AIC’s Annual Meeting – Page 42 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

NEW! Health & Safety Session at the Annual Meeting

The members of the Health & Safety Committee and 2014 Annual Meeting organizers are excited to announce the first full-day session dedicated to health and safety topics at the 42nd Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Health & Safety Session: Sustaining the Conservator will take place on Saturday, May 31 and will include the following talks:

Controlling Hazardous Collection Materials
Kerith Koss Schrager, Anne Kingery-Schwartz and Kathryn Makos
Responsible stewardship of hazardous collections materials involves implementing policies that ensure the health and safety of the materials as well as the individuals who come in contact with them. This talk will discuss employing collections-based risk management plans, understanding hazard disclosure requirements, and knowing when and how to consult health and safety professionals.

Unintended Consequences of Persistent Residual Vapor-Phase Chemicals within Collection Storage
Catharine Hawks and Kathryn Makos
Residual chemicals within cabinetry and collections have been identified through technical scientific study. While health implications are cautionary and controllable, adverse consequences to the condition of the collections can be significant. Recommendations for mitigation of these hazards will be presented.

Solvents, Scents and Sensibility – Part II, Sequestering and Minimizing
Chris Stavroudis
Continuing with the topics covered in Solvents, Scents and Sensibility-Part I (General Concurrent Session), this talk includes a discussion of safer solvents to help sustain the conservator and the environment, toxicity overviews, in-depth reviews of reformulating “bad” solvents, and molecular interactions and solubility parameters.

Medical Evaluations for Museum and Collection Care Professionals
David Hinkamp, MD (University of Illinois School of Public Health) and Ruth Norton.
Using examples from the Field Museum, the authors will discuss methods to promote occupational health benefits and safer working practices through medical evaluations, exposure monitoring, maintaining lists of materials used, and accurately describing conservation and collections care work practices to medical staff.

Sustainability for the Conservator: Mold Remediation
Chris Stavroudis and AIC Emergency Committee
The AIC Emergency Committee will present lessons learned and techniques used for Hurricane Sandy recovery at the Cultural Recovery Center in Brooklyn, New York to highlight the key steps conservators need to take to protect themselves when working with mold or moldy artworks.

Ergonomics in Collection Care
David Hinkamp, MD (University of Illinois School of Public Health)
Dr. Hinkamp will discuss current ergonomics theories and best practices for improving workstations and postures/positions using real world conservation task examples supplied by Emerging Conservations Professionals Network and the Health & Safety Committee.

The Committee is also organizing events that will take place throughout the 2014 Annual Meeting:
Yoga and Stretching
General session and some specialty group sessions
Don’t just sit there – get up and stretch! Throughout the meeting, organizers will encourage attendees to move around between talks with guided instruction.
‘The Safety Doctor Is In’ with J. R. Smith (Safety Manager, Smithsonian Institution)
Health & Safety Booth in the Exhibitors Hall
Friday, May 30: 9am-12pm and 1pm-3pm OR contact smithjr@si.edu for an appointment
Learn how to create a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for conservation tasks. This is a standard occupational safety approach to breaking down a task into simple components, materials, operations and then analyzing for hazards and setting ways to prevent an injury or illness from that hazard.
Health & Safety Booth
Exhibitors Hall
We’re teaming up again with the Emergency and Sustainability Committees to provide information on current health and safety issues. Stop by if you have questions or comments for members of the Committee.
Respirator Fit Testing
Lecture: Wednesday, May 28: 6:30-7:30pm
Appointments: Thursday, May 29: 9am-6pm ($39)
Register now for your annual respirator fit testing! Respirator fit testing requires that you complete the lecture, a 15-20 minute fit test appointment, and an OSHA Medical Evaluation Form signed by your healthcare professional (available on the Health & Safety webpage).
We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco!

Have a question or concern about health and safety in your conservation work? Contact the committee at HealthandSafety@conservation-us.org.
Also visit our webpage and wiki for more information and Committee publications on conservation-related health and safety topics.

