discussion on the Objects Specialty Group (OSG) distribution e-mail list. A representative of AIC wrote a follow-up letter to the Wall Street Journal, after consulting with other board members and AIC’s legal counsel, a statement has also been sent to the Wall Street Journal and The Art Newspaper about this article.
The discussion began by asking what response, if any, would be forthcoming from AIC about this article. The “restoration” removed original materials, replaced them with unsuitable materials, removed an original signature, and replaced it with the signature of the restorer and the restoration committee.
Mark Rabinowitz approached the issue playing the devil’s advocate and said “Conservation ethics leaves no question as to what is appropriate for the preservation of the artist’s original intent but it presupposes that this goal is consistent with the owner’s intentions. The owners, accepting that the changes they wished will interfere with the artist’s rights, specifically removed his association from the work, including erasing his name, and notified him to no longer consider this his art. This seems to be a case where the best intentions of the law have caused exactly the opposite result. Are we going to claim that owners have no rights to the objects they own and must only conserve them forever? If an owner knowingly destroys (or even improves!) a work of art with an understanding that by doing so he risks losing the association with the original artist, isn’t that a decision that their ownership entitles them to make?” He followed with another e-mail saying “Moral rights that are recognized after the sale entail destruction or modification that damages the reputation of the artist. Again, I believe the owners acted knowingly in order to protect themselves from such a charge by removing the artist’s name and notifying him that this is no longer considered a work of his.”
Linda Roundhill (with a nod to Vizzini the Sicilian) noted, “This was no innocent gaff due to ignorance. The artist offered to do the maintenance to preserve its [the sculpture’s] meaning, but the Federation completely shut him out of the process and deliberately (with intent) hi-jacked the artist’s work. ‘Inconceivable!'”
How could this have been prevented? Gary McGowan noted that “It does seem evident from this discussion that this was one of the issues directly germane to our organization developing certification. The industry, as a whole, would then be regulated through the certification process and there would be a less likelihood of either ambiguity or confusion over individuals’ abilities or credentials. I would state that it was not confirmed that the client was not interested in retaining the services of a conservator; rather they may not have seen the difference within the two disciplines. Since we are not a certified profession, many individuals do not see the difference between the two divergent fields. Far too often I hear the discussion of the ‘conservationist’. These abstract terms of ‘conservation, restoration or restorer’ can, and often do, confuse and blur the lines. With certification, I believe we would be better prepared to clarify the profession for our clients.” This was disagreed to by some of the members of the OSG-list, since the owner did not seem interested in conservation and would not have sought out a conservator, certified or otherwise. Victoria Book suggested that more visibility for conservators among artists also may have avoided this situation, if the artist had recommended a conservator this may not have occurred. Jerry Podany asked whether the owner of the sculpture actually knew about AIC and its services.
Many conservators wrote in to say they thought there should be an official response from AIC. There appear to be no responses from conservators (AIC affiliated or not) on comments section of the article the WSJ webpage. David Harvey suggested that the AIC should have released a clear and concise statement and he also listed comments suggesting what the statement should have said. Richard McCoy pointed out that as members of AIC “You and I are ‘AIC’ and if a stand is to be made, or if a statement is to be made than it seems to me it would be just as effective (and perhaps more so) if dedicated conservators were to be the ones making the stand individually rather than only relying on the Director to take a complex and nuanced position”. It was mentioned that while comments to articles are helpful “That’s no substitute for influence during art care planning and implementation. We would like that to be virtually automatic” Robert Krueger questioned whether a response would be needed “Responding and pointing out that this is not an approach a conservator would take is not a good way to advertise our field.” Steven Pickman gave two views about whether AIC should be involved in a response, “Should an intentional act by the owner responding to a set of conditions both artistic and legal be under the purview of AIC? I don’t think so.” He goes on to quote the purpose of AIC and how this purpose includes public awareness, opposition to any influences that lower standards, and the fostering of communication with other professionals involved in the guardianship and preservation of cultural property.
