In this talk, presented during Thursday’s general session, Lara Artemis, the Collection Care Manager for the Parliamentary Archives at the Houses of Parliament, UK, discusses the delicate balance between conservation needs and the ‘Business of the House’ at the Houses of Parliament, in London. She discusses the innate conflict between the historical role of the Parliamentary Estates buildings and collections, and their function as the seat of government in the United Kingdom (ie. The Business of the House), which takes priority.
Throughout the presentation, Lara walks the audience through the methods by which the Conservation and Collection Care teams were able to greatly increase their presence in the decision making processes at the Houses of Parliament over the last five years. They were able to achieve this through the active engagement of internal and external stakeholders, by addressing the needs of government (quite literally in this case), by maintaining access to the buildings, collections and archives, and by working and communicating closely with the community.
Ever conscious of her audience, Lara begins her talk by first explaining what is meant by the ‘Houses of Parliament’ and ‘Business of the House’, as they differ significantly in form and function from the American system of government. In this instance, the Houses of Parliament are situated in the Palace of Westminster, and are made up of the House of Commons and the House of the Lords. The ‘Business of the House’, as she describes it, includes but is not limited to the creation of Acts of Parliament, and all other activities pertaining to the governance of the United Kingdom.
The Palace of Westminster has seen many iterations since its original construction as the primary London residence of the Kings of England in the eleventh century. Destroyed by fire in 1512 and again in 1834, the current form is heavily rebuilt with the only structure having survived the fires being Westminster Hall, built in 1097 by William Rufus. The Palace of Westminster has served as the home of Parliament since the thirteenth century.
Today, the Palace is the centre of political life in the United Kingdom, it is an emblem of parliamentary democracy as well as one of the most popular tourist attractions in London. The Palace has been UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1987 and contains historic furnishings, paintings, sculptures and books, as well as original Acts of Parliament and other historic archives (including an original letter from the United States to the United Kingdom declaring their independence!). More information on the collections housed at the Palace of Westminster, including high resolution images can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/about/art-in-parliament/ .
One of the main challenges for conservators working around Parliamentary business is timing, as the conservation team can often only do their work in situ during recess breaks. For example, the conservation of House of Lords Chamber benches, which have not seen conservation treatment since the 1950s, must happen around fixed dates, such as the State Opening of Parliament, so as to minimise the impact of conservation work on the operation of the Chamber itself. Here, efficient and effective communication with stakeholders is critical to ensure that all priorities are being addressed in terms of the needs and costs associated with conservation, as well as any potential disruptions to political business.
Another challenge faced by the conservation team is that of visitor/employee damage. Beyond the more than 7000 people required to pass Acts of Parliament, which include Lords, Members of Parliament, and their associated staff, hundreds of thousands of tourists pass through the halls of Westminster Palace every year. Conservators must work to simultaneously preserve the buildings and their associated materials and collections, while maintaining accessibility to these same things.
Despite the priority given to the ‘Business of the House’, Lara is clear that Parliament has always believed in the importance of heritage preservation – the issue has been in reconciling Parliamentary priorities with conservation priorities. In order to place preservation needs higher on the Parliamentary agenda, the Collections Care team has made use of strategic communications and public engagement activities to pique the interests of both internal and external stakeholders. It was Lara herself, upon discovering that decisions were being made regarding heritage access without the presence of a conservator, who invited herself and her team to various events and facilities meetings to remind people of the preservation risks associated with enabling access to historic buildings and collections and giving a voice to conservators working at the Houses of Parliament. Illustrating their success in communicating preservation needs was the formation of the Heritage strategy and Heritage incident management groups in 2013. Further, the conservation programs are, today, fully endorsed by the House of Lords, as well as the Commons Administration and Works Committee.
Communities and other external stakeholders have been and continue to be engaged by means of education programs, collaboration and communication. Their education programs have sought to engage students through school placements and activities with children. The conservation team has also made use of social media to interact with the public and generate interest. The conservation of the cast iron roof structure is one such project that the public can follow via social media.
Though Lara was unable to give her talk in its entirety due to time constraints, she did finish with some hints and tips for conservators working in similar environments. For Lara and her team, success has been predicated upon a foundation of solid communication and outreach mixed with compromise. She urges conservators to make their voices heard, to ‘speak out’, as she says. By pointing out the benefits in both the long term and the short term, they are able to ensure that the conservation and collection care message is heard.
