Before the opening sessions began, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network and Conservators In Private Practice co-hosted an evening happy hour at the Hyatt Regency Miami (sponsored by Tru Vue, Inc.). Everyone at the conference was welcome as this event was not ticketed. Appetizers present included breads, cheeses, hummus, fruits and vegetables, and even mini burgers. Alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks were available for purchase.
Attendees ate, drank, and mingled indoors on the Promenade or outside on the Riverwalk Terrace (image below). The event was well attended with probably between one or two hundred people networking and having fun. Some people decided to stay inside the air conditioned building while others went outside to enjoy the 80˚ weather and view of the Miami River. There were tables and chairs available for small groups to gather, and alternatively, many small groups also chose to sit on the steps and relax.
I certainly recommend those of you who did not attend to do so at a future conference, especially if you are an emerging professional. This happy hour was an excellent opportunity to meet the other attendees. If you are someone who is nervous about attending, please remember that this is supposed to be laid-back and other people want to meet you too. If you know some people at the conference, feel free to begin the evening with them. But after you are more comfortable, you should also make an effort to branch-out and talk to people that you do not know. And do not forget to distribute business cards to your new contacts.
If you want to learn more about other networking opportunities open to attendees, you should read reviews for the Opening Reception, Specialty Group Receptions, and Emerging Conservation Professionals Luncheon.
Category: Workshops, Tours, & Events
Other events that take place at the Annual Meeting
British Museum, 20-21st April 2015. Symposium on the care and conservation of human remains with a focus on natural mummies.
How comfortable do you feel surrounded by skeletal remains and natural mummies? The symposium hosted by the British Museum left no areas unturned, from the excavation, conservation and curation of natural mummies, and allowed participants of the day access to natural mummies from their extensive collection.
Daniel Antoine, curator of physical anthropology at the British museum, kicked the day off by considering the legal aspects and ethics in the curation of human remains. A huge 91% of the British population appears to be on side with the display and retention of human remains by museums for research purposes, but there are obligations. The display of human remains less than 100 years old does not sit well on some peoples’ shoulders and named remains attract a similar apprehension. This seems at odds with the display of Egyptian mummies that often have their names inscribed on their cartonnages, but maybe the longevity of these mummies makes their display more palatable.
Derek Welsby, assistant keeper in archaeology of Sudan and Egyptian Nubia, and Daniel Antoine followed with a description of the problems involved in the excavation of skeletal remains and natural mummies from their resting places, in this instance, the fourth cataract of the Nile Valley, Sudan. Skeletal remains dating back to the Neolithic period were uncovered from various burial sites and natural mummified bodies from the medieval period were excavated from this previously understudied region of The Sudan. Over a 1000 skeletal remains and naturally mummified bodies were donated to the British Museum by SARS, the Sudan Archaeological Research Society via the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums of Sudan. For the past two years the British Museum have been undertaking research into population genetics and the pathology of these Nilotic human remains. A human remains database has been created by the museum that will open up the research potential of these people, negating the need for physical interaction and reducing the risk of damage to the bodies.
Barbara Wills, conservator of organic artifacts at the British museum had the job of surveying the mummies. She examined, photographed, assessed the needs of each individual and established a strategy for stabilization. Barbara was in the wonderful position of receiving a Clothworkers Conservation Fellowship that allowed her to put all of her time and effort into the development of a passive method of stabilization and display. Barbara has a wonderfully calm demeanor that exudes respect for humanity. I don’t know whether she had this disposition before she started work on the mummies or whether the mummies taught her this respect on her travels with them. A workshop on the second day of the symposium allowed for the exploration of these stabilization and display methods that Barbara developed during her fellowship and shall be discussed later.
The life of the Nilotic people is unraveled not only from research into the human remains but also by analyzing the textiles and leather excavated along side the bodies. Caroline Cartwright, from the department of conservation and scientific research at the British Museum, gave an excellent talk about the problems and pitfalls of trying to identify materials that may have been in close proximity to soft tissues and Anna Harrison, a senior conservator of organic materials at the British Museum, followed with the issues surrounding the conservation of archaeological textiles. Of particular fascination was the discovery of human hair mats that were treated like dry archaeological wool and the revelation that an imprint of a textile may be present on a skin sample even if the textile no longer remains.
A lunch break allowed time for a visit to the temporary exhibition: Ancient Lives, New Discoveries, where a number of the curatorial issues discussed in the morning session could be seen in practice. The use of explanatory and contextual information was well presented and tasteful lighting within display cases offered respect to the mummies.
Nancy Odegaard from the University of Arizona and Arizona State Museum resumed proceedings by discussing the post-excavation deterioration of the Chinchorro mummies of Arica, Northern Chile. The storage facility for the mummies is far too hot and humid and the mummies are acting as the environmental buffer. Deterioration was manifesting itself in the form of a ‘black ooze’ emanating from the bodies. A quick, easy and inexpensive solution to this problem was the introduction of some locally sourced hygroscopic wall coverings that took over the work of attempting to stabilize the environment.
A Sudanese mummy offered Joanna Russell, from the department of conservation and scientific research at the British Museum, the opportunity to use HPLC to investigate the dyes present in colourful textiles adorning the body. All dyes identified, Pseudopurpurin, Purpurin, Alazarin and Indigotin were used in Egyptian dying.
Marie Vandenbeusch, a project curator in the department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum, used infrared reflectography on a tattoo found on the upper leg of a naturally preserved female mummy from medieval Sudan. The tattoo represents one of the earliest known surviving examples of a tattoo from this period and region and represents a Christian monogram of the Archangel Michael. (images found at: http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/06/26/tattoos-in-ancient-egypt-and-sudan/) Of particular interest was the fact that it was mainly women that were tattooed and this particular tattoo was hoped to provide protection under Michael, the patron saint of Nubia.
Heather Bonney, a collections manager for human remains and repatriation at the British Museum, discussed the general curation and digitization of the human remains collection at the British Museum. Human remains can be acquired via three different routes. They may have been purchased anatomical specimens, ethnographic collected remains or they may be from an archaeological context and each requires different legal documentation for their storage and display. Osteoware software and the Oracle Word database were then discussed for the digitization of the collection. (The Oracle Word database is really tailored towards a British archaeological context).
Finally but certainly not least Emily Taylor and Simon Prentice, museums assistants at the British Museum, gave a superb talk about the safe packing and transportation of human remains. It is essential that all remains are carefully photographed before travelling so they can be referred to after unpacking and the person unpacking the remains must be able to deconstruct and replicate the packing easily so it must be simple but effective. Cellite honeycomb boards were used instead of the old-fashioned mummy boards but beware, do not use the Aluminium version of the boards if the mummy is to be sent for a CT scan as the Aluminium interferes with the scan.
Barbara Wills lead the second day of the symposium. She gave us an insight into the development of an inexpensive, simple, reversible, reliable and relatively quick way of displaying human remains for display or research using Plastazote LD33 and LD45 (polyethylene foam), PTFE tape and sheets (polytetrafluoroethylene, plumbers tape) and Polyester wadding.
