Workshops, Tours, & Events – Page 4 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

42nd Annual Meeting – Workshop, May 28, Respirator Fit Test Lecture and Respirator Fit Testing, May 29 by appointment, AIC Health and Safety Committee

In the past year have you:

Grown a beard to emulate your conservation idol Steve Koob?
Participated in a juice cleanse which inspired a new pattern of healthy eating and daily lunchtime walks?
Had a little work done ?
Contracted Hepatitis B while doing archaeological site conservation in an exotic foreign location? (I sure hope not!)

Rivers set for Charles comedy gala — A little work

If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are a candidate for a respirator fit test even you don’t work in a place where an annual test is required. Facial hair, weight loss or gain of 20lbs or more and any other changes in the shape of your face may mean that the respirator you have been wearing is no longer tight-fitting. Serious illness may compromise your respiratory and/or other systems making respirator use dangerous.
I trust that those reading this are already aware of the importance of protecting ourselves from the potentially harmful chemical compounds (vapors and particulates) and other irritants (such as mold) that we may be exposed to in the course of our work. Depending on the risk, such protection might be afforded in a variety of ways such as via the use of laboratory fume hood, appropriate room ventilation systems including workstation elephant trunk style air outlets, and/or personal protective equipment (PPE) such as a dust mask or respirator.
If you don’t work in a museum or other institution with a designated health and safety officer following OSHA required guidelines, you might be unclear about what kind of mask is required for a particular contaminant and even what “fit testing” means. Personally, never having been “fit tested” before, I will admit that for years I wasn’t even 100% clear whether it meant “are you fit (in proper health) to wear a respirator?” or “does the respirator fit?” Of course it means both! These days all you need do is consult the very informative AIC Health and Safety Committee Wiki to get your fill of information about respirators and so much more
http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Health_%26_Safety#Personal_Protective_Equipment_.28PPE.29

As a conservator in private practice, I have no employer checking up on whether or not I am protecting myself. Several years ago I purchased a respirator, which seemed to fit well. While wearing it with the correct cartridges for the organic solvents I was working with, I figured “If I can’t smell the vapors it must be fine.” But I was never really sure that it fit and it is important to follow guidelines about the life of your cartridges to be sure you are getting adequate protection.
When I signed up for the respirator fit test, the AIC Health and Safety committee sent me the six-page OSHA Medical Evaluation Form (mostly check boxes with yes or no) to fill out and have signed by my doctor prior to fit testing. Keep this in mind if you plan to participate in fit testing at AIC next year – you must plan ahead and have this signed paperwork in hand or you will not be allowed to be tested! This form is available for download on the wiki.
The respirator fit testing consists of two steps, both of which fulfill the annual requirements mandated by OSHA. First, a brief Powerpoint, given by James R. Smith, Safety Coordinator at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, covered topics from the requirements of the Respiratory Protection Program (29CFR 1910.134) to hazards requiring a respirator, how to choose the correct respirator, care and maintenance, donning and doffing and training requirements for employers. The lecture was accompanied by handouts prepared by AIC Health and Safety and we were given a 10 question true or false quiz at the end.

I had scheduled my fit testing appointment prior to traveling to San Francisco. AIC Health and Safety asked participants to choose their top three time slots on the given date in order of preference. When I arrived, I noticed that there were still a couple of time slots available. I would highly recommend pre-registration for fit testing at AIC if you plan to do it next year because then you are guaranteed a spot.
The fit testing itself was quite simple. After donning my mask, James handed me a card with a poem to read while moving my head up and down, side to side and in a circular motion.

While I read this rainbow poem, he followed me with a little pen like device emitting an irritant smoke. I believe that the finale required bending at the waist. The test was brief and painless and I was relieved to hear that I had passed – particularly since I had already used the respirator on numerous projects. Once the test was over, James offered to prove to me that the respirator worked by allowing me to experience the irritant sans respirator. I declined saying that I trusted the test. However, he said that some people like to have proof and offered again. Somehow I took the bait and learned first hand that indeed, the gas is an irritant and my respirator is working properly.
Thank you to James, Kathryn A Makos, MPH, CIH (Industrial Hygienist (Ret.) Smithsonian Institution) and the rest of the AIC Health and Safety Committee for offering this service at the annual meeting.

Get Ready for San Francisco with the Sustainability Committee: Come see us!

