General Sessions – Page 3 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Joint 44th AIC Annual Meeting & 42nd CAC-ACCR Annual Conference, General Session, May 16, “Clandon Park – rising from the ashes,” by Christine Leback Sitwell

In the spring of 2012, as a conservation student at UCL, I had the privilege to visit Clandon Park during a field trip. When I heard of the fire that occurred almost three years after my visit, I was shocked and devastated. My attendance to this talk was driven by a personal resonation with Clandon as well as the curiosity and fascination to see an emergency plan in use, despite the circumstances.

A personal photo of a classmate in the marble hall, 2012 and the marble hall post fire, 2015

Christine Sitwell, the Paintings Conservation Advisor for the National Trust in the UK, discussed the emergency response plan in regards to the fire at Clandon Park. The fire started quite small in a basement office on the right side of the building in the late afternoon of April 29, 2015. The fire then rose through the empty elevator shaft, enabling it to reach the lead covered roof and travel across to the left side of the building. Because of this, items and rooms on the left side, albeit still damaged, were not as badly damaged as the right side of the building. It was estimated that the amount damaged and/or completely lost totaled ninety-five percent.
Clandon Park, being under the auspices of the National Trust, has an emergency plan in place. Ironically, five weeks prior, a training procedure involving the fire brigade occurred at Clandon. Christine briefly went over the basics of the plan, including their incident reporting system. The system involves a phone tree, salvage areas to move objects, security, and something called star item sheets. These star item sheets were developed by property staff that prioritize objects as great significance to the property or of great art historical value. They are clear, simple, and to be used by the fire brigade when salvaging items. They are laminated and have two copies, one on the property as well as one in the regional office. Below are the two example slides she provided.

Once these objects have been removed from the property, they are moved to designated salvage areas, inventoried, and finally moved to more secure locations. Three of the items salvaged included three paintings that, fortunately or unfortunately, had to be cut from their frames as the paintings in their frames were much too heavy and risky to be removed together. Positively, the frames were saved as well. Clandon has bottom hanging frames just for this reason, the frames hang at the bottom for ease of removal.
Once the bulk of the items are salvaged things are not over. In addition to inventory and conservation, the next issue is security. Christine mentioned that the ease of information through the internet, smart phones, and the press increased risk of theft of items and perhaps more subsequent damage to the building. The emergency plan for Clandon Park includes a communication officer. Their duty is to be the point of up to date information regarding any changes, and updates during and immediately following an emergency. They are the point of contact with the press and the public.
Christine then shared a video diary she recorded during the aftermath of the fire. It included a school that was shut down for two days to help store some of the objects. The video diary is below.
Rescued from the ruins – a video diary of the salvage operation at Clandon Park
More issues occurred because of the many different salvage sites. A collections management system was created in a spreadsheet manner in order to determine the different levels of damage to each object within each salvage site. The building construction was damaged but intact, leaving a shell of a building. The damage was assessed with a 3D laser and the building’s structural stability was able to be evaluated. There were various other methods of surveying the damage, including a drone.
There were also the health hazards associated with the burning lead roof. The burning created about six feet of lead oxide dust and debris inside. The possible risk of mercury and asbestos poisoning was also present. Therefore, admittance had to be regulated and personnel properly outfitted in order to excavate the burnt layers to retrieve small finds.
The final part of the talk was in regards to the future of Clandon Park. It was stated that the General Director of the National Trust will rebuild Clandon Park, but to what degree. There have been instances with other National Trust properties on how they have handled such a large devastation. The options with how to handle Clandon park were to: demolish, maintain as a ruin, restore completely, reinvent for another purpose, or a use blended approach. The latter seems the most likely to occur.
To end her talk, Christine shared another video about the future of Clandon Park. The video can be seen below.
Clandon Park: The Future
Overall, it was intriguing and somber to see an emergency plan being utilized during such a destructive event. I enjoyed the fact that it was not a talk on the development of a plan in case of emergency, but rather the practice of it in the moment. Not only was this a learning experience for the National Trust and everyone involved in the process, I’m sure it meant a great deal to everyone who was present at Christine’s talk. If anyone else had the chance to visit Clandon before the fire, then you are aware of how such a startling loss this has been, not only for the local community, but for admirers around the world. I am hopeful for Clandon Park’s future.