Category: General Sessions
Posts on talks that were presented as part of the Annual Meeting’s general session.
42nd Annual Meeting- General Session, May 30, "Using Webinars to Tackle Conservation Misinformation in Ontario's Community Museums" by Fiona Graham
“Conservation is an elusive practice just outside of budgetary reality.” Fiona Graham, a conservation consultant in Kingston, Ontario, received this comment in a survey filled out by a small museum in Ontario, and it made her take notice. Museums believing that conservation only equates to (costly) treatment leaves no room for implementing best practices, taking vital preventive measures, and leads to a general misunderstanding of the basic principles of preservation. Graham set out to change the perceptions of these museums and chose webinars as her format.
Who: Ontario’s Community Museums–roughly 300 institutions that range in size but are not art galleries, private collections, or national museums. Only 14 have in-house conservators (in one case, 9 museums share one conservator!). The collection care for the remaining 286 falls into the hands of non-conservators.
Why: 185 of those Ontario Community Museums receive operating grants from the Ministry’s Museum Unit to survive economically. In order to receive these grants, the museums must meet regulatory requirements, including a conservation standard. To assess the state of conservation and preservation in the museums, a questionnaire was distributed to the museums, and Graham and her team discovered some startling misunderstandings. For example, many respondents believed that light damage was caused only by UV, that pesticides are still needed, and that cold temperatures are always bad for collections. (Since they are in colder climates, it’s especially disconcerting to think of the expenses paid to raise temperatures in these museums.)
What was done: To debunk misunderstandings at as many of the museums as possible, the Ministry funded two 1.5 hour long webinars. The webinar format was chosen because it can reach a targeted audience, has wide accessibility and the ability to be interactive, is inexpensive to produce, and has been successful through the Ontario Museums Association (an organization that provides training in museum work). After institutions answered preliminary questions on their registration forms, webinars were conducted as powerpoint presentations narrated live by a conservator using the icohere platform. The first webinar, Conservation 2.0, was a “good practice” refresher course meant for non-conservators, while the second, Climate Control: what do you really need?, focused on misinformation hot spots. Participants used their own computers and sent questions to a moderator who passed them to the conservator to answer. The Ontario Museum Association posted the slide deck and audio to their website after the webinars ended.
More details? The prep questions: Define what conservation means in the context of your museums? What question about conservation would you like answered in this webinar? What do you think relative humidity and temp levels should be in your museum’s collection areas? Do you monitor RH and/or T; do you actively control RH? (The webinars included a disclaimer that “this webinar is not a substitute for proper training.”)
Results: The webinars were open to all, not just the Ministry-funded institutions, and 55 organizations participated during the live broadcasts. The prep questions from the registration forms informed the content of the webinars. There was positive feedback overall, with requests for more programs. The negative feedback regarded the amount of detailed information on conservation. Graham recommends being very clear on expectations. The webinar team will be able to gauge the long-term results of the refresher courses during the next audit in 2018.
(Author’s comments: This talk was part of the general session on Engaging Communities in Collections Care. The U.S. Heritage Preservation organization also offers webinars to help smaller institutions with collections care. Their webinars are part of their Connecting to Collections (C2C) online community. Past programs are available in their archives.)
AIC’s 42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 29, “Precaution, proof, and pragmatism: 150 years of expert debate on the museum environment” by Foekje Boersma, Kathleen Dardes, and James Druzik
Foekje Boersma, along with Kathleen Dardes and James Druzik, provided an informative summary of the debate regarding environmental standards in their presentation “Precaution, proof, and pragmatism: 150 years of expert debate on the museum environment.” The presentation began with a historical review, based in part on information obtained from AIC’s Conservation Wiki.
The Museum of Fine Arts Boston and the Cleveland Museum of Art were the first museums to set specific humidity recommendations, in 1908 and 1915, respectively. It is often stated that the development of environmental standards arose as a by-product of the storage of artworks in salt and coal mines during World War II, so I was interested to learn of earlier attempts at environmental control.