What can we take from this moment?
Jerry Podany summed up his thoughts about what this means in the bigger picture, he recommended that conservators pass along this article to their associates in the law profession that are interested in arts law. This could be a great “Teaching and outreach moment for other artists, collectors, administrators, and public regarding the proper care of sculpture, aspects of artists’ rights and the role of the conservator, as well as the limitations imposed upon the conservator by ethical guidelines.” Another point about materials emphasized that artists’ original materials should be maintained or replaced with similar materials, even though they may be unstable and require more maintenance. It is not enough to say that conservators have ethical guidelines but we must get across why we follow these guidelines and how complex this can become. David Harvey gave a number of suggestions about how conservators can have more outreach with the public.
At this point the conversation turned into a discussion of semantics and we discussed: conservators, restorers, conservationists, etc. and other names we have been called over the years. Richard McCoy suggested that we contribute to the Wikipedia page about conservation-restoration if we are interested in continuing this dialogue about our definition amongst the public. Nancie Ravenel suggested we educate ourselves about outreach through some upcoming online seminars about outreach and connecting to the public, available for free from IMLS and Heritage Preservation.
Tony Sigel responded to a side discussion about whether we are conservators, restorers, conservinators, etc. to say that some of what we do is restoration but we refer to it with other terms, making it difficult “To have the larger community understand what conservation is, what conservators do, and the relationship of conservation and restoration. Most of what we say about ourselves seems to try to disown such an important part of our work, to cloak it in obscuring jargon. I understand how the emerging field of conservation has, perhaps needfully, defined itself in opposition to restorers and restoration. But I’m afraid we may have disowned something important in the process that needs to be reclaimed – the practice, the idea, of restoration – that is an important part of our activities and identity.”
The discussion was interesting and challenged me to think and seek out more opportunities for outreach about conservation.
This is my first post for the AIC blog. The summary took a lot of time because every person quoted was contacted, given a draft of the post, and asked for their approval, via e-mail, of their quote. It is worth noting that I could have taken quotes from the OSG-list archives and posted them or forwarded all of the e-mails in this discussion as I wished, without the approval of anyone. I hope that this post continues the discussion about owner’s, artist’s, and conservator’s rights, and I hope that the distribution e-mail lists come to an agreement about how public or private these lists are and how information posted to these lists can be shared.
New publication on textile conservation
Description
Textile Conservation: Advances in Practice demonstrates the development in the role and practice of the textile conservator and captures the current diversity of textile conservators’ work.
The book focuses on four major factors which have influenced development in textile conservation practice since the 1980s: the changing context, an evolution in the way conservators think about objects, the greater involvement of stakeholders, and technical developments. These are all integral to effective conservation decision-making.
. Includes case studies from the UK, USA and mainland Europe and Asia
. Assesses the conservation of objects in some of the world’s major cultural institutions
. Highly illustrated in full colour to show the effect of conservation in practice
Readership
Textile Conservation is a reference manual for textile conservators, textile conservation students and museum and heritage professionals.
Contents
Part One: The Changing Context. 1. Textile Conservation in the Heritage Sector, 2. Treatment Options: What Are We Conserving? 3. Engaging Communities. Part Two: Technical Advances. 4. Remedial Conservation, 5. Preventative Conservation, 6. Scientific Developments. Part Three: Future Needs and Influences. 7. The Future.
Edited By
Frances Lennard
Former Programme Leader of the MA Textile Conservation, Textile Conservation Centre, UK
Principal, Textile Objects Conservation, Minnesota, USA
Details
Cost £59.99
Hardback
ISBN: 9780750667906
For more information and to order, visit Elsevier‘s website
Connecting To Collections Free Webinars
Online registration is open for the Connecting to Collections webinars organized by Heritage Preservation in partnership with IMLS and AASLH.