Further information:
Clandon Park at the National Trust
Our Work at Clandon Park

44th Annual Meeting, General Session (GO – Emergency Response), May 16, “The Emergency Response Team at the Centre de conservation du Québec” by Eloïse Paquette

The Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ), in Québec city, is a unique institution. Founded by the Ministère de la Culture et des Communications in 1979, its mandate is to protect and preserve Quebec’s cultural heritage and to make sure that this valuable heritage is recognized as such, and made as widely available as possible. The CCQ, which provides a variety of services (ranging from restoration to raising awareness about conservation issues and to emergency response), employs thirty conservators. One of these professionals, Éloïse Paquette, Paintings Conservator at the Centre, was at the joint 44^th annual meeting and 42^nd annual conference on May 16 to let us in on the secrets of the CCQ’s well-rounded Emergency Response Team. I had been looking forward to this talk: as a Quebecoise, and an aspiring conservator, this was a valuable occasion to get to know the workings of the CCQ, as well as how prepared they are to face disasters that threaten cultural heritage in the Belle Province. What I found out is that the members of the Emergency Response Team of the CCQ are, as Paquette pointed out, as ready as they can be.
The ice storm of January 1998, which paralyzed the Montreal region, acted as a catalyst for the coming into being of an official Emergency Response Team at the CCQ. The crise du verglas, as it is known in Quebec, caused massive power outage. At the Lachine Museum, 10 km from downtown Montreal, leaks appeared from previously frozen pipes when the power came back on, and the storage area was flooded with hot, dirty water, critically damaging the Museum’s collections. The CCQ was called for help, and three conservators were on site two days later. 254 of the affected objects demanded immediate care: the exhibition space of the museum was turned into examination rooms, many textiles were dried or frozen on site, and others were washed then and there. 87% of the textiles were saved, and half of them can be displayed today. Some of the textiles, paintings, works on paper, ethnological objects and furniture were restored in the following years.
This disaster prompted the Lachine Museum to revise its storage space (they installed a gas heating system and revised the classification of the objects) and the CCQ to put into place a more detailed and comprehensive emergency plan. Paquette explained to the audience what this plan is, and, most importantly, how good organization and communication make it an effective one. The CCQ’s Emergency Plan, which is revised and put up to date during regular meetings, relies on cooperation between team members as well as with other institutions and museum employees. The CCQ has agreements with the Musées de la civilisation and the Musée National des Beaux-Arts in Quebec City, as well as with Centre des services du Québec – Parcs Canada.
The first aspect of the Emergency Plan which Paquette unveiled was the Telephone Pyramid, a diagram in which a network of names and phone numbers are linked one to the other, in such a way that when a member of the team receives a call telling them about an emergency, they know exactly which other members to call. Hence, everyone is quickly in the know and ready to act. Like every other document related to the Emergency Plan, this Pyramid is available in a binder at CCQ, and every team member has a copy at home. The Pyramid was also printed in credit card format, so that it is carried around at all times (as Paquette pointed out, she had her copy in her wallet during the talk). This goes to prove what is seemingly obvious, but can never be stressed enough: communication is key for efficient emergency response.
The members of the emergency team also own a pocket-size summary of the plan. In the Emergency Plan, nothing is left to chance: the sequence of events is detailed, designated facilities are pointed out, the responsibilities of each team member is exposed, contact information for CCQ’s partners in case of disaster is listed, floor plans of institutions and museums are provided, etc. The document is made complete by a few annexes, the first of which being “Salvage Material Lists.” The materials of the Emergency Response Team, which are regularly inspected, are housed together in a secure area at the Centre, in well identified boxes. On each box is taped a list of the material it contains. The materials are visible, easily accessible, and very well organized. At the end of the talk, an attendee asked Paquette, who had provided us with an example of the list of materials contained in two of the boxes (box #1: aluminum paper, waxed paper, Ziploc bags, plastic fasteners, garbage bags, polythene, and box #4: security helmets, first aid kit, security glasses, dust masks, disposable gloves, dishwashing gloves, latex gloves), what they used aluminum paper for. Paquette stated that most of the materials have no specific, set use. Instead, they are to be brought on site just in case they are needed. This whole organization of the material makes for a quick and efficient disaster response.
The emergency plan has been put to the test a few times since its inception. Paquette told the audience about two disasters that – as someone who grew up in Quebec City – I remember vividly: the burning of the Quebec’s Armoury (2008), and the fire at the Musée de la civilisation de Québec (2014).
The Voltigeurs de Québec Armoury, a Gothic Revival drill hall, was built in the later part of the 19^th century. As Paquette pointed out, on top of its historical significance, the manège militaire (as it is known in Quebec) also had architectural value: it was the largest wooden structure in America without columns. Iqn the night of April 4^th, 2008, as the whole of Quebec City was still preparing for the celebration of the city’s 400^th birthday, the Armoury, which was to have been one of the venues of the festivities, burned to the ground. As Paquette pointed out, the building was completely lost, except for the façade and the Voltigeurs de Quebec’s Museum, located to the left of the building. Several conservators were called on site on April 5^th and tried to carry out the drying of archives and paper on site, until the federal government took over the conservation of the artifacts. 90% of the collection, which was mostly archives, was saved, and the museum was relocated.
Six years later, in 2014, an electrical fire broke out on the second floor of the Musée de la civilisation de Québec. Two exhibition rooms were flooded. In the first exhibition, one that contained about 300 First Nations artifacts, the objects were quickly protected and sustained minimal damage. The second exhibition was composed of Pierre Gauvreau’s paintings, which were rapidly covered with polythene to prevent ashes from settling on the surface, since there was no more storage space available. Except for the floors of the rooms, which had to be replaced, everything remained in good condition.
After the fire at the Museum, the CCQ’s Emergency Response Team went over their performance and commented on everything that went right, and everything that went wrong. Paquette concluded her talk by sharing some of the conclusions they drew from this exercise: everyone should have a cellphone and be in constant communication during transportation and intervention; a police escort should be demanded by the team in order to avoid traffic; frontal lamps are a must; the basic needs of the team need to be taken care of; it is necessary to monitor what other people are doing on the site (for example, cleaning company employees will sometimes use products that are dangerous for the collections); and the team (and their material) should be identified. Paquette showed the blue vest that the members of the Emergency Response Team wear when they work on the site of a disaster, which makes them recognizable but also distinguishes them from firefighters and other professionals.
What really makes the Emergency Response Team at the Centre de Conservation du Québec shine is the emphasis that is put throughout their emergency plan on good communication and obsessive organization. With the material always ready to be packed in a car and brought on site, and everyone easily reachable on their phones, it seems like this team could serve as an example for other institutions that have not yet fully embarked on the emergency preparedness train. In this regard, I would like to suggest that it might be worth considering for the CCQ to make the entirety of their emergency plan publicly available. All of their hard work and planning could greatly benefit conservation professionals all over the world.

