General Sessions – Page 4 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14, Concrete Conclusions: Surface treatment Trails for Conserving the Miami Marine Stadium by John A. Fidler, Rosa Lowinger, et. al.

Miami Marine Stadium by El Gringo. Taken August 16 2011.

“This presentation by John A. Fidler and Rosa Lowinger focused on testing cleaning methods for removal of graffiti from concrete surfaces at the Miami Marine Stadium. The work is being undertaken by the Friends of the Miami Marine Stadium with funding by the Getty Foundation.
The stadium is an excellent modernist structure designed by the Cuban-American Architect, Hilario Candela. The building includes a 326 foot-long cantilevered thin shell concrete roofline that is among the longest in the world. The Stadium was created for speedboat racing but was also used as a concert venue, and featured artists such as Jimmy Buffett, Sammy Davis Jr, and more. The stadium is owned by the city. It was closed in 1992 after Hurricane Andrew and has fallen into a state of disrepair. It has become the central site for graffiti artists in the Miami area and the surfaces of the stadium are covered with multiple layers of graffiti.
Because of it’s unique and original mid-century design, the Miami Marine Stadium is the recipient of the Getty Foundation Keeping It Modern Initiative funding. This is one of nine structures to have received this type of grant. This funding has allowed for testing graffiti removal methods and evaluating concrete repair materials for the project. This 12 month testing phase is due to be completed this summer, but the project will be on-going.
The Friends of the Miami Marine Stadium are working diligently to save this structure from a city demolition order that was issued in 1993. There is concern about the welfare of the deteriorating concrete and the structure’s hurricane resistance. The project requires both civil engineering expertise and conservation skills. In addition to materials conservation issues, the cultural and social use of the site as a graffiti sanctuary must also be addressed. Repair of the concrete in many places will require the removal of many of the graffiti works. While much of the graffiti designs are undertaken using acrylic or polyurethane enamel car touch up paint, there are more than 200 types of paint materials used to create the graffiti art.
The project will require graffiti management for current and possible future tagging. Initial meetings were held with the graffiti artists to convey that there is intent to honor the role of their work, to record the work, and to provide creative ways to archive or show the work. In the future there may be walls placed for graffiti artists to continue their efforts.
Current conservation research efforts are focusing on three lines of study – graffiti removal, anti-graffiti protection, concrete repair. Graffiti removal is focusing on both mechanical and chemical methods of removal. Mechanical techniques include dry-ice abrasion and/or laser cleaning. This may also be followed by chemical methods such as Dumond’s Smart Strip Pro, or custom chemical blends using 5% formic acid and benzyl alcohol. To protect surfaces from new graffiti additions, anti-graffiti barriers are being tested. These treatments may include Dumond Chemical Watch Dog, as well as Keim, and Prosoco products.
Concrete patch repair is focusing on stable long-term materials. Worldwide over 90% of concrete repairs fail within 10 years. Thus, it is important to test potential patch materials in actual environments prior to treatment. Also, the surface textures and finishes will be a challenge to conservators. Materials selected for testing include:

SIKA Mono-top
BASF Emaco Repair
Edison Coatings System 45
Cathedral Stone Jahn M90
Custom Mixes

Results of this research will both guide the treatment of the Miami Marine Stadium and serve as a guide for the treatment of other mid-century modern concrete buildings and structures.

43rd Annual Meeting – The Year of Light session – May 15, 2015 – "Mark Rothko's Harvard Murals: An Image for a Public Space" by Narayan Khandekar