Plastazote LD45 covered in Tyvek (a spun bonded olefin material that is inert and gas permeable) can be placed on a cellite board onto which the mummy can be displayed. Plastazote LD33 can be cut into shape and pinned to the board, offering support or preventing movement.
Fig. 1 Artificial bones being supported or held in place by Plastazote LD33.
There should be at least a 10cm boarder to the outside of the human remains to prevent damage to any delicate parts when being transported. Barbara demonstrated a quick and easy way of cutting the plastazote into shape using only a big sharp knife. (Figure 2)
Fig. 2. Fold the strip of Plastazote LD33 and cut on the outside of the fold. Cut as deeply or as shallow as needed to create the supporting structure.
The wonderful thing about PTFE is that it adheres to itself through static attraction only. There is no adhesive involved! PTFE sheet can be wrapped around Polyester wadding that has been fluffed, to create really soft ‘pillows’. Really soft ‘pillows’! ‘Pillows’ of the size and shape you require. (Figures 3 and 4)
Fig. 3. Barbara Wills demonstrating the construction of a small PTFE and Polyester wadding ‘pillow’ used for the support of a very fragile part of a body.
The PTFE polyester wadding ‘pillow can be pinned directly to the board or supported in a cut piece of Plastazote LD33 to give extra support. This was named ‘The Mushroom’.
Fig 4. Barbara Wills demonstrating the construction of a skull mount using fluffed Polyester wadding wrapped in PTFE sheet. Barbara made a sausage shape that she then curved round and pinned in place. Plastazote LD33 cut into wedge shapes can be pinned at each pole position to offer additional support.
A sheet of PTFE could be pinned to a Plastazote LD33 surround creating a hammock like structure. This could support very fragile parts of a body that would not survive using a conventional support.
PTFE tape can be wrapped directly around a fragile part of a body that needs to be held together and, as there is no adhesive involved it is completely reversible. When the static property of PTFE could potentially be damaging to a fragmented part of a body or where hair is present then the static can be eliminated quickly by shooting a beam of electrons at the material from an antistatic gun. Conventional tying can then be used to hold the PTFE in place.
Barbara Wills was apologetic to those attending the workshop as she considered her ideas simple. However, the simple ideas are sometimes the ones that are overlooked and missed. Barbara has developed a system that can stabilize and display any human remains without the need for chemicals and consolidants. The mummies we observed had been displayed in a manner that negated the need to move them for research purposes. However, if a research project did come along that required the movement of any of the bodies then this could be easily achieved without too much intervention, minimizing any damage that might occur to these priceless human remains.
Author: Julie McBain, MSc student at Cardiff University.
Photographs: Renata Peters, Lecturer, University College London
Blog at AIC's 2015 Annual Meeting and win!
Each year we receive feedback from colleagues who couldn’t make it to the annual meeting that write-ups of the talks posted here on www.conservators-converse.org were interesting and informative. For the past few years we had so many fabulous concurrent session that even those present at the meeting couldn’t attend all the talks they were interested in and found that they could get a taste of what they missed using the blog. Our blog sees a huge increase in traffic due to annual meeting posts with almost 600 unique visits per day. We know that many colleagues are looking forward to hearing more about the conference and hope that some of you will volunteer and share your thoughts from the meeting.
How To Sign-up:
Signing up is easy. Just click on the link below to access the signup spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pNEluroUP6aP_Degsdvy0Ns7PMpximU2XDYUkGHia-A/edit?usp=sharing
There is a separate tab down at the bottom for each SG or session. Next, input your name and email next to the talk you are interested in covering. Easy! The limit for signup is two talks so that nobody feels overwhelmed.
What’s In It For Me?
Many people take notes at the talks and writing them up is a great way to organize your notes and thoughts while doing something great for your colleagues and the field. Speakers are often grateful for the feedback. And, yes there is something in it for you…all volunteers who complete two posts will be entered into a drawing to win a FREE 2016 ANNUAL MEETING REGISTRATION!
What do I need to know about Blogging?
Not much! All volunteers will be sent AIC’s Guidelines and Blogging Tip Sheets. Writing a good blog post can take some time but covering a just two talks is very manageable. Here are a few things to know:
- You do not blog in real time so you don’t need a laptop or internet access at the conference– the best way is to take notes and then write up your thoughts later (ideally by the end of the conference or shortly thereafter).
- You need not be an experienced blogger nor particularly tech savvy. The WordPress blog format is extremely easy to use and any necessary hand-holding will happily be provided to make you feel comfortable online. If you can send an email – you can create a blog post.
- There is no pressure to be particularly witty. Active tense, first-person and personal style are all encouraged in blog posts – this is a chance to free yourself from the writing constraints of condition reports! While all posts should be professional overall, the tone is somewhat between reporting and “what I did over my summer vacation”. The best posts tell why you were interested in the topic and what you learned, you aren’t expected to be writing the speaker’s postprint so you don’t need to capture every detail. The goal is for readers to learn more about the talk than they would gain from the abstract. Tips and Guidelines will be provided for all volunteers.
- In addition to the talks we also value reviews of the workshop, tours, receptions and other associated events and sessions.
I Have Some Questions Before Signing Up – Who Do I Talk To?
Contact Rachael Arenstein, AIC’s e-Editor either via email or using the Email AIC’s e-Editor box in the footer of this blog.
42nd Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 28, "Responding to Mold Outbreaks after a Disaster"
This full-day workshop comprised 4 talks by 3 conservators, all experienced with treating mold affected artworks or library/archive materials. The morning session was presented by Olivia Primanis, Senior Conservator at the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas Austin. Primanis gave a large amount of introductory material focusing on aspects of mold that are of interest to Heritage Conservators and Caretakers. An introduction to mycology provided a basic understanding of fungal characteristics and the life cycle of aspergillus, one of the mold genera most commonly found after flood events. Details of fungal anatomy such as conidia/spore sizes were also discussed, as were activators of conidia – the conditions that encourage rapid growth. Fungal genera found on artifacts, as illustrated in Mary Lou Florian’s book Fungal Facts, was also briefly discussed. Primanis also discussed whether it was necessary to consult with fungal experts, such as industrial hygenists, who can take samples and identify the mold species. While species identification may inform mitigation treatments, it appeared that the presenter did not do any species identification during any of the case studies presented, and all mold outbreaks were treated using the same method of HEPA vacuuming to remove the visible mold, in some cases followed by attempts to neutralize the remaining microscopic elements using a 70% ethanol solution. Rather than attempt to “kill” the mold, Primanis vacuums and then works to optimize the environment to stop or slow mold growth, as historic mold killing treatments have been found to either stay in the affected material and affect users, or could potentially adversely affect the object itself.
In addition to a lengthy bibliography and access to additional downloads via a shared Dropbox folder, Primanis also provided a useful list of options to consider when responding to a mold infestation:
• What is the cause of mold growth and how can the growth be stopped?