43rd Annual Meeting, General Session, May 15, “The Best Laid Plans: Investigation, Application and Failure of the Finishes on the Sherman Monument", by Michael Kramer

In his presentation, Michael Kramer from the Gilder’s Studio discussed the treatment of the William Tecumseh Sherman Monument, a gilded bronze statue created by Augustus St. Gauden that currently resides in Central Park, New York. Kramer provided a detailed history of the monument, which was installed in 1903, and a candid explanation of the failures seen on its most recent regilding campaign.
During the life of the statue, the object underwent several campaigns of gilding and toning, often met with disapproval by the public as the resulting appearance was considered too bright and garish. In a 1990 campaign, the monument was regilded and later toned with wax and gelatin. Failures in this coating were noted in 2005 and attributed, by Kramer, to years of collected pigeon excrement that had eaten into the surface.
At that point, Kramer was commissioned by the Central Park Conservancy to regild and investigate stable coating systems that would also provide protection from pigeon infestation. Tests of four different systems were applied to coupons and affixed to the sculpture for a year. The coupons were subjected to real life scenarios to measure performance and assessed using hydraulic adhesion tests. Results showed that while two coats of Butcher’s White Diamond wax with colors in oil proved most visually appealing, its ability to withstand pigeon infestations was questioned. The three coat aliphatic urethane Ronan Aquathane system using a glaze over Japanese colors was aesthetically the second best alternative and performed better than the wax when subjected to the hydraulic adhesion tests.
In 2013, the sculpture was stripped and regilded by Kramer. After curing for two weeks, the toning system was applied. Unfortunately, cracks were noticed in the gilding after only two months. It was discovered that the flaws penetrated beyond the coating system and went as deep as the size layer. Extensive analysis revealed that the formula of the size that was tested five years earlier had changed and was likely the cause of the failures. Kramer emphasized that sometimes, despite efforts to replicate the use of the products and methodology used during the testing phase, things may not work out when in the field, He ended his presentation by sharing useful lessons he had learned: First, lab testing may not translate to real world situations, second, know your product- manufacturers are not obligated to inform users of any formulaic changes and finally, artisans need to ensure the product they tested is the exact one they are using in situ.