In 1940, Harold Plenderleith and George Stout said there was not adequate information to fix an “absolute standard” but suggested 60 – 65% relative humidity, chosen because it was easiest to maintain with stability. Later, Plenderleith, now working with Paul Philippot, prescribed a “region of security” of 50 – 65% RH. According to Boersma, these early conservators were pragmatic: although a set temperature and RH were specified, a greater emphasis was made on avoiding extremes. The local climate and historical conditions of the objects were also to be taken into account. Garry Thomson, who is often assigned either the credit or blame, depending on whom you ask, for the 50% RH/70° F standard, is misinterpreted according to Boersma. He was also pragmatic. Rather than endorsing the 50/70 rule, he merely predicted the increasing number of museum loans would lead to museums adopting that rigid standard.
Boersma attributes the widespread implementation of the 50/70 rule to the museum building boom in the 1970s. Architects and engineers wanted numerical targets, and conservators were happy to specify safe conditions. Sustainability was not much of a concern given cheap energy costs. But already by 1979, CCI was advising seasonal variations with gradual fluctuations. Boersma then skipped ahead to the 1990s and the controversial research of Charles Tumosa and Marion Mecklenburg at MCI, which said that materials aren’t as sensitive as previously thought.
Today, the debate on the museum environment has moved from conservators to museum directors and administrators. The Bizot Group, concerned about environmental and economic sustainability, pushed to broaden environmental standards by adopting new Guiding Principles and Interim Guidelines, influenced by those developled by the NMDC (the National Museum Directors’ Council). In response, guidelines were published many other groups, such as AIC, BSI, AICCM, and the Doerner Institut.
In order to clarify the debate, Boersma divides prevailing views into three categories: precautionary safety, proven safety, and pragmatic risk management. Precautionary safety, embodied by the Doerner Institut’s Munich Position, centers around the belief that “stable is safe.” Not enough research has been done on the response of objects to wider environmental conditions. To eliminate risk, objects should be kept under a narrow set of conditions. Supporters of the proven safety approach acknowledge that actual conditions are wider than 50/70 because tight standards are impossible to maintain. The proofed fluctuations of 40 – 60% RH and 50 – 70˚ F are acceptable. Pragmatic risk management reflects ideas of risk assessment developed in the 1990s. Resources should go to the reduction of the biggest risks to collections, which may or may not be climatic fluctuation.
In conclusion, Boersma wonders how conservators can function as a profession given such different views on a central topic. She references her ongoing research as part of GCI’s Managing Collection Environments Initiative, which is working to answer questions generated by the debate.
42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, 29 May, "Quantifying cost effectiveness of risk treatment options (aka preventive conservation)" by Stefan Michalski and Irene F. Karsten
Preventive conservation was the topic of much discussion at this year’s annual meeting, from how to teach it to what exactly it entails. In this talk, Stefan Michalski discussed the quantification of preventive conservation.
He began by reminding us that we base our ideas of preventive conservation on the “proofed fluctuation” argument: if fluctuation in the past has not caused significant damage, then similar future fluctuations will not either. He also defined preventive conservation. First, we assess risks. Then, we ‘treat’ risks; this second part is Preventive Conservation. We have to remember that ‘treat’ has a different meaning in this context than in remedial conservation, and despite being a loaded word, accurately describes what we do. These definitions are simultaneously straightforward and complicated; we struggle with them and yet we need them for our daily work.
Michalski continued by defining the four steps to successful preventive conservation:
1. Identify Options
2. Analyze
3. Evaluate
4. Implement
Steps 2-3 require quantification, and it’s vital that this quantification is transparent and well-documented. This is where Michalski and Karsten’s research comes in. They assessed the financial risk of every preventive option available for a variety of institutions, including an archive and a historic house.
In order to quantify reduction in risk, calculations were made using the following formulas:
- Option effectiveness = size of risk reduction = size of original risk – size of reduced risk
- Risk reduction / cost = [% of collection saved / $ spent] /year
I had never encountered this calculation before, or considered this as a feasible method of determining cost-effectiveness and ranking options, and I don’t think I’m alone in the conservation field in this. I wish that this had been covered by one of my graduate courses, because while it may seem obvious in some ways, the explanation was exceptionally helpful, and is something that I will take to my professional practice.