• Should an expert, such as an industrial hygienist, be consulted?
• Should the type of mold and bacteria be identified?
• Should the mold be killed?
• What are the health and safety issues for staff and patron?
• Should the mold, and can the mold, be removed from affected building materials and artifacts?
o What methods can be used to remove the mold contamination?
o What methods can be used to assure the cleaning process has been effective?
o What will access to building and collection materials be?
The second presentation was by Ann Frellsen, Book and Paper Collections Conservator for the Emory University Libraries, a member of AIC-CERT as well as organizer of HERA (Heritage Emergency Response Alliance) in Atlanta, GA. Frellson discussed AIC-CERT response after Hurricane Katrina as well as HERA regional response activities, presenting a variety of challenges through a series of case studies. Response activities after tornado destruction in Atlanta highlighted challenges in establishing salvage priorities, as the emotionally affected owners of the collection were incapable of making those decisions, as well as communication issues. Post-Katrina AIC-CERT response inside a historic house on the Gulf coast illustrated the essential need for proper PPE, in this case including full HAZMAT suits equipped with a forced-air system. Another case study discussed how affected town record ledgers containing property data needed to remain accessible, as people were required to consult them in order to obtain proof of ownership as required by their insurance companies. A mold event at Emory University discussed the need for managing contracts with salvage companies, emphasizing that their activities may need to be closely monitored, and you need to know exactly what you want from them.
Ann Frellsen and Vicki Lee (Director of Preservation and Conservation at the Maryland State Archives and AIC-CERT member) teamed up to give a short case-study presentation cleverly titled: “Where We Did Not Find Mold, or, I Suited Up for This?” This presentation consisted of a series of images from flood/water response activities that provided the ideal circumstances for rampant mold growth (such as wet photos in plastic sleeves, wet salvage items left covered in plastic, and wet basement library items relocated to a non-climate controlled backyard shed), but exhibited no visible mold growth.
Another short presentation, titled “Creative Solutions: Thinking Outside the Box (the boxes have not shipped yet)”, presented examples of stabilization treatment ideas that developed from specific needs, such as the creation of a quick-fix solvent chamber at the Cultural Recovery Center in Brooklyn (post Hurricane Sandy) in which solvent sensitive moldy artifacts were treated by placing them in a Ziploc bag with solvent soaked cotton balls overnight. The efficacy of the treatment was not determined. Another attempt to wash and deacidify a paper item tried using crushed and strained calcium vitamins in an attempt to develop a buffering solution bath – the pH was tested at ~pH 7.5. This may be because calcium vitamins comprise calcium carbonate, not calcium hydroxide, but perhaps there were some other steps involved in the experiment that were not mentioned.
Questions from the audience:
Q. How effective is spraying an alcohol solution, when papers are general soaked in baths for 30 min?
Answer from Presenter: No testing was done to determine effectiveness, but it visually appeared to work.
Answer from Audience member: Alcohol treatment only kills surface mold via dehydration. To kill the fungal organism inside of the object or paper fibers, it needs to be put in an anoxic environment for at least 5 weeks using CO2 or Argon gas, which ruptures the cells. If you don’t kill all of the mold (not just the surface mold), then you will have dormant mold under the upper structure.
Q. Was it worth spraying then?
A. Yes, because it minimizes the spread of the spores. You can potentially maintain dormancy by controlling the environment (if possible).
Q. Should you spray, vacuum, and spray again? Vacuum, spray, vacuum?
A. Generally, spray, vac, spray, unless obviously very dirty, then vacuum first so that you can access more of the surface mold.
42nd Annual Meeting – Digital Resources & Conservation Interest Session, May 31, "Charting the Digital Landscape of the Conservation Profession" by FAIC
What digital tools and resources do conservators use and create?
Who are the audiences for conservation content?
How can this content be delivered to these groups by digital means?
What kinds of digital tools, resources, and platforms will be needed as the profession continues to grow?
It is with the above questions that “Charting the Digital Landscape of the Conservation Profession,” a project of the Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation (FAIC), interrogates our profession’s origin, its role in this particular technological moment, and its propagation into the future with the aid of technology. As all AIC members have been made aware with the recent mailing, funding from the Mellon, Kress, and Getty Foundations is supporting FAIC in its investigation into the so-called “digital landscape” of the profession. This will help develop a baseline report on the discipline’s use of digital resources in order to better understand its breadth and complexity, and to identify areas critical to the community both now and into the future.
This session was the first in a series of planned forums designed to both map the digital landscape of the profession and to contextualize the data gleaned from the recent survey by discussing the tools currently used and their possible development in the future. An expert panel was brought together for brief presentations, after which there was a lengthy, free-form discussion amongst all attendees.
Please note: This post will err on the side of being longer: Although a report on the survey results will be published by FAIC, this interest session, which put so many experienced professionals and stake-holders in dialogue, is unlikely to be published as delivered. Additionally, many attendees voiced concern that the session was scheduled over many other specialty events, preventing stakeholders from attending to hear more about the project or to voice their concerns about the digital future of the discipline.
To those who are interested in the intimate details: Read on!
To those who would prefer to skim: Know that the FAIC’s report is expected in December 2014, and stay tuned for future forums in the “Digital Landscape” series.
And it goes without saying: If you have not yet participated in the survey, now would be a good time. Our research habits are changing. Help Plan the Digital Future of Conservation and Preservation!
1. Introduction
2. Speaker: Ken Hamma (Consultant and Representative of the Mellon Foundation)
3. Speaker: Nancie Ravenel (Conservator at the Shelburne Museum)
4. Speaker: David Bloom (Coordinator of VertNet)
5. Discussion
1. INTRODUCTION
Introducing the session, Eric Pourchot, the FAIC Institutional Advancement Director, began by discussion the project and the initial survey findings. FAIC’s investigation, he said, seeks to identify the critical issues surrounding the digital tools and resources used to shape both the questions and answers concerning urgent need, target audience, and content delivery methods.
He began by outlining five components of the project:
- A review of existing resources
- A survey of creators of digital resources as well as of the end users
- Meetings (and phone interviews) with key stake holders
- Formulation of recommendations, priorities, and conclusions
Although I halted a bit at all of this business-speak about timeline and budget and reports and endgames, I was curious as to the initial results of the survey, which I did take. Additionally, the survey goal of identifying the major ways in which digital resources are created, used, and shared both now and in the future, gets at interesting problems and questions we should all ask ourselves.
560 responses to the professionally-designed survey had been completed by the date of the presentation, so, Eric emphasized, the data is still very preliminary. More international participation will be sought before the survey closes and the data is analyzed for accuracy and for various statistical “cross-tabs” by the contracted company.
Of the population queried, two-thirds go online regularly, and one-third logs on daily. When asked to list the sites most consulted, 30% listed CoOL/DisList as their primary resource, 30% listed Google, and 13% named AIC/JAIC. AATA/Getty, CAMEO, CCI, JSTOR, BCIN, NPS, Wikipedia, and AIC Specialty Groups were present in three-fourths of the fill-in responses.