43rd Annual Meeting, May 15, 2015, “The How and Why of Reusing Earth Magnets”, with Gwen Spicer

As we approach another conference in which Gwen Spicer will share her vast knowledge in the workshop sessions Ferrous Attractions, the Science Behind the Magic (spots available as of this writing), we call attention to her 2015 session in which she explained attention that can be paid as to the sustainability of their use. This content has also been submitted to The Book and Paper Group Annual 34, but for those who are not BPG subscribers, is available on her website: The How and Why of Reusing Earth Magnets.
First she addressed what exactly are the “rare earths” from which these strong magnets are made. Chiefly, they appear among the lanthanide series of elements from the lower part of the periodic table – elements 57 through 71 and a few more. They are called rare because although they are naturally found intermingled, early on in industrial mining history, they were hard to separate due to their chemical similarities. (More information including a timeline of refining and increased production may be found on Spicer’s website and blog.)
Addressing the primary theme of the conference, Spicer asked “is it sustainable or not to use these elements, and if so, why?” Today, advanced industrial processes have made these rare earth elements easier and cheaper to separate, leading to their relative ubiquity, to a point that they are now are considered disposable. You may be surprised to learn that they make up components in so-called green technologies, such as hybrid cars and wind turbines. Because they make rapid electrical transmission in miniaturized components possible, they are one of the things that make inexpensive portable electronics possible, such as small appliances, earphone/buds, and mobile phones. While recycling/e-cycling the more expensive products such as phones is becoming more common and a cash value is placed on turn-in programs, those smaller items represent a non-recoverable portion of an ultimately finite resource.
To refine these rare earth elements, because they appear “rarely”, mining companies actually have to go through a very large amount of product to recover a small amount of valuable stock, resulting in industrial waste. As with any mining process, there are sad truths of waste management, such as polluted tailing ponds, release of atmospheric dusts, and junk metals discarded, all of which are potential contributors toward environmental pollution.
While there was production in the US, a highly visible mine incident in Mountain Pass, CA, led to closure based on EPA citations. Not surprisingly, much of the world’s production (95%) comes from China, where environmental standards are considerably more lax. To make the most profit, some countries will also offshore the labor intensive refining and processing of ore to poorer countries, leading to other uglier truths, such as the protection of the worker and environment coming down to an economic compromise, or conflict. Population studies in some countries show higher incidence of higher cancer rates and shorter life span for workers in these industries.
Spicer reported that economic and political tensions has caused Japan to invest in production of more efficient technologies and reexamining of older technologies, so as to use less material overall. As the trend shifts from the cheapening of the source material to what may eventually become more costly due to the consumer waste and reduced availability. (For further reading, Spicer goes into more detail on geo-economic and political tensions in the BPG article linked above.)
On a more positive note, Spicer turned back to what the conservator interested in using earth magnets can do; first she advises becoming a wiser and more informed consumer and user. (Just reading this article is a start!) Proper care and handling of earth magnets, chiefly the Niobium-Ferric-Bromide type, can reduce one’s overall impact by conserving the intensive material resources needed to make them. There is an excellent table of information in the article; as example, tips drawn from this session discussion include:
⁃ Earth magnets have sensitivities: protect them from extremes of heat, mechanical shock, moisture.
⁃ Use appropriate techniques to adhere or countersink them into substrates. For instance, use of hot melt glue can deactivate a magnet.
⁃ To ensure longevity during storage and use, separators are key, such as foam padding, or sinking them into other materials such as corrugated boards or foam.
⁃ Use smaller containers such as the ones they are shipped in, or pill separators, to keep them from banging into each other or ferromagnetic surfaces. Recycle other small containers, such as contact lens cases, to increase separation in small cubic space.
⁃ Keep like materials together and unlike apart – niobium apart from ferromagnetic surfaces to avoid demagnetization.
⁃ See further references in Spicer’s bibliography.
Lastly, as a watchword, Spicer leaves us with the mantra “let us be aware of best environmental practices just as we do in other areas of treatment…”
In the Q&A period, the following discussions arose:
Q: About suppliers: do any companies have more sustainable practices than others?
A: There are kind of two categories – some companies are affiliated with the mining sources, converting earths to magnets; and then there are those that just sell them. For instance, the Mountain Pass mine has started up again in US, under new restrictions, using previously gathered raw material to produce new product
Q: Are there any insights into how to dispose of or recycle earth magnets?
A: There are at least 12,000 e-cycling programs across the U.S., definitely contact them! Recycling can also a present a conflict for resources as trash picking and separation is an economic way of life for some. But for broken ones, sharp or deactivated, recycling companies are a good option to divert the unusable portion versus the municipal waste stream. Harvard University Libraries suggests contacting Terracycle of NJ, to take away waste stream that is disallowed from municipal collections.
Q: At a recent symposium, the personal safety issue came up. What are current safety recommendations for bulk storage of magnets or use for persons with pacemakers or other electronic medical devices?
A: From discussions Spicer has had, generally a magnet force field limited to three inches from the pacemaker (or other medical appliance), can be a distance of concern – this could take even place where dangling earbuds with embedded magnets are present (see the tiny print warning label on packaging of these). It is important to note that the force of the magnet is a factor of its size and any shielding around it or the object it may be attracted towards. Generally an artifact in exhibition which is mounted with magnets is very far from that distance, but it could be true for workers in a lab, or someone carrying an object enclosure with an embedded magnet.
Use of signage on enclosures or mounts indicate presence of covered magnets is a good common sense warning. As magnets are brittle, and can fly across a table at each other at great speed and shatter, safety goggles are highly recommended at all times. Hand protection may also be necessary for the worker, as pinching, splinters or nail breakage, can all be issues when separating magnets, or prying them out for reuse. If you maintain a private practice with a studio in your home, or have occasional younger visitors to your lab, be aware that swallowing by children or animals is an issue! See the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission warning that was issued for more information on magnet dangers for small children. (This author is currently working on a Job Hazard Analysis for work with magnets with the assistance of an industrial hygiene group; potentially this may become available through AIC Health & Safety group as well.)