The numbers produced graphs on a logarithmic scale, in terms of percent saved per dollar. By evaluating options on this scale, it was possible to see how cost-effective various options are. What was highlighted with this calculation is that the cost effectiveness of an action is a function of the magnitude of risk – the bigger the risk, the better the return on percentage saved. This is in line with the economic principle of ‘economies of scale‘. What Michalski noted was that it is important to remember that the scale referred to is internal, not external, which means that small museums can be just as cost-effective as larger museums.
I loved this talk, and I felt like I learned a huge amount about quantification of risk. ‘Risk assessment’ is a term that we are all familiar with; to be able to go more in-depth is a skill, and Stefan Michalski did an excellent job of teaching that skill. His results are hugely applicable to museums and institutions of all sizes, and we should all learn and apply this method to aid in our decision-making for preventive conservation.
42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, 29 May, "Being a Gallery in a Park – balancing Sustainability, Access and Collection Care" by Nicola Walker and Ann French
This talk revolved around the Whitworth Art Gallery, part of the University of Manchester in the UK. I was interested in this talk in particular because I was interested to see the differences between UK and US approaches to sustainability, and to see how sustainability measures against other principles such as access and recommended storage conditions.
One of the central themes of this talk was that “access is central to all of the gallery activities”. This resulted in some interesting decisions, which strike a balance between practical and ideal. One that stuck out to me personally was the presence of an IPM working group which meets weekly, to discuss what needs to be done in order to ensure that events like festivals and those involving food can be pulled off. Their maintenance of a ‘can do’ attitude is inspiring, and ensures that the museum works with it’s surroundings – a park, which families want to be able to visit and enjoy in tandem with the museum.
The process which the museum went through in order to add an addition to the building was also discussed. A few points stood out there, as well:
– A new route was introduced to separate catering delivery from art movement and delivery (which is also related to the IPM working group).
– A green, bio-diverse roof was put into place on part of the building.
– Stores were relocated into a basement, where the environment can be controlled with passive techniques rather than air conditioning.
– Solar panels were added to the roof.
– Daylight was introduced into some galleries.
– A ground source heat pump was installed.
The idea of the green, bio-diverse roof was fascinating. In order to prevent it from drawing unwanted pests into the museum, they worked with entomologists to ensure that they only attracted specific insects – those who don’t want to eat their lovely textile collection. The introduction of daylight into galleries as discussed here formed a funny comparison to another talk given on sustainability and environmental consciousness.
Another aspect to sustainability was also discussed: the development of working patterns which allow the collection to be feasibly managed and kept in the best condition. One of the theories they work under is known as the Pareto 80:20 principle, which says that 80% of results come from 20% of issues, or in this case, 20% of objects. They use this principle to target their work-flow, focusing on the 20% which give the most result and working on the other 80% on a “modular” basis.
This cross of sustainable environment and sustainable work practices extends to the methods they use to package their 2D objects, as well. This category of object is packaged in a way that it can be easily switched from storage to display or vice versa, and the packaging provides a buffering layer that reduces the need for strict environmental control.
I would have loved to hear more about these storage/display procedures, as I think they could be useful for other museums. I’m also curious to have a more specific list of the plants they used in their bio-diverse roof garden, because that too could be useful in other places. Their practices seem to be very widely applicable, and their attitudes towards having a museum that works for the public and within its environment are admirable. I would love to see other museums adopt these approaches, to be environmentally friendly and to sustain the working environment of conservation professionals.
42nd Annual Meeting – Track A: Case Studies in Sustainable Collections Care, May 30, “Boxes Inside of Boxes: Preventative Conservation Practices by Robin P. Croskery Howard”
Robin P. Croskery Howard, Objects Conservator at the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum, focused on how custom housing, in concert with climate control, can be effective preventative conservation. Three case studies highlighting specific housing solutions for different collection materials were shown.
Case Study #1: The Long Road Home/Speck Collection
Some housings need to provide safety for travel and long term storage. The Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki museum makes it a priority to repatriate any collection items that are not Seminole in origin. These items are returned untreated. The two housings used for this are either stacked layers of Volara cutouts, contoured to fit the object or ethafoam cavities lined with acid-free tissue.
Case Study #2: The Doll with the Broken Neck
The museum has a number of dolls made out of palmetto fibers. These fibers deteriorate over time and the limbs and necks of the dolls often detach. Any treatment would produce only temporary results as the doll continued to age and breakdown. Custom pillows and supports are used to support the dolls and relieve stress on their joints.