When asked for the success rate of finding information on a certain topic, those searching for information on Preventive Conservation, for environmental guidelines, for material suppliers, as well as for disaster planning information were successful more than half the time. Unsurprisingly, when it was treatment information that was sought, more than half of the users were unsuccessful. To qualify the lack of “success” of a search, 70% of users cited the lake of information specific to their exact needs. 49% are concerned that the information is not up-to-date. 43% cite concern about the reliability; and 32% were dismayed by the time it took to find the information.
Eric expressed surprise that an archive of treatments topped the list of enhancements desired by the respondents. I do not remember if this was a fill-in question or what I personally responded, but this result did not necessarily strike me as surprising. Rather, I see it being in line with the lack of information on treatment procedures—both historic and current—that was noted in the above section of the survey.
From among the list of Digital Tools used most often, Eric noted the absence of collaborative spaces, such as Basecamp and Dropbox, from the list of image and document management tools, but suggested that maybe some forgot to list these oft-used programs, as they are not conservation-specific.
Finally respondents identified policy issues that were of most concern to them as obstacles to creating, sharing, and accessing content: Copyright/IP (Getty), Institutional/repository policies, time (?), and standards/terminology ranked high. It was unclear at first what was meant by the latter, but David Bloom’s talk (below) did a good deal to illuminate the importance of this.
Eric concluded by noting that although a web-survey platform does self-select for respondents with certain habits, sympathies, and concerns (i.e., those who access the internet regularly and seek to use it as a professional tool), the data represents a good range of age and experience. These groups can be correlated to certain responses; for example, 45-65 year-olds are more likely to search for collections info and are more interested in faster internet access and better online communication. Younger stakeholders, are searching more for professional information and jobs.
Again, be reminded that this data is very preliminary. A final report can be expected by December 2014.
2. SPEAKER: Ken Hamma
Ken Hamma then discussed the Mellon Foundation’s efforts in the areas of conservation and digitization, the goals and directions of these efforts, and their relationship to larger movements in the Digital Humanities.
An immensely appropriate choice to speak at this session, Ken Hamma is at once a consultant at Yale Center for British Art, the Office of Digital Assets and Infrastructure (ODAI) at Yale, ResearchSpace and the Museums and Art Conservation Program at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. He is a former executive director for Digital Policy and Initiatives at the J. Paul Getty Trust and has also served as a member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), a member of the Reasearch Libraries Group (RLG) Programs Council of OCLC, and a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
In 2003, Hamma began his advocacy for the use of digital tools in conservation documentation, when a meeting was convened between a select number of institutional heads and conservators to feel out expectations of the Mellon in these matters—how best it should invest in the digitization of treatment records, how and if these should accessible, and by what audiences. This initial meeting was followed by the Issues in Conservation Documentation series, with a meeting in New York City in 2006 and in London in 2007. As the respective directors and heads of conservation of each host institution were present, this represented a recognition of the importance of institutional policy to what are fundamentally institutional records. Outcomes of these meetings were mixed, with European institutions being more comfortable with an open-access approach, perhaps due to the national status of their museums and the corresponding legal requirements for access. This was exemplified in the response of the National Gallery: The Raphael Project includes full scans of all conservation dossiers. Even NGL staff were surprised this became public! (More pilot projects resulting from this Mellon initiative are listed here).
In America, the Mellon began considering supporting digitization efforts and moving conservation documentation online: In 2009 it funded the design phase of ConservationSpace.org to begin imagining online, inclusive, and sustainable routes for sharing. Merv Richard of the National Gallery lead 100 conservators in the development of its structure, its priorities, and its breadth, presenting a discussion session at AIC’s 41st Annual Meeting, Indianapolis.
Important observations are being made when studying potential models, notably the similarities in which the National Park Service, libraries, natural science collections, etc. handle networked information. Although there were necessarily different emphases on workflow and information, there were also large intersections.
In the meantime, CoOL shows its age. It’s long history has necessitated a few migrations over hosts and models—from Stanford Libraries to AIC, and from Gopher to WAIS to W3. It is still, however, based on a library-catalogue model, in which everything is represented to the user as a hypertext (hypermedia) object. In such a system, there are only two options available: to follow a link or to send a query to a server. As important as this resource has been for our professional communication and for the development of our discipline, it lacks the tools to for collaboration over networked content. Having become a legacy resource, it is discontinuous from other infrastructures, such as Wikipedia (pdf), Hathi Trust, Shared Digital Future, and Google Books, all of which which point to a more expansive set of technological opportunity, such as indexing, semantic resource discovery, and linking to related fields.
Our discipline does not exist in a vacuum, and the structuring of our online resources should not show otherwise. Additionally, we need to be able to identity trustworthy information, and this is not a unique problem: We have to open ourselves up to the solutions that other disciplines have come to implement.
Ken encourages us to think of accessible data as infrastructure, which forces the creator to think about applications of the data. A web-platform should be more than just switches and networks! It should support collaborative research, annotation, sharing, and publication. This plat form should increase our ability to contribute to, extract from, and recombine a harmonized infrastructure that we fell represents us.
Planning for the extent of our needs and building it is not beyond a shared professional effort. We will find it to have been worth it.
3. SPEAKER: Nancie Ravenel
Nancie Ravenel, Conservator at the Shelburne Museum, former Chair of Publications and Board Director of Communications, works very hard to create and disseminate information about digital tools and their use to conservators. She is continuously defining the digital cutting-edge, at once “demystifying” conservation through outreach, embodying the essential competencies, and articulating the value of this profession. Her segment of the session provided an overview of key resources she uses as a conservator, noting how the inaccessibility of certain resources (e.g. ARTstor, ILL, and other resources requiring an institutional subscription) changes how she locates and navigates information.
“What does Nancie do in the digital landscape?,“ Ravenel asked. She makes stuff. She finds stuff. She uses and organizes what she makes and finds. And she shares what she’s learned.
Nancie divided her presentation of each function into four sections:
◦ Key resources she uses as a conservator
◦ Expectations of these resources
◦ What is missing
◦ and What remains problematic
In our capacity of makers of stuff, many of us, like Nancie, have begun to experiment, or are already proficient at, using Photoshop for image processing and analysis, experimenting with 3D images and printing, gleaning information for CT scans, producing video, and generating reports.
Where making stuff is concerned, further development is needed in the area of best practices and standards for createng, processing, and preservation of digital assets! We need to pay attention to how assets are created so that they can be easily shared, compared, and preserved. Of great concern to Ravenel is the fact that Adobe’s new licensing model increases the expense of doing work.
On the frontier of finding stuff, certain resources get more use from researchers like Nancie, perhaps for their ease-of-use. Ravenel identifies CoOL/CoOL DistList, jurn.org, AATA, JSTOR, Google Scholar/Books/Images/Art Project/Patent, CAMEO, Digital Public Library of America (dp.la), WorldCat, Internet Archive, SIRIS, any number of other art museum collections and databases (such as Yale University Art Museum or Rhode Island Furniture Archive) and other conservation-related websites, such as MuseumPests.net.