43rd Annual Meeting- General Session: Practical Philosophy, May 14th, “Philosophical and Practical Conservation in the Installation, Re-Treatment, and Storage of a Rubber Sculpture by Richard Serra”, Presented by Emily Hamilton.

Like many artists working in the 60s, sculptor Richard Serra was drawn to the possibilities of natural rubber prior to his more recent steel installations. Like many conservators working in modern and contemporary conservation, Emily Hamilton was faced with the arduous task of conserving it in an ethical, stable, artist approved way for display for a museum expansion. I was drawn to Emily’s talk for several reasons, as the issue of stabilizing rubbers works keeps popping up in my career. In 2003, I was gearing up for graduation at Washington University in St. Louis, when across the park, conservators at the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM) were preparing ‘Untitled’ an oversized sculpture of three overlapping panels for a major Serra exhibition. The treatment while well guided with methylcellulose patches, something I could not readily detect at the time, did not maintain its desired appearance or stability in the decade that followed while it in storage. In 2014, Emily would get a chance to try the treatment again following the museums renovation.

Degradation and separation of latex, and previously rolled storage that exacerbated the problem.

The basis of both the 2004 and 2014 treatments were from research conducted by Michelle Barger at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA), which she presented at the 2008 ‘The Object in Transition’ at the Getty I had been fortunate enough to attend during my internship year at the Museum of Modern Art. (Free to Stream). The talk focused on the conservation of Eva Hesse’s ”Expanded Expansion” made of similar materials at the same time as Serra’s piece. Michelle’s work not only focused on the technique of applying cheesecloth patches with methylcellulose, but also the ethicacy conserving a work that had deviated so far from its initial appearance and stability without the help of a living artist to give advice.
Working with Michelle’s research, Emily Hamilton created a modified innovative approach to the treatment, using the previous 2004 treatment as a facing to stabilize the structure from the front so she could apply patches from the back and ultimately remove the discolored 2004 patches. With assistance from the installation staff, she was able to perform treatment in situ on a support that allowed for adequate rolling and flipping with Tyvek and a large diameter tube. Emily’s practical approach is evidence that its not just the treatment materials we use, but how we choose to use them based on the object. The final push to provide flat storage for these objects is most definitely a win for natural rubber artwork overall, I just wish I could convince my private clients to do the same. As a final thought Emily offered the possibility of restoring some of the three dimensional qualities to the work in the future, so it would look closer to its intended appearance and convey some of the verbs Serra had chosen to invoke. Previous time constraints and the fragile nature of the piece did not lend this possibility. Fortunately her treatment and storage solution, along with a living artist to consult, just may allow for that possibility in the future.

An image of Serra's 'Untitled' at the time of creation in 1968 vs, the appearance in 2014 following treatment. — An image of Serra’s ‘Untitled’ at the time of creation in 1968 vs, the appearance in 2014 following treatment.

