AIC’s Annual Meeting – Page 2 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

45th Annual Meeting – Collection Care, May 30, “A Review and Comparison for Anoxic Treatment Methods for Pest Management” by Elena Torok, Laura Mina, and Eric Breitung

This discussion was an area that I had not researched myself, and I was interested to see what types of pest treatments were being practiced. Five professional conservators shared their different techniques when carrying out an anoxic treatment. After the discussion of the different techniques, a comparison was compiled together about the different treatments.

Rachael Perkins Arenstein from A.M. Art Conservation, LLC discussed this type of treatment being used on-site or at home. This type of anoxic treatment uses oxygen scavengers in a completely enclosed chamber to modify the atmosphere to almost entirely of nitrogen. Keeping the oxygen levels below 0.5% for an extended amount of time will eliminate the insects within the enclosure. The object being treated was placed within the barrier film and vacuumed sealed with the oxygen scavenger packets inside. A monitor to read the oxygen levels as well as the RH/temperature was placed inside the chamber. A small window can be cut to allow the viewing of the monitors. Examples of the type of barrier film used were MarvelSeal 360 or MarvelSeal 470, and for the oxygen scavenger packets, Ageless® Z1000 were used for the treatment discussed. The amount of time to keep the object within the chamber depends on the insect, and the amount of oxygen scavenger packets depends on the size of the chamber. Another system called AnoxiBug® also deals with enclosing the object with scavenger packs within a vacuumed sealed chamber. These ready-made chambers are offered in different sizes depending on the type of the object being treated. This chamber should also have an oxygen monitor inside and a window to view during treatment.

William Donnelly from the Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library explained the modified atmosphere CO₂ treatment within their collection. This type of treatment was carried out in a fixed location where the object was brought to the chamber. The CO₂ canisters were attached to the framed enclosure by a hose hookup, as well as an oxygen sensor, gas monitor, vacuum pump, internal data logger, and a computer system to collect the data during the procedure. The CO₂ concentration was maintained above 60% and completed on a 21-day cycle. The RH does dip with the introduction of CO₂ in the atmosphere inside the chamber. This treatment is carried out on all the textiles coming into the collection.

Julie Wolfe from the Getty Conservation Institute at the J. Paul Getty Museum discussed the nitrogen treatment used on a variety of objects within the collection. This treatment can also be carried out on a variety of scales. The one discussed was on the larger side and took time to construct and prep before the actual treatment with nitrogen started. Instead of taking the object to the chamber, the chamber was built around the object with a Rentokil 6 m³ PVC reusable bubble. A skeletal structure from PVC tubes were constructed around the object so the chamber would not collapse on top of the object during the nitrogen treatment. A Liquid Nitrogen Dewar was used to hookup to the chamber as well as an oxygen monitor, and their home-made “bubbler”. The home-made “bubbler” was constructed to adjust the flow of humidification. To create the “bubbler”, it took about one week to build which included ordering the equipment. The construction of the chamber took about 2 days to build, and the time to flush the atmosphere to the correct percentage took between 2-5 hours.

Bret Headley from Headley Conservation Service, LLC discussed his anoxic treatment using a nitrogen-based system. The object he was treating could not fit into a freezer, so an alternative treatment was constructed. Headley highly recommends the Inert Gases in the Control of Museum Insect Pests by Charles Selwitz and Shin Maekawa (Getty Conservation Institute, 1998) when researching treatments such as the ones discussed during this panel. This treatment was also built around the object using barrier film along with the appropriate hookups for the gases and monitors.

Eric Breitung from the Metropolitan Museum of Art discussed an anoxic treatment using argon and oxygen. The setup also used MarvelSeal 360 for the chamber around the object with a hose hookup to the chamber which included the argon tank with a flow meter, water bubbler as well as an oxygen monitor. The MarvelSeal 360 was heat sealed for the treatment, and this mechanism took about 1-2 hours to setup which does differ with the size of the object. When flushing out the system it took about 1.5-4 hours for a smaller object and 4-20 hours for larger objects. The amount of time to leave the objects in the chamber was about 4 weeks which was based on kill times from the Getty Conservation Institute publications.

What I found most interesting in these types of pest control treatments, is it offered other options instead of using freezing or thermal techniques. The conservators in the panel were able to share and discuss their findings and the supplies they have found most effective. After all the presentations, the conservators were asked two survey questions about their treatments (Tables 1-3). I look forward to hearing and seeing more anoxic treatments and techniques. Thank you to everyone involved with this discussion!