NEW- From the INCCA-NA blog: "The Second Annual AIC Great Debate: Perspectives from Participant Jessica Ford."

This entry was originally posted on the INCCA-NA blog, and is being re-posted here with permission. To read the original entry, please go to http://incca-na.org/aic-great-debate/
Jessica Ford is a graduate fellow in paintings conservation at Winterthur/ University of Delaware. She is working this summer at the Dallas Museum of Art, and she will spend her third-year internship at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Kristin Adsit and The Clock stand by as Richard McCoy explains the debate format.
What was I thinking when I agreed to do the Great Debate? I asked myself this question countless times after the agreement was made. Instinctually, I knew I’d miss out on something important if I didn’t take part, this thought being fed primarily by the fact that it was the one and only Richard McCoy who had asked me to join in. Also, this was my first AIC meeting, so it was the only time I’d be able to claim in somewhat good conscience that I didn’t know what I was getting into. What I did know was that the Great Debate would involve publicly arguing about contentious issues with respected professionals in a field I am still in training to enter. It seemed best not to think about it too much, and just go for it.
For those who weren’t able to witness the event in the flesh, the second annual AIC Great Debate was held in a beautiful and intimidatingly large room featuring a cash bar. Two topics were discussed for 30 minutes each by teams that supported or opposed a stated position, and there were also question/answer sessions involving the audience. A key aspect was that the teams included individuals with varying backgrounds, who often did not personally support their assigned positions. Richard acted as moderator, expertly assisted by Laura Kubick, Kristen Adsit, and a huge ticking clock.

Smiles all around. Left to right: Jodie Utter, Rosa Lowinger, Patty Miller, yours truly at the podium, John Campbell, and Fletcher Durant.
My teammates were Fletcher Durant and John Campbell, and together we argued against the idea that “the greatest act of preservation for inherently fragile or fugitive cultural property is exhibition, even if the duration goes far beyond what is currently recommended.” Defending the statement was the impressive lineup of Rosa Lowinger, Patty Miller, and Jodie Utter. These three delivered truly inspiring arguments about how contemporary art must be made accessible to contemporary audiences, to ensure the survival of the cultural story they represent. Fragile artworks such as the Watts Towers and the artwork of Thornton Dial were cited as powerful examples. Hiding such artworks in storage was presented as elitist and more dangerous than display, considering the risks associated with overcrowding and neglect. My team and I were also called out for being too young (not such a bad insult) and naive (zing) to understand how a conservator’s practice must sometimes differ from his/her ideals.
Fletcher responded with some sass of his own, saying our elders on the opposing side were effectively leaving a trail of intentionally damaged artwork for the next generation of conservators to struggle with when they retire. He expressed the need for preventive preservation and for patience until the evolution of technology improves methods of display. In the meantime, I suggested creative use of surrogates and digital galleries to make artwork even more accessible than a physical display. John brought it all home with a final plug for the AIC Code of Ethics. What else should we need, really? I’m not one to deny the obvious, though, and the audience poll after the closing arguments was clear: the young’uns had been schooled.

Jessica, feeling slightly giddy with relief post-debate, stands beside moderator Richard McCoy.
Our discussion was followed with an even livelier and highly entertaining debate between new teams around the statement: “while volunteers used on preservation projects often allow us to accomplish more work, they undermine our capacity to regularly employ conservation and collections care professionals.” The extended question/answer session demonstrated that the audience was just as divided and passionate as those on stage. Carrie McNeal has already written a superb review of this portion of the debate here, and I hope you’ll read it! The compelling points made by both sides should not be missed.
What started out feeling like a slightly crazy decision to argue with strangers in public turned out to be a crazy good experience for an emerging conservator. I’m so proud to have taken the stage with my teammates and opponents, all terrific people that I look forward to seeing at future AIC meetings. It can be daunting to step outside one’s comfort zone in a professional setting, but that is the mission of the Great Debate. What makes it so “great” is that differing sides of prickly topics are explored at length and with good humor, breaking the ice and providing a baseline for future discussions. The good intentions of sensitivity and the excuses of passivity are magically eliminated for a few minutes. How often do we have time to do this as a group? I can’t wait to see which young conservators will take part in the next debate, helping to bring openness into the future of our field.
*All photo credits: Heather Brown