While the content of the webinars is aimed at small to mid-sized museums, libaries, and archives, the content could also be useful to those of us who work privately but with these institutions. Topics include getting media attention for collections and the need to care for them, effective public outreach, fund raising, and how to use the resources available in the Connecting to Collections Bookshelf, given to more than 3000 institutions around the country.
The series is free of charge and open to anybody who is interested.
New National Science Foundation Grant Enables Scientists to Advance Stone Treatment
This week, the National Science Foundation will award a $360,000 three-year grant for preservation research to the University of Southern Mississippi, Hybrid Plastics, and the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT). The research team is developing new stone strengtheners, also called consolidants, based on the latest advances in polymer science.
“This National Science Foundation grant creates opportunities for NCPTT to leverage its scientific expertise and resources by funding a partnership with university and private-sector researchers,” said Kirk Cordell, Executive Director of NCPTT. “This collaboration allows us to address fundamental challenges in stone conservation to advance the field of conservation and heritage science.”
When Mary Striegel, NCPTT’s chief of materials conservation wanted to find new partners to develop innovative treatments for deteriorating historic stone monuments and structures, they turned to scientists in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Joe Lichtenhan and his team at Hybrid Plastics were pioneering the use of a new group of polymers based on modifying POSS (Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxane) molecules. Meanwhile, Derek Patton, an assistant professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, was studying interactions of polymers and surfaces and has an interest in new ways to synthesize polymers. Striegel thought that POSS molecules could be applied to preservation problems.
Decay leads to loss of stone strength. The outer surface of the stone can powder away, or can fall off in pieces. Consolidants are chemicals that are applied to and strengthen the surface of stone. Commercially-available consolidants are on the market, but ever increasing restrictions on environmental regulations make it harder to use these products in an outdoor environment. Additionally, some of the products work better on materials like sandstone than on limestone or marble.
Proposed new stone consolidants are based on the POSS molecule’s ability to form a cage-like structure that provides strength and stability under a variety of environmental conditions. The polymers have properties that are similar to both ceramics and plastics. Depending on the modifications made to the molecules, the polymers can be used as adhesives, water repellents, or consolidants. This National Science Foundation grant will help the team design new polymers that can be applied directly to stone and cured using ultraviolet light.
The joint research effort is being conducted in laboratories in Hattiesburg, Miss. and in Natchitoches, La. As an added benefit, this unique, cross-cutting academic/industry/government collaboration is providing undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to learn more about cultural heritage while strengthening their scientific skills.
“Characterization of Silver Gelatin Photographs” Conference
On September 30-October 1, 2010, The Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works and The New York Public Library presented the “Characterization of Silver Gelatin Photographs” conference at The New York Public Library.
According to the AIC, this conference was intended to present the body of knowledge currently available on the subject of characterizing silver gelatin developed-out photographs. Attendees heard from a range of professionals, including conservators, curators, manufacturers, and artists. Highlights included a presentation on Paul Messier’s vast and growing collection of photographic papers, including their wonderful packaging, from the late 19th century to the present day, as well as a general history of papers. Artists Vera Lutter and Alison Rossiter discussed their contemporary chemical photography work, in terms of their process and their use of the silver gelatin process. Anne Cartier-Bresson spoke about characterization of silver gelatin prints using Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work to illustrate key points. Day 1 concluded with an overview of current research at the Image Permanence Institute (IPI), and a panel discussion on connoisseurship and the marketplace.
From industry, Howard Hopwood, Chairman of Harman Technology, producer of Ilford products, spoke about the tradition and future of silver halide technology. Kit Funderburk, formerly a senior technical manager at Kodak, discussed the manufacturing history of Kodak papers and, in a second talk on Day 2, indicated the ways in which paper characteristics could be used to help date papers and prints. A complete PDF of his book on the subject can be downloaded free, or view the separate chapters here, on the George Eastman House “Notes on Photographs” website.