45th Annual Meeting – Opening General Session, May 30, “Preventive Conservation in the Renovation of the Harvard Art Museums: Before, During, and Ever After” by Angela Chang, Penley Knipe and Kate Smith

I was particularly interested in “Preventive Conservation in the Renovation of the Harvard Art Museums: Before, During, and Ever After” by Angela Chang, Penley Knipe and Kate Smith, as my employer LACMA is currently undergoing a similar museum building project.

Angela Chang, who presented the paper, began her talk with a brief summary of the museum’s history, which concluded with the presentation of the new LEED Gold building by Renzo Piano as well as the new storage facility that housed the entire collection during the museum building’s construction. She demonstrated how Harvard’s conservators successfully integrated the aspect of preventive conservation into an already established design and construction process. She also stressed the importance of cooperation and communication with external groups, such as administrators, donors, architects, and others, for the success of the project.

Angela discussed three main topics in conjunction with the new building.

Samples of all potential and existing materials in the construction of the storage facility and the new museum were tested using the Oddy Test. Results of the tests, among other topics, were discussed in weekly construction meetings held with architects, contractors, engineers, and project managers. Only 50% of 900 tested material samples passed the test and some materials needed to be tested repeatedly due to sample mix-ups. Existing fireproofing material made of cementitious plaster, for instance, was completely removed from the storage facility for the sake of the preservation of the collection and health of humans.
300 computerized and smart, single or double blinds control the light levels in the exhibition spaces and the conservation labs, but the new museum building turned out to be more light flooded than initially expected. A seasonal programming schedule was derived from a light monitoring program based on over 50 readings and requirements from the facility department. Based on the seasonal occurrence of light leaks, conservation staff needed to identify exhibition areas not suited for light sensitive artworks and still works on permanent displayin order to safely exhibit parts of the collection. Light blocking films, for instance, are currently being tested to address light leaks.
For a short time now, visitor incidents are recorded systematically and measured with a program developed by Security, Conservation, Collections Management, and IT called Art Touch Cards. The 46 guards can notify conservation and collection management staff immediately with urgent issues; minor issues are reported by filling out cards that are compiled and reviewed daily. Based on quarterly analysis of the data, artworks and galleries with a high incident rate can be identified and issues can be addressed. Improvements were made by adding colored lines of tape in the galleries as visual barriers, editing label texts, limiting the amount of visitors in one room, staffing galleries, and training guards.

Angela summarized her presentation by pointing out that all departments serve a collective purpose and that how relatively simple management systems, like the Art Touch Cards, can bridge interdepartmental communication gabs. She reiterating how the success of the building process, as well as its maintenance, is dependent on the close collaboration of different departments and external groups.

45th Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, June 1, 2017 – “Ionic Fixatives on Water-Sensitive Media for Aqueous Treatment” presented by Soyeon Choi

In her talk on ionic fixatives, Soyeon Choi, head conservator of works on paper at Yale Center for British Art, presented an overview of the history of ionic fixatives, an explanation of how they work, and the results of several experiments. I had been looking forward to hearing Soyeon’s talk, due to the potential usefulness of ionic fixatives for library and archives materials. As Soyeon emphasized throughout her presentation, this type of fixative is likely to be most useful in cases where saving the information is a higher priority over aesthetic appearance, such as in the case of modern and contemporary inks, which are sensitive to a wide range of solvents. Soyeon’s experiments focused on a wide range of inks and included a variety of tests with numerous ionic fixatives and several different contemporary inks.

Prior to this talk, I hadn’t realized that ionic fixatives had remained more popular in Europe than in the United States since they were introduced as a treatment technique in Germany in the 1980s. As Soyeon explained, ionic fixatives have been used for mass scale treatment in Germany since 1996, but simply have not caught on in the US, for a number of reasons. One of the main challenges in translating this technique into practice is that these fixatives are industrial products which are used in processing textiles, and are not commercially available on a small scale. A related challenge is that the names of the fixatives are proprietary, and therefore vary from country to country, so fixatives used for research and testing in Europe are either not available in the US or go by different names. And, as with all things industrial, the exact composition of these fixatives is proprietary and subject to change. Soyeon felt it would be useful to complete a study of ionic fixatives in the US, and having seen her talk, I agree!

Soyeon gave a brief and thorough description of the main categories of ionic fixatives, which can be either cationic or anionic, and explained how these differ chemically. Interestingly, it has been found that cationic and anionic fixatives work best when used in tandem rather than when used separately. She also explained that the main drawback of all ionic fixatives is that some permanent change in the color of the ink should be expected, and that these are most useful in situations where preserving legibility is the main goal. Her research focused on dye-based inks, and compared 13 different fixatives. The experiments included examining the effects of applying the fixatives, and then testing the efficacy of the fixatives using localized treatment.