Electronic Media Group Call for Papers, AIC 2014 Meeting

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 28-31st 2014 in San Francisco, California. http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=482&parentID=476
The theme of the meeting is Conscious Conservation: Sustainable Choices in Conservation Care. Topics could include sustainability of analogue media formats, migration and emulation strategies, approaches to digital asset management and preservation, care of electronic media collections, and case studies of particularly challenging artworks.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships. – http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=474
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Friday, September 13.
Abstracts will be considered for:
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. General Session papers will be considered for one of three categories: all attendee sessions, concurrent sessions, and concurrent interactive/discussion sessions.
Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty, including: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collections Care, Electronic Media, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.
Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines
You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:

1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Specialty Session
1st Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, 2nd Choice: Photographic Materials Specialty Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Specialty Session
1st Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Group Session, 3rd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session
1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session

How to Submit an Abstract
Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words, along with a bio of no more than 300 words by Friday, September 13, 2013.
Email it to Ruth Seyler, Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org
In the case of multiple authors please list all authors and include an email address for each author.
For further information, please contact Rose Cull – EMG Program Chair – roseemilycull@gmail.com

Call for Papers for the Electronic Media Group at the 2014 AIC annual meeting

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 28-31st 2014 in San Francisco, California.
The theme of the meeting is Conscious Conservation: Sustainable Choices in Conservation Care. Topics could include sustainability of analogue media formats, migration and emulation strategies, approaches to digital asset management and preservation, care of electronic media collections, and case studies of particularly challenging artworks.
With a great location like San Francisco, we would like to engage with the local electronic media community and encourage first-time submissions from professionals involved in the preservation of electronic materials.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships.
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Friday, September 13.
How to Submit an Abstract
Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words, along with a bio of no more than 300 words by Friday, September 13, 2013.
Email it to Ruth Seyler, Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Committee on Sustainable Conservation Practice, Sustainability Luncheon: Linking the Environment and Heritage Conservation 2013: Presentation, Tips and Discussion