As a big fan of Mark Rothko, I was particularly jazzed to hear this talk. The idea of “restoring” faded works by Rothko is particularly intriguing to me, since color and light are of utmost importance with his work: atmosphere matters most.
Mr. Khandekar, who gave the talk, stated that he was only the spokesperson for the team. This was clearly a collaborative effort with many different people including those familiar with Rothko. With all of these people working on this project, it helped create an all-around vision, Khandekar said.
For those unfamiliar with Mark Rothko, he was an artist in the Abstract Expressionist movement. He wanted people to be immersed in his paintings. He believed his paintings formed an environment around the viewers, which is how these mural works came to be. Rothko said, “I have been preoccupied for a number of years with the idea of translating my pictorial concepts into murals, which would serves as an image for a public space.”
Khandekar mentioned similar mural projects, such as the Seagram Murals, which I saw at the Tate Modern back in 2010. I completely understand what Rothko was trying to project onto the viewer: the murals creates an immersive atmosphere that made me never want to leave the room. Seriously, I sat in that gallery space for a long while, feeling as if I would lose something if I left the room. It was one of the most profound experiences I had with an artwork installation. I found out at this talk that the pieces were brought together in real life only as a temporary real life installation (they were commissioned for the Four Seasons restaurant in NYC and apparently were never installed) and is together only online. So I was one of the fortunate few who got to see this installation in its entirety live and in person!
ANYWAY, back to our regularly scheduled program. The Harvard Rothko Murals were installed in the Holyoke Center at Harvard in 1963. The Holyoke Center is a Brutalist building designed by architect Josep Sert. The installation room was originally intended to be a Harvard fellows’ meeting room, but instead was used as a high-level (read: important people only) dining room, but had also been used for other special events, including a disco party! Viva La Saturday Night Fever!
There were 5 pieces in total as part of the installation that were all butted up against each other: three pieces fit into a niche in the room, creating a triptych, and the other two were displayed on other walls. This room had floor-to-ceiling windows so the paintings received A WHOLE LOT of light. Rothko asked the folks at Harvard to keep the blinds drawn as much as possible, but sadly the blinds often remained open. As a result, the paintings faded and were removed from display in 1979.
So now we come to the 21st century in search of a solution: we want to show these murals again. How can we treat these so display would be possible? In order to investigate the possibilities, the team broke the art viewing experience down into three aspects: the painting, the viewer and the light.
The paintings themselves have a surface texture to them: the media is egg tempera and distemper (also a favorite medium of another favorite of mine, Edouard Vuillard); and there were glossy versus matte areas. Any type of wholesale restoration would have hidden these aspects of the work, so physical intervention was not pursued.
The viewer experience had evolved over the years. Now we have visual digital enhancement tools like Google Glass, HoloLens, and Oculus Rift. These will serve a purpose for museum visitors, but that didn’t seem to be the solution for this project either.
What did seem like a possibility was the use of light. It affects how the viewer would see the work without changing the surface characteristics of the work. So, compensating using light seemed like the best option.
They used color slides that were taken back in 1964 (Ektachrome), but of course those slides faded as well. In order to determine the original colors, they utilized one of the panels that had not been on display – Panel 6 – to get the faded colors in the slides right. They worked with a media lab in Basel, Switzerland in order to get the faded slides back into balance using Panel 6 as the color reference, which was applied to all of the paintings.
Now here’s where it got complicated and you might wait for the post-prints: somehow folks at MIT (I think it was MIT) took that color reference rendering from Panel 6, and applied it universally to the slides to create digital images of the original murals. Using a camera-projector system, a compensation image was formed and then aligned on the original panels. Then BAM! Rothko’s mural paintings are back without any alteration of the original. We’re talking AMAZING resolution here, folks: over 2 million pixels!! Freaking. Genius.
So the really awesome part was the diversity of reactions to this “restoration.” I tried to capture their original quotes, but I imagine I am paraphrasing or only got a portion of the quote.
• Terry Winters, artist: “Drama of turning off the projectors is like the move from comedy to tragedy unexpectedly!” (I kind of love that, but that is the actor in me, I’m sure.)
• Christiane Paul: “We have two versions: the historic and the restored.”
• Jeffrey Weiss Guggenheim: “The light within the painting is lost… Deceptive illusions is unnerving…”
• Brad Epley Menil: “Restored is a digital remaster and the unrestored version is like a vinyl LP. Which is the most authentic version? At what point do we accept change?”
• Kate Rothko Prizel: “The setting is not a problem. You experience the room. The space felt right. It feels like Rothko luminosity.”
• Christopher Rothko: “It feels right because my father’s brush strokes are still there.”
The display is up until July 26: I’m totally going because in order to really experience Rothko, you have to be in the room with the paintings, as the artist intended.

43rd Annual Meeting – Sustainability (Track B) General Session, May 15, "Sustaining Georgia's Historical Records: NEH Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections Implementation Grant at the Georgia Archives" by Kim Norman and Adam Parnell