The goal of the first experiment was to determine if the fixatives leave any residue in the paper after washing, and to see if it made any difference to wash before or after the fixatives dried. Whatman filter paper was used, and the fixatives were applied to the paper on their own, as in not over any ink. Samples were left either unwashed, washed before the fixative dried, or washed after the fixatives dried. The fixatives tested included Polymin, Lupamin, Cartafix FF, Cartafix SWE, Cartafix WA, Cartafix WE, Cassofix FRN, Catiofast 159(A), Catiofast 2345, Mesitol NBS/Rewin EL, Nylofixan HF, Catiofast 269, and Appretan. The samples were washed for 15 minutes, and were examined for fluorescing residue and compared under UV light. There was a range of results in terms of fluorescence, and the fixatives which showed little to no fluorescence were chosen for further experiments.

In the next experiment, the effect of accelerating aging on the washed samples was examined. In this experiment, unwashed and washed oven-aged samples were compared. The oven-aged samples were aged at 70^oC, 50% RH for 96 days. The fixatives used were Catiofast 159(A), Cartafix FF, Cartafix WA, Cartafix WE, Catiofast 269, Lupamin 9095, Catiofast 2345, Nylofixan HF, and Mesitol + Rewin. The samples were examined in visible and UV light. One fixative, Nylofixan HF, stained the paper even without aging. The not washed oven-aged samples developed significant amounts of fluorescence, but the washed, oven-aged samples did not, which suggests that washing did a good job of removing the fixative.

Based on these initial test results, three fixatives stood out as the most viable, including Cartafix WE, Mesitol & Rewin, and Cartafix FF. These three fixatives were then tested with contemporary inks. The inks tested, included Winsor & Newton Calligraphy Ink, Bombay India Ink, and Higgins ink. The fixatives were applied over fixed and unfixed inscriptions, again on Whatman filter paper. The fixatives were mixed with methyl cellulose and applied on a suction platen to both the front and back of the samples prior to washing. Both fixed and unfixed samples were washed. As expected, the unfixed samples bled profusely. Most of the fixatives gave acceptable results, and some fixatives worked better with certain inks. Higgins ink did not do well with any of the fixatives.

As Soyeon summarized, there are many factors to consider when using ionic fixatives, and their use requires a lot of fine tuning. The fixatives permanently alter the media to some degree in terms of hue and saturation, and rinsing is important for long term stability. The fixative names change fairly frequently. Future tests may include the use of ionic fixatives with blotter washing vs. immersion washing, gel vs. solution application, and air drying vs. quick drying. Overall, I thought the experiments were helpful and thorough. There was a lot more information presented than I was able to capture, so I hope that Soyeon publishes this work someday.

45th Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 30, 2017 – “Treatment 305: A Love Story” presented by Kathy Lechuga

In her talk “Treatment 305: A Love Story,” Kathy Lechuga, book conservator at the Indiana Historical Society, described a deep relationship with a treatment technique that was years in the making. Kathy punctuated her talk with references to Prince lyrics, which she used to emphasis her love for the versatility of her new favorite treatment technique. Treatment 305 was originally developed at Princeton and was presented by Brian J. Baird and Mick Letourneaux in 1994. It is described in the Book and Paper Group Annual, in an article which may be found here.

The talk began with a summary of why Kathy has found this technique useful, what sort of books this treatment is typically used for, and how it relates to the Indiana Historical Society mission statement. Typically, she has found it useful for printed books from the late 18^th to 19^th century, which fit into the “medium rare” category. As this category of book treatment isn’t often addressed, I enjoyed hearing two talks related to medium rare books, including Quinn Ferris’ talk, “Medium Rare: An innovative approach to the space between special and general collections.” As Kathy described, the books in this category within her institution included collections that are used frequently for research and exhibits, and the ultimate goal of treatment was to improve mobility and durability while maintaining an aesthetic appearance that was harmonious with the books’ time periods.

Kathy was inspired by the Treatment 305 technique, because it helped in many ways to meet her desired treatment goals. She found this technique appropriate for books with a weak binding and a strong text block, and found that it would allow her to create a tight back structure while minimizing the inherent weakness of the historic structure. However, she did decide to experiment with deviations from the exact Treatment 305 technique as described in the original 1994 article, in order to better accommodate the needs of specific volumes, and to incorporate more contemporary treatment practices.