The Sustainability luncheon consisted of two parts: a progress report about a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) project that quantitatively evaluated the environmental impacts of three aspects of loans and exhibitions, and a breakout session where the participants brainstormed ideas that lessen the environmental effects disclosed by the LCAs.
LCA is a tool that quantitatively defines the environmental and economic impact of the activities being examined. These LCAs explored three aspects of loans and exhibitions including: energy use due to museum standards for relative humidity and temperature, materials and energy use related to loans and exhibitions, and the life cycle of halogens compared to LEDs.
The session introduction emphasized the connection between sustaining our environment and preserving our cultural heritage for future generations, focusing on the link between environmental and heritage conservation. The introduction outlined the collaboration between AIC, conservators, and other museum staff at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; and Dr. Mathew Eckelman and his Northeastern University environmental engineering students. The students’ findings were useful and provided a basis for future LCAs.
Breakout Session Challenge Questions and Discussion:
1. What means would you use to distribute/publicize LCA findings?
The importance of bringing the LCA results to all levels of the museum, especially the director, building manager, and board, was discussed. Cost-figures and a list of changes would show how these results can be implemented. The presentation of data is important. Dissemination through peer-to-peer avenues such as staff meetings, retreats, or breakout sessions such as this one may result in people wanting to be more sustainable, rather than feeling forced to do so. Information should be presented in an empowering way that supports personal responsibility.
A professor of conservation encouraged the inclusion of sustainability in the conservation curriculum, similar to the inclusion of conservation ethics. If it is practiced in the classroom, it may become second nature. This approach would preemptively address changing habits, since these students will begin their conservation careers with sustainability in mind and not have to be convinced about its value later.
A two-pronged approach was discussed that involved providing information to staff and outreach to visitors. Ideas about outreach included: distribution via social media sites, distlists, publications, webinars, allied professional groups such as American Association of Museums, and senior museum staff. The application for funding to implement sustainable changes could be advertised to the public and local media as a form of outreach.
2. How would you implement some of the LCA findings?
The implementation of HVAC findings needs to involve non-conservation staff in the pre-planning stages. Potential impacts to the collections should be thoroughly investigated and estimated ahead of time, before periodic shutdown or “coasting” of the system takes place. Regarding the adoption of LEDs, it might be better to wait until the technology improves and becomes more reliable and affordable since they will likely become the norm.
3. The loans and exhibitions identified couriers and plastic vitrines as the least sustainable aspects. Could you identify ways to reduce your institution’s carbon footprint from both? Would your institution accept this challenge?
While conservation as a profession has been a strong advocate for couriers, the role of couriers may need to be re-examined. Colleagues at the borrowing institution or from lending institutions contributing to the same exhibition could be identified to oversee the installation and de-installation of other institutions’ artifacts. There could be a crossover of conservators from different specialties (e.g., paper and textile conservators) to transport, install, and de-install objects similar to but outside their specialty. If items are being transported in sealed packages, it is possible that a courier is not needed. Staff from the borrowing institution or a locally-contracted stand-in could install/de-install the objects.
The possibility of cutting out the courier’s role altogether was raised. While this could work for some scenarios, it might be impossible in other instances for insurance purposes and for the occasional special needs of an artifact. The hiring of a local stand-in at the destination institution to courier the item from the shipper was discussed. Many participants were concerned about safety and security issues. Various questions arose regarding the role of the courier, stewardship responsibilities, and costs. What role does a courier actually play in the safety of an item as it is being shipped? Also, could the availability of equivalent services at the destination institution ascertained? What if there are no local conservators or other appropriate professionals who can perform the role?
Ideas about vitrines were first to re-use them when possible, and recycle when not possible.
For libraries and archives, mats and frames are often of standard sizes, making packing for a loan easier than for three-dimensional objects. Re-using a crate is easier if the materials packed into it will usually be the same shape and size.
4. What about your institution enables sustainability or holds it back?
New ideas, methodologies, and technologies must be thoroughly researched and followed-up upon. There are no “plug-in” fixes and administrators need to know this upfront to avoid unrealistic expectations. Quantitative presentations tend to be more effective. Engaging the expertise of a neutral third-party expert can sometimes be more persuasive than an internal presentation. New projects must be matched to administrative values. Intentions and presentations should be oriented to these as well.

41st Annual Meeting – Discussion Session, June 1 "What is Value? A Socratic Dialogue" moderated by Bill Wei

“What is the value of conservation (of what I do)”, or, “What is the value for us, the funding agency, to (continue to) fund conservation (you)?”

One of the most important contemporary issues facing conservators today is the effect of the economic crisis and cost cutting on the preservation and conservation of cultural heritage. Conservators and other conservation professionals must continually defend their work and answer questions posed by funding agencies and sponsors, local, state, and national governments, the general public, and even many museums themselves. These include critical questions such as
– what is the value of cultural heritage in this day and age,
– how does one determine what is worth conserving, and
– why should cultural heritage be conserved, that is, why is conservation and why are conservators valuable?
In order to help answer these questions of “value”, the AIC organized the first of what hopefully will become a series of so-called Socratic dialogues at the most recent annual meeting in Indianapolis. At this first dialogue, forty participants and a number of observers investigated their own answers to the question, “What is the value of conservation (of what I do)”, or, asked from a different point of view, “What is the value for us, the funding agency, to (continue to) fund conservation (you)?”
A Socratic dialogue does not answer the question posed, but helps the participants dig deeper into the issue. The Socratic dialogue brought up a number of issues and concerns, not only referring to the question of what the value of conservation is, but also of what value itself means, what motivates conservators, and what it is that they are conserving. Here is a sample of what the participants found to be the essence of the dialogue:

What is “value”?
Are values shared across cultures? Across time?
How has the value of the conservator changed over time?
Can we combine our values with those of our stakeholders in our treatments?
How do we preserve intangible aspects of cultural that do not have objects associated with them, i.e. … sense of humor?
Positioning material culture with the richness of human engagement.
If the value of conservation is that it preserves cultural heritage, how do we justify the value of cultural heritage?
How do we share our passion?
How do we balance our role as interpreters with our ideal of neutrality?
Conservators contribute something essential to the significance of material objects and how these object can help us gain a better understanding of what it means to be human.
Conservation is a tool that helps facilitate better understanding and appreciation of material culture through preservation and documentation.
Value is intangible and conservators help to preserve often physical objects that give people the chance to connect, now or eventually, to those very personal values.
ΔG = ΔH – TΔS
I leave better able to articulate the societal importance of what we do and secure in the knowledge that others grapple with the same issues.

The response to the Socratic dialogue was overwhelmingly positive. The participants found this form of dialogue an excellent way to delve deeper into the question. It gave them the possibility to think and express their own opinions without being challenged, and then have a “safe”, non-aggressive environment to consider the deeper issues at hand. A full report has been submitted to AIC News for publication in September.
The AIC plans to conduct a Socratic dialogue at next year’s annual meeting in San Francisco. While a number of the essences are ideal topics in themselves, if you have suggestions for a topic, especially related to the sustainability theme of the meeting, please send them to the moderator/organizer, Bill Wei at b.wei@cultureelerfgoed.nl . For those participants who did not leave their e-mail addresses, he would also like to hear your comments and suggestions.

41st Annual Meeting — Textile Session, May 30, “Finding the Ease: Approaches to Mounting and Installation at the Art Institute of Chicago,” by Isaac Facio and Lauren Chang

Isaac Facio, Conservation Assistant, and Lauren Chang,Conservator of Textiles, jointly presented the techniques and mounts they have developed, in concert with other Art Institute of Chicago staff, to “find the ease” in mounting and installing textiles at that museum. They showed three mounting systems, which could be helpful to many other institutions. All were the result of that old saying, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” They needed to devise simpler and more efficient techiniques for getting textiles onto display because they had fewer people and less time to install more textiles…..a situation familiar to many of us.
To mount medium- to large-sized textiles that would be displayed vertically, they devised a three-part mount, consisting of a fabric-covered board, into which the textile can be pin-mounted (their method of choice for temporary mounts for strong-enough pieces), a C-shaped, metal “kick out” or metal angle bracket to support the bottom of the mount and create a 10 degree angle, and wall cleats for the top.
To mount long textiles that were stored rolled and that needed to have part of the textile rolled for display, they developed a rolling system that fits into brackets that are secured to the walls. The system permits the textiles to go from rolled storage to display without the need for re-rolling. This saves time and aviodes excess handling. The bracket system is one that I would love to see made available commercially.
Finally, they described what they had done to make it possible to mount the large tapestry exhibit, The Divine Art: Four Centuries of European Tapestries. For this exhibit, they needed to mount at least seven tapestries per day, so they needed a system that would be both more efficient and less stressful for staff than how they had previously installed tapestries. The system they developed has two significant innovations. Rather than using a flat “beam” to hold the hook side of Velcro, as is often done, they developed a metal “double-I-beam” style beam, with a square profile. To support this beam, they used a shelf of MDO. The square beam prevented the tapestry from canting forward when hanging. The shelf allowed the tapestry, on the beam, to be lowered into place, with minimal handling.
This is how Lauren and Isaac described the installation process:
• The MDO shelf was secured to the wall with drywall screws at a predetermined height.
• The soft, or fuzzy, side of the Velcro, which was sewn to the tapestry during treatment, was secured to the “double-I-beam” while both were still on the floor.
• A three-foot long two-by-four was placed into the space within the “double-I-beams” at each end, to serve as handles for the installation.
• They positioned a pair of hydraulic lifts with platforms at either side of the tapestry. The lifts were outfitted with arms extending in front of them.
• They placed the two-by-four “handles” on the lifts’ “arms.”
• With one person running each lift and Lauren standing back to guide the positioning, the tapestry – on its “double-I-beam” was lifted into place.
• The “double-I-beam” was then secured to the wall, and the “handles” removed from the beams.
Although I have tried to capture what Isaac and Lauren showed and told, I know I have missed many details. This is a paper for which I will eagerly await the Postprints. I’m hoping that they can include the video clip of the tapestry installation that they showed during the talk.