43rd Annual Meeting- General Session: Practical Philosophy, May 15th, “After the Fall: The Treatment of Tullio Lombardo's 'Adam' ”, Presented by Carolyn Riccardelli; Lawrence Becker, Michael Morris, Jack Soultanian, Ron Street, George Wheeler.

I have a confession…. I’ve had a secret crush on ‘Adam’ since I first started my graduate training at Buffalo State College back in 2005. I first met Tullio Lombardo’s 1490-95 monumental Renaissance sculpture when I had just completed my first year of study. I had heard of this major conservation project at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the ambitious Carolyn Riccardelli who had just been selected to take on what was in fact a monumental task. On my way back to begin my second year of study, I stopped by the Met where Carolyn was kind enough to show me the 28 large pieces and hundreds of small fragments (Image 1) that once made up what was a nearly pristine prime example Italian Renaissance sculpture in North America prior to its fall in October 2002. While tragic, it also presented an unprecedented opportunity to study and treat such a work on American soil using modern technology and materials which would be best suited for the repair.
Carolyn and other members of ‘Team Tullio’, a collection of conservators, conservation scientists, material scientists and engineers, explained the 3D laser scanning of each piece and the virtual reconstruction they were able to do with the technology to minimize damage to the fragile clean break edges. It was later that year as I was pursuing my own graduate research on calcareous stone, that I found myself back at the Metropolitan Museum of Art meeting with George Wheeler, a member of the research team who was performing tests on viable adhesives and pinning materials which were previously presented at meetings prior to this talk.
The results of this material testing were combined with the initial 3D scans using a new tool to conservation based in structural engineering called ‘Finite Element Analysis’.(Image 2)

Image 2: Results of 3D scanning and Finite Elemental Aaalysis — Image 2: Results of 3D scanning and Finite Elemental Analysis

This tool allowed the team to virtually see the areas of stress/strain in the sculpture, and determine the best and most minimal areas to use fiberglass rods for pinning along with the selected adhesive cocktail (B72:B48N, 3:1 in acetone). This theoretical research was then put into practice on a large scale sculpture similar in size, stance and material to ‘Adam’, but definitely not of the same value (a replica of Michelangelo’s ‘David’ from wishihadthat.com). ‘David’ posing as ‘Adam’ was broken in similar locations and subjected to what was my favorite aspect of the project, an external armature system used for clamping during the reconstruction). The armature allowed for the pieces to be joined and held in place with precision as the often overlooked 2 week evaporation period of the solvents took place to insure maximum adhesion and reducing creep.
Finally, after over a decade of research and practice, the team implemented the treatment of ‘Adam’ in what can only be described as mesmerizing . Now if only it were that easy and fast. Carolyn’s talk concluded with a well-deserved standing ovation, something I had never witnessed before at a talk, but gladly jumped in with full support of the team. This project truly was monumental and the research is something I am very fortunate to have witnessed during my graduate training and beyond. For the Metropolitan Museum’s Report (source of all images included) Or you could just go see it for yourself at The Met!

43rd Annual Meeting – Sustainability Session, May 15, “Conscientious Conservation: The Application of Green Chemistry Principles to Sustainable Conservation Practice”, Jan Dariusz Cutajar

Jan Dariusz Cutajar, graduate student at UCL, began by commenting that inspiration from last year’s AIC conference had caused him to investigate this topic. Cutajar states that in some instances the terms, ‘sustainable’ and ‘conservation’ are used interchangeably, but he argues that each term needs to be carefully defined: ‘sustainable’ as reusable, not causing harm to the environment, people or culture. Sustainability has environmental, social and economic faces – it is a cultural construct.
Cutajar believes that currently sustainability initiatives are not well integrated into conservation programs.

The existing Green Chemistry principles, outlined by the mnemonic “Productively” he has replaced with a mnemonic of his own devising: “To Conserve”, which stands for:
T – Temperature and pressure considerations
O – Only use what you need
C – Conscientious waste prevention
O – Optimizing Health and Safety
N – Negligible toxicity is best
S – Safer, alternative methods
E – Environmentally non-persistent, biodegradable chemicals
R – Renewable materials and energy sources
V – Verify solvent sustainability
E – Examination and monitoring
These principles must work in combination with the eco scale: factors of time, price, safety and fate of materials.
Cutajar surveyed a range of university and institutional conservation laboratories and private practitioners about their sustainable lab practices with regard to chemical usage. He discovered that there is a general awareness in the profession of the impact of chemicals but differences in available time, money and other resources resulted in different approaches. He found that university laboratories had the most sustainable practices, with institutional conservation departments being hampered by time pressures such as digitization and exhibition programs, and private practitioners being restricted by both time and cost considerations. He feels that stronger communication of sustainability principles and a cohesive change in attitude and habits within the sector will further improve sustainable conservation practice.