On Day 2, there were a series of technical talks, with two sessions on using XRF (X-ray fluorescence spectrometry) to analyze photographs. One provided an overview of the history and status of the application of XRF, and the other dealt with the specific case of a set of stabilized prints. There were two sessions covering characterization projects at MoMA. One focused on how chemometrics can help categorize papers. In the other, Lee Ann Daffner discussed MoMA’s ongoing characterization of the Thomas Walther Collection of photographs. MoMA is working with Cultural Heritage Imaging to use RTI/PTM to study the collection. MoMA’s camera array and its associated software create a composite image from multiple images of a single photograph, enabling a full “virtual” examination of the photograph. Day 2 also included a talk on how the presence of optical brighteners can help date papers, as well as a session on silver gelatin DOP sample sets in development. The conference ended with a discussion of future directions and needed research projects.
All the sessions were recorded. If they’re made available online, we’ll publish the link in a future post.
Second International Mountmaking Forum
Second International Mountmaking Forum
Hosted by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
May 5-6, 2010
Reported by BJ Farrar
Following the first Mountmaking Forum held in Los Angeles at the Getty Villa, in 2008, the Smithsonian Institution hosted the second International Mountmaking Forum in May 2010. The two-day conference was well attended with over 250 international participants from all over the U.S., Canada, England and some as far away as Japan and Australia.
DAY ONE
The first day of the Forum, held at the National Museum of the American Indian, included a full day of presentations from nine presenters.
. Marian Kaminitz, Head of Conservation at the National Museum of the American Indian gave the opening remarks, stressing the importance of mountmaking and its “coming of age” as a profession. She discussed the integral roles of mountmaking within the museum as ensuring the safety of the objects on display, while fulfilling the curatorial and exhibition designer’s vision.
. McKenzie Lowry, Mountmaker in the Antiquities Conservation Department at the Getty Villa was the first presenter of the day. His presentation, titled Exploring Designs for Concealing Objects Mounts covered a variety of concepts and mount designs that would minimize the visual impact of a mount. The range of ideas addressed included material choices for mounts, finishes, internal supports, integrated mounts in display furniture, working with conservators to incorporate the mount into a restoration, and the use of isolators to minimize the size of a visible mount.
. The second presenter of the day was Jenna Wainwright, Associate Conservation Preparator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Her presentation, titled From Pole to Puzzle: Crafting a Mount for a Bark Cloth Figure documented her design and fabrication of an internal mount for a very large Oceanic headdress. At 175 inches tall, extremely fragile with a cantilevered display orientation, the object presented many challenges. The presentation was a good follow-up to McKenzie’s topic of internal mounts and illustrated the use of a mount that not only provides excellent support for a fragile object, but fulfills the desired display orientation while being virtually invisible to the viewer.
. The last speaker for the morning session was Keith Conway, Exhibition Specialist at the National Museum of African Art. His presentation, titled Challenges and Solutions in Complex Mountmaking: Iranian Tile and Bwa Mask, examined two case study objects and their mounting solutions; detailing their mount designs from conception through installation. The first example was a heavy and unstable Iranian stone tile. The piece required casting an epoxy putty interface to compensate for an uneven bottom surface and wall-mounted retaining clips at the top of the object. The second example was a very tall and fragile African mask that required a welded, wall-mounted steel main support and a smaller secondary brass mount. Both examples emphasized the importance of having a good understanding of various mount materials and fabrication techniques.
. Dianne Niedner, Senior Program Officer, Office of the Under Secretary for History, Arts and Culture, Smithsonian Institution welcomed the group back after lunch and started the afternoon session. Ms. Niedner again stressed the importance of mountmaking as a specialized field and its integral role within the museum.
. Gordon Lambert, Exhibit Preparator/Mountmaker at the Seattle Art Museum started off the afternoon session. His presentation titled A Beginner’s Mannequin: Museum Action Figure or Crash Test Dummy? looked at his development of an articulated mannequin design that would allow the figure to be displayed in multiple orientations, while providing a secure support for a large Native American headdress on top of the mannequin. Gordon followed with a subsequent example using a similar design for an African mask and woven suit. Both examples also explored the aesthetic details of the mannequin design, looking at what elements could be reduced, thereby highlighting the object.