The majority of the talk centered around four case studies which incorporated slight variations on the Treatment 305 technique. The books included in the case studies were similar in that all were missing significant portions of their original binding components, such as their spines, one board, or both boards, and dated to the late 18^th century or 19^th century. The treatment was varied slightly in each case study, in order to accommodate the needs of each particular volume. All four case studies varied slightly, although common features included minimal spine linings and new boards constructed from two pieces of 4-ply board which had been laminated together.

One component of one case study which really caught everyone’s attention, and resulted in a few audience questions, was Kathy’s use of a screen-printing kit to replicate the title information on the spine of a book. I also thought this was a great new tool to consider, because replicating an original spine is called for on occasion, and using new materials to replicate an aged aesthetic can be a challenge.

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 1, 2017 – “Using Butvar® B-98 as a Consolidant for Friable Matte Paint by Claire Winfield”

Covering a pair of practical case studies, Claire Winfield’s presentation on her recent uses of Butvar® B-98 was clear and informative. Winfield, the Associate Painting Conservator at Saint Louis Art Museum (SLAM), featured two artworks that share the characteristic of having friable matte paint, but the process and purpose for consolidation of each one varied. Her ability to modify her approach for each situation was guided by research and first-hand tests with Butvar® B-98.

Molecular structure of Butvar®. Image taken during presentation.

Butvar® B-98 is one of a series of trademarked polyvinyl butyral resins, which are valued for their clarity, adhesion to varied surfaces, rheology, toughness, flexibility, and aging characteristics. Butvars® are available in a range of molecular weights (MW) and can be applied in a variety of solvents by brush or spray. They are typically used in objects conservation for materials such as deteriorated wood, stone, plaster, bone, fossils, and baskets, because they can retain a matte surface and cause little color saturation.

In both of Winfield’s featured treatments, she needed to stabilize paint without altering its optical properties – a steep challenge given their powdery surfaces. Winfield focused on the energy relationships between Butvar® B-98 and the painted surfaces, reducing the adhesive’s particle size (B-98 is the lowest MW Butvar® available) and spray applying it in multiple dilute coatings to promote penetration. Keeping the spray tip completely clean and pre-wetting the surface with solvent were helpful in this process.

Historic information about Fabspray. Image taken during presentation.

The first case study was Enforcer (1962) by Larry Poons, composed of Liquitex acrylic paint and Fabspray on canvas. The Fabspray, a spray paint for fabric with vinyl and alkyd resin binders, unfortunately aged very poorly, having deteriorated to the point of actively shedding pigment. The goal of treatment was to keep the paint in place for safe dusting of the surface. Adhesive tests included Butvars® of varying weight, gelatin, and methylcellulose. Due to its small particle size, low viscosity in ethanol, strength, and minimal visual effect, a 1% Butvar® B-98 in ethanol was chosen as the consolidant. Since the Liquitex and Fabspray were applied to the painting in discrete areas, it was possible to mask the Liquitex areas while spray applying six coats of dilute consolidant to the Fabspray. The results were successful in that the paint no longer actively sheds and remains visually matte; however, the surface still cannot be safely dusted, and there was a slight but acceptable saturation of the color.

Photomicrograph of problematic paint. Siegfried Reinhardt, Micenic, 1942, oil, Siegfried Reinhardt. Image taken during presentation.

Micenic (c. 1942) by Siegfried Reinhardt, an oil painting on pressed board, was the second case study. The paint layer was locally cracked and lifting away from the board, and it was also lacking in cohesive strength: the lifting paint crumbled from brush contact and could not withstand heat. Following tests, the surface was pre-wet with 60:40 toluene:ethanol then then sprayed overall with 2% Butvar® B-98 in the same solvent mix to give the paint cohesive strength. Ethanol helped lower the viscosity of the adhesive, and toluene prevented tidelines caused by the paint’s slight ethanol sensitivity. BEVA® 371 in naphtha with heat assistance could then be applied to readhere the lifting paint to the board without undermining the cohesion provided by the B-98. This two-layer consolidation process successfully preserved both the structure and appearance of this painting.

Winfield’s work provided two responsible and creative examples for how Butvar® B-98 can be a useful addition to a paintings conservator’s toolkit.

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 1, 2017 – “Conserving the Paintings of Romaine Brooks by Tiarna M. Doherty”

On the final day of specialty group presentations at AIC’s Chicago meeting, Tiarna Doherty, Chief of Conservation at the Lunder Conservation Center, Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM), rewarded attendees with a lovely presentation about the singular artist Romaine Brooks. The Smithsonian Renwick Gallery mounted the exhibition “The Art of Romaine Brooks” in 2016, and Doherty examined over 30 paintings by Brooks in preparation, many of which were featured in the show. Weaving into a captivating story Brooks’s biography, aesthetic preferences, and technical practices, Doherty also conveyed the rationale for her practical conservation approach in response to how the paintings have altered over time.