The pseudo-faceted search offered by Google Scholar, which collates different versions, pulls from CoOL, and provides links to all, is noted as being a big plus!
There is, however, lots of what Nancie terms “grey literature” in our field—which is not published in a formal peer-reviewed manner (such as listserv or post-print content, as well as newsletters, blogs, or video content). The profusion of places where content is available, the inconsistent terminology, and the inconsistent metadata or keywords (that which is read by reference management or that which facilitates search) applied to some resources are the most problematic when finding stuff.
As Richard McCoy has always insisted to us, “if you can’t ‘google’ it, it doesn’t exist,” Nancie reiterates a similar concern: If you can’t find it and access it after a reasonable search period, it might as well not exist. In the way of a list of what is harder to find and access she provides the following areas in need:
• AIC Specialty Group Postprints that are not digitized, that are inconsistently abstracted within AATA, or whose manner of distribution makes access challenging.
• Posts in AIC Specialty Group electronic mailing list archives are difficult to access due to lack of keyword search
• Conservation papers within archives often have skeletal finding aids; and information is needed about which archives will take conservation records.
• ARTstor does not provide images of comparative objects that aren’t fine art.
Any effort to wrangle these new ways of assembling and mining information using technology need to consider using linked resources, combining resources, employing a more faceted search engine, and deploying better search options for finding related objects. Research on changing search habits of everyone from chemists to art historians should help us along the way.
In her capacity as a user and organizer what she makes and finds, Nancie knows that not every tool works for everyone. However, she highlights digital tools such as Bamboo DiRT, which, as a compendium of digital-humanities research tools, works and synch across platforms, browsers, and devices, allows for exporting and sharing, and can allow you to look at your research practices in new and different ways. Practices to be analyzed include note taking, note management, reference management, image and document annotation, image analysis, and time tracking. Databases such as these offer structure for documenting and analyzing workflow; and if used systematically, they can greatly increase the scientific validity of any project over the mere anecdotal approach. For a large cleaning project, such as that undertaken with the Shelburne carousel horses, this is indispensable.
What is missing or problematic? A digital lab notebook is not ideal around liquids but is very suited to logging details and organizing image captures. These methods cannot measure the results of treatments using computational methods. Missing are also good tools for comparing, annotating, and adding metadata to images on mobile devices and well as for improved cooperation between tools.
And after all of this analysis of one’s use of digital tools, how is it best to share what one has learned? The AIC Code of Ethics reminds us that:
“the conservation professional shall contribute to the evolution and growth of the profession…This contribution may be made by such means as continuing development of personal skills and knowledge, sharing of information and experience with colleagues, adding to the profession’s written body of knowledge, and providing and promoting educational opportunities in the field.”
The self-reflexive exercise that Nancie Ravenel modeled in her talk—of analyzing personal use of digital tools and how personal needs and goals may reflect and inform those of others—will not only be indispensable to the future development of digital tools which will meet this call to share, but it contains in itself a call to share: Nancie asks, what do you use to share and collaborate with your colleagues. How may these systems serve as a model for further infrastructure?
Email, listservs, and forums; the AIC Wiki; research blogs, and project wikis enabling collaboration and peer review; document repositories like ResearchGate.net and Academia.edu; shared bibliographies on reference management systems like Zotero.org and Mendeley.com; collaboration and document-sharing software like Basecamp, Google Drive, and Dropbox; and social-media platforms allowing for real-time interaction like Google Hangouts are all good examples of tools finding use now.
Missing or problematic factors in our attempts to share with colleges include the lack of streamlined ways of finding and sharing treatment histories/images of specific artworks and artifacts; the lack of archives that will accept conservation records from private practices; and the persistent problem of antiquated IP legislation which is often confusing.
In addition to sharing information with other conservators, we must also consider our obligation to share with the public. Here better, more interactive tools for the display of complex information. As media platforms are ever-changing, these tools but be adaptable and provide for some evaluation of the suitability of the effort to the application.
4. SPEAKER: David Bloom
Described by Eric Pourchot as a “professional museophile,” David Bloom was a seeming non-sequitur to the flow of the event. However, as coordinator of VertNet, and NSF-funded collaborative project making biodiversity data freely available online, he spoke very eloquently about the importance of and the opportunities offered by data-sharing and online collaboration. He addressed issues of community engagement in digital projects, interdisciplinary collaborations, and sustaining efforts and applicability throughout these projects. As argued in the other short talks, conservation is yet another “data-sharing community” which can learn from the challenges met by other disciplines.
As described by Bloom, VertNet is a scalable, searchable, cloud-hosted, taxa-based network containing millions of records pertaining to vertebrate biodiversity. It has evolved (pun-intended) from the first networked-information system built in 1999 and has grown over various revisions as well as by simple economies of scale—as the addition of new data-fields became necessary. It is used by researchers, educators, students, and policy-makers, to name a few. As the network is a compilation of data from multiple institutions, it is maintained for the benefit or the community, and decisions are made with multiple stakeholders under consideration.
Amongst the considerable technical challenges through all of its iterations, VertNet has struggled to establish cloud-based aggregation, to cache and index, to establish search and download infrastructure, and to reign in all associated costs.
Additionally, intellectual property considerations must be mentioned, as even though the data is factual (the information cannot be copyrighted), the data “belongs” to the host institution, as they are the historical keepers. As a trust, VertNet does not come to own the data directly. This made a distributed network with star-shaped sub-networks necessary, even though it was expensive to maintain, especially for a small institution, requiring many servers with many possible points of failure. Once one point failed, it was difficult to locate. Costing about 200k/yr, this was an expensive system to maintain, and although it was still the best and most secure way to structure the network, it was not as inclusive as it could have been for its expense.
There are always social challenges to building such “socio-technical networks,” and this is something that the FAIC is discovering by simply attempting to poll its membership. It doesn’t work if people don’t want to play. What ensues are knowledge gaps, variable reliability, and a lack of resources. To speak more broadly, any entity entrusted with indexing information needs for people to get over their fear of sharing to learn the benefits and acquire the skills associated with being connected (i.e. Social-media privacy controversies). All the knowledge and time needed to meet everyone where they are technologically and bring them along in a respectful manner does not exist in one place, so priorities must be defined for the best investment of time and funds to bring the discipline forward.
Bloom found that disparate data hosts could not communicate with each other—they either had different names for similar data fields which needed to be streamlined or they did not maintain consistent terminology, either globally or internally.
This problem had already been solved in a number of ways. For example, Darwin Core classification system was developed by Dublin Core; ABCD is the European standard; and Biodiversity Information Standards was developed by TDWG. There are 186 fields defined by Darwin Core with a standardized vocabulary in as many fields as possible. These standards are community-ratified and community maintained in order to not be easily or unnecessarily changed. This allows for easy importation by mapping incoming data-sets to a Darwin-Core standard; all the data is optimized for searchability and discoverability; and publication and citation tools are hence streamlined.