41st Annual Meeting – Architecture Session, May 30, “Fifteen Shades of Grey…? Paint Color Analysis on the Eames House,” by Emily MacDonald-Korth, Alan Phenix, Tom Learner, and Kyle Normandin

The Eames house was designed in 1949 by Charles and Ray Eames as the eighth house in the case study house program of the Arts & Architecture magazine. The Eames lived in the home until their deaths; after 1988 the house remained untouched. In 2011, the contents of the living room were reassembled at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) for an exhibition. It was at this time that the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) provided investigation and scientific analysis to determine the conservation issues and plans for the house. The 2011-2012 initiative of the Eames House conservation program was to determine the paint stratigraphy of the interior and exterior of the home. This presentation discussed the approach, technology used, sample extraction, and findings for the Eames House investigation.

Eames House, Case Study House No. 8. Designed by Charles and Ray Eames, 1949.

The study included 15 samples and 6 in-situ investigations from the interior and exterior of the house. In on-site storage, the team located painted plates and several date labeled paint cans that were used for comparison. The team deployed the use of optical microscopy, EDS cross-sectional photo, micrographs, and stratigraphic examination in order to identify the layers of paint present. It was noted that the limited number of samples may not represent all of the paint layers present, for this reason cross-sectional and in-situ excavation were used in conjunction of each other to cross reference findings.

Interior, Eames House, Case Study House No. 8. Designed by Charles and Ray Eames, 1949.

To begin the study, the team identified the known timeline of painting campaigns, for this they relied on historical documentation. The following was known about the house:

1949-House built
1978-Charles’ death
1978-repair campaign
1988-Ray’s death
1989-painting campaign
1994-painting repair
2003-painting campaign
The house & studio show similar paint layers, but the interiors differ

Initial comparison of exterior cross-section and excavation indicate that the two areas have similar stratigraphy. When in comparison, they were able to loosely date the layers to the appropriate painting campaigns. Paint extractions were then separated by paint layers and material composition. The team was able to determine that the earlier paint layers were mixed through subtractive color mixing; this type of mixing technology indicates that great care went into the color mixing and selection process.

Primer layers show that a warm grey was the first layer, with no evidence of dirt between the layers. At this time it was hypothesized that the exterior color was changed to black from 1978-1988. The paint analysis showed a series of gray paints with compositional overlap and two zinc based primer layers. Most samples have two layers below the zinc primer that are the same in composition to the exterior first two layers. Based on these results, it was determined that the first generation warm gray layer exists on the interior and exterior of the house.

41st Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 31, "The Research and Conservation Treatment of Jar of Apricots/le bocal d’abricots, 1758 by Jean-Siméon Chardin"