Georgia Archives Conservator Kim Norman and Assistant Director of Operations Adam Parnell shared data from the Georgia Archives’ successful NEH Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections Implementation Grant project in order to support and encourage other institutions seeking to justify implementing similar environmental strategies. Kim Norman started off with a brief history of the Georgia Archives to set the context of the project.
In 2003, the Georgia Archives opened in its current facility, which was designed to meet the highest archival standards of the time, prioritizing security and environmental protection for the collections. The complex, multi-zoned mechanical system made it possible to monitor environmental conditions closely, but proved to be unwieldy and costly to operate. The NEH SCHC Implementation Grant project aimed to reduce energy consumption while simultaneously continuing to uphold best practices for the preservation of collection materials.
Refusing to let laryngitis derail his commitment to sharing this project, Adam Parnell whispered his way through the talk. The audience’s patience and encouragement served as testament to their interest in hearing what he had to say. The Georgia Archives essentially transitioned from a “run all the equipment all the time” model to a “run equipment only as needed” model. The original HVAC system was run 24/7 for 365 days a year, using up about 700kW/hour and incurring electricity costs of over $30,000 per month. Dehumidifiers were run constantly, even when the outside air was within an acceptable range. Heating and cooling units were also run constantly, at the same time, stressing the system, which needed constant monitoring and repair.
The new model relieved stress on the system and made use of passive environmental conditions whenever possible. The environmental standard was set to 55-60 degrees F with a 35-40% RH set point. The new system installed a “weather station” with “adaptation intelligence,” so, for example, when it’s raining, the draw of outside air reduces to a minimum to avoid increasing the indoor RH. The system can shut down cooling units when the outside air dips below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Likewise, the system turns off the dehumidifiers when outside RH is below 50%. The heating boilers are now run at 140 degrees F instead of the former 180 degrees, and they are turned off altogether when the outside air temperature spikes above 90 degrees.
Using the new model, kilowatt usage has dropped from 700 kW/hour to 365 kW/hour, decreasing the monthly electric bill by nearly 40% to about $18,000. Increased savings are also expected in reduced gas consumption and plant water usage.
Resource Links:

43rd Annual Meeting, General Session, Track C: Year of Light, “Shedding Light on the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Lighting Project,” Holly Salmon

Holly Salmon, Objects Conservator, Isabella Steward Gardner Museum, presented a fast-paced, engaging, and informative review of the Gardner Museum’s ongoing lighting project; she co-authored the talk with James Labeck, the lighting designer (TEND, LLC) who worked with the museum. Salmon began the talk with a brief history of how the building was lit, in Mrs. Gardner’s time and the early museum years, and a quote (which I may have paraphrased) from a letter from Gardner to Bernard Berenson, “You have no idea how difficult it is to arrange light satisfactorily.” Her museum “descendants” clearly agree with her and are working hard towards that lighting goal.
As early as 1925, the museum had installed screening and bamboo curtains to reduce daylight. Later these were replaced by ultraviolet-filtering films and temporary black-out shades. While working to reduce daylight, museum staff was also introducing electric lighting. Previous museum staff had converted some historic lamps to run on electricity and created some amusing ad-hoc lights.
The recent lighting project began in 2004 and was completed in 2012, although as Salmon mentioned at the end of her talk, the Gardner staff continue to (re-)evaluate and improve lighting in the museum. In looking at how the museum was lit, staff and consultants looked at atmosphere, intent, visitor experience, and conservation. For the AIC audience, Salmon said that of course conservation was the most important factor! In reality, it was clear that for all involved, all of these factors were important. They wanted to create lighting that would give visitors a sense of how Gardner (might have) intended the rooms to look and make the works on display and the rooms look good, while giving the objects the best protection from light damage.
The lighting project began with a light survey, using hand-held light monitors and light dataloggers, on which they recorded a year’s worth of light. The project’s second phase included major improvements to the wiring infrastructure, bringing all of the museum wiring up to modern standards and providing a master control to provide great flexibility for controlling the lighting. Lighting design and mock-ups of the design were the third and fourth phases. The designers created designs for each room. Working with museum staff, they tested and revised designs as needed. Salmon showed an example of a particularly challenging corridor gallery that went through at least three iterations of design to achieve the desired look.
To accomplish their goals, project staff approached lighting by thinking about it in layers. The first layer was the exterior light. All of the windows had ultraviolet protection. Before the project the museum also had light-colored linen shades on the windows, which created what they called “light bombs” that made it harder for visitors’ eyes to adjust to interior lighting. In the lighting project, they replaced these shades with translucent sunscreens that permitted visitors to see outside. (Salmon pointed out how visitors had always pulled at the edges of the older shades so they could see the outside.)They also fitted the windows with dark shades for when the museum is closed; where there are fragile collections near the windows, the shades are remote controlled.
The second layer was historic light. The fixtures that had previously been converted to electricity were remodeled (and/or rewired) to give better and safer light. These fixtures are now used as Gardner would have used them. For example a “candelabra” would only be lit for evenings or dark days, rather than turning on its electric bulbs all the time.
The third layer was viewing and ambient light. This was the “layer” where the project staff tried to light the collections so they could be seen well but where the lighting was not obtrusive. The overall goal was to have consistent (feeling/looking) light throughout the museum. Salmon showed the example of the newly restored Tapestry Room. They installed track lighting to showcase the objects and added recessed lighting to add ambient light, to avoid spotlighting effects.
A slide near the end of the talk read:
CHALLENGES:
1. Too
2. Many
3. To
4. List.
Nonetheless, Salmon did discuss some of the challenges of the project. These ranged from trying to encompass all points of view, through working on lighting while the given room was open (as opposed to closed for a given time for room restoration). Work in “open” rooms occurred during hours the museum was closed, entailing more staff hours for moving (and re-moving) collections and cleaning during the work.
Salmon acknowledged that the Gardner still has the challenges of light-sensitive pieces on permanent or long-term display, a challenge that is quite familiar to me and to all who work with historic house museums. She noted that they have been moving towards using high quality reproductions for some of these pieces, a decision they do not take lightly, but one that has precedence going back to Mrs. Gardner’s time.
The last part of the project addresses reversibility and reassessment. Salmon noted that they are already revisiting some rooms to make further improvements; this is primarily happening in rooms that they are continuing to restore to their Gardner-era appearance.
Clearly, a project of this scale involved a lot of people and a lot of funds. Salmon and co-author Labeck thanked all of their museum colleagues and major contractors (Cannon-Brookes Lighting & Design and Tamagna & Dipietro Electrical Contractors). They gave credit for support of this 1.65 million dollar capital project to the funders, including the Jane’s Trust, Save America’s Treasures, Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund, and the Richard C von Hess Foundation. (CHECK THESE!)
While this talk focused on one museum, it described an approach to looking at lighting that could be used by many museums. I will be hoping to see this talk in print in JAIC before too long.