This type of study of the state of the art, necessary when designing new database infrastructure, can serve as a model for the field of conservation. At the foundation of a successful system, will be a serious study of what has been done in other fields and of what is most useful to prioritize for this one.
As VertNet is based entirely on voluntary participation, it is critical that participants understand the benefits of submitting their data to the trust. The staff at VertNet makes themselves available to help the host institution through any technical difficulties encountered in the data exportation and importation process. Backups of this data are scrupulously maintained throughout the migration process. A major benefit to the exporting institution is VertNet’s data-quality checks which will complete, clean up, and streamline fields and then will send back a report so that the client can update their own databases. This brings local data-maintenance standards in-line with those maintained by the global database.
Additionally, the NSF grant has made training workshops, the development of analytical tools, and certain instances of impromptu instruction possible for clients. This has lead to VertNet’s exponential growth without advertising. The repository now represents 176 institutions with 488 collections and many, many more want in from the waiting list. All these institutions are voluntarily submitting their data despite historical concerns about “ownership.” All these institutions realize the benefit of membership for themselves, for researchers, and for the state of the discipline.
Unfortunately, however, this “traditional” (eek) model of procuring NSF (or NEH, IMLS, etc.) funding to maintain cost is becoming unsustainable. Support for these services is desperately needed now that its utility is established. The value-add model is difficult even if VertNet does believe in “free data.”
The associated cost does not change; however, the database was built as community tool. So even though the common perception is an unchanging status-quo, the community will have to support the project insofar as they find the resource valuable and important. A common misconception propagated by recalcitrant host institutions is that “we can do it ourselves.”. The fact is, however, that most stewards of data can’t—and even more won’t—turn around and make these records available to the community for revision, maintenance, reference, or analysis.
5. DISCUSSION
The audience then exploded with responses :
Pamela Hatchfield (Head of Objects Conservation at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and AIC Board President) began by reminding those who had been romanced by visions of star-shaped networks that concerns about maintaining privacy are still driven by private funding. Although there is now a conservation module in TMS, and terminological standardization is a frequently cited concern, this data is clearly not intended for the public. Historically, private institutions maintain the attitude that data should be tightly held. There is a huge revenue stream from images at the MFA, and as such it is difficult even for staff to obtain publication rights.
Terry Drayman-Weisser (Director of Conservation and Technical Research at the Walters Art Museum) pointed out the the Walters walks the middle path by providing a judiciously selected summary of the conservation record associated with an object. Not all of the information is published.
Certain institutions, such as at the British Museum, have an obligation to make these records public, unless the object falls into certain categories. The 2007 Mellon “Issues in Conservation Documentation” meeting at the National Gallery, London, provides summary of the participants’ approaches to public access at the time of publication.
I did have time to ask a question about the privacy concerns attendant on a biodiversity database. Why does it seem that there is less hesitancy at the prospect of sharing? In reality, these institutions do overcome certain hurdles when deciding what to make publicly available: It turns out that certain data about endangered species should not be shared. Although he did not have time to elaborate, I was curious how this “species privacy” might compare to “object privacy.”
VertNet, it turns out, cannot even find protection under the “Sweat-of-the-Brow” doctrine, as this factual information cannot be copyrighted. What about those portions of conservation documentation which are markedly drawn from speculation, interpretation, and original research? This information can be copyrighted, as per each institution’s policies, but our culture is changing. “We don’t train students to cite resources properly,” he noted, “and then we wonder why we don’t get cited.”
The time allotted for the session was drawing to a close, and everyone expressed their regrets that the conversation could not go on for longer and that more people could have attended.
I would personally like to thank FAIC, the speakers, the Mellon, Kress, and Getty Foundations, and all of the participants for their part in a very though-provoking discussion. I hope and trust that it will continue in future fora.
42nd Annual Meeting – Conservators in Private Practice, May 28, "Greening your Conservation Practice."
“Believing heat wheels work is like believing you can section off a part of a hot tub for peeing.”
Headline speaker Monona Rossol began this year’s CIPP workshop with her characteristic flair when referring to the use of the heat exchange system with contaminated air streams. The system is often recommended to score points for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification and served as an example of how greener practices may not necessarily be safer practices. An Industrial Hygienist and health and safety champion for the arts community, Monona is the founder of Arts, Crafts and Theater Safety (ACTS). If you don’t leave one of her lectures concerned about everything you have ever come in contact with, you should at the very least have a better idea of how to navigate your way through the jargon of government, industry and product health and safety information.
The beginning of Monona’s talk introduced the pitfalls of blindly accepting the safety information provided by government regulatory organizations and manufacturers. In her explanation of many of the acronyms associated with chemical classifications and exposure assessments, Monona emphasized that it’s what we don’t know about chemicals that is the most concerning. For example, phrases such as “not listed as a carcinogen” and “generally recognized as safe” do not indicate that the chemical is not toxic, but may mean that it has never been tested. She also reviewed the improved chemical labeling and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), as outlined by the new OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. Even though SDSs are better than their predecessors, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), they still are limited by lack of information. Finally, she discussed commercially manipulated and undefined “green” phrases like all natural–just because something comes from nature does not make it is safe–and biodegradable– chemicals can breakdown into compounds that can be more toxic than what you started with.
So what can we do as conservators and consumers to protect ourselves, the others we work with and the environment?
- Become a conscientious and informed user; understand and learn about the products in your studio as well as the language and limitations of hazard communication (such as manufacturer provided SDSs) and local and federal regulations.
- Purchase products from companies that disclose the full ingredient lists and avoid products that have proprietary formulations.
- Support laws such as California’s PROP 65, which requires the state to publish a list of toxic chemicals. Businesses must notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in their products or that are released into the environment. By allowing anyone “acting in the public interest” to enforce the law, it takes the responsibility for policing manufacturers and their harmful materials out of the hands of legislators and bureaucrats and into the hands of the people who are being affected by toxic chemicals (you!).
In the second half of her presentation, Monona discussed air quality and fume and particle extraction. She first reviewed the definitions of gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, mists, nano-particles and smokes; their associated health hazards; and types of filters that can be used. In her discussion of fume extraction, she cautioned that window fans and air conditioners are not proper ventilation and of the limited efficacy of portable, filter-based fume extractors. Her main point was that proper extraction involves a displacement system that exhausts to the exterior in concert with bringing in uncontaminated air from a source on a wall across from the exhaust (not from an adjacent wall or window). A clear path of air flow should put the conservator’s head directly in the stream. Filter-based extractors can be selective to the vapors and/or particles sizes they collect; only clear the immediate work area; do not provide clean replacement air; and have no indication of when the filter is no longer functioning properly. She stressed that when you are designing your ventilation system, you should consult a specialist with an industrial ventilation background. While there were too many points to discuss in a few hour workshop and certainly too many to adequately cover in a blog, Monona is always willing to respond to anyone’s concerns or review your studio set-up.