This talk presented the recent work done by Sandra Webster-Cook on a painting by the Parisian artist Jean-Siméon Chardin (1699 – 1779). The author treated Jar of Apricots (1758), an oval oil painting on canvas in the collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario. The project also included a thorough study on the painting’s materials and Chardin’s working techniques.
Jar of Apricots traveled to Europe in 2010 to be exhibited next to its pendant, Cut Melon (which remains in a private collection and has reportedly never been restored) at the exhibition “Chardin: Painter of Silence”, shown at the Palazzo dei Diamanti, in Ferrara and at the Museo Nacional del Prado, in Madrid. Here Webster-Cook was able to study the two paintings together, aiding in her future treatment decisions.
Once the painting returned to Canada analytical work was done at CCI, including XRF, Raman and the collection of a small paint sample. The cross section of this sample revealed a double ground layer which Chardin typically used in his paintings: a red layer directly on the canvas and a grey imprimatura layer above it.
The pigments found in this painting were also typical of Chardin’s palette from 1730 to 1766. The ground layers contained carbon black, Prussian blue, iron oxide red, chalk and lead white. The reds were identified as vermillion and red lake. The lemon in the composition was found to contain vermillion and orpiment. Some lead tin yellow was also found in the bread loaves. The blues were a mixture of Prussian and ultramarine, a pigment combination characteristic of Chardin’s work. In areas of modern overpaint cadmium was found.
Examination of the painting revealed some pentimenti. Additionally, on the ceramics some of the flower decorations appear to be wiped or smudged, perhaps with solvent. On Cut Melon a similar technique was observed, and some solvent drips were even found.
Jar of Apricots had been treated previously, perhaps more than once, it was lined and had a synthetic resin varnish. The drying cracks had been filled and there was extensive old overpaint. Also, some modern blue-green paint was found, emerging through the cracks in the paint layer from behind; it appeared unrelated and extraneous to the previous treatment campaign and its presence could not be explained.
Webster-Cook’s treatment consisted of removing the varnish and reducing the overpaint and fills. The varnish and most of the overpaint were easily reduced with organic solvent but the fills (made of a pink waxy material) were more tenacious and required mechanical action. Some of the fills were not completely removed, but rather mechanically reduced to level with the painting’s surface. The painting was re-varnished with dammar and retouching was done with Paraloid B-72. The drying cracks were not re-filled but some inpainting was done to reduce their appearance. The treatment resulted in significant aesthetic improvements to the painting.
The project was a collaborative effort between curators, scientists and conservators. A video about the project is being made for museum patrons, highlighting the complex decision making process and collaborative nature of the conservation of paintings.

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting – Textile Session, May 30, "“Merging Disciplines: Designing a Mount for a Matisse Serigraph,” Yadin Larochette

Yadine Larochette presented her treatment and mounting of one of Henri Matisse’s large silkscreen prints, Oceanie, le ciel, printed in 1948 by Zika Ascher. The print, made with oil-bound pigments on dyed linen, measures about 65″ by 144″. Unlike other prints in this series, for which some treatments have been published (see, for example: Vuori, Jan, et al, “Local stain removal from Océanie, la mer by Henri Matisse: the development of a reducing bleach technique using a suction disk, ultrasonic mister, and airbrush, “ in Conservation combinations: preprints of a conference: North American Textile Conservation Conference 2000, Asheville, North Carolina, U.S.A., March 29 to 31, 2000), this print had never been mounted. Its owners wanted to display it, which presented Yadin with the challenge of mounting it securely while still retaining the qualities and stability of the silk-screened surface.
To do this, she used what paintings conservators call a “loose lining.” She had a fine woodworker, Robert Espinoza, make a strainer with a slightly rounded edge. On top of the strainer she secured Coroplast and polyester felt. After experimenting and testing different fabrics for the support, or lining, she selected a wide, heavy scenery muslin from Dharma Trading Company that she then brushed to give it a bit of nap. (I’ve used this fabric as well and have found it has a tendency to become “nappy” even with just machine-washing. For some uses this is a disadvantage, but for this project, it was an advantage.) This nap would help to hold the print in place. She stapled the muslin to the strainer and then stitched the perimeter of the print to the muslin. After covering the edges of the print with a sheer polyester fabric for protection from the frame, she installed the piece in a frame with acrylic glazing. Before coming to the Annual Meeting, Yadin checked with the owners and was happy to report that they are still pleased with its appearance after three years.
Yadin briefly discussed the surface cleaning and humidification techniques she used for this treatment. She also discussed how the prints came to be made, emphasizing the role of the printer. Her description of this part of the story showed her fondness for the print.
During Yadin’s talk, we also learned that Patsy Orlofsky and Mary Kaldany of the Textile Conservation Workshop, South Salem, NY are preparing an article for JAIC on their treatments of five of these prints. It will be interesting to learn how another lab has treated these wonderful pieces.