Still image from presentation. Painting show in detail (left), overall normal light (center), and ultraviolet illumination (right). Romaine Brooks, Una, Lady Troubridge, 1924, oil, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Gift of the artist, 1966.49.6.

Romaine Brooks (1874-1970) is known for her stunning portraits, often featuring friends who were leading figures in the arts and humanities at the time. Born in Italy but raised in New York, Brooks’s father left when she was young, and her mother was not supportive of Brooks’s artistic pursuits. From 1890-1900, she lived in Capri with many other ex-patriots with non-traditional lifestyles; the location was a refuge following Oscar Wilde’s 1895 trials in London. Brooks met her husband in Capri, but their marriage was unsuccessful in no small part because he disapproved of her preference for masculine attire. She eventually settled in Paris in 1905. Her unpublished autobiography, which she illustrated with drawings, was titled “No Pleasant Memories.”

Brooks recorded very little about her aesthetic preferences or artistic technique, leaving only her artistic output and a few historic photographs to fill in the blanks. Her painting technique reveals some academic knowledge, though she may not have had formal training. Chalk lines and colored ground layers, such as the salmon orange preparatory layer in The Charwoman (1904), were followed by thin washes of paint and numerous glazes composed of her own mixture of oil and resin. She often used oil paint to reinforce contours on top of natural resin varnish layers to create the final surface. Painted black dashes, and in one case silver dashes, define the outer boundaries of many paintings.

In addition to painting and drawing, Brooks demonstrated an innovative attentiveness to interior design. Frame design and surface finish were clearly a consideration in her pursuit of Whistler-influenced harmony of color and tone. In one example from Doherty’s presentation, Brooks had a particular frame with a large rabbet in mind when planning a painting’s composition, as she painted the canvas only where it would show within the frame window. In another example, both the painting and the frame had a black ground layer visible beneath the finished surface – such efforts earned the accolades of “reigning in harmony” in a 1910 exhibition review.

Not surprisingly, the natural resin-containing layers of Brooks’s paintings have darkened over time. Brooks herself may even have seen the changes begin, as she chose to keep most of her paintings until her death. The presence of glazes and varnish in alternating layers with original oil paint make conservation especially challenging. In addition, conservators at SAAM observed that later applications of Paraloid® B-72, now getting cloudy, were difficult to remove safely due to sensitivity of the original materials beneath. Treatment goals leading up to the Smithsonian’s exhibition were therefore a combination minimal intervention and passive technology. When possible, degraded varnishes were reduced and surfaces resaturated. To restore some of the original cooler tonality, gallery lighting was employed to virtually compensate for some of the current altered appearance.

Doherty reminded us of Oscar Wilde’s relevant words from The Portrait of Dorian Gray, that “some things are more precious because they don’t last long.” But a conservator does what she can. This careful study of an artist and her technique led to both a thoughtful approach for displaying Brooks’s paintings, aged but still striking; as well as this transmission of her harmonious original vision.

It’s the time of the season…for submitting abstracts!

Yes, there is still time to submit that paper idea you’ve been kicking around in your head! You can do it (!!!), and this post aims to provide answers to your most pressing abstract questions, such as “How do I write a good one?” And, “What the heck happens after I submit it?”

For help with the first question, check out this blog post. It walks you through the process of writing an abstract and also helps you choose sessions for its submission.

As for the second, this document provides information on how the annual meeting’s review committees are formed, as well as the questions they consider when reviewing and selecting abstracts. You can also find this information on the AIC annual meeting’s Call for Submissions webpage.

I look forward to reading your talk abstract soon! And yes, I was listening to the Zombies’ Odessey and Oracle album when I wrote this post.

45th Annual Meeting – Workshops, May 28-29, “Reading Between the Lines: Understanding Construction and Exhibit Design Drawings” – Collections Care Network

I participated in the “Reading Between the Lines: Understanding Construction and Exhibit Design Drawings” workshop along with 12 other conservators. During the introductions, we learned that the participants come from all over the country and as far away as Taiwan and Australia. Many had signed up in order to prepare ourselves for upcoming major renovations or new construction in our institutions. The workshop was taught by four instructors: Jeff Hirsh (Architect, Principal, Director of Cultural Practice at EwingCole), Bill Jarema (Principal, Mechanical Engineer at EwingCole), Angela Matchica (Principal, Electrical Engineer and Lighting Designer at EwingCole), and Mike Lawrence (Chief of Design at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History). EwingCole, an architecture, engineering, interior design, and planning firm, has worked extensively with museums and other cultural and research institutions. They recently collaborated with Mike Lawrence and Cathy Hawks (Museum Conservator at the NMNH and a participant and organizer of this workshop) on building the Q?rius Learning Space at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, a permanent exhibition space in which visitors can engage with the museum collections through hands-on interactions. Much of the materials that were used in the workshop – drawings, specs, images, and group exercises – are documents from the Q?rius project.