43rd Annual Meeting – Sustainability Session, May 15, "An Investigation and Implementation of the Use of Sustainable and Reusable Materials to Replace Traditional Wood Crates" by kevin Gallup

Kevin Gallup showing crate design. Traveler, lid and exterior crate in foreground.

This talk was of interest to me because I am a former member of the Sustainability Committee, and reusable crates were something that we received several inquiries about. As museums and other lending institutions look at ways to increase their sustainability, one thing they consider is finding an alternative to the typical wooden crate used to ship objects. The problems with wooden crates are: a) they are made to fit a specific sized object, and are difficult to retrofit for something else; b) extra room is necessary to store them until needed again; c) wood is attractive to a variety of pests; d) wood adsorbs and emits odors; and e) locally- and sustainably-sourced wood can be difficult and expensive to aquire. There are some European companies that rent resuable plastic crates, such as Turtlebox, but they are not yet available in the United States.
Yale University turned to Kevin Gallup when their Sustainability Strategic Plan compelled them to find a solution for this problem. They wanted a system of modular parts made of sustainable materials that could be taken apart, stored, and reused as necessary. As Mr. Gallup explains in his abstract: “There were many factors to take into account to obtain an acceptable system. Availability and price of materials, construction techniques, compatibility of materials, and the unique archival material requirements [of] the museum industry…are some of the features of the crating system that had to work together to produce a crate design. The fabrication and creation of the parts withing the design would need to be obtainable either by utilizing their own facility…or by having the parts…made locally. The system would need to be easily put together utilizing as many common parts as possible.”
After 10 years of trial and error, Mr. Gallup is satisfied with his current design. The crate is made with an aluminum frame and Dibond sides. Dibond is a composite sandwich of two thin sheets of aluminum with a white polyester coating bonded to a polyethylene core. There is an outer box with a smaller inner traveler or tray of the same materials to contain the object(s). Various foams or Sorbothane can be used to surround the traveler. Sorbothane feet are attached to the bottom to mitigate the effects of vibration.
He is currently working about a business model to make this available to other institutions. Parts can be cut out in various sizes with a CNC machine, but the system still requires a high skill level to assemble. If you are interested in learning more about these crates, Mr. Gallup suggests that you contact him in about 6 months, and he will be able to provide more information.

Audience members check out the crate materials: aluminum frame, Dibond, and Sorbothane

43rd Annual Meeting-General Session, May 15, 2015, "Lighten Up: Enhancing Visitor Experience," by Linda Edquist and Sarah Stauderman

Postal Museum Paper Conservator Linda Edquist was unable to attend the conference, so Sarah Stauderman presented in her place. Sarah began by describing the practice of philately and placing it within the context of the recent 18,000 square foot expansion of the National Postal Museum. A collective cringe radiated through the audience like the “wave” in a football stadium, when Sarah revealed that a key component of the building program was the plan to expose a large bank of southwest-facing exterior windows over the new exhibit space. Fortunately, the museum was able to use a variety of active and passive approaches to control light in the galleries.
First, there were translucent window films printed with large images of famous stamps. These required approval by the local architectural review board, since they were not in keeping with the period of the historic building. The stamp windows added an interpretive element, while reducing the ambient light level in the sunlit galleries.
Motion detectors were used to activate LED lights in the “GEMS” gallery, which houses the “inverted Jenny” and other famous or infamous stamps. The ambient light levels were kept low, while “Why is this room so dark?” interpretive signage allowed the museum to provide preservation outreach within the gallery.

A variety of interactive cases and open storage designs used a somewhat low-tech approach to reducing the light exposure of these works on paper. There was a series of pull-out frames filling the walls of what appeared to be a print reading room with the somewhat grandiose title of “National Stamp Salon.” A similar type of open storage housing was used in the Smithsonian Arts and Industries building in the 19th century. An updated version was manufactured by Goppion to meet current museum conservation and security standards in the Stamp Salon.
There were also cases with interactive lift-up doors that created an intimate viewing experience for each visitor. Horizontal pull-out cases were essentially glazed drawers set into exhibit cases. Visitor engagement was enhanced by the act of lifting and pulling to reveal the collection, a side benefit of the museum’s light-protection system. Magnetic switches permitted case lights to turn off when drawers were closed. The light switches in the lift-up cases were not always reliable, so the museum may try to redesign the lighting for these cases.