The remainder of the session focused on greener business practices. Chair of the Committee on Sustainability, Betsy Haude, outlined the committee’s activities over the past year, including several AIC News articles and making their wiki into an informative and useful resource.
Objects Conservator Sarah Nunberg, followed up with an outline of the results of a Life Cycle Assessment to look at the environmental impact of museum practices. Conducted in collaboration with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, students at Northeastern University performed four case studies using a computer program with a series of user defined parameters: 1) halogen vs. LED lighting, 2) solvents used for consolidation of stone, 3) loans and transport, and 4) HVAC systems. They concluded that the LED lighting was more energy efficient. In the second case, silane in ethanol proved to have the greatest negative environmental impact over B72 in xylene and B72 in acetone and ethanol; xylene had a greater impact than acetone/ethanol primarily due to its production. In their loan assessment they compared a loan going to Tampa, Florida and a loan going to Japan. Interestingly, they discovered that accommodating for the courier had the greatest environmental impact. Finally, their study also showed that shutting down HVAC systems every night decreased the energy costs by 40%, but that the overall energy impact also depended on the source. Seeing quantified data on these various museum conditions allows for a discussion on how museums can potentially reduce their environmental impact, while still considering the elements of maintaining and promoting their collections.
The final three San Francisco-based speakers discussed the various programs that are available for greening business in California. Wendy Yeung of the California Green Development Program presented on how this government program works with local business to implement environmental protocols that are both sustainable and profitable. Anya Deepak, a Commercial Toxics Reduction Associate with the San Francisco Department of the Environment, discussed their program for artists, which is an outreach initiative to raise awareness among Bay Area artists on environmental and health issues associated with their art materials. The program is currently in the first phase of implementation and will eventually address disposal, safety and finding alternatives. Organizers discovered they were able to get remarkable participation and interest from all the studios they contacted by suggesting that the artists could have an effect on the environment by following these practices–a notably more positive response than when they tried to appeal to the artist’s personal health and safety. Finally, Anna Jaeger from Caravan Studios, a division of TechSoup Global, discussed various electronic and tech-based programs for greener business administration. Her examples focused on the idea that it is more effective to change the situation or environment than to change an individual’s behavior. Tips included using smart power strips and multi-function machines; conducting virtual meetings; and purchasing refurbished electronics since the majority of energy use goes into their production.
The seminar concluded with a group discussion of what sustainability means to us and the field of conservation. Can artifact preservation and environmental preservation coexist? How can we make the annual meeting more sustainable? Should ventilation regulations focus on optimal human performance within that space or optimal environmental impact?
42nd Annual Meeting – Angels Project, June 1, California Historical Society
This year’s Angels Project took place at the California Historical Society (CHS), a non-profit organization founded in 1871 to celebrate California’s rich history. Textile conservator Meg Geiss-Mooney and photograph conservator Gawain Weaver led the group of about 25 enthusiastic volunteers and had our project and supplies ready to go early Sunday morning.
Prior to the AIC meeting, Gawain had surveyed the CHS collection for approximately 200 photograph albums that were in need of treatment and/or re-housing. We divided up into teams based on specialty and skill set, and went to work to assess, surface clean, stabilize, and box each album. The library was organized into stations to help with workflow and I joined the group that was examining each album to identify the photographic processes and provide recommendations for treatment. Not only was this a great way for me to put my photo conservation skills to the test, but as a native Californian, it was a pleasure to look through these beautiful albums featuring historic images of local monuments and people. Using a pre-made single page survey form, we denoted all necessary identification and condition information to help with the following treatment steps and for later catalogers at CHS.
Station two began treatment, and was set up to vacuum, brush, and clean with eraser crumbs the dirtiest album covers and pages. A special table of volunteers was armed with the proper PPE to tackle any possible mold. Next, a group of expert conservators were completing treatment steps such as re-attaching loose photographs, mending torn pages, and tape removal, as needed on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the albums were whisked away to be housed in new archival-quality boxes that were labeled and placed on a cart to return to storage.
At the end of the day, all albums were assessed and boxed, and many received significant treatment steps that will no doubt prolong the life of these valuable objects. For those albums that did not receive treatment, they can be flagged by priority and sent out to a private conservator in the future. As with Angels Projects that I’ve participated in in the past, I appreciated the opportunity to meet, learn from, and work with many new conservation professionals, and I was especially happy that this project allowed me to directly benefit the photographic collection through treatment and re-housing.
Many thanks to Meg, Gawain, Ruth Seyler, and the rest of the AIC staff for organizing this year’s project, and to the CHS staff for generously providing the volunteers with ample working space and supplies, a delicious lunch, and a bonus free annual membership to the Society!
For more images from this and previous Angels Projects, please visit the AIC Angels Projects Flickr page.
42nd Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 28, 2014, “Dataloggers – Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Monitoring Systems” by Rachael Perkins Arenstein and Samantha Alderson
This workshop was a smorgasbord of dataloggers, filled with details about how they function, how the recorded information is moved from one device to another to be analyzed and repurposed, and how to think about choosing the right type of datalogger to match a particular environmental goal. I came into the workshop hoping to learn about new equipment that’s on the market now, to advance my institution’s upcoming project to re-invigorate our environmental monitoring and control program, in support of both energy and preservation goals. I got what I came for!
The workshop was taught by Samantha Alderson and Rachael Perkins Arenstein, both of whom have advised institutions large and small about environmental monitoring programs, and clearly know what they are talking about. They recently updated the National Park Service Conserve-O-Gram (“Comparing Temperature and Relative Humidity Dataloggers for Museum Monitoring,” September 2011, Number 3/3, http://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/conserveogram/03-03.pdf ), which is worth reviewing, but with the caveat that the technology is changing so rapidly that vendors and specifications should be researched anew when you’re planning for a major purchase.
The presenters started by reviewing basics of the hardware and connectivity, summarizing what kind of data loggers can collect, how many loggers one needs, and where to place them, and for how long. They also talked about general environmental management concepts so the less experienced in the audience wouldn’t be left behind.
They then explained a basic difference between two families of dataloggers:
- Stand-Alone Loggers collect data which is then harvested either by direct wired connection to a computer, through an indirect intermediary device like a card reader or thumb drive, or wirelessly; this method is appropriate when you don’t need real-time data
- Connected Loggers either wired (Ethernet) or wireless (radio, WiFi, cellular, etc.) transmit data to a receiver that then aggregates the data from one or more devices; this method is appropriate when you need real-time data, need to receive alerts, and when you need to manage a lot of devices
Other topics covered included datalogger software and data management, calibration, and a group activity in which we had to choose (and justify) a monitoring system for one or more specific scenarios. This activity was my favorite part of the workshop, and I wish we had spent more time on this. It was a practical test of how to figure out why and what you need to monitor, and how to maximize your resources to achieve that goal.