AIC 43rd Annual Meeting- Practical Philosophy General Session May 15th: “Suspended Rules for Suspended Worlds: Conserving Historic Stage Scenery” (Mary Jo (MJ) Davis)

I was interested in this talk because it seemed an interesting intersection between textiles and objects together with the complications of working on objects that are still in use.
MJ discussed the set of challenges of working with historic stage scenery: climate, use, lack of funds, space to do treatments, ect. The “Curtains Without Borders” team (started 15 years ago in the state of Vermont) of conservators came up with a standard method of treatment that could be applied, with some differences as need, to the stage curtains. The typical treatment consists of: on-site technical examination, cleaning (vacuuming and dry sponging), mending tears with patches of muslin w/B72, inserts to areas of loss, consolidation of edges (all sides reinforced with muslin w/B72), structural support at top edge if necessary and reattachment of bottom roller, paint consolidation (sprayed B72), in-painting of losses and reinstallation with volunteers or professional riggers as needed. All work is done onsite by conservators and a team of local volunteers (with at least 2 at all times). Many conserved curtains have been revisited over the years and additional issues have been attended to. Issues have mostly come from handling of curtains once they were re-installed.
The project has been a success all over New England- with more requests coming in from all over the country for help. There are plans to continue the project and expand territory.

43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14, Turning Philosophy into Practice: Documenting Process Through White Papers, by Benjamin Haavik

Through many years of preservation practice, Historic New England has developed traditions of care to achieve structural and aesthetic standards in its historical properties. Examples include methods of repairing joints; labeling repair materials; setting varied target dates for the appearance of structures; and larger concepts like “replace in kind.” Benjamin Haavik discussed his efforts as the Team Leader for Property Care to standardize these treatment practices and ethics by creating white papers.
With varying amounts of detail, white papers can standardize practice for both internal work and contracting. Haavik proposes that 75% of any project can be standardized into defined, basic steps. The remaining 25% is the most difficult part of project development. This 25% might include project details (what materials and how much to replace?), organizational philosophy (which of several column styles should be matched?), and practitioner’s experience (how can we best determine methodology in the field?) Time and cost are the limiting factors in standardizing this last 25%, since highly-detailed white papers may address issues that are more effectively determined on a case-by-case basis.
While Haavik’s talk examined management processes, surprising corollaries existed with John Hogan’s and Carol Snow’s “Sol LeWitt’s Wall Drawings: Conservation of an Ephemeral Art Practice.” Hogan echoed Haavik’s observations about the challenges of realizing the most interpretive portions of a project: here, Sol LeWitt’s instruction-based Wall Drawings. Whether in preservation management or art conservation, codified standards require careful interpretation in order to create successful work.