. Matthew Cox, Lead Mountmaker/Preparator from the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City discussed his approach in working with the dedicated jewelry exhibit space in the recently opened museum building. His presentation, The Fabrication and Mounting of a Rotating Jewelry Gallery at the Museum of Arts and Design, focused on the challenges of design and installation of jewelry mounts for the museum’s rotating permanent collection. Matthew talked about his varied and elegant approaches to mount design and installation that take into account a quick turnaround between exhibits, minimal case repair and fabrication that could be done without having a dedicated mount shop.
. Helen Weir, Exhibition Specialist at the Natural History Museum, London gave a fascinating talk on the new Large Glass Case display at Darwin Centre Cocoon. Her presentation: Layering Life: Mount Making for the Darwin Centre Cocoon, documented the display from beginning concept to its completion, highlighting the many technical mounting challenges she and her colleagues encountered along the way. Helen discussed the complexity of the display, where careful planning and mock-ups were crucial for it success. In the process new mounting techniques were devised to mount and display extremely fragile (and numerous) specimens in transparent cases that created a seamless finished display.
The session ended with an informal question-and-answer period with the first six speakers, where a number of good questions were raised by the audience, enough to consider a roundtable session at the next Forum.
. Following a brief afternoon break, Jonathan Pressler, from On the Verge Design, in the Washington D.C. area, gave an informative presentation, “Arctic Studies Center, Anchorage, Alaska: Mount Challenges and Solutions for Northwest Coast Objects for a Study Collection in an Earthquake Zone“. The presentation highlighted a number of objects and their mounting solutions for a very large and complex project that not only required the objects to be accessible as a study collection, but to address the many issues associated with artwork on display in a seismically active environment. Jonathan’s presentation also successfully illustrated the integral role of the mountmaker as a collaborative member of an exhibition team, working closely with the curators, conservators, and exhibition designers.
. Carl Schlichting, Mountmaker from the Museum of Art, University of British Columbia, presented mounting solutions for the Museum of Anthropology’s newly renovated visible storage gallery and the challenges faced with creating mounts for over 1500 objects. Carl’s presentation: Mounting MOA’s New Visible Storage, discussed prototyping in the development of adaptable mounting systems as well as modular connecting methods to further streamline the mount designs. Carl also went on to describe how the project also required the setup of a mountmaking shop and the training of staff in mountmaking techniques, as neither existed at the Museum prior to the project.
. The final presentation of the day was given by Susanne Gänsicke, Conservator of Objects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, titled: New Mounting Systems for Ancient Objects for the Special Exhibition, The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC. This was a very interesting presentation as it documented two highly complicated projects involving extremely fragile and heavy objects. It also highlighted the importance of collaboration between conservators, mountmakers, contract engineers, and contractors. The first project example consisted of large, painted cedar coffin panels that were not only extremely fragile due to their painted surface, but quite heavy as well. The second example described was a large, heavy stone sculpture that needed to be removed from its existing display base and mounted on a new structural support. In both examples, Susanne described how new mounts were designed to fulfill a number of important purposes ranging from the aiding in the long term preservation of the objects to facilitating safe transport, all the while providing a clean visual display aesthetic.
There was a brief question-and-answer period following the afternoon session, and a number of questions were raised to the speakers.
. To round out the day’s presentations, keynote speaker Matthew Crawford, author of the bestselling book, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work, gave a thoughtful talk of his impressions on the field of mountmaking. He touched on a number of points that highlighted the uniqueness of our profession.
After a full day, we were treated to an informal reception at the S. Dillon Ripley Center, where the next day’s poster session was to be held. This was a great opportunity to catch-up with colleagues and to make new acquaintances.