Helpful handouts included charts of various datalogger models/systems with comparison of many variables including costs. Options to consider include: connectivity, size and aesthetics of the logger, battery type and life, sensor quality, data capacity, cost, accessibility of the device once installed, built-in display of current readings, display and/or communicate alarms, sampling rate, calibration method, probe option, and software platform compatability.
Here are some take-aways that for me will inform my upcoming work:
- The landscape of available hardware is rapidly changing with developments in communications technologies; Bluetooth is the hot technology according to several vendors, so they are investing their development efforts into Bluetooth connectivity for their upcoming upgrades and new releases
- Sensor quality matters, but there are also differences (reflected in the wide range of prices) in everything else around the sensor…most notably the architecture of the device, the circuitry and algorithms used to translate the sensor data into numbers. You get what you pay for, but that should be matched to what you need.
- Sensors are very sensitive to organic vapors! They can be destroyed by a big whiff of solvents, and even thrown off by off-gassing from the plastic housing in which they are mounted.
- Loggers need to be checked for accuracy (you can do this yourself with saturated salt solutions according to instructions in another helpful handout), and if they have drifted, they need to be recalibrated (some you can do yourself, others have to be sent to the manufacturer); battery replacement is also variable (some are DIY, others not).
- Most connected loggers require IT support for installation in an institution, so include your IT staff during the planning phase; be sure to ask them about WiFi encryption requirements
- Wireless technologies may be affected by building/exhibit case material and construction, as well as nearby noise-emitting sources
- Software varies a lot, but some of the systems can import data from other manufacturers’ devices; again, you get what you pay for, but the options I favor include the ability to import climatic data, graphical visualization of the data in a format that’s understandable by a range of audiences, and good tech support.
- Get a demo set from the vendor prior to purchasing the whole system to make sure it works for your building
At many points throughout the Collections-Care focused Annual Meeting, I noticed that careful environmental monitoring and interpretation of the data becomes a fundamental part of energy savings and decision-making, grant-funding and construction/renovation of storage spaces. I almost wish the workshop had happened right after the meeting instead of before, because I would have had many more big-picture questions to ask of the presenters. Mostly, I want to hear a more substantive discussion about why we monitor, and how to translate the data into words that advance preservation priorities. Environmental monitoring is a time- and resource-intensive process, so we should be thoughtful and strategic about it.
42nd Annual Meeting – Opening Reception, May 29, de Young Museum
This year’s opening reception for the 42 Annual Meeting was held at the de Young Museum. The museum is located in Golden Gate Park, and the venue, surrounding area, and reception did not disappoint. The museum provided a great place for the conference attendees to meet up with friends and colleagues, meet new professionals in the field and just have fun after a full day at the conference.
Not only was it a great atmosphere for socializing, but the food and drink did not disappoint. For you foodies out there, the grub at the reception was amazing! But then that seemed to be the theme of the day with delicious pastries and baked goods offered at both coffee breaks earlier in the day. Check out some pictures from the reception below. And a warning…most are of the food, because it was that good!
There was sushi as well as a noodle dish served in small take-out containers (very cute!)
So much food…cheese, quiche, vegetable paninis, pasta, chicken satay, mash potatoes and a meat station!
This Opening Reception was definitely a great way to kick off #AICSF and I can’t wait for next year’s reception in Miami!
42nd Annual Meeting, Workshop Session, May 28, 'Essentials of Inpainting' by James Bernstein.
The Essentials of Inpainting workshop was well attended and greeted by a very welcoming James Bernstein adorned in wonderful kilt regalia. The one day workshop was presented predominantly through power-point presentation with plenty of interaction and discussion with the participants. The main head table was packed with portable workstation blocks holding a huge array of color pigments. The workstations were made from Ethafoam® and were light-weight and versatile. Examples of fillers were also available to examine which emphasized the essence of choice and considerations when thinking about filling and inpainting surfaces.
The day focused on practical application rather than ethical considerations due to time limits and varying contexts that conservators work within. A great booklet full of useful handouts which echoed the content of the presentation was provided from the start which helped prevent excessive note taking and increased knowledge transfer throughout the day. The booklet provided a summary of the content of the workshop; materials, concepts and participants experiences which included preparation, techniques, varying reactions of the choice of media, brushes, study of pigments, paints and their properties, toning and patination and in-painting standards. Complementary material relating to the presentation was included which was thorough in content which really helps with later revision.
James reminded the delegates of the importance of establishing a sense of the character of the object and all layers beneath the paint film need to be evaluated as all these elements effect one another. When thinking about inpainting, wicking and capillary actions need to be controlled and identifying inherent and altered states needs to be deciphered. These were just many of the considerations taken into account when trying to approach inpainting on various surfaces. Good support during treatment application was considered essential to enable good control. Painting sticks, plexi blocks and rolls were other alternatives if working with other substrates. Having a well organized and labeled pigment selection was highly recommended along with strong light and magnification.
Fill material and techniques were discussed and the importance of isolating areas requiring infilling to reduce the risk of leeching of binders. James spent a lot of time explaining the varying techniques to apply fill material to enable good inpainting. I particularly enjoyed learning about the use of cellulose fibers as they were compatible with cellulose materials such as canvas, paper and other organic objects. The material is inert and is easy to remove. Solka-Floc® was used as an example of Microcellulose Purified Cellulose fibers available in varying fiber lengths which can be used with the adhesive/consolidant of your choice. Differing techniques regarding reversibility of inpainting was also discussed such as how the Getty Conservation Institute use tissue overlays as an isolating method and as a form of reversibility. Drying time and shrinkage of fill material was considered an issue; if the fill is not applied well they have a tendency to sink in the center due to the material drying from the outside in, leaving the center to dry last. Applying the fill as thickly as possible will aid in less shrinkage, which is another common challenge with fills. James explained the effects of fill materials on inpainting through a failed project he had completed some time ago which highlighted how an incorrect fill could be detrimental to the inpainting applied. This was a great lesson. James presented all kinds of techniques with regards to good lighting, burnishing and smoothing.
Color and pigments were reported which led to a reminder of the color theory and pigment indexing. It was rather rewarding as a textile conservator to learn James is more fearful of dyes than pigments which really emphasized the complexity of dyed textile substrates in comparison to the complexities of pigmented paint film. The potential for dyes to migrate and bleed is a very real one and control can be difficult. Refraction and transmission of light were covered, as were issues surrounding whites, inerts pigments and black pigments. These can be difficult pigments to manipulate and a comprehensive pigment and particle chart was supplied which included health concerns.
The session progressed onto binders and polymers and the effects of low and high molecular weights with regards penetration. James advised to always check the composition of pigments, just because pigments have been selected for conservation use, it does not mean it is safe. Building up color slowly is essential to help with replication.
When first I realized the amount of information which was being packed into this one day workshop I thought the day would be too overwhelming. I was pleasantly surprised as to how much I actually understood due to the steady and consistent pace James presented his expertise. The handbook was incredibly comprehensive and James is very approachable as an instructor, both not just essential to inpainting but to training and developing.