43rd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 14, The False Dichotomy of “Ideal” versus “Practical” Conservation Treatments, by Barbara Appelbaum (presenter) & Paul Himmelstein

AIC’s 43rd Annual Meeting opened with a challenge to its central theme, “Practical Philosophy, or Making Conservation Work.” In her opening talk, Barbara Appelbaum proposed that conservation treatment does not place theory and practice at odds. Instead, treatment is inherently an act of compromise, in which the needs of stakeholders and the needs of the object are blended into an ideal course of action. As acceptable end states for treatment have broadened, a wider range of conservation strategies has become acceptable. Examples were drawn from the contrasting worlds of institutional work and private practice. These environments can offer different types of knowledge about an object’s value, authenticity, and ongoing care. Ethical and effective treatments are equally feasible in both.
Appelbaum cautioned that semantic debates between theory and practice can create burdensome self-doubt among practicing conservators. Our field’s professional literature is both abundant and conflicting, potentially leaving the conscientious practitioner with lingering worries about fundamental practices and tenets. AIC’s core documents help to address this situation by offering support for flexible and ethical conservation strategies.
Contrasting views on the impact of compromise were discussed elsewhere during the conference, including Julie Biggs’ and Yasmeen Khan’s “Subject and Object: Exploring the Conservator’s Changing Relationship with Collection Material.” While Appelbaum highlighted how conservation treatment may be strengthened through processes of choice and compromise, Biggs and Khan suggested a dilution of achievable treatment goals and specialist skills given the competing demands of traditional conservation, digitization, and exhibition. These underlying themes animated many varied and timely discussions throughout the Miami meeting.

Blog at AIC's 2015 Annual Meeting and win!

Each year we receive feedback from colleagues who couldn’t make it to the annual meeting that write-ups of the talks posted here on www.conservators-converse.org were interesting and informative. For the past few years we had so many fabulous concurrent session that even those present at the meeting couldn’t attend all the talks they were interested in and found that they could get a taste of what they missed using the blog. Our blog sees a huge increase in traffic due to annual meeting posts with almost 600 unique visits per day. We know that many colleagues are looking forward to hearing more about the conference and hope that some of you will volunteer and share your thoughts from the meeting.

How To Sign-up:

Signing up is easy. Just click on the link below to access the signup spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pNEluroUP6aP_Degsdvy0Ns7PMpximU2XDYUkGHia-A/edit?usp=sharing
There is a separate tab down at the bottom for each SG or session. Next, input your name and email next to the talk you are interested in covering. Easy! The limit for signup is two talks so that nobody feels overwhelmed.

What’s In It For Me?

Many people take notes at the talks and writing them up is a great way to organize your notes and thoughts while doing something great for your colleagues and the field. Speakers are often grateful for the feedback. And, yes there is something in it for you…all volunteers who complete two posts will be entered into a drawing to win a FREE 2016 ANNUAL MEETING REGISTRATION!

What do I need to know about Blogging?

Not much! All volunteers will be sent AIC’s Guidelines and Blogging Tip Sheets. Writing a good blog post can take some time but covering a just two talks is very manageable. Here are a few things to know:

You do not blog in real time so you don’t need a laptop or internet access at the conference– the best way is to take notes and then write up your thoughts later (ideally by the end of the conference or shortly thereafter).
You need not be an experienced blogger nor particularly tech savvy. The WordPress blog format is extremely easy to use and any necessary hand-holding will happily be provided to make you feel comfortable online. If you can send an email – you can create a blog post.
There is no pressure to be particularly witty. Active tense, first-person and personal style are all encouraged in blog posts – this is a chance to free yourself from the writing constraints of condition reports! While all posts should be professional overall, the tone is somewhat between reporting and “what I did over my summer vacation”. The best posts tell why you were interested in the topic and what you learned, you aren’t expected to be writing the speaker’s postprint so you don’t need to capture every detail. The goal is for readers to learn more about the talk than they would gain from the abstract. Tips and Guidelines will be provided for all volunteers.
In addition to the talks we also value reviews of the workshop, tours, receptions and other associated events and sessions.

I Have Some Questions Before Signing Up – Who Do I Talk To?

Contact Rachael Arenstein, AIC’s e-Editor either via email or using the Email AIC’s e-Editor box in the footer of this blog.

