AIC’s Annual Meeting – Page 66 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

39th Annual Meeting – OSG Morning Session, June 3, “Variable Media, Variable Roles: The Shifting Skills Required in Contemporary Art Conservation,” by Gwynne Ryan

Gwynne Ryan, sculpture conservator at the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden presented the paper “Variable Materials, Variable Roles: The Shifting Skills Required in Contemporary Art Conservation.” She said anecdotally that the title of her paper had changed even the same morning as her attempt to address current practices was constantly changing in line with the constantly changing practices of the Hirshhorn. Her paper is meant to inform on the way in which institutions can contend with the challenges that contemporary art presents to conservation. New skills and tools are required for the installation, acquisition, and treatment of contemporary art. In order to achieve this, the Hirshhorn has examined several publications on the topic (listed in presentation) in hopes that these will help provide guidance for the Hirshhorn. The museum’s small staff, approximately fifty people, four of whom are conservators, makes collaboration necessary especially given the paradigm shift of changing practices.

Throughout the presentation, Gwynne Ryan provided many specific examples of work at the Hirshhorn that have presented individual difficulties. Anish Kapoor’s At the Hub of Things

and Ann Hamilton’s Palimpsest http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=14949 were her first two examples. The use of unconventional material and the importance of the pieces’ abilities to develop lives of their own in exhibition challenge conservation efforts. To the best of their ability, the museum consults the artists and involves them in the associated decision making process. Ernesto Neto and Isac Julien (http://artpulsemagazine.com/the-cinema-effect/) were two more examples upon which Gwynne Ryan briefly extrapolated. She compared the museum’s efforts to those occurring in ethnographic collections (on which there were several presentations in the OSG) and the fact that there is more than just the material to preserve – there is something greater to the art. The concept of the original surface as well as the role that the art plays is essential. In hopes of preserving this, documentation emerges as one of the most important elements of contemporary art conservation.

This theme recurred throughout the paper, as Gwynne Ryan called for a new position to be taught, trained, and fulfilled – that of the documentation and new-media conservator. Treatment reports for contemporary art must include a commentary on interaction with the piece and the environment it is meant to create. For this to occur, treatment reports must become more narrative in style and incorporate various media and sources. Reports must communicate the way in which installation should occur, but this is information which originally comes from outside of the museum itself. The conservator must be on site documenting the installation, or deinstallation, or the pieces, many of which consist of many parts or organic materials. Installation of contemporary art, especially reinstallation, requires standards and the existence of an almost choreographed approach. The primary example given for the difficulties of reinstallation and maintenance was Wolfgang Laib’s Pollen from Hazelnut (video shown at conference).

The process must be fully documentated in order to maintain the integrity of the piece, which must be cleaned and reinstalled every month while it is on exhibit, a process that the artist can not logistically be involved in leaving the task to the conservators.

Gwynne Ryan went on to discuss an installation project occurring in Spain in which the use of videography has produced surprising but interest results, as well as the case of Doug Aitken (http://hirshhorn.si.edu/exhibitions/view.asp?key=21&subkey=518), a future project requiring the organization of videography. One of the more extensive examples provided was that of Janine Antoni’s Lick & Lather, which occurs in a variety of ways but is a series of two busts, one soap and one chocolate, at the Smithsonian (http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=14823). Through this series, Gwynne Ryan discussed the boundaries of an artist’s voice as it relates to the role of conservators in light of the semi-rapid deterioration of the soap bust, requiring the recasting and preparation of a new piece. While this system is effective enough for the time being, Gwynne Ryan raised the question of what should be done in the future after the artist has passed. Preservation in the absence of the artist, the only one qualified to do the ritualistic bathing of the busts that is essential to the piece and its meaning, is a difficult task that has yet to have a solution. As Gwynne Ryan meets with the artist and discusses these questions, it has become more and more obvious that boundaries for the role of the conservator in contemporary art need to be established because they are quite blurry as it stands. The “double consciousness” and the role of conservator as “ethnographer” create a situation in which it must be asked if conservation is influencing the artistic process. Certain biases prevail simply through daily actions, memories, the way questions are posed, and our outside influences, which can have an impact on the supposedly impartial work of a conservator. Quoting another speaker, Salvador Muñoz-Viñas, Gwynne Ryan ended her presentation by saying “conservation is not a neutral activity.”