The workshop covered a lot of ground, filling two full days during which we plunged into the complex world of construction projects. The workshop utilized a mixture of powerpoint presentations, tabletop exercises, and both planned and impromptu Q&A sessions to guide us through each step of the renovation process and help us to understand different types of construction and exhibit design documentation.

Day 1: Introduction to stakeholders, phases of design, basic terminology, reading mechanical and electrical drawings

We began with an overview of the stakeholders in a given construction project and the progression of projects from start to finish. I found it very helpful to learn about the types of documentation created during the various phases of planning and what level of detail can be expected from each phase. For example, a project starts from a concept report, which narrates the scope, timeline, and intent, progress to schematic designs, then to more detailed design development drawings, and finally to construction documents, which will go out to contractors for bidding. This lesson was supplemented by a tabletop exercise that asked the participants to find light temperature information among documentation from various phases of Q?rius design process. The exercise helped to drive home the importance of becoming a stakeholder and communicating preservation priorities at an early stage of the project, since it is becomes increasingly more costly and difficult to make revisions as the project progresses.

In the morning, we also learned basic terminology and symbols found in drawings. Because depicting the numerous things that are happening in a space – both inside and outside of the walls – is so complex, multiple drawings representing various levels of detail, multiple perspectives (elevation, plan, section), and specific categories of information are necessary. These drawings are supplemented by written documentations such as indices, keynotes, and specifications to convey the full scope of information. A reviewer must understand the system of symbols used as shorthand to indicate important information such as past edits, recent changes, the location of detail drawings, and demarcations of areas slated for demolition. At the start of the workshop, Jeff Hirsch had introduced the building as “a tool for preventive conservation”, and as the session progressed, I found it increasingly more helpful to think of the drawings as a set of instructions for using a very complex tool – in our case we are looking for ways to maximize the building’s ability to support collections preservation.

In the afternoon, we delved deeper into the different types of construction drawings by examining the general, architectural, mechanical, and electrical drawings, which each come with their own system of symbols that are used to communicate a wealth of meaning. Despite the sometimes daunting complexity of the drawings, it became clear that they follow a very specific and consistent order. I learned that when reviewing the drawings, it helps to understand them as both a set of instructions for the contractors and a legally binding contract for all stakeholders. As the latter, edits and revisions are closely tracked from version to version. Successful drawings clearly, thoroughly, and accurately communicate the scope of the project, including what is being demolished, what is being built, and what materials are being used for construction. Since each drawing can contain an overwhelming amount of information, approaching them with specific questions in mind makes them easier to navigate.

Some examples of information a conservator may need include: Do the edges of a demolition space impinge on existing collections? What are the fire ratings of the partitions slated for use in collections storage spaces, and will the fire rated partitions be fully enclosed (they must be in order to be successful)? Are there flammable materials sharing a wall with collections storage? Are smoke detectors and sprinklers located in appropriate areas? Are there enough outlets reserved for housekeeping, and are they readily accessible? What types of light sources are being used and how will they be controlled? If a new HVAC system is being installed, look to the mechanical schedules for the system’s ability to provide humidification/dehumidification and filtration information, and to the control chart for set points. Finally, with all systems that require maintenance and upkeep, it’s important to consider their proximity to collections materials, the frequency of maintenance, as well as space needs of associated personnel and equipment.

Day two: preventive conservation, exhibition design, and Q&A session

On day two, instructors began with an example in which the design team and conservators collaborated to identify an optimal pathway to move collections between the freight elevator and the Q?rius exhibit at the Smithsonian NMNH. An ideal pathway was not available, so the team mapped various options on the floor plan and used color coding to identify areas with issues such as security, access, and cleanliness. The drawing was supplemented by a filmed walk through of the actual path, which communicated potential issues with a clarity and immediacy that was difficult to convey through other media. I liked the way this example underscored the ways in which preventive conservation often relies on collaboration among parties with specializations beyond conservation, and that it focussed on an aspect of the environment – pathways – that is often overlooked when thinking about preventive conservation.