Case Study #3: Leaning Baskets
An oversized modern sweetgrass basket that had partially collapsed under its own weight was restored using an adaptive housing. The basket was put in a box with twill ties holding it in place. The ties were gradually tightened over several weeks to support and lift the basket and allow it to gently regain its shape over time. Other modern baskets are stored with ethafoam supports.
These were great, practical solutions for caring for objects by using housing to prevent or control damage. I realized while writing this post how much this session falls in line with Cordelia Rogerson’s “Fit for Purpose” talk. All of the items showcased here were cared for, but in a manner and level appropriate for long view of their “life” at the museum.
42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 29, "The Long and Winding Road . . . Effective Advocacy, Fundraising, Networking, & Collaboration: Promoting Sustained Preventive Conservation Globally" by Debra Hess Norris
Across the globe, people are united in the desire to preserve tangible and intangible cultural heritage during catastrophic natural disasters, warfare, economic collapse, and other crises. Photographic collections, for example, are considered valuable to many cultures yet traditional photographic processes are disappearing. These collections are incalculable in number, many exist under poor conditions, and only a small percentage of them are inventoried systematically.
As professionals, we are accustomed to evaluating the condition of collections such as these and perform analytical research. While these pursuits are essential to the field, Debra Hess Norris reminds us that we must engage in intercultural dialogue, advocacy, and fundraising in order to effectively care for global cultural heritage.
We must not operate in isolation but rather promote education and training through hybrid and certificate programs. We must build public awareness and advocate for our cause through traditional media, social media, bilingual platforms, and crowd sourcing. We must pursue external support from organizations such as the Giving Pledge, Clinton Global Agenda, Gates Foundation, Luce Foundation, and US Ambassador Fund. The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works and FAIC should facilitate communication with the Institute of International Education, Department of State, and the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange. In addition, AIC and FAIC must participate with ICCROM, ICOM, IIC, and UNESCO.
In closing, Norris reminds us that our projects – small and large, local and global – must be significant. She demonstrates this through a slideshow featuring John Lennon’s “Imagine” and images of photographic preservation projects from the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia.
About the Speaker
Debra Hess Norris earned an interdisciplinary B.A. degree in chemistry, art history, and studio art (1977) and M.S. degree in conservation (1980) from the University of Delaware. She has taught more than 100 workshops and seminars for conservators and allied professionals, has authored more than 35 articles and book chapters on the care and treatment of photographic materials, conservation education, ethics, and emergency response, and has collaborated on a series of Worldwide Photographic Preservation Projects with conservation professionals, organizations, and agencies.
Norris has served as chair of the AIC Ethics and Standards Committee (1990-1993), as president of the AIC (1993-1997), on the National Task Force for Emergency Response (1995-2000), and chair of Heritage Preservation (2003-2008). Currently residing as Chair of the Art Conservation Department at the University of Delaware and Professor of Photograph Conservation, she serves on the board of the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts (CCAHA) and the Advisory Committee for the FAIC Hermitage Photograph Conservation Initiative.
Related Lectures/Webinars
ECPN Webinar: “Conservation Education, Outreach, and Advocacy” with Teresa Myers, Richard McCoy, and Sarah Barack. April 2013.
ECPN Webinar: “Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research” with Debra Hess Norris. July 2012.
42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Session, May 29, "Social Participation as a Way for Sustainable Projects in Conservation of Worshiping Objects: The Case of Current Mayan Communities in Yucatán, Mexico" by Giovana Jaspersen
The involvement of source communities and practices that allow conservation to be sustainable within communities are hot topics in conservation right now, and Giovana Jaspersen presented a very interesting case study that covered both of these topics in the Opening Session of the AIC Annual Meeting 2014. She discussed the ways in which her team engages with Mexican communities, spaces where religion is a center of social life, and objects of worship are in frequent use.
The objects themselves were beautifully painted sculptures, which would be paraded around and put on display within the religious community. Jaspersen noted that previous restorations had been undertaken on some objects, using non-conservation friendly materials, such as automotive paint, which apparently imparts a high gloss that is seen as desirable.
She noted some significant problems in approaching these communities about the conservation of their objects, the most important being the challenges of communication. Other questions included ongoing conservation – how do you ensure preservation after the conservator has left the community?
Using a number of different approaches, from initial immersion to assistance and then intervention, she was able to develop a methodology which utilized a number of different media to engage and teach the community – lectures, plays and skits, brochures, and involvement of children in the community.
A number of themes seen in this talk were repeated in other talks and discussions, and are really important things for all conservators to consider. Reaching out to children is a great way to ensure that the conservation profession is sustained in the future, and engaging with conservation students ensures that the message about community involvement is spread among professionals.
Overall I really enjoyed this talk, and I think the most important takeaway was the statement that our profession is not just about material conservation, but sociocultural conservation. The only way we can achieve that is by projects such as this one!
42nd Annual Meeting – General Session, May 29, "A LEED Primer for Conservators: Or, What Should I Do When the Architect Proposes Daylight in Our New Galleries, by Scott Raphael Schiamberg and Rachael Perkins Arenstein"
When I perused the list of talks for this meeting, the subtitle of this one immediately caught my eye. In fact, I used it as one of the justifications for my Museum to support my attendance. There have been many skirmishes in the ‘natural light in galleries’ tug of war at the Penn Museum lately. It turns out that the light issue was peripheral to the LEED discussion but I’m so glad I was drawn into this fascinating and useful talk.
Scott started off explaining that to be good clients for architects, conservators should have a basic understanding of LEED. Like all of us, I’ve been seeing LEED mentioned in every building project I read about or walk past but I never really knew was it was or how it worked.
From the US Green Building Council website: “LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is a green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practices. To receive LEED certification, building projects satisfy prerequisites and earn points to achieve different levels of certification. Prerequisites and credits differ for each rating system, and teams choose the best fit for their project.”
With gentle humor, Scott filled out this definition for us. He compared LEED to eating one’s vegetables: sometimes a challenge but good for us. Considering LEED factors is Doing the Right Thing (something conservators always strive for, right?). He explained that the system is constantly evolving and getting better. There are five different ratings systems but none of them is a perfect fit for museum buildings; he hoped that there might be a special system for our special needs. Until then, we need to understand how the system works and how it can be used for and against conservation factors. Scott explained that sometimes architects (not his firm, of course) ‘game’ the system – using LEED to justify things like the aforementioned natural light in galleries: “if you don’t give in on this, we won’t make our LEED rating”. But the LEED system is point-based and natural light only counts for 1 point out of a possible 110. Putting a bike rack outside the building gives you the same point with much less impact on artifact preservation.
Scott emphasized that it’s not our jobs as conservators to be intimately acquainted with LEED, just to understand enough to work effectively with the construction team.
Scott’s takeaways before handing over to Rachael included:
- The reminder that the client is always right. The Museum is the architect’s client.
- Do your homework; it’s important to select the right architect. Check with colleagues and previous clients. (Speaking of someone who has been working with an absolutely stellar architectural firm recently and has coped with the results of less successful choices, I can’t emphasize this strongly enough)
- Work closely with the architect
- LEED is not perfect but is a good starting point and is getting better.
- It’s more important to get things right than to chase LEED points, if they don’t align with your needs.
Rachael began by pointing out that new construction should be exciting but in her and many colleagues’ experience, it turns out to be more stressful than joyful. She theorized that the problems many of us have faced are not inherent in the LEED system but in the design process. We (and she included in this pronoun conservators, facilities staff, administrators, and donors) make our lives difficult. Rachael suggested some strategies for reducing the stress for everyone.
The most important factor is probably effective project management. All the stakeholders should be involved early. Rachael referred to the trap many of us have experienced: being told that it’s ‘too early’ to be involved in the process then, when we are allowed a seat at the table told that it’s too late to change the problem items. She reiterated the importance of wise choice of architect; the right architect needs to be responsive to the client’s concerns and this should be just as true of ‘STARchitects’. To be an intelligent client we need to be prepared to sit through a lot of meetings and to have done our homework. Rachael provided some resources she’s found useful:
- US Green Building Council website
- American Institute for Architecture
- Manual of Museum Planning: Sustainable Space, Facilities, and Operations
- The Green Museum: A Primer on Environmental Practice
Both the books are available on amazon.
She suggested that we as conservators need to have a voice in broader preservation concerns and emphasized that this is best done by contributing positively: “be an ally not a critic”. [Later several of us were discussing this profound fact at the lovely evening reception and Terry Drayman-Weisser shared her technique for responding to suggestions from non-conservators that horrify her conservatorial instincts: “That’s a good idea, let me work with you to figure out how we can manage that” I may not have the quote exact but you get the gist.]
Rachael’s LEED specific tips included the insight that there were three of the six LEED rating categories that tended to have the most potential for contention with conservation concerns: Energy and Atmosphere; Materials and Resources; Indoor Environmental Quality. But these are only contentious if the team is choosing to chase LEED points without considering the Big Picture.
Finally Rachael reminded us that all the planning in the world will not help if the plans are not followed through or carried out properly. Perhaps the most important tip was to ensure that the construction plan included an independent commissioning agent. Building commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying, in new construction, all (or some, depending on scope) of the subsystems for mechanical (HVAC), plumbing, electrical, fire/life safety, building envelopes, interior systems (example laboratory units), cogeneration, utility plants, sustainable systems, lighting, wastewater, controls, and building security to achieve the owner’s project requirements as intended by the building owner and as designed by the building architects and engineers [thank you, Wikipedia]. An independent commissioning agent is one who ensures that everything has been done as laid out; clearly an outside specialist is to be preferred to the contractors who have an understandable vested interest in passing their own work.
I’ve tried to do justice to this very informative presentation but I’m sure I’ve left out or misrepresented some vital facts. This blogging stuff is hard – I don’t mean to discourage others from doing it; I’m really glad I did so but it’s just that it’s always harder to take coherent notes for others who weren’t there. So, if any of you who were there read this and have additions, emendations or suggestions, please do so. Until then, I’ll leave you with Rachael’s last slide:
2014 AIC Great Debate: Rookies and Veterans
Are you ready for San Francisco and all that goes with the AIC Annual Meeting?
The one thing I know I am ready for is the 2014 AIC Great Debate (4:00 – 6:00 pm on Saturday, May 31). And this one is going to be bigger and better than ever! Again, I will have my crew, Kristen Adsit and Laura Kubick on hand to help emcee the event. And again there will be a cash bar to keep things running smoothly. Will I be the only one wearing a bow tie? We’ll just have to see on that one.
But this time around I wanted to shake it up a little and have a topic debated by teams of “Rookies” (current graduate students) and another topic debated by teams of “Veterans” (folks that have been in the field for many years). With the added twist that rookies got to choose the debate topic in which the veterans have to debate, and vice versa. I thought this would be a good way to see the topics that each side wanted to hear about from the other.
While the old fogies, er veterans, quickly came up with their topic for the rookies to debate, it took the rookies a lot longer to come up with a solid topic for the veterans. Maybe the rookies were nervous, busy with graduate school, or maybe they wanted to take their time and come up with a topic that would make the veterans sweat a bit. In any case, this is whole thing is meant to show that conservators are clever enough to not take themselves so seriously, and that we can see both sides of any topic.
I created the Great Debate to be a fun, intellectual exercise and a place where debaters are challenged to debate from a position that they may not represent, or agree with (it’s not really a place to represent your institution, company, or any kind of official view point). And remember, a team wins the Debate by convincing you, the folks in the audience, to change your mind about the topic.
The rookies will be the first to debate and then the veterans will take the stage for the main event. So without further ado, here are the topics, teams, and sides:
Rookies Debate Topic:
“The most important aspect of conservation practice is no longer the treatment of cultural property.”
Rookies Team 1: Affirmative
- Marie-Lou Beauchamp
- Jena Hirschbein
- Alexandra Nichols
Rookies Team 2: Negative
- Tessa Gadomski
- Tom McClintock
- Kari Rayner
Veterans Debate Topic:
“AIC is successfully promoting the advancement of recently-graduated conservators in today’s work force.”
Veterans Team 1: Affirmative
- John Burke
- Thomas Edmondson
- Paul Himmelstein
Veterans Team 2: Negative
- Margaret Ellis
- Rick Kerschner
- Joyce Hill Stoner
If you want some background info on the Great Debate, here are links to the articles I wrote for the past two Debates in this blog: 2013 Great Debate, 2012 Great Debate.
See you San Francisco!