39th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 3, “The Care and Display of Homogen Infiltration für Kontzertflügel (Joseph Beuys, 1966) Between 1976 and 1992 at the Centre Georges Pompidou,” by Christel Pesme

Christel Pesme, a PhD student in the History of Art at the University of Paris presented a paper entitled “Museum Agency on the Integrity of Art” on the topic listed in the Annual Meeting program. She explained the change in title as a constant occurrence as she is still actively developing her thesis. Her work examines the impact of conservation and the execution of agency on the work Homogen Infiltration für Kontzertflügel by Joseph Beuys, 1966. Owned by the Centre Georges Pompidou, several phases of conservation were undertaken between 1976 and 1992 that had tremendous impact on both the work and the artist. The work as she discusses it consists of three independent, stand alone works: the piano, the original wax earplugs, and the original felt fabric, now hanging. In order to help the audience understand the implications of the work, Christel Pesme provided a brief background on the Centre Georges Pompidou, including its dates and mission statement, which involved the democratization of contemporary art. Her thesis and presentation pursue a rethinking of the role of the artist, ownership, and the role of cultural institutions.

Christel Pesme paper presents several phases of intent and interest in the Centre Georges Pompidou’s conservation and curatorial approaches. The initial exhibition of the work in 1976 was emblematic of the center and its goals as expressed through its mission statement. The first of four treatments occurred from December 1976 to January 1977. In collaboration between the conservators and the artist, the red crosses were removed and cleaned, and then sewn back on by the artist. The second treatment occurred in 1979 with the mechanical reinforcement of the felt in opposition to the artist’s preference and the meaning of the piece. The use of metals isolated and contained the work in a way that was unnatural. Despite the artist’s protests, the conservators at the centre said that the treatment was necessary if the piece were to travel to NY for an exhibit as the artist wanted, and so the treatment was done. After returning to the centre from NY, the piece had been damaged and a so a new room was built to house the piece in the optimal environment. The third treatment occurred between 1981 and 1984 – the records do not allow for a precise date. At this point the felt was reversed, “like a sleeve,” and the inside was shown without any involvement of the artist. The fourth treatment was more an “intervention” as described by Christel Pesme. From December 1984 to January 1985, the felt was removed from the piano and kept separate. A new envelope was made and put on. This intervention was demanded by the artist at a meeting established to discuss a new Beuys acquisition. He provided sketches for how the pieces were to be treated and then re-displayed.

For Christel Pesme, the conservation history of the piece exemplifies the decision making process that surrounds the practicality of the care and display of items in cultural institutions. Both the conservators and the curators made ethical decisions according to their field and goals. The changes in style and approach to the four phases of treatments corresponds to contemporary shifts of the centre’s mission statement, and more specifically to a particular director who was involved in the museum from 1981 to 1991. The affect of agency on the piece included alteration of the conservation methods, museum display, and the work’s actual interpretation. Following the 1985 dismantling of the work, it lost its original intent and definition. From this case, extreme as she admits it is, she hopes that conservators will learn that it is important for them to mitigate curatorial involvement in art but also that the very large role played by the cultural institution and it corresponding mission statement is realized. Conservators are not just bound by their own code of ethics, but also by the expectations of the museum in which they work.

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting – ASG Session, June 3, “Conserving a Space for Commemoration: Trinity Cathedral Burial Ground Renewal” by Teresa Duff, Post-Graduate Fellow, University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate Program in Historic Preservation

Teresa Duff presented the conclusion of a twenty-year, three-phased conservation project by the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at the Trinity Burial Ground in Pittsburgh, PA. The first phase, begun in 1990, entailed a condition survey and pilot testing program for the conservation of grave markers in the cemetery. In 2000, students from the University of Pennsylvania performed the second phase of testing, and in 2007-2008, Duff and her colleagues began Phase 3, which was in conjunction with a landscape renewal by Andropogon.

Duff explained that the site was a Native American burial ground that was adopted by white settlers in 1779. In 1822 the first church was erected on the site, and the current Trinity Cathedral was constructed in 1872. The grounds contain 155 stones along with burial-marker fragments. Duff and her colleagues mapped the site and numbered each plot, and created color-coded layers for conditions, treatments and the history of markers. They built a site-specific treatment platform for the on-site conservation of markers, and completed the conservation treatments begun in 2000. Treatments included cleaning and removal of biological growth, epoxy repairs for blind delamination and cracks, pinning with fiberglass pins, carbon fiber strap reinforcement on the back of some markers, excavation and resetting of partially buried or at-risk markers, and the burial of markers who had lost their material integrity. Fragments were displayed on the exterior walls of the church.

The author provided detailed information about treatments and products, but I would have liked to have learned more about the history of the site, the types of stones and carving represented in the burial ground, and the rationale behind some of the treatments. There were many questions following the talk about the landscape renewal by Andropogon, particularly the native grass they selected which does not need to be mowed. It was a well-organized presentation with good visuals and detailed information.

39th Annual Meeting – General Session, June 1, “Conservation in the Twenty-First Century: Will a Twentieth Century Code of Ethics Suffice?” By Barbara Applebaum

Barbara Applebaum has always been known as a thinker who asks intriguing questions. She is the author of the book “Conservation Treatment Methodology” published in 2007. She serves up some of the same complex questions in the opening presentation of the 39^th annual AIC meeting. Applebaum demands that we think about the hard questions. In this presentation, she examines the AIC code of ethics and guiding documents that define our profession both internally and to the outside world.

The AIC documents are made up of three levels of guidance. The AIC Code of Ethics is aspirational in nature. The guidelines for practice offer us the specifications of expected practice. The commentaries of the guidelines serve as section by section discussions on the minimum and optimum best practices. It is easiest to make changes to the commentaries. For the most part they define things that we all learned growing up. They guard against things like lying, cheating, and stealing. Applebaum suggests that conservation professionals should read through the documents on a regular schedule.

Applebaum feels that the AIC guiding documents are as valid today as when they were first drafted. She likens them to the “ten commandments,” and feels that they regulate the conservation practice accordingly. Then she moves on to some of the most interesting questions of the presentation. Does the detail focused nature of work with cultural heritage attract the personality that nitpicks and over analyzes the tasks at hand? Are we a people searching for imperfections in the AIC Code? Have we spent a decade looking inward at the issue of certification to the detriment of the profession?

We must fight the tide of negativity and take our place the outside world, Applebaum reminds us. We must realistically evaluate all that is going on around us and understand the needs of the museum, private collectors and the public. While the AIC guiding documents were drafted at a time when the profession was mostly institutionally focused, we increasingly work in private practice. Our colleagues are diverse, working on heritage from ethnographic objects, architecture, archives and libraries among others in addition to works of art.

We must recognize that our work sometimes moves from the care of cultural property belonging to the whole human race to the intimate objects and personal property that never rises to the level of cultural heritage. These items are things like a child’s drawing, a clay ashtray, etc. The usefulness of the AIC code of ethics on personal items is small. Still, thorough professional training is required to practice conservation in an ethical manner on all objects.

Applebaum reminds us that we must educate others on the good we can do for people, with an emphasis on the added value we provide. In our work, we must remember the conservation is as much about the people we help as it is about the chemistry and material of the object.

Deconstructing Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s Bernini’s Terracotta Modello for the Fountain of the Moor. Really.

Tony Sigel, Conservator of objects and sculpture at the Straus Center for Conservation at the Harvard Art Museums, presented an in-depth treatment and technical study of a terracotta sculpture made in 1653 by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Tony began with a brief historical background which included amusing insights such as Bernini’s first proposal for this fountain which was a rendering of a snail. Strangely the snail concept was rejected by the pope and a figurative sculpture of man wrestling a fish while standing on a shell was accepted. This sculpture is one of Bernini’s largest terracotta pieces and had several campaigns of prior restoration including re-tooling of original material, additions of plaster and nails on the interior and concretions of painted plaster on the exterior. In addition the object had a complex surface due to aged and weathered coatings of paint, and soluble nylon. Tony described the detailed treatment steps he used to stabilize the sculpture, which included disassembly, reassembly, restorations of older restorations, compensation for structural losses, analysis, and removal of surface coatings.
The talk was peppered with insightful tips, such as using a can of dust-off held upside down to freeze fills modeled with plasticine clay so that distortions do not occur when removing them. Other useful tips included a complex process to reproduce a set of Bernini’s original tools based on tool marks on the object. The newly made tools were used to mimic surface features in areas of loss. I look forward to the post-print version of this talk in particular, as the tool replication process has potential for numerous other applications. The techniques of surface cleaning described ranged from low tech- using pressure sensitive tape to lift off paint, to high tech- using a Lynton ND: Yag laser to essentially steam clean the surface. Tony did not shy away from delving into ethical considerations that arose during this project, particularly where certain areas of loss were chosen over others to be restored. As an object conservator I found this talk particularly relevant in terms of the ethical issues and techniques presented. Really!

39th Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 31st, “Museum Mannequins” by Helen Alten

Helen Alten’s “Museum Mannequins” workshop covered a variety of methods for designing, building, and adapting mannequin supports. Construction processes were broken down into additive, subtractive, and cast-and-molded techniques. The majority of designs were for male and female torsos. Padded hangars, T-mounts, and full-body mannequins with cast-from-life appendages were also discussed. Design and presentation issues were covered, emphasizing the use of appropriate undergarments and appendages. The benefits and problems associated with many prefabricated mannequins were discussed. Questions and discussions were encouraged throughout the PowerPoint presentations and hands-on activities, which was helpful as workshop participants had varying levels of experience and each participant’s contribution enriched the workshop.

A 29-page handout was e-mailed prior to the one day workshop. This was appreciated, as a lot of material was covered. The handouts that were provided on site expanded on the initial handout with a workshop outline, a five page bibliography, a list of material suppliers, “cheat sheets” for measuring garment dimensions, a basic bodice pattern, and six articles on designing and constructing mannequins. Helen also pointed us to useful resources such as Patterns of History historic garment patterns, Museum Mannequins: a Guide for Creating the Perfect Fit (2002) edited by M. Brunn and J. White, and A Practical Guide to Costume Mounting (2007) by L. Flecker.

Each participant was asked to bring a garment to measure for the practical workshop. Hands on activities included measuring the garment, creating a pattern for a rigid-board mannequin, and creating a foam mannequin. Two groups made mannequins out of Ethafoam®, a material commonly used for mannequins, and one group made a mannequin from Plastazote®, a softer type of polyethylene foam. As a molding demonstration, two participants cast their hands in plaster using alginate molds. The workshop went about 1 hour over time and most participants chose to stay. Samples of buckram were provided for experimentation at home. All supplies and tools were provided.

Helen encouraged participants to contact her with future questions.

39th Annual Meeting-OSG, June 1st, Panel Discussion on Ethical Issues in Archaeological Field Conservation

What are the ethical issues that archaeological conservators face in the field? This was the topic of a panel discussion held at the start of the OSG sessions focusing on archaeological conservation. It was organized by the Archaeological Discussion Group co-chairs Claudia Chemello and Susanne Grieve and the OSG program chair Sanchita Balachandran. Four archaeological conservators were invited to talk about some of the issues they face when working on site. The speakers, Angelyn Bass Rivera, Rae Beaubien, Eric Nordgren and Nancy Odegaard, all have different areas of specialization and were able to talk about a broad range of ethical issues that they have encountered in the work that they do.

The first speaker was Angelyn Bass Rivera, a conservator in private practice who specializes in wall paintings and built heritage. She presented 3 case studies and described the issues that she encountered working to preserve hominid track ways at Laetoli , murals at the Mayan site of San Bartolo and at Frijoles Canyon Cataes at Bandelier National Monument. All sites suffered from environmental degradation because they were outdoors, but there also seemed to be larger administrative issues affecting them. Issues such as the need for tourism to a site and its impact in the case of Laeotoli, or the issue of inadequate funding for conservation on archaeological excavations can also affect the preservation of these sites.

Rae Beaubien, archaeological conservator at the Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute (MCI) talked about her experiences working in the field with archaeologists. At sites where there hadn’t been a history of conservation prior to her working there, she was able to come in and establish the protocol for processing finds. She could also forge the idea that archaeologists and conservators should work together from the start. Her work at MCI, where she was able to create an archaeological conservation internship program, allowed her to continue establishing these collaborations and emphasizing their importance in the field.

Rae then went on to discuss some of the items in AIC’s Codes of Ethics that stood out as important to those working in the field. The first was the issue of stewardship and the preservation of collection, where in the field, conservators are responsible for taking care of the entire collection. She then discussed the idea of operating within the expertise of the person charged with doing the work. She felt that in a museum or institution, it was possible to find a specialist or expert for different aspects of conservation or preservation. In the field, however, you are sometimes asked to work outside of your area. Because finding and paying for these specialists or experts is difficult, often the conservator will have to take on additional responsibilities and in those situations, you just do the best you can. Her final point was for those conservators working in the field to be aware of the laws and regulations of each country they work in in regards to antiquities, especially for unprovenanced material. She ended with the idea whether our work in a country brings unwanted attention to a site and once we leave, how do we protect the site.

Leaving the discussion of terrestrial sites, Eric Nordgren, conservator at Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Project, talked to us about some of the issues conservators of maritime artifacts face, both practical and ethical. In the case of practical, the size of some of the objects brought up from the sea and the size of tanks or equipment needed for their storage and treatment pose a problem. He stressed the importance of long term planning to provide funding and equipment/materials to undertake the conservation and long term preservation of these materials.

In regards to ethical issues, the largest one faced is where artifacts are recovered without following ethical guidelines and work is carried out by treasure hunters or salvage crews. The question is, what do we do about this? Eric’s suggestion is to work with these groups of people, in addition to other professionals involved in maritime archaeology such as boat captains, riggers, etc. to educate them about conservation and have them understand how they can do their work following ethical guidelines. His final point was if we should think about the larger question of whether we even need to excavate these underwater sites anymore and how well can they be documented without excavation.

The final panel speaker was Nancy Odegaard, conservator at the Arizona State Museum, who was asked to speak about her experiences working with human remains. The Arizona State Museum issues permits for excavations and the policy is that if remains are found, the excavation has 48 hours to get someone out there to identify the remains and determine whether they are human. When found, human remains are not excavated in the Southwest. They are not disturbed, unlike in other areas where the remains are exposed, removed and can be sampled/examined/analyzed/reconstructed. She also mentioned that this summer she will be reburying human remains and artifacts that are currently at the museum.

After each speaker presented, the floor was opened for discussion and questions. One of the issues that kept recurring both in the panel presentation and discussion was how to get archaeologists and conservators to work together, particularly in the US. Rae mentioned that in some countries permits and regulations for excavations are centralized so there is common governing body and regulation to guide archaeologists. There are countries that do require archaeologists to work with conservators and having centralized regulations makes enforcing this easier. This is not the case in the US. Rae suggested having conservators go to archaeological conferences to present their research and integrate themselves into archaeology. Training archaeology students about conservation also helps because you get them to understand early in their career about the importance of conservation and working with conservators. Also writing grants to fund conservation on sites from the same sources that archaeologists use and including this as part of the archaeologist’s funding process for their project also helps.

The issue was raised in the question portion about non-conservators treating materials, especially in the case of maritime archaeology. Eric Nordgren had touched upon that in his presentation and addressed this again in the discussion. He brought up the point that often because of the need to recover these types of items and the need for immediate treatment, archaeologists often do the work themselves. The work of non-conservators preserving maritime sites and the issues of working with them was also brought up in paper presented in the OSG session following the luncheon by Susanne Grieve. It seems that the issue of non-conservators treating archaeological materials and how we should deal with them is something that needs further discussion in the specialization of archaeological conservation.

The final point brought up in the discussion session was of conservators working on unprovenanced materials. Museums have protocols for dealing with these, but should conservators have protocols or guidelines on how to deal with these materials. There was not enough time to have a full discussion of this at the luncheon, but it is an important point that was brought up and one I’m sure will be discussed in more depth in the future.

This luncheon introduced us to some of the issues, both ethical and practical, that archaeological conservators face in the field. It also led to discussions about larger issues of funding and allocation of resources for conservation, how to better integrate with archaeologists, working with non-conservators and other professionals and the ethics of dealing with unprovenanced material. Though no clear answers could be given for how to deal with some of these items, it did provide some interesting discussions and reminded everyone about the complexities of conserving material in the field. I think we all left with many issues to think about that certainly should be further discussed in future annual meetings.

39th Annual Meeting – General Session, June 2 “Objects of Trauma, Finding the Balance” by Jane Klinger

Do the things that survive trauma become imbued with additional meaning? Must conservators find and understand both the empirical and the non-empirical when treating objects? These questions are key to understanding the theme of Jane Klinger’s general session presentation on Objects of Trauma, Finding the Balance. Klinger brings the Pathos to the conference. She points out objects that become survivors of war, terror, assassination, or persecution, carry with them the emotion of the assault. Klinger is the Chief Conservator at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and brings to her presentation an intimate knowledge of treating objects of trauma.

Klinger presents three main examples of the way Pathos plays a key role in the conservation of objects of trauma. She begins by describing the top coat worn by Danish Resistance Fighter Jorgen Jespersen in 1944. The coat, now located in the National Museum of Danish Resistance, is a symbol of national pride in the resistance of Nazi oppression. According to Jespersen’s testimony, the Gestapo attempted to arrest him but he reached into his upper pocket and shot through his topcoat to wound and escape his captors. In an example of the emotional weight of the object overshadowing it’s preservation, it appears that holes where added to the coat to emphasize the danger Jespersen survived.

The second example of the emotional weight associated with objects can be found in the Baker collection of objects at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Helen and Ross Baker were Americans who found themselves in Vienna during the time that Nazis took over the city. They recorded the occupation and the closure of Jewish stores to non-Jews in both film and through diaries. Their son, Stan Baker, later used the diaries to present the observations of his parents. Upon donating the collection, the curators found that Stan had added notations to his mother’s diaries. When the conservators were asked to remove the notations, they explained that the ink would still be faintly seen and impressions in the paper would be permanent. Because of a thorough understanding of the emotional value as well as the physical condition, the decision was made to leave the notations as part of the historical record of the object.

Klinger uses objects that survived September 11 as a third example of Pathos and ethical considerations in the conservation of objects of trauma. She discusses the Vesey Station Stairs and the Ladder Co. 3 Fire truck as objects that survived the horrors of 9/11. The stairs have become a symbol of safety and escape to the survivors of the terrorist attacks. The damaged fire truck carries with it the evidentiary authority of September 11, 2001. Should the brutally damaged object be cleaned of the dust of 9/11? Klinger argues that the emotions surrounding 9/11 are so emotionally raw that rational decisions may not be possible.

Through these examples, Klinger argues that it is the role of the conservator to incorporate rather than evade the Pathos of the object. As a conservation scientist, there are times I get lost in the materials used and mechanics of deterioration of the object. This talk serves as a vivid reminder of the added value of the emotions associated with the cultural object.

39th Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 3rd “Using Magnets as a Conservation Tool: A New Look at Tension Drying Damaged Vellum Documents”

Tammy Jordan of Etherington Conservation Services – East presented on her treatment of a heavily cockled parchment document. The document was a certificate from the Cinncinnati Society, which honored veterans of the Revolutionary War. The document was water damaged and had been purposefully cut into several sections, then sewn back together with cotton thread. There was no evidence of mold and the document had not been lined.

Research into the document’s history revealed that it belonged to a Captain Nathaniel Leonard, who had been suspended from the society for 4 years for ungentlemanly behavior, beginning on July 4th, 1799. This information supported the hypothesis that the document had been purposefully destroyed and reconstituted, making the sewing important to the document’s history. The sewing was too fragile to allow the document to be flattened on a vacuum table or by tension drying. Even flattening the document under pressure put the sewing at risk, as it would not allow the tension to be adjusted as the document relaxed.

Tammy needed a solution that would allow her to both apply tension locally and easily adjust the tension as the document relaxed. She turned to rare earth magnets for her solution. Rare earth magnets are available in a variety of strengths and sizes. Tammy used 11/16” diamater magnets with a profile of 1/32”. The thin profile reduced the attraction/repulsion between magnets, making their repositioning safe and easy. The pull force of her magnets was 1.63 lbs, but Tammy wrapped each magnet in a little hollytex bundle to reduce friction, reduce pull force, and a create a handy dandy handle.

The magnets only work, of course, because the document is flattened on a metal surface. Tammy used the following layers, from top to bottom, to protect her work: Polyester film, dry blotter, object, dry blotter, polyester film, dry blotter, metal tray. In the localized areas where Tammy was humidifying the document, she used the following layers, from top to bottom: Polyester film, damp blotter, dry blotter or Gore-Tex, object, dry blotter, damp blotter, polyester film, dry blotter, metal tray. The extra layers between the object and the metal tray help further reduce the pull force of the magnets.

Because of the complexity of the cockling, Tammy realized that she would need to diagram the fiber bundles in the parchment to better understand how humidification would guide the flattening. Once she better understood how the document would relax, she began working from the inside of the document – applying local humidity – and worked her way outwards to flatten the full document. The magnets allowed her to see almost all of the document, and she was able to adjust them according to the easily visible tension shifts in the parchment.

Once the document was flattened, Tammy created infills for areas of loss with cast paper and a 3% gelatin solution. The treated document was string mounted to mat board. Tammy took special care to attach the string mounts to create extra support around the stitched areas. The mounted vellum certificate was framed and sealed.

Questions? Just email Tammy at tamaralynnjordan at yahoo dot com

AIC’s 39th Annual Meeting, Book and Paper Group afternoon sessions, June 3

Investigating Crayon Removal from Paper Based Japanese Prints

Hsin-Chen Tsai, Andrew W. Mellon Conservation Fellow, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Problem: Crayon “graffiti” on 20^th century Japanese prints by Munakata Shiko. The prints were mounted to screens, and the graffiti appeared at about 4 ft. from the ground—around the same height as a child. Unlike graffiti on a painted wall, however, crayon does not come off of printed paper quite as easily.

Experiment: Mock-ups were created with Japanese paper, printed with black sumi ink, then colored over with both waxed-based and water soluble crayons. Possible solvents were chosen from the wax section on the Teas diagram and included petroleum ether, mineral spirits, toluene and xylene. These solvents were tested in three situations:

Solvent on a swab
A bath of water and solvent, followed by blotting of the stain
Damp blotter surface with local application of moisture and solvent, followed by blotting of the stain

Results:

Solvents alone did not reduce crayon to a satisfactory level; mineral spirits created a transparent stain visible through the paper
With the bath, it was impossible to control the amount of solvent used, but the overall result was positive
Crayon was lifted locally, but also migrated along with solvents to form tidelines

The ultimate solution was the use of a water-based treatment with toluene and xylene, such as that used in Experiment 2. For best results, Hsin-Chen suggested first manually reducing the graffiti with a kneaded eraser and scalpel.

The Relationship Between Inherent Material Evidence in Cultural Heritage and Preservation Treatment Planning

Lynn Brostoff, PhD and Fenella France, PhD, Preservation Research and Testing Division, Preservation Directorate, Library of Congress

Problem: A 1513 edition of Ptolemy’s Geographia was in poor condition, and puzzled conservators as to its history. Lynn set out to answer many questions, including: what was causing seven of the forty-seven maps to deteriorate?

Experiment: Using XRF, the pigments and paper were analyzed on maps of both good and poor condition, and in various areas of the sheet.

Results: Maps in poor condition contained Fe and Cu—two elements that cause the degradation of cellulose—as wells as K, S and Al—elements that together form potash alum. The pulp repairs and gutters of these pages, however, did not contain such elements and remained in good condition. It was decided that the paper quality used in these cases was poor, requiring a past restorer to “strengthen” the bound papers with a potash alum solution; gutters were not coated, and mends were made with untreated pulp.

This information, along with the result that one of the green pigments contains copper, answers the question about the differing quality in the maps, and also informs conservators for treatment planning.

Light Bleaching: Scientific Investigation of Various Effects on Different Properties of Several Old Papers

Marion Verborg, Paper Conservation Fellow, Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts

Problem: As part of her graduate conservation program at the Sorbonne, Marion carried out research on the history and effects of light bleaching.

Experiment: Using an array of papers of varying quality (wood pulp and rag paper) and age (from late 19^th c. to present day), Marion created test strips and subjected them to different conditions:

A 25 min. wash in condition water
A 4 hr. wash in conditioned water
Washed in conditioned water, dried, then exposed to light
Washed in conditioned water for 4 hrs, then exposed to light while still immersed in the bath

The paper samples were aged in an oven before undergoing a serious of tests including pH, tensile strength, color, and degree of polymerization.

Results: Light exposure in dry conditions can be extremely damaging to paper, all wood pulp papers become weak and yellow over time no matter what the level of treatment, and light bleaching is generally an efficient treatment for rag papers because it produced an aesthetically pleasing result without harming the paper extensively.

**Comments/questions from the audience:

Does the hydrogen bonding need to be reset after treatment?
Magnesium can be used as a substitute for calcium when conditioning water baths, and produces better results after aging
Paper needs to be rinsed thoroughly (3 times) after bleaching to prevent color reversion

A Comparison of the Use of Sodium Metabisulfite and Sodium Dithionite for Removing Rust Stains from Paper

Seth Irwin, Alaska Paper Conservation

Problem: While conducting a treatment on a highly rust stained paper document in Petersburg, AK, Seth discovered sodium dithionite (SD) as a reducing agent to convert insoluble Fe (III) into soluble Fe (II). The setback: dithionite is expensive and toxic, and could not be shipped to the location before his treatment deadline.

Experiment: What is a suitable alternative for SD? With one more oxygen, sodium metabisulfite (SM) is a less expensive and non-hazardous option commonly used in wine making. In order to test SM as a viable solution, Seth rusted up some paper, and then used both SM and SD solutions (separately, with EDTA as the chelating agent) to create a comparison.

Results:

SD- best when cost is no issue ($7.00 for a 1 liter 5% bath); requires ventilation and HAZMAT shipping, but removes corrosion in 4-6 hours.

SM- cheaper ($1.20 for a 1 liter 10% bath); takes longer, and only removes light to medium stains, but could possibly be done on a suction table rather than in a bath if there are chemically sensitive areas of the paper.

**Comments/questions from the audience:

A commercial product called White Brite exists, and may also remove rust stains in paper.

Treatment of an Oversize Rare Book: Research and Decisions on Rebinding (Pre-program Student Paper)

Evelyn Mayberger, Intern, National Museum of the American Indian; Betty Fiske, Historic Odessa Foundation; Michelle Biddle, Olin Library, Wesleyan University; Abigail Quandt, Walters Art Museum

Problem: Cosimo Bartoli’s book The Architecture of Leon Batista Alberti, in Ten Books, of Painting, in Three Books, and of Statuary in One Book was in poor condition and required stabilization. With this opportunity at hand, pre-program intern Evelyn Mayberger worked with Betty Fiske at the Historic Odessa Foundation to research the history of the book before treatment.

Treatment: Evelyn visited several collections to learn about the types of bindings used for this book, and how conservators had approached their treatment decisions. After consulting with Abigail Quandt and Michelle Biddle, Evelyn and Betty spent a total of 462 hours on the treatment of the book, including washing, tape removal, sun bleaching, mends and infills, guarding, sewing, lining and board covering (!) Oversized plates that had been sewn into the binding were restored to fold outs, and the binding was returned to what Evelyn deemed historically appropriate.

Results: It was discovered that all editions of the book had been re-bound, and most contained 6-7 sewing stations. Also of note, the first edition was printed in parallel Italian and English, which caused later editions to include all plates facing recto.

For more notes on these talks, and others, please visit Preservation & Conservation Administration News.