DAY TWO
Day two of the Forum was a well attended poster session held at the S. Dillon Ripley Center with posters from eight presenters (in alphabetical order):
. Poster by Naomi Abe, Assistant Registrar at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, presented: An Introduction to Cost Effective Techniques for the Creation of Costume Mounts and Mannequins: The Hidden Lead Pellet Technique. She documented a very useful technique developed to incorporate bagged, leaded pellets into the lower sections of a mannequin form to provide ballast and help stabilize the figure while displayed in unusual positions.
. Margot Brunn, Conservator at the Royal Alberta Museum presented a poster titled: Animal Mounts- How Realistic do they Need to be? This was an interesting presentation of the aesthetics of support mounts in the form of animals, such as horses. Traditionally these mounts have been presented in a very realistic fashion, which can often compete with the primary display. Margot’s presentation included many successful examples where she reduced the animal form to a point where it is still fully recognizable, but did not interfere with the primary display object, providing a very clean aesthetic to her exhibits.
. Poster by Luba Dogvan Nurse, Andrew Mellon Fellow in conservation at The National Museum of the American Indian presented: A Support Mount Made from Nomex® Card for Flat Storage and 3-D Display of an Incomplete and Fragile 19th Century Straw Bonnet. Luba documented the successful use of Nomex® card as a support mount, which allowed for the bonnet to be stored flat to maximize storage space, while still retaining the ability to display the bonnet in 3-D shape.
. BJ Farrar, Mountmaker, Antiquities Conservation at the Getty Villa presented a poster titled A Preliminary Review of Some Alternatives to PhillySeal R. The paper was an overview of the search for and testing of a number of epoxy resins that might be a suitable replacement for the discontinued PhillySeal R epoxy putty. Initiated at the Getty Museum in 2007, BJ with museum conservator Jeffrey Maish and Mara Schiro of the Getty Conservation Institute, sought a replacement product that would fulfill many of the qualities that made PhillySeal popular with museums. While they did not find a direct substitute, they did find a number of other resins with different, but useful properties.
. Poster by Abby Krause, Preparator at the Colorado Historical Society presented: Old Monarch, New Mount. Abby’s presentation documented the process of designing and fabricating a new mount for “Old Monarch”, a beloved cross-section of a very large cottonwood tree that was cut down in the late 1800’s. The new mount, fabricated from steel, replaced an old bulky wood easel and incorporated a number of beneficial features such as a stronger, reduced mount size, and a design that allowed the object to be safely and easily transported on the mount.
. David La Touche, Co-founder of Benchmark presented a poster titled: Mounting Necklaces as Worn. This was a very interesting presentation on a technique used to display difficult, multi-part objects such as necklaces. The concept of David’s design is to create a support mount, or jig that resembles a multi-strand brass mop. The jig allows many smaller mounts for the necklace elements to be properly placed and connected. Once the desired orientation is obtained and the smaller mounts connected, the jig mount is removed leaving a very clean display.
. Poster by Mair La Touche, Co-founder of Benchmark also presented: New Mannequin Designs for Fragile & Hard to Handle Parkas. This was a great documentation of a mannequin design for very fragile, hooded parkas on loan to the new Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center in Anchorage, Alaska. Not only did the mounts need to support all the elements of the fragile objects, but should also allow the parkas to be safely studied periodically by the Alaskan Native populations. Mair’s ingenious, but simple mount design, much like a hanger with a carrying handle, found a nice balance between the long-term preservation of the objects and the accessibility required by the lender.
. Marla Miles, Fashion Arts and Textiles Preparator and Cynthia Amnéus, Curator of Fashion Arts and Textiles at the Cincinnati Art Museum presented a poster titled: Fosshape and Its Application for Costume Mounts. Marla and Cynthia’s presentation focused on an interesting product they experimented with called Fosshape, an Oddy passed non-woven polyester material that is similar to a thick felt in a raw state. The product, when applied with wet or dry heat, shrinks about 25% and can be easily shaped over a form; it retains its shape once cooled, making it ideal for low-cost costume mounts. This seems like a truly versatile product that could have a number of useful applications for mountmaking and conservation.
