Category: General Sessions

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

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

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

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

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

For the affirmative:

• Vanessa Muros
• Camille Breeze
• Kristen Adsit

 Opening Statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public conservation treatments directly generate funds for the museum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

For the negative:

• Suzanne Davis
• Hugh Shockey
• Sharra Grow

Opening Statement:

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

Because:

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

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

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

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

RESULTS…

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

Kudos go to Richard McCoy, Conservator of Objects & Variable Art at the Indianapolis Museum of Art for instigating and moderating the first Great Debate at the AIC 2012 Annual Meeting.  This session consisted of two Oxford-Style Debate sessions of 30 minutes each on a chosen topic.  Each debate session consisted of initial presentations from the teams lasting for five minutes.  Members of the audience were then allowed to ask questions and each debate team was given time to respond. Then each team gave closing arguments for an additional five minutes.  Richard was very clear that debaters were chosen for their willingness to participate and were not necessarily representing their personal views on the topics.  And, clearly the topics were chosen and worded to be provocative! Before the debate the audience was polled by a show of hands on who agreed or disagreed with the statement.  After the debate the audience was asked whose opinions were swayed so that a winning team could be chosen.

This dry introduction doesn’t represent the fun and excitement that ensued during the actual debate.  I can’t remember any sessions at previous AIC meetings that elicited raucous laughter, huge applause, and cheers and boos from the crowded room.  Richard projected a huge stopwatch on the screen to time the statements and I can only imagine how nervous it made the debaters because it got my pulse racing just watching it!  When Paul Messier’s iPad froze during his opening statement my heart lept to my mouth and his off the cuff comment became part of the drama.

The participants must be complemented on their willingness to put themselves forward and get into the spirit with a bit of trash talking and theatrics all in good fun.  I think this demonstrated that it is possible to debate topics of real importance within our professional society without rancor or taking ourselves too seriously. This session was clearly a crowd favorite and I hope it will be repeated at future meetings.    Below is the statement for the first debate topic and text or talking points from the two teams.  The second debate will be included in a separate post.  Please feel free to weigh yourself by commenting here on the blog.

TOPIC #1:  Publishing accurate and complete “how-to guides” for conservation and restoration treatments online is the best way for us to care for cultural heritage in the 21st century.

For the affirmative:

• Paul Messier
• Karen Pavelka
• Mary Striegel

Opening Statements

As our colleagues on the other side will no doubt point out, you can’t teach conservation using new digital technologies, like say, the internet.  What they mean, of course, is that you can’t teach conservation treatment.  And if you choose to focus on treatment as the defining attribute of our profession then my team has powerful arguments in store.  But of course the field is more than treatment.  The keywords we should all focus on are:

• Publish
• Guides
• Cultural Heritage
• Best

Publish: We in conservation, especially those of us privileged with something worth sharing, have a professional obligation to communicate that knowledge.  Publishing online has tremendous advantages in terms of cost, environmental sustainability and the ability to immediately reach people globally.

Guides: What’s a guide? A guide is not a rote set of formulas and solutions.  A guide is just that: It provides information helpful to formulating a solution, for treatment issues and beyond. A guide is patently not prescriptive. Guides promote thinking.  Guides do not shut it down.

Cultural Heritage: As conservators we have an obligation to look beyond our own immediate challenges and confront some of our own biases.  The world is a big place and again, we who have the privilege of educations developed through internships and academic training don’t want to be in a position of saying to the world “you have to do it our way.”  Instead we need to break through educational, ethnic, economic, religious barriers to effectively serve material culture and reach those with the courage to stand up and defend it.

“Best”:  Best does not mean “only.” Of course there will always be a place for “traditional” conservation education.  But if you are serious about your ethical obligation to do the most good for the greatest number of objects then you must get serious about moving content online.

Conservation Online has roughly 10,000 subscribers in 92 countries.  In his remarkable career of graduate school training Dan Kushel has had, give or take, 340 students — from a handful of countries.  It’s great that these fortunate students were able to command such lavish resources.  But is that realistic for needs of cultural heritage globally? We can and should do more.

Announcing EDX a new joint venture to put MIT and Harvard courses online, MIT president Susan Hockfield said “you can choose to view this era as one of threatening change and unsettling volatility, or you can see it as a moment charged with the most exciting possibilities presented to educators in our lifetimes.”

Like MIT and Harvard, we cannot afford nostalgia for the way we were trained to cloud our vision for the future.

For the negative:

• Victoria Montana Ryan
• Scott Carrlee
• Matthew Skopek

Opening Statement

“Publishing accurate and complete.” With best practices constantly evolving how quickly will complete and accurate be incomplete, inaccurate, and obsolete?  Online “how-to-treatment-guides” could become the 8-track tapes of conservation that AIC would need to maintain – maybe of interest historically but no one would use.  Technology moves fast and keeping up with changes demands time. Our esteemed colleagues might well argue that an online format would be the easiest to enable quick updates.

Quick and easy doesn’t necessarily mean accurate and complete and current mechanisms for publishing a complete and accurate online “how-to guide” can sometimes be difficult.  Publishing a peer-reviewed article is very different from throwing something up on a blog. Well researched publications are already currently available in a variety of formats – what does an online “how-to-treatment-guide” really contribute?  Let us consider return on investment. A recent article by Adrian Ellis, published in the winter 2012 edition of Grantmakers in the Arts, notes stresses placed on organizations when there is a mismatch between expectations and capacity. This could easily apply to AIC if we were to be constantly trying to update “how-to-guides”.  With limited resources what would the return on the investment be?

What if accurate and complete “best practices” include methods, materials, equipment, etc. that are beyond the reach of most members – will their businesses be hurt by owners whose expectations may be too great? Will owners insist on pursuing actions that may be neither feasible nor necessary, thus leading to increased costs and ultimately have a net result of actually reducing conservation treatments? Another problem with online “how-to-treatment-guides” is there is no one there to answer questions that arise or to provide insights or warnings if one goes astray.  There is often difficulty in translating what one reads or hears into correct action – and is always subject to misinterpretation.  Given the many variables of conservation treatments such guides may be a useful adjunct in teaching arenas but is no substitution for hands-on teaching.

“Best way for us to care for cultural heritage in 21st century”  Really? A “how-to guide” for the 21st century? Such a guide seems so 19th century, rather irrelevant.  How-to guides might have been fine when the paradigm was scarcity of available information but now we have an abundance (overload) of information.  We (AIC) should not be trying to produce or police “how-to treatment-guides” but rather seek to be learned guides, an authoritative voice in the cacaphony of the internet, empowering today’s user with information that discusses the complexities, nuances, judgment and experience that are necessary at every step of conservation.  Today’s consumers of information want to curate their own content and a “how-to-guide” does not cover the why or why-not, the critical thinking, that is vital to the process. We need to show that preservation is relevant, so while informational and educational publications and videos are important they should be geared more toward the thinking process and not treatment recipes. Defining the target audience and creating guides for care, that are less likely to become quickly outdated, may be a better approach to engaging others, in both thought and participation, in the quest to care for cultural heritage in the 21^st century.

The central point is that for AIC/The Conservation Profession to be relevant in a web based world, we need to be seen as the source for timely, relevant and  accurate information, but this does not mean how to guides for treatment. 

RESULTS!…

In the audience poll before the debate there was overwhelming support for the negative position.   From my perspective as AIC’s e-Editor this was not a surprise, but frankly was somewhat disheartening.  I was pleasantly surprised that whether due to reason or impassioned delivery,  it was the Affirmative Team who managed to sway more people to their side when the poll was repeated after the debate concluded.  While this was clearly still a minority view, it showed that there are compelling reasons for us to be putting our material online. Congratulations to all involved.

PANELISTS

Stephanie Hornbeck (Chief Conservator, Smithsonian Haiti Cultural Recovery Project), moderator  and panelist; email: shornbeck@caryatid-conservation.com; web: www.caryatid-conservation.com

Viviana Dominguez (Co-Director St. Trinity murals conservation project; Painting Conservator, Haiti Cultural Recovery Center) panelist; email: art.conservation.services@gmail.com; web: www.artconservationla.com

Eric Pourchot (Director of Institutional Advancement, AIC), panelist; email: epourchot@conservation-us.org;  web: www.conservation-us.org

Junior Norelus (Chief Conservation Technician, Holy Trinity Murals Conservation Project), panelist; email: norelus_1@hotmail.com

Saori Kawasumi, (Third Year Student, Buffalo State College Art Conservation Program), panelist; email: kawasumisaori@gmail.com

Note: Rosa Lowinger (Co-Director St. Trinity murals conservation project), intended moderator. Rosa conceived of the session topic but could ultimately not attend this AIC Annual Meeting due to a scheduling conflict.

SESSION DESCRIPTION

The Smithsonian Institution Haiti Cultural Recovery Project was an 18-month long international, collaborative effort to recover the damaged cultural patrimony from Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake.  Fifty (50) conservators and collection managers in staff, contract and volunteer capacities participated in the effort.  Twenty public and private institutions received conservation assistance.  Ultimately, 30,000 works of art, documents, books and monuments were stabilized.

Our project was a large, international project with many participants and as such, it can be seen to be an example of the media challenges faced by comparable large conservation projects.  We hoped in sharing our experiences to inform the conservation community and ideally to encourage improvements with future presentations of conservation information to diverse audiences and media outlets.

This outreach session presented the myriad ways in which the Smithsonian Institution Haiti Cultural Recovery Center project was reported and communicated- both to the conservation field and to the general public.  The panelists consisted of individuals who worked on the project in different capacities and wrote about it and/ or reported it through conferences, seminars, interviews, press conferences, blogging and other reportage.

Among the places where this project was internationally reported or communicated include print (the book Saving Haiti’s Heritage: Cultural Recovery After the Earthquake by Richard Kurin, 2011; The New York Times, ARTnews, The Art Newspaper, AICNews, Haitian newspapers), television (“The Today Show,” upcoming program on Smithsonian Channel in December 2012), radio (NPR), various Internet sites (Smithsonian website, US Committee of the Blue Shield website, WNYC.com, Episcopal News Service, and c-monster), Facebook  and blog posts,  professional presentations and panels and press conferences.

The primary objective was to discuss how conservation information is disseminated and portrayed in diverse media and how we as conservators, who were involved with this project, helped to communicate particular aspects of the project and dealt with repercussions of the information being distributed. We discussed the ways in which information about the project was tailored to specific audiences and shared anecdotes of how a lack of information control was sometimes problematic.

The challenges of accurately presenting technical conservation information to a non-specialist audience were presented.  In a discussion of formal media interactions, the primary challenge is how the project’s activities can be accurately reported by an outside party, like a reporter, journalist, documentarian, etc.  It can be a frustrating experience to give a long interview only to see the full context go by the wayside in the editing process.  The opportunity to see draft copy of external publications is very rare indeed.  Yet, when errors, omissions and inadequate acknowledgements ensue, they can be difficult to correct after the fact and might cause offense.

Internal challenges/conflicts regarding the presentation of project information also arose, presenting significant complications, as they bring colleagues into conflict.  Incidents occurred where volunteer conservators overstepped their roles without getting proper permission before photographing, filming, and recording projects to which they were not attached.  In these cases, neither the project manager nor the proprietor of the collection in question were  asked in advance about filming and appropriate photo/film credits. The almost-instantaneous dissemination of information now possible with social media, makes it even more important to be cautious, considerate, and professional before uploading material on-line.

At times, disagreements arose with our Haitian project colleagues regarding the presentation and dissemination of project conservation information.  In attempting to resolve the situation, requests were made that staff conservators write all conservation-related articles and that the internal review of all press releases include conservators prior to their distribution.  These requests were met inconsistently. Other US-funded conservation projects that occur in foreign countries likely encounter similar struggles over imparting conservation information, sharing or acknowledging credit, and in claiming ownership of project successes.

 ISSUES THE PANELISTS ADDRESSED

 –  What are the challenges of presenting conservation/technical information to a general audience?

–  Our project had a large number of participants working in volunteer, contract and staff capacities. To what degree should dissemination of project information to various audiences and media outlets be controlled/regulated?  Is it even possible to control the dissemination of information?

– How did actual reportage outcomes reflect desired communication outcomes?  Was “the message” conveyed accurately? Did the relevant parties receive appropriate acknowledgement?

 – Who are appropriate “spokespeople?”  Should any project participant feel free to speak about the project publicly?  Or, should restrictions be implemented?

 ABSTRACTS OF INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS

 Stephanie Hornbeck presented the topic:  “Representing the Smithsonian in Formal Media Outlets and Overview of Project Efforts to Present to the Media.” As Chief Conservator for the Smithsonian Haiti Cultural Recovery Project she served as the Port-au-Prince-based project liaison to the Smithsonian.  In addition to her conservation responsibilities, Stephanie was one of the official contacts for the project and as such could be contacted variously by a conservator, a media representative or an individual person, in the general public. As is likely true for other conservators, who serve as official personnel for a large, international effort, the role of media communicator was only one aspect of her job.  Although the project’s resident conservator first and foremost, outreach communication of project conservation efforts was of critical importance and did require her regular attention. Serving in an official capacity, she approached the role of information dissemination formally. Her primary responsibilities in communication efforts were to provide information about the dire state of damage to Haiti’s cultural and artistic property, to communicate the project’s global conservation objectives, to report on project conservation efforts underway, and to present project conservation results achieved.  Stephanie  also needed to support the larger mission of the project and to emphasize our collaborative efforts both in Haiti and with American and international conservation experts. She encountered media communication challenges internally among project personnel over the authorship and review of project conservation information and the acknowledgement of conservators in project successes.

Eric Pourchot (Director of Institutional Advancement, AIC), presented the topic AIC’s role in publicizing the Haiti project.  His paper title, “You Don’t Have to Call me  Darlin’, Darlin’, but You Didn’t Even Use my Name,” wittily referenced the importance of acknowledgement.  Eric addressed how AIC—an integral partner in the Haiti project, coordinating AIC volunteer conservator deployments and supply procurement—was represented by the media.  He emphasized how the actual media coverage could sometimes differ significantly from the desired message.  Media coverage about the Haiti project was an opportunity to provide information about AIC to the general public, an opportunity that sometimes went awry through omission.  He also noted how initially the project sponsor, the Smithsonian Institution, controlled the media message exclusively.  AIC was one of thirteen partners in the Haiti project, supporting to various degrees the collaboration of the sponsors: the Smithsonian and the Government of Haiti.  Eric noted that the Haiti project was a complex network of partnerships and project objectives and media outlets tend to prefer concise renderings.  The perpetual issues of shaping the message and of receiving proper acknowledgement resonated for others, who participate in large, multi-institutional conservation collaborations.

Viviana Dominguez (Co-Director St. Trinity murals conservation project; painting conservator, Haiti Cultural Recovery Center) presented the topic of conveying technical conservation information about the St. Trinity Murals Conservation Project in Haiti and at international (non-US) venues. She briefly introduced the fourteen murals painted by famous Haitian artists that originally decorated the cathedral interior and how the team, composed of six local artists and two professional conservators (Viviana and Rosa Lowinger), rescued the only three standing murals that survived the earthquake.  Viviana proceeded to describe how a February 2011 article about the conservation project published in The New York Times, a year after the earthquake (www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/americas/23haiti.html) immediately drew international news agencies such as Reuters and the Associated Press to the site. In addition, the project was presented to the local media during two press conferences in Haiti. Viviana addressed the challenges of accurately presenting technical conservation information to a non-specialist audience and the creative ways she incorporated her team of Haitian technicians to present the information to the Haitian public. The mutely-cultural presenters, including Richard Kurin (Smithsonian Institution Under Secretary) Olsen Jean-Julian (Cultural Recovery Center Manager) the Haitian Archbishop of the cathedral, the ministers of Tourism and Culture.  Both conferences were broadcast on the national news channels and in newspapers. Viviana and Rosa also presented the project to conservation peers in conferences abroad in Argentina, Barbados, Canada, Peru, and Spain.

 Junior Norelus (Chief Technician, St. Trinity murals conservation project) presented the topic of communicating the St. Trinity Murals Conservation Project in Haiti to non-conservation specialists via Haitian media outlets.  On our project, our Haitian colleagues served as liaisons to Haitian professionals in the culture sector, to the Haitian press, and to the general public. This communication conduit was critical to successfully building interest in the project and to conveying accurate information in the Kreyol and French languages spoken in Haiti. A professional artist, Junior described how his own thinking regarding preservation evolved through working on the Smithsonian project for a year. He also described the impact his television appearance had on his family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors, who became immediately interested on the project, presenting him opportunities to explain the importance of conserving Haitian cultural patrimony, a new concept in Haiti.

 Saori Kawasumi (third year student, Buffalo program, student intern, Haiti Cultural Recovery Center) presented the topic of the student’s perspective in connecting to multiple communities.  She contrasted her more informal, “bottom-up” communication efforts to the formal “top-down” efforts described by Stephanie and Eric.  Her information-sharing involved discussions with professional colleagues and peers, reading and sharing blog posts, and telling anecdotes about her daily life on the project to family and friends.  Saori described how her assigned project involved working on a daily basis with a Haitian conservation assistant and the challenges of being an instructor to him, even as she was a student herself. As one of two graduate conservation students (with Cindy Lee Scott), who spent July 2011 on the Haiti project, Saori expressed how students can contribute uniquely to a large project. Even as the Haiti project seemed daunting to her at the outset, she realized that as a member of the upcoming generation of professional conservators, her contributions were valued and the experience may serve her in the future.

 PRIMARY POINTS DEVELOPED IN DISCUSSION

An engaging, forty-minute discussion period followed the panel presentations.  A number of AIC Haiti volunteer conservators were in attendance and many contributed their thoughts on the subjects presented. In addition to several questions regarding transition efforts of the project (which ended in December 2011); the following points were emphasized:

● As with the Haiti project, conservation projects that occur in foreign countries need to collaborate with local professionals for important outreach and communication efforts.

● Within a project, it is important to implement open internal communication about content and media distribution of press releases and other outreach communications.  Project conservators should write or vet all conservation information.

● Written communication guidelines for project participants would be useful. The guidelines should describe the project mission; the roles and contact information of key personnel; and guidance about photograph credits.

● Before publishing work—in print media or on-line—on a project, inform the project personnel and ask about appropriate credits to include.

● Even with more informal outlets, such as blogs and social media communication, professional consideration should be give to properly citing the project.

● Acknowledgement of the project sponsor, relevant partners, project personnel and collaborators is important. Spell names correctly and use accurate titles/affiliations.

● Prior permission to photograph works in a collection should be obtained from the museum curator/ director/collection proprietor.

● Images of works of art should include photo credits with the name of the photographer, the name of the collection to which it belongs, and if possible the title of the work.

● Share your publication with project personnel. They will likely be appreciative of the exposure, enthusiastic about your effort to publicize the project, and may increase the circulation of your publication.

 SELECT LINKS TO MEDIA COVERAGE

For more information about the Smithsonian Haiti Cultural Recovery Project, please see:

Richard Kurin’s book about the project is now available. Saving Haiti’s Heritage: Cultural Recovery after the Earthquake (Smithsonian Institution, 2011) includes numerous essay contributions by participating conservators.  More information about the book can be found on the website below.

The Smithsonian Haiti Cultural Recovery Project website, has a webpage entirely devoted to the extensive media coverage, with links to articles included: www.haiti.si.edu

Stay tuned: the Smithsonian Channel (on Showtime) will present a television program on the Haiti Cultural Recovery Project in December 2012.

“The Journey to Recovery: A Tale of Earthquake Damage and Repair in Haiti,” by Stephanie Hornbeck and Viviana Dominguez. The Bigger Picture Blog, Smithsonian Institution Archives, February 23, 2012. The story of the dramatic damage context and advanced treatment of a Stivenson Magloire painting broken into 22 fragments by the 2010 earthquake: http://siarchives.si.edu/blog/journey-recovery-tale-earthquake-damage-and-repair-haiti

“Haiti Heritage Rescue Could Stall,” By Emily Sharpe. The Art Newspaper. Conservation, Issue 229, November 2011 Published online: 15 November 2011. Chief conservator stresses need for continuity of funding after handover to local authorities:  http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Haiti-heritage-rescue-could-stall/25000

“Haiti’s Scars, and its Soul, Find Healing on Walls,” By Damien Cave. The New York Times. February 22, 2011. One of the project’s main initiatives, the removal of the wall paintings from St. Trinity Episcopal Church, received wide coverage, including this article: : www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/americas/23haiti.html

“The Art of Recovery,” cover story interview with Stephanie, Wellesley magazine (fall 2011): http://issuu.com/Wellesley/docs/2011_fall_issuu

Video clip from “The Today Show”: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/historians-work-to-restore-haitian-murals/6wolcrd

Viviana’s blog overview of treating Haitian paintings: http://rescuinghaitianart.blogspot.com/

Article describing Viviana’s presentation at Instituto Universitario Nacional de Arte Buenos Aires: http://www.iuna.edu.ar/agenda/863-conferencia-murales-de-la-catedral-de-saint-trinite-en-haiti

Rosa’s blog on the St. Trinity murals: http://c-monster.net/blog1/2011/07/26/haiti-report/