This followed with a tabletop exercise to find the outlets in the the drawings for the Q?rius space, which drove home how sometimes the little things can make a big impact on the maintenance of a finished space. In this case, it was important for us to consider the amount and location of outlets designated for a new space to make sure that enough are available for both display cases and for housekeeping use. In addition, we had to consider the accessibility of outlets for housekeeping and deduce from the drawings whether staff had to crawl into the base of display cases to reach outlets, for example. Through this exercise, we also learned that it was often necessary to switch between different sets of drawings (in this case, between electrical and exhibitions) because the information we needed was covered by overlapping specializations.

Moving further into the world of exhibition design drawings, we examined ways in which an existing space can be slightly modified to provide better climate collections objects. For example, Mike discussed an instance in which he built a vestibule as a means of limiting air exchange to an exhibit space that is located close to exterior walls and windows. In these instances the contractor schedule would be the place to look for information regarding the types of doors that are designated for use in a space.

Mike also walked us through the ins and outs of looking at drawings of custom exhibit cases, which provide detailed information on what can and cannot be done. I took a lot of notes here of factors that are important in the final product, such as: glass size (may be swapped to a different type without notice), acceptable deflection amount, potential need for levelers, desiccant chamber capacity (consider the climate of space that the case is going into), presence/type of lighting inside the cases, type of gasket used (does it actually press against the other side?), presence and composition of adhesives inside case. Getting custom cases sounded like a taxing process that was further complicated by the case builder’s use of proprietary materials.

The workshop concluded with a lively Q&A session that was populated by both questions that were pre-submitted by participants and by impromptu questions. Instructors and participants discussed questions relating to fire coding in collections and user spaces, condensation in air diffusers, preparing for a new building to be added to a museum, and considering the efficacy of using inhouse vs. outside consultants on construction projects. All in all, the workshop covered a lot of ground in two day period and offered a wealth of information that I was happy to bring back to share with my colleagues in preparation for our own renovations. I certainly felt more prepared and informed when our own construction drawings arrived at my desk several weeks later.

45th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 1, “Well That Didn’t Work, Now What? Stain reduction on a 10th-century Iranian ceramic” by Claire Cuyaubère and Ellen Chase

Claire’s talk highlights a topic that I’m glad we conservators are beginning to talk about more openly – treatments that didn’t necessarily work. This subject also fit in nicely with the overall conference theme of treatment and innovation. Although some of her treatment steps did not bring about the desired results, Claire was successful in safely and aesthetically preparing the ceramic so that it can be exhibited at the Freer Gallery of Art.

The earthenware dish features a reddish-buff ceramic body, off-white slip, and transparent glaze, with minimal brownish-black and red inscription decorations. The ceramic was previously broken into about 40 pieces and restored, with multiple campaigns of adhesive and overpaint. The museum has records of one treatment in 1964, and while removing old repairs, Claire found evidence of at least two previous restorations which likely occurred before the object was acquired in 1954. The major condition issue was various types to staining, including general yellow and gray stains. Additional disfiguring stain lines were present a few millimeters in from the edges of the sherds, including some areas with two or three separate rows of parallel staining.

Claire carried out analysis in an effort to determine the cause of the staining. Using SEM-EDS, among other tools, she determined that the staining contained little iron and was primarily organic in nature, meaning it is likely not from burial but from the various restoration campaigns. Adhesive identification was inconclusive, likely because multiple types are present; however, Claire noted the presence of hide glue, some type of acetone-soluble adhesive, and possibly shellac. During testing, the staining did not appear to be soluble in a range of solvents, likely because of crosslinking. Soluble salts were also identified with a microchemical test for chlorides, although no salt efflorescence was visible. An iron-containing accretion on the back within the footring was likely from burial and was mechanically reduced to avoid transfer to other areas of the ceramic during stain reduction treatment.

Claire proceeded with stain reduction tests, following Bruno Pouliot, Lauren Fair, and Richard Wolbers’ method of three rounds of poulticing using a chelator, bleach, and a final rinse.* She ultimately chose sodium citrate (2% at pH 8) as the chelator because it was mild yet effective, and she used carbamide peroxide (20% at pH 8) as the bleach. For both of these steps, she used agarose gel (2%) as the poultice material, favoring its ability for controlled, localized application. The gel poultices were only applied to stained areas on the front surface of the ceramic.

Agarose gel is made by mixing the powder with water, heating to a low temperature, pouring the mixture out to cast, and then cutting into blocks when cool. The gel blocks can then be soaked in solution; for instance, Claire soaked blocks in the chelator for one hour before applying to the ceramic. Plastic wrap was used to cover the gel blocks while on the ceramic to reduce evaporation. For the final rinse, the sherds were soaked in baths of deionized water, which served to clear the chelator and bleach as well as desalinate the ceramic.

To complete the treatment, the sherds were joined using Paraloid B-72, which was also bulked with microballoons and fumed silica to fill gaps and losses. These areas were inpainted as the dish will be displayed in an art museum, as opposed to an archaeological context, and the curator preferred to have the losses integrated.

Although the staining was somewhat lightened, its appearance was not sufficiently reduced by the poulticing steps. Claire carried out many poulticing trials, but the staining proved tenacious and she did not want to take the treatment so far as to risk causing damage to the object. Although improvements were made, the curator still did not find the dish to be in exhibitable condition, since the staining lines were still visible and particularly distracting against the overall stark, white appearance of the ceramic. At this point, Claire decided to try painting out the stains, over a barrier layer of B-72. Although she did not like the idea of painting over the original ceramic surface, this seemed to be the only reasonable option for preparing the object to be exhibited and accessible to public. Painting light over dark and matching the surrounding off-white glazed slip must have been a challenging task. But in the end, conservators and curators were both pleased with the results!

Overall, I think Claire’s treatment was a success, and I look forward to seeing the dish on display when the Freer Sackler reopens their newly renovated galleries this fall.

* For more information, I recommend: Bruno Pouliot, Lauren Fair, and Richard Wolbers. “Re-thinking the Approach: Techniques Explored at Winterthur for the Stain Reduction of Ceramics,” 2013 in Recent Advances in Glass, Stained-Glass, and Ceramics Conservation, pre-prints of the ICOM-CC Glass and Ceramics Working Group Interim Meeting and the Forum of the International Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Stained Glass, Amsterdam. pg. 211–223.

45th Annual Meeting—Textiles Session, Tuesday May 30th—“Making the Mold: A Use for Fosshape in Upholstery Conservation” by Kirsten Schoonmaker and Abby Zoldowski

After much ado and various delays, I am happy to post about Kirsten Schoonmaker’s fascinating presentation!

The task at hand was creating consistent custom upholstery packages for eight Heppelwhite shield back chairs. Belonging to the Philip Schuyler Mansion State Historic site, the chairs are part of a suite of Heppelwhite pieces, which all date between 1790 and 1804. The pieces were on display when the site opened to the public in 1917. They were removed from the house in 1926, and were recovered in the 1950s, altering the profile and the show fabric. After returning to the mansion in the 1970s, the chairs were again recovered, this time in a Scalamandre fabric.

As 2017 marks the centennial of the Philip Schuyler Mansion, it was decided to return the chairs to their former glory. The chairs were suffering from saggy backs and over-stuffed arm padding, and the seats in the set featured two different profiles. Removal of the replacement show fabric and additional layers of padding on the arms of one of the chairs exposed some of the original show fabric, informing the decision regarding new show fabric. Still, a decision had to be made regarding the upholstery profile. A modern, all-archival materials solution was considered, as was the possibility of leaving all of the remaining period materials intact and part of the piece. In the end, it was decided to remove all of the additions from the 1950s restoration onward. In the case of the chair backs, whose structural condition was compromised the most, the conservators worked from the bare frame. Kirsten presented the process piece by piece, with illustrations and photographs to clarify her descriptions (a very important element for audience members with little upholstery experience like me!)

The new shield back upholstery required complex curves, which are hard to achieve when carving ethafoam. Kirsten explained the interest in utilizing the adaptable qualities of Fosshape to recreate the proper silhouette for the new upholstery packages. Both the customized shape and the resistance of set Fosshape to changes in relative humidity made the material desirable. Fosshape 600 was used to test the creation of a new chair back. The conservation team created a plywood cradle and used air-dry clay to create molds of the front and back curved pieces. The fosshape was draped over the mold and steamed to follow the correct shape. The front and back layer were then sewn together with a layer of polyester batting sandwiched between. The unified piece was then covered in muslin (and eventually a new silk fabric). Two application approaches were tried with the new shield back packages, and the effectiveness depended heavily on tack placement.

Kirsten noted several factors to keep in mind for any future experimentation using Fosshape in this manner. Addressing the inflection points and tacking edges in the mold stage would improve the process. Also, experimentation to determine Fosshape’s self-adhering qualities could prove useful in future projects. The notion of using a 3-D scanner to create a printable mold in the future could speed the process along even more. In the end, there are plenty of possibilities to take away from this fascinating project.