Also throughout the second day, the Forum offered participants the option to take guided tours at a number of the Smithsonian’s various mountmaking shops and gallery spaces. This was a great opportunity to see some of the fantastic facilities at the Smithsonian. I only wished there was enough time for all the tours!
Thank you to all the speakers and poster presenters who contributed to this year’s Forum. And a BIG thank you and congratulations to Shelly Uhlir and her colleagues at the Smithsonian for hosting a very successful Mountmaking Forum. Due in part to their efforts, our group is gaining momentum and moving in a positive direction that will benefit the field of mountmaking.
Giorgio Torraca 1927-2010
Dr Giorgio Torraca, former Deputy Director of ICCROM and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ died on September 25, 2010. Dr. Torraca’s contributions include research, publications, teaching and leadership of several major preservation organizations. Read his obituary on the ICCROM website
September Minutes
ECPN Minutes – September 24, 2010 1 PM EST, conference call
On Call:
Ryan Winfield
Heather Brown
Rose Daly
1. New Committee Members, committee position descriptions
2. AIC Website, ECPN blog updates
3. Twitter, Facebook, Ning updates
4. Outreach: ECPN poster at the AIC 2011 meeting, podcasts, AIC outreach lecture, local outreach, flier, upcoming meetings to be attended by ECPN committee members.
5. Angels Project
6. Mentoring Project
1. New Committee Members
Welcome to Heather Brown and Amy Brost! Heather will take over the position of Outreach coordinator from Jason Church and Amy will take over the communications coordinator position from Katie Mullen. Thanks to Jason and Katie for all your hard work and dedication to ECPN. I encourage Heather and Amy to keep a general file of meeting minutes and their projects to pass along to future committee members.
2. AIC Website, ECPN blog updates
Since finding jobs and internships are so important to emerging members, the ECPN will look over the career center of the AIC website and suggest content that could be added, especially in the “Becoming a Conservator” section. During the call we discussed specifically having topics like: resumes and C.V.’s, Portfolios, “Top 10 things a pre-program intern should know” (this would be great to partner with the Education and Training committee), Documentation, the ECPN mentoring program, research ideas, and maybe a list of links to helpful websites, blogs, etc. Amy Brost has also sent out a list of links, to be added to the ECPN blog, but perhaps also the webpage. A survey of conservators was also suggested to ask what supervisors look for in a C.V., and their expectations for pre-program interns, graduate fellows, and post-graduate fellows.
Ryan is looking into a Google calendar for the webpage, and perhaps importing the blog to Facebook so updates on the blog are automatically posted on Facebook. Ryan is working with Membership to list pre-program supervisors on the AIC “Find a Conservator” search function.
3. Twitter – Rose has de-activated the account, Facebook – Rose and Ryan are Admins, Heather Brown was just made an Admin – Would Jason Church and Katie Mullen like to continue to be administrators? Ning was de-activated by Ryan.
4. Outreach: A poster at the AIC 2011 meeting will be proposed, deadline is October 1st – Heather and Rose will work on it. Podcasts of the outreach lecture are being planned, we are still brainstorming for a speaker to record, and a microphone would be needed, Rose mentioned purchasing one personally that she would be willing to allow other ECPN members to use. Heather is attending MAAM Oct 25, (http://www.midatlanticmuseums.org/) and hopefully she can bring some fliers about ECPN, Rose will be sending the flier to Amy and Heather for editing, Rose is attending MRCG November 12 (http://mrcg.wik.is/) and she can look for interested future ECPN members or collaborations with MRCG.
5. Angels Project: Heather will be contacting Ruth about the Angels project at the AIC 2011 meeting.
6. Mentoring Project: Heather and Ryan will be working together on the mentoring project, Heather may be posting a testimonial from a successful mentee on the ECPN blog, and possibly the AIC webpage as well.
Next call will be Oct. 21, 2010.
Good meeting, very fast, and there is a lot to follow-up about, look for e-mails from Rose soon.