AIC’s 42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 29, “Sustainable Collections Care on a Budget – A new museum store for Bolton, UK” by Pierrette Squires

With her excellent talk, British conservator Pierrette Squires showed that it is possible to do a major collections move project while still being economically and environmentally conscientious. Of course, doing so required an enormous amount of careful planning, creativity, and hard work, which Squires outlined.
Situated in northwest England, an area hard hit by the recession, the Bolton Library and Museum Services (http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/) sold the textile mill which previously housed its collections storage. The staff then had to move and rehouse the collection of over 40,000 objects, ranging from fluid specimens to industrial machines, to a new location in two years and with a tight budget of $1.4 million. A large part of the success of the project resulted from the conservation team being included from almost the very beginning. Because of their involvement, the move was inspired by the green values of “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle,” values which contributed not only to environmental sustainability but economic sustainability as well.
The location chosen for the new collections storage was another old factory. Despite some pollution and asbestos, the building was in good shape structurally. Working closely with the mechanical engineers, the museum did careful environmental monitoring of the space. The museum made the unorthodox decision not to install air conditioning, which would be expensive, but instead to use large amounts of insulation. Other green features of the building renovation included the installation of solar power panels and of Power Perfectors (voltage optimization devices), which save money by buffering energy draw. Adjustments like these resulted in a 50% reduction in energy costs.
Less expensive alternatives for outfitting the storage area were also sought out. Rather than using an expensive system designed for museums, cheaper compact storage intended for use in other industries was selected. Used metal racks and wooden pallets were chosen for storage of larger objects. In all, 65% of the storage furniture was second hand, saving money and keeping things out of landfills.
The arrangement of collections within the storage area was also carefully planned to maximize the environmental conditions of the building. For example, more stable objects like geological specimens were placed in areas against exterior walls, while textiles and archaeological materials were placed in areas farther away from the loading dock and thus most protected from temperature and humidity swings. Fluid preserved specimens were placed in the northern and thus cooler part of the building.
The actual move of the collection continued the theme of sustainability. Local transport companies were hired to do the actual moving, which saved on gas and contributed to the local economy. Storage and packing materials were reused as often as possible. When no longer usuable, materials were recycled.
In conclusion, the move was a very successful project. Although not all the choices made in the project are applicable to every museum – one wonders about the risk of pollutants from used and wooden storage furniture, the ideas presented in this talk were interesting and thought-provoking. The talk proved that environmental sustainability and economic sustainability are not opposites but can go hand in hand.

42nd Annual Meeting, General Session – Securing The Future of Collections in Zimbabwe’s National Museums through Preventive Conservation: The Case of Zimbabwe Military Museum

Case Studies in Sustainable Collection Care Session, Friday May 30^th, 2:50pm
Securing The Future of Collections in Zimbabwe’s National Museums through Preventive Conservation: The Case of Zimbabwe Military Museum
Presenter: Davison Chiwara, assistant lecturer Midlands State University, Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies Department at in Gweru, Zimbabwe
This presentation reported on the analysis of collections care and sustainability at the Zimbabwe Military Museum, and presented recommendations to improve policies and practices. Mr. Chiwara’s presentation provided an important example of profound challenges to cultural heritage preservation faced by museums with restricted financial and organizational resources.
The Zimbabwe Military Museum was founded in 1974, at the end of the civil war in then Rhodesia, and five years prior to the official recognition of the nation of Zimbabwe in southern Africa. The museum is located in Gweru, Zimbabwe approximately 165 miles / 265 km southwest of the capital, Harare.
The analysis of storage conditions, environmental controls, and maintenance practices were evaluated using a survey document, interviews, and first hand observation. Mr. Chiwara’s investigation identified poor storage conditions and the lack of functional policies or guidelines for collections care. The museum has no purpose-built storage structures, and the existing artifact storage areas lack humidity, temperature, UV light or pest controls. Examples were presented of an accessioned structure that is currently being used for artifact storage, mold forming on artifacts, water damage, direct sunlight on artifacts, and inadequate housing for archaeological collections.
The museum does not have a collections management policy. A “draft paper” defining a collections policy has been drafted but not accepted by the governing organizing: National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe, creating a situation in which the Military Museum does not have a functioning policy nor is it empowered to create its own.
In conclusion Mr. Chiwara stated that preventative conservation is required to preserve the collection, and posited that preventative conservation must include reducing both short and long-term costs. He argued that investment in collections care now is crucial to achieving both of these goals and he recommended establishing standards for collections care and guidelines for implementing preventative conservation practices.