AIC's 42nd Annual Meeting - 2014
This is the fourth in a series of posts by the Sustainability Committee in the run-up to the 2014 Annual Meeting, describing sustainability issues and initiatives in the city of San Francisco. The first blog post explained plastic bag and container laws. The second described the water crisis in California. The third post was about the California Academy of Sciences: The world’s greenest museum. Here, I will tell you about the activities the Sustainability Committee will be involved in during the conference.
1. We will be sharing a booth with the Health & Safety Committee. Stop by! We will have samples of sustainable materials and handouts on various topics relating to sustainability in conservation.
2. On Friday, May 30th from 1-2 PM, we will host a Sustainability Roundtable Discussion in the Hospitality Room: How Do We Support Meaningful Change in Our Cultural Institutions? It’s free! Come check it out. It will be a conversation about engaging decision-makers in museums, libraries, and archives on the topic of sustainability. How do individuals rally interest, build momentum, and transition from well-meaning intentions to meaningful action in their cultural institutions at large? During this informal discussion, members of the sustainability committee along with facilitators Sarah Stauderman, Collections Care Manager at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Jia-Sun Tsang, Senior Paintings Conservator at the Smithsonian Institution will share real-life examples of the sustainability movement in cultural heritage. Bring your questions and ideas to share!
3. Some members of the committee have put together a poster for the poster session. The poster session will be divided into two venues. Our poster will be #46 in the SeaCliff Foyer: Life Cycle Assessments: Lighting, HVAC, Loans, and Treatments by Sarah Nunberg, Pamela Hatchfield, Dr. Matthew Eckelman, and the AIC Sustainability Committee. Check it out if these questions interest you: What is the environmental impact difference between LEDs and Halogen lamps? What aspects of a loan have the biggest environmental impact? How much energy does regularly shutting down, or coasting, the HVAC system save? Silanes vs B-72 in Acetone:Ethanol vs B-72 in Xylene: Which Has a Higher Human and Environmental Impact? The poster session runs from 10 AM Thursday through Friday evening. For those unable to see the poster in person, it will be available to download from the AIC website sometime in June.
4. At the CIPP Seminar on Wednesday from 1-5PM, two of our committee members will take part in a panel discussion on Greening your Business. AIC Sustainability Committee Chair Betsy Haude (Senior Paper Conservator, Library of Congress) will present an overview of the committee’s work and Sarah Nunberg (Objects Conservation Studio LLC, Brooklyn, NY) will speak on sustainable practices in the conservation studio.
5. Committee member Christian Hernandez has prepared a talk for the StashFlash Session on recycled materials and long-term storage. Christian will not be attending the conference, but is sending is PowerPoint.

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting-Workshop, May 29, "Plastics Last Longer if Treated with Intelligent Conservation", by Yvonne Shashoua and Thea van Oosten

I have a fascination with plastics, I guess it’s partly because the array of materials that can be chemically engineered seems to have infinite possibilities. Objects of many textures, shapes, colors and applications exist because of plastics. Unfortunately, their existence creates challenges to both preservation and sustainability. As works of art or material culture, conservators want to make them last for as long as possible, but the most long-lived plastics also pose the problem of disposal. The types of plastics that are most likely to break down in the environment are also crumbling to bits on the shelves of collectors and institutions.
This year’s AIC meeting featured a workshop presented by Yvonne Shashoua and Thea van Oosten, two well-known experts in the field of plastics in museums. Shashoua’s book, Conservation of Plastics: Materials Science, Degradation and Preservation, is a good reference. Both Shashoua and van Oosten were part of the 2008 European POPART initiative, (Preservation of Plastic Artifacts in museum collections), which selected a few types of plastics used in artwork, studied their deterioration pathways, and possible methods for their preservation, cleaning and repair. http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/graduate/csh/research/projects/popart
To begin the workshop, we were presented with a historic overview of many types of plastic materials encountered in collections. From gutta percha to polyester we learned of the properties and uses of different polymers. Van Oosten had an entertaining way of categorizing plastic types by their properties into three snack food groups; gummy worm, chocolate bar, or cookie. Gummy worm plastics are in the elastomer category, which includes both natural and polyurethane rubber. These materials are stretchy and flexible at room temperature. Chocolate plastics are the thermoplastic category, which includes polyethylene. These materials polymerize through addition and can be melted and reformed into new shapes. Cookie plastics are in the thermosetting category, which includes Bakelite (phenol formaldehyde), melamine formaldehyde and Vulcanite. These plastics are formed by condensation reaction with water being lost, and they cannot be reformed into new shapes with heat.
We learned that it is important to know what type of plastic you have before you attempt any repairs, because an adhesive that might work with one polymer will dissolve another. To help determine the appropriate adhesive, one should consult the Hansen or Hildebrand solubility parameter for the given plastic. The strength of bond needed, the viscosity of the adhesive and the elasticity of the plastic are other factors to consider. For lightweight polyurethane foam, water based adhesives commonly used in conservation are often adequate. Clear plastics, like polystyrene or polyester may require consideration of the refractive index of the adhesive in order to make an invisible joint.
In the afternoon we split into two groups. We had time to experiment with adhering and mending a variety of plastics, and test cleaning cloths, pads and swabs for cleaning plastics. According to results obtained from the POPART study, it is important to clean plastics as soon as possible when they become soiled, since particles may migrate into the plastics and become impossible to remove in a few short weeks. At the same time a soft cleaning cloth must be used that won’t cause abrasion to the plastic being cleaned. My experiences in this workshop highlighted the importance of testing on mock-ups!
The four plastics at greatest risk of deterioration are cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate, plasticized (flexible) polyvinyl chloride, rubbers, and foams. Cold storage is typically recommended for these materials. The leaders of this workshop also recommended use of an oxygen scavenger in encapsulated packaging for preservation of rubber. Rubber in collections is rapidly deteriorating by oxidation, which causes it to turn yellow and brittle.
Along with POPART a number of research projects have brought the needs of plastics collections into the spotlight in recent years; however, it is clear that more research on active conservation methods is necessary. There is so much more to learn about fascinating plastics!

41st Annual Meeting – Workshop – Integrated Pest Management for Collections

This was a full-day workshop taught by three excellent and complementary instructors, Pat Kelley (Vice-President, Insects Limited), Emily Kