Category: AIC’s Annual Meeting

Provides the membership with updated news about the annual meeting. Also announces themes, deadlines for papers, need for volunteers, etc.

39th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Group Luncheon, June 3rd, 2011. “The Hermitage Project”, Paul Messier.

Photographic Materials Specialty Group Luncheon Meeting

 

Q: When is a survey more than a survey?

 

A: When it is fully utilized as a tool to promote fuller understanding of collections, better internal institutional communication and positive changes.

 

Paul Messier explained how a photographic collections survey model, already employed at multiple institutions, was the first step in an exciting collaborative project.  The FAIC, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia, (and many others to the tune of three acknowledgement  slides) have joined forces to survey the photographic collections and to take the next steps toward enabling Hermitage staff to better care for and exhibit their prints. The survey could lay the foundation for future grant applications, showing institutional interest in and accurate statistics of their photographic materials.

 

Did I mention the survey program translates between languages?  Maybe I don’t get out much, but I was impressed.

 

The teaching of photograph conservation to a small group of young Hermitage conservators is already underway in the form of workshops at the Weissman Preservation Center at Harvard Library and the University of Delaware Department of Art Conservation. The installation of a lab space dedicated to the treatment of photographs is in the planning stages. The Hermitage is a highly esteemed bellwether among Russian Museums. Hopefully this project improves recognition of photographic collections as deserving and needing more care than provided at present.

 

I was already aware of FAIC’s efforts in Haiti, but was extremely impressed when I heard about this project.  The importance of expanding the awareness of the field of conservation cannot be overstated.  More publicity is needed for the important efforts of this organization, here and abroad.

 

The food served at the Photographic Materials Specialty Group luncheon meeting was delicious, as always.

 

 

39th Annual Meeting – Architecture Session, June 3, “Like Twinkling Stars: The Technical Analysis of an 18th Century Ceiling from Damascus, Syria” by Kirsten Travers, Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation

In the summer of 2009, Kirsten Travers and LeeAnn Barnes Gordon performed documentation and conservation treatments on the ceiling of the Turkish Room in Doris Duke’s Shangri La estate in Hawaii.  The ceiling was originally commissioned in 1797 for the Quwwatli family reception room in their home in Damascus, Syria, and was made using a technique called adjami.  The author provided a brief but thorough explanation of the traditional material, which, if I am correct, is made by nailing together thin slats of wood, filling gaps and holes with fiber, applying raised gesso ornament followed by layers of metal foil, tinted glazes and paint.  The ceiling was removed from its original location in the 1920s and spent decades in storage.  Doris Duke, a devotee of Islamic art and artifacts, purchased the ceiling in 1976 and installed it in her Hawaiian home in 1979, mislabeling it the Turkish Room. By 2009, the ceiling colors were dull and the adjami was deteriorated.

The author and her colleague performed conservation treatments during their summer workshop while students in the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation.  While Travers breezed through her discussion of the treatments, which included injection adhesives and brush-applied consolidants, the real subject of her talk was the analysis of 50 finish samples from the ceiling.  She and her colleagues at Winterthur/University of Delaware tested the samples using eight different analytical techniques, including cross-section analysis, fluorochrome staining, PLM, XRF, SEM-EDS, FTIR, Raman and GC-MS.  The author described in detail her findings, particularly the blue, pink and green layers, as well as the varnish and tinted glaze layers.

While the author’s presentation was packed with information, she presented it in a clear and well organized manner.  She distilled a large amount of complex information into an easily understood whole.  This was my favorite talk of the ASG session, which was strong on its own. (Though perhaps I am biased, as I also perform paint investigations.)  I only wish that the author had had a full hour so that she could explain her subject in greater detail.  I would encourage the author to publish her findings.

39th Annual Meeting – Architecture Session, June 3, “Conservation of Dalle de Verre at the New York Hall of Science” by Laura Buchner and Chris Gembinski, Building Conservation Associates, Inc.

Laura Buchner and Chris Gembinski gave a fascinating presentation on the conservation of dalle de verre glass panels at the New York Hall of Science, a building erected for the 1964 World’s Fair.  Unlike many buildings erected for world’s fairs, the New York Hall of Science was always meant to be a permanent structure.  The Great Hall is a 90-feet high ribbon-like structure of dalle de verre glass panels.  The exhibition during the 1964 World’s Fair, “Rendezvous in Space”, made use of the deep cobalt blue dalles, highlighted by bits of ruby, green and gold, which give the interior the appearance of stepping into the cosmos.

The authors presented a brief description of how dalle de verre panels were made, both for this building and for typical buildings of the era.  According to the authors, 1964 was a transition period when Willet Studios, a manufacturer of dalle de verre panels, began switching from the poured concrete panels used at the Great Hall, to an epoxy matrix.

In 2005, BCA began restoring the Great Hall.  The goals of the project were to preserve the “experience of the building” and to address most of the deterioration and moisture-infiltration issues related to the building, but it was acknowledged by all parties involved that it would be impossible to cure all of the moisture-related problems due to the nature of original construction materials.  The authors explained how they treated the typical conditions–cracks, erosion of the matrix, spalls of the concrete matrix, cracked glass, biological growth, and exposed reinforcement mesh.  They replaced several panels with new dalle de verre set in an epoxy matrix, and rearranged some existing panels to minimize differences in light transmission between new and old units.  They repaired cracks by injection and surface-application methods, and used a consolidant and water-repellant to reduce further deterioration of the panels.  They also used a migrating corrosion inhibitor to reduce corrosion of rebar in the concrete grid.

The presentation was clear, informative, and well organized, and the conservation work looks expertly performed.  I enjoyed learning about dalle de verre, as I was not familiar with it prior to the talk.  I especially appreciated the authors’ willingness to share their experience using specific products, and the steps they took to maximize the efficacy of these products.

39th Annual Meeting, Painting Session, June 2, “Choices Post-Mortem in Joan Mitchell’s Work” by Mary Gridley, Cranmer Art Group, LLC

Regardless of your approach, the cropping of a previously unstretched Joan Mitchell painting is not for the fainthearted. Decisions are best made by consensus. In this case, decisions about where to crop were made by a team of two owners, their dealer, and three conservators.

This anecdotal and informative talk was based partly on interviews with two art dealers, John Cheim who represents the Foundation that bears Mitchell’s name, and Jill Weinberg who represents her heirs. Both dealers knew the artist personally and have adhered to somewhat different approaches in the cropping of her pictures over the years. Add to this the myriad number of well-meaning people, from assistants to friends, framers, conservators and other dealers, who have been making this important aesthetic decision, and it becomes apparent that some clarification is needed.

Mitchell’s early works from the 1950’s and early 60’s were painted on pre-primed unstretched canvas cut from rolls and stapled directly to the artist’s studio walls. The paintings were attached to stretchers prior to exhibition, however numerous unsold paintings from this period were discovered in the artist’s basement studio after her death. The paintings had been tightly rolled face in, in bunches of 3-8, and then shoved into cardboard boxes. Cranmer Art Group was called on to mount several previously unstretched paintings in preparation for a recent exhibition.

Mary identified three factors needed for making decisions about cropping:

“Look,” essentially connoisseurship, takes the artist’s technique and signature imagery into account. Mitchell’s early affinity with DeKooning and Gorky was noted. Her early landscape-based abstractions were painted right up to the edge, but by 1956, Mitchell was experimenting with figure/ground relationship, and began “whiting out” brushstrokes and utilizing bare canvas around the edges of her work. There is less white out and more exposed ground in the early 1960’s. This trend was not consistent, however there was an ongoing tension at the edges of the paintings. One or more arcing brush strokes at the top of the paintings are a signature element corresponding to the reach of the artist’s arm, and drips are visible along the bottom edges of the works.

“Evidence” can be found in empirical information such as catalogs and photographs, however edges of the paintings sometimes get cropped in the process of publishing. Mitchell often left decisions about cropping to others, but we know that she signed her work at the request of friends or dealers, and so her signature indicates that cropping was done with the artist’s approval.

“Judgement” appears to include two fully sustainable approaches toward cropping. The approach favored by Mitchell’s Gallery, Cheim and Read, maximizes dimensions of previously unstretched paintings, including fingermarks and incidents around the edges. Mitchell’s heirs and Jill Weinberg tend toward a cropping that is closer to brush strokes with less white border. This lends the work a more charged feeling, but could add constraints in the future.

Mary’s talk was peppered with some great photos of the artist, along with plenty of before and afters.

Daisy Craddock

Craddock Painting Conservation

www.craddockpaintingconservation.com

39th Annual Meeting – Workshop-Saving Energy in HVAC for Conservation Environments, Presenter – William P. Lull, Garrison/Lull Inc.

I’ve attended technical presentations by William Lull before and came away having learned something I didn’t know about a familiar topic, so I was interested to see how this course would unfold. Mr. Lull opened the session by asking the attendees, a group with a wide degree of knowledge and experience, sitting around the conference table what they expected to get out of the session. Personally, I hoped to get a refresher on HVAC technology particularly any way the equipment could be used more efficiently while creating a preservation environment. Museum environmental standards have become a hot issue in the last year with several articles devoted to the topic. It has long been understood that maintaining the historical conservation set points takes intensive HVAC capabilities and in the current global economy is increasingly expensive. I think that makes the course poignant regardless of where the growing debate on museum environmental set points finally pins them.

A quick flip through the provided slide printout let me know that I would probably have my expectations met. It was full of technical diagrams, flow charts, and even a few equations (only a bit of algebra folks, nothing to freak out over). Mr. Lull started out emphasizing that the focus of the course would be about maximizing the efficiency of existing HVAC equipment not about building a system from scratch as a retrofit. I felt that this was a very smart and well conceived approach, particularly given the reality that few conservators working in existing institutions would have the opportunity to change to entirely new systems. Mr. Lull focused on one simple term to characterize why HVAC systems operate and use energy, they are responding to a LOAD (internal, envelope, or outside air) and the primary LOAD on the system is the expectation WE have for the environmental conditions of a space and the buildings capacity to retain those environmental conditions. I appreciated that Mr. Lull repeatedly drove the point home that a system’s energy use is directly related to LOAD demand which is directly related to OUR expectations. I should also point out that Mr. Lull changed his mind on actually making the class do calculations in favor of a more general and practical overview, a wise decision I think.

After a brief side discussion about the variability of energy production methods; steam vs. hydro vs. wind and the problems of energy storage we turned to how that energy is used. In order to have everyone on even footing Mr. Lull introduced the components of a modern HVAC system, what components used energy, what type of energy, and why they needed energy. He then launched into a more in-depth overview of the energy consuming components of HVAC. These components include; boilers, chillers, pumps, and fans. This review of the basics made his discussion of the work conducted to increase the energy efficiency of the system at the Harvard Depository easy to follow. Energy efficiency hinges on better use of certain components of the HVAC system and how Newtonian physics, an action and reaction systemic response of the system, governs the adjustable variables and their end effects.

The crux of increasing energy efficiency is actually better management of the systems response to human occupancy of a space and reducing all other unnecessary loads. Mr. Lull highlighted the often conflicting demands of museum HVAC for exothermic control from human occupancy and humidity control for object stability. One major aspect of dealing with human occupancy is CO2 mitigation in occupied space. The need for outside air that must be conditioned is directly related to diluting the CO2 generated by human respiration. The conditioning of outside air ends up being really expensive since it requires the use of the system energy hog, chillers. Chillers get rid of heat and humidity gobbling up lots of energy in the process.

The up side of HVAC energy use, the savings, is that it is possible to use existing equipment more efficiently. Mr. Lull indicated two areas of focus that allow for significant gains; using VFDs (Variable Frequency Drives) with fans and pumps and a time investment to program as many climactic variables and set points as possible into the HVAC control system. The use of VFDs allows for energy reduction by slowing fan and pump rotation without a loss of performance over time. Providing the HVAC control system a greater number of scenarios and set points allow it to respond in a more nuanced manner to both changes of inside and outside air rather then simply a full capacity response to all demands.

In short, the course was well worth the time and cost. The topic’s presentation was informative and relevant for conservators that find themselves in institutions where knowing how the HVAC system operates and the proper terminology will aid in clear communication with HVAC engineers equaling a higher success rate in creating a sustainable preservation environment. As a matter of fact you might want to send your HVAC engineer to the course. The only aspect I might change for a future workshop would be to give the topic more time with an extra half day or day to pick apart case studies.

The supplemental course folder provided; a complete PowerPoint slide list, enlarged diagrams, & resource sheet with helpful equations.

39th Annual Meeting – Objects Morning Session, June 3, ” The Alaska Fur ID Project ” by Ellen Carrlee and Lauren Horelick

For the final talk in the Friday OSG morning session, Ellen Carrlee, conservator at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau, presented on the Alaska fur ID project, an online resource created by herself and conservation fellow Lauren Horelick (and partially funded by the FAIC Carolyn Rose Take a Chance grant) to aid in the identification of fur on both historic and Alaskan Native objects. This easily accessible fur ID website, posted in blog format (www.a­laskafurid.wordpress.com), presents a wealth of diagnostic information on nearly 50 Alaskan animal species including hoofed animals, rodents, hares, canines, felines, bears, weasels, and marine mammals. Ellen and Lauren gathered information from the fur ID literature and combined it with their own observations from visual and microscopic examination of a wide range of animal hairs. A variety of hair types from each animal were examined and documented as they can range greatly in characteristics. Guard hairs and underfur, for example, are quite different from each other, as are the hairs from different parts of the animal (e.g. from belly as opposed to legs).  On the other hand, they found that the sex, age, and season in which the fur was gathered had little impact on the micro-diagnostic features of the individual hairs. All of this information is available not only in text form in each entry on the website, but also in annotated photomicrographs and photographs of the animals in JPEG format that can easily be saved and used in your own reports and documentation. In addition, each entry includes the scientific name of the animal, the micro qualities of the hairs (shape, medulla size, medullary index, scale pattern, cross-section shape), macro qualities (color, banding, etc.), cultural uses, and information on how to differentiate the hair from similar animals (“troubleshooting”). Helpful tips for preparing slides included using Duco cement for scale casts and a cross-sectioning technique using artificial cork with a sewing machine needle.

While the Alaska Fur ID project was inspired by the Czech Furskin website (http://www.furskin.cz/), which presents diagnostic information on skin and fur together with SEM images, the Alaska Fur ID website is specifically tailored to aid those using primarily transmitted or polarized light microscopy to identify the sources of individual animal hairs. As someone who works with a collection that includes Alaskan fur objects, I believe this website will be extremely useful, and I hope that it will be a model for others interested in expanding the online resources for fur identification worldwide.

39th Annual Meeting – Notes from an Emerging Conservator

I am a third-year fellow in the Winterthur / UD Program in Art Conservation, and this year’s annual meeting in Philadelphia was my first. I was amazed at the sheer size of the conference, the number of conservators, students, scientists and educators present, and at the expanse of topics discussed during the talks. As bewildering as the event often felt, it was wonderful to be able to engage in conversations with friends and colleagues. I was extremely impressed with the strong presence of emerging conservators, especially the many pre-programmers who ventured to Philly. It was equally inspiring to watch the many leaders in the field present at the meeting share their expertise, and engage in discussions with young professionals.

As with any new experience there were many surprises. I did not realize how much I would regret not having a business card – everyone, pre-programmers, students, and recent graduates should have one. During the meeting I had the opportunity to deliver a talk, and while I felt prepared in the moment, I was surprised at the amount of interest people showed when I was approached with questions afterward. I am very glad that the talk – as well as those delivered by two of my classmates – were so well received. It showed me that student research has a place at AIC conferences, and is valued by many in our profession.

I am so grateful for the opportunity to attend this year’s AIC meeting, which would not have been possible without the support of the FAIC George Stout Grant, as well as the gracious hospitality of two of my WUDPAC classmates. It was inspiring to see many conservators at so many levels in their careers together in one venue, and to observe such an active exchange of ideas between them. The online tools that enable this exchange are helping us make the most of the collaborative relationships we build at these conferences. It would be great to see the debates raised during the general and specialty group sessions continue on some of these available platforms – including the AIC and ECPN blogs, as well as the email distribution lists (which, I have heard many say, would benefit from an inter-specialty-exchange of ideas).

39th Annual Meeting – Joint Paintings/Research and Technical Studies Session, Friday June 3, “Microclimate and Anoxic Frames” by Judith Bannerman

Judith Bannerman and a team of researchers at the Tate, London have been developing microclimate frames to reduce fading and preserve sensitive works of art, particularly photographs and works on paper.  While we know that light fades materials and low-oxygen environments can reduce this phenomenon, the research team set out to design a functional microclimate frame and then measure the impact of various environments on sensitive works of art.

First, the microclimate frames were introduced; the frames are designed to be versatile, compact, reusable, and fit into existing installations and frames.  Following a conference at the Tate in September, 2011, the frames should be commercially available through KeepSafe Microclimate Systems in 3 sizes: A1 (841 x 594 mm / 33.11″ x 23.39″), A2 (594 x 420 mm / 23.39″ x 16.54″), and A3 (420 x 297 mm / 16.54″ x 11.69″).  The frames allow for easy access to the gas valves and artwork for unframing while maintaining a good seal through a sandwich design with the use of elastomer “o” rings.  Questions were raised about the composition of the elastomer and adhesives used in the frames, and while they could not be disclosed at this point, Judith assured that more technical information would be available after the patents are finalized.

With their prototype frames, the Tate began to study the impact of various oxygen levels and relative humidities on the fading of various art materials.  Three oxygen levels were chosen: air at 21% oxygen, hypoxia at 4-6% oxygen, and anoxia at 0-1% oxygen.  Temperature and humidity (at 40% and 50% RH) were monitored inside the frames during testing, and a microfadeometer with a 0.4mm spot size was used to study the accelerated fading of various materials.  Generally, when the oxygen level was brought to 5%, the fading was halved for most materials at both 40% and 50% RH, but at 0% oxygen some materials improved slightly while others faded more.  The study determined that 5% oxygen at 40%RH was best for a work on paper with iron gall ink and a dyed basket, and 0% oxygen at 50% RH was best for the digital photographs tested.  Some composite objects, like the iron gall ink on paper, required a compromise since one set of conditions might reduce the fading of one component but increase the fading of another.  During the question period, someone mentioned that some pigments fade more rapidly in anoxic conditions, so it is important to remember that conditions should be carefully considered for each object.

Future topics of research include studying long-term display or storage in the microclimates and pressure-testing the frames.  They may also develop larger cases for objects, but at this time the three frame sizes are slated to be available in September.

39th Annual Meeting – Textiles Afternoon Session, Wednesday, June 1, 2:00-3:00PM, “Another Perspective: Voices from Outside Textile Conservation” Panel Discussion, Moderator: Kathy Francis, Participants: Stephanie Hornbeck, Nancy Pollak, Nancie Ravenel

Do conservators in different specialities think differently? Do they form different perceptions, goals and objectives based on their material specialization? Textiles are often one component of a composite object and how might treatment approach differ when being decided by an object or painting conservator rather than a textile conservator? These were the questions posed for this panel discussion. The moderator, Kathy Francis, (Francis Textile Conservation, NJ) introduced the panel topic with an object treatment she had encountered: a French chef automaton by Gustave Vichy. Rather than conserve the worn suit of clothing, a reproduction set of clothing was made. The treatment emphasized the object’s value as a performance piece that moved and performed and thus favored the object’s primary material with consequence for the textile material (replaced).  Kathy also referred the audience to a paper on factors that influence textile treatment decisions and, particularly, the role connoisseurship bias can play in treatment choices: The Role of Connoisseurship in Determining the Textile Conservator’s Treatment Options by Patsy Orlosfsky and Deborah Lee Trupin, published in the JAIC in 1993. Kathy’s introduction to the topic was followed by presentations from the three panelists:

Stephanie Hornbeck (Caryatid Conservation) drew from her experience treating composite objects at the National Museum of African Art, where she worked for twelve years. She described it as working at the nexus of ethnographic objects and textiles where collaboration was common. Often, work was undertaken after consulting specialists on the various materials composing the object. Furthermore, in this type of collection, wear, evidence of use and native repairs can be of greater influence on treatment.

Nancy Pollak (Paintings Conservator, Art Care Associates) discussed paintings on canvas versus painted textiles. In the case of a painting, the canvas is the support. It is referred to as a canvas rather than a textile. In the case of a painted textile such as a banner, for example, the textile is viewed as more of an integral component of the aesthetic value or design. Nancy concluded by suggesting that the conservator evaluate an object by questioning which material is in the role of master and which in the role of servant. In the case of a traditional painting, servant is to master as canvas is to painting but when considering a trade banner, this relationship becomes harder to define.

Nancie Ravenel (Conservator, Shelburne Museum) discussed managing conservation and preservation of a large collection without a textile conservator on permanent staff. She relies on a combination of IMLS grant funded conservation surveys by textile conservators, dedicated volunteers to carry out basic textile conservation work, contract textile conservators and collaboration with textile conservators as guidance for complex treatments. She presented the treatment of pieces from a Tiffany-designed suite of upholstered furniture as an example of collaborative treatment with upholstery conservator Nancy Britton consulting.

It would have been nice to have more discussion time afterward as there were many questions and comments. A contemporary paintings conservator whose work often emphasized restoring work to a pristine condition, asked the panel how they arrived at their aesthetic and responses included: “Its fluid”, “It depends”, “subjective”, “case by case”, “determined by aesthetic of the curator”.

An art historian commented that replicas for display purposes should be used more often to resolve conservation issues and that museum visitors didn’t care about original material anyway, that was of interest only to scholars. Many in the audience, myself included, were wary of this suggestion. I think I mostly take issue with the suggestion that museum visitors don’t care if they are viewing a replica. There are, of course, appropriate uses of replicas in place of the original material, or displayed alongside original material to aid understanding of the object’s function- as another commented: “Seeing a flag fly”. The art historian was perhaps referring to contemporary art and installation art where the wishes of the creator are still known and the ideas conveyed have more significance or value than the media or material. In contrast, history collections or ethnographic/material culture collections often place significance on evidence of use, wear and repairs and the original material has cultural value. Another commented that in museums, objects have been removed from their original context anyway. As mentioned earlier, the JAIC article by Orlofsky and Trupin, offers multiple examples of the role, or current context, of the object influencing the conservation process. A fine art museum might value the aesthetics of an object while an history museum might value the same object for its cultural significance or original use.

Someone questioned whether the objects conservator was unique to North America as she hadn’t really encountered the term before. Nancie Ravenel confirmed the definition of objects conservator as a general specialist and emphasized that she is continually learning by taking workshops and through communication and collaboration with colleagues. The generosity of colleagues in sharing their expertise with each other was a recurring theme in the TSG sessions.

To summarize, the panelist presentations and the discussion afterward suggest that yes, conservators in different specializations do think differently and probably also think differently depending on the role, or context, ascribed to the object by a museum, curator or collector. The variety of factors that influence conservation treatment decisions really do call for a case by case approach. Often, collaboration and consultation between conservators from different specializations guides development of informed treatment goals and objectives.