lift-up doors — Lift-up doors (circled in red) in the Mail Marks History Exhibit

Collections staff members have been meeting monthly to clean the cases and to assess the security and mechanical stability of all of these moving cases, yet they have continued to rely on some stationary case designs. To avoid the physical stress of constant movement, the museum sought a passive solution for reducing light levels in exhibits of the most fragile paper documents. In the months following 9-11, letters contaminated with anthrax had been treated with chlorine dioxide gas, making the paper more vulnerable to light. The museum selected VariGuard SmartGlass for the exhibit vitrine, blocking more than 99% of ambient light without moving parts. The glass is a laminate that can switch from opaque to transparent when an electrical current is applied. The National Postal Museum’s blog provides more information about the technology behind this interesting product, along with photos of the anthrax letters on exhibit.
Anyone who deals with works on paper or other light-sensitive collections would be likely to see some ideas to steal from this presentation. There were a wide variety of approaches, suitable for documents and works of art on paper in different formats and states of condition. Balancing the needs of the visitors to see the exhibits with the preservation of the collection can be very challenging. Linda Edquist and her colleagues at the National Postal Museum have provided a great set of models for the rest of us.

43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14: "The Theory of Practice: Practical Philosophy, Cultures of Conservation and the Aesthetics of Change"

Hanna Höllig, the Andrew W. Mellon Visiting Professor at Bard Graduate Center, has been researching the ethical dilemmas in the preservation of contemporary art, focusing on the artwork of Nam June Paik. In tune with the conference’s theme of Practical Philosophy/Making Conservation Work, she highlighted the point that practice and experience build our theories, and through contemplating theory, we can enhance our practices. It is a co-dependent relationship that requires participation, communal self-reflection, and historical examination.

Canopus, 1990 Nam June Paik Single-channel video sculpture ; 6 monitors, 1 laserdisc, 1 laserdisc player Collection of the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (ZKM | Center for Art and Media) http://zkm.de/en/artwork/canopus — Canopus, 1990
Nam June Paik
Single-channel video sculpture ; 6 monitors, 1 laserdisc, 1 laserdisc player
Collection of the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (ZKM | Center for Art and Media)
http://zkm.de/en/artwork/canopus

Her central case study discussed the treatment of Paik’s Canopus (1990) in the Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe (ZKM | Center for Art and Media) collection. Unfortunately, Canopus had fallen from the wall during exhibition, severely damaging the television screens and the central hubcap. Höllig was responsible for designing the treatment, which served as a pointed example of the controversy surrounding material replacement in conservation. The television screens that had shattered were generically commercial components, so this substitution was considered acceptable. On the other hand, there were calligraphic inscriptions and a signature by Paik on the original hubcap. Höllig proposed to replace the hubcap with an exact substitute under the condition that the damaged original would be exhibited alongside the recreation, but this was not deemed an acceptable option by the curator. In exhibiting both the recreated piece and the original hubcap, it would have allowed visitors to experience a likeness of the original, but also the physicality of Canopus’ history with the art object as done by Paik’s making.
In teasing apart the two differing responses to the same type of proposal, Höllig is not just proposing an examination of conservation approaches to contemporary art, but this is about highlighting what artists, curators, and conservators identify as the essence of the work. What–and more importantly, how–do we assign these values? In refusing the hubcap replacement and/or the exhibition of the damaged original- precisely where is the essence violated? In any type of art or artifact, what components of replacement, refurbishment, regeneration, repair, etc. are appropriate, and what makes these decisions appropriate? In making alterations to an original piece to “return it to the original state” (or perhaps it should read “acceptable state”), are we approaching the essence or only the aesthetic?
Höllig also points to the concept of conservation as a contextual cultural practice. How do we know we are right, or rather, how conscious are we of the principles that guide us? Conservation is not simply about the physical, but also our connections with the experiences, people, and the content surrounding the things. In our work as conservators, we are in the business of addressing unwanted changes of objects. But, since changes are inevitable, what is our tolerance for it? What kind of change is palatable to our collective modern-day taste? I did not find her philosophical points to be a reprimand of what we do or don’t do as conservators but a call for an honest self-reflection on the influences connected to our treatment decisions. These questions seem to expedited and scrutinized in contemporary art because of the ephemeral and technologically-dependent nature that cannot be addressed by “traditional” methods alone, but these questions are true for any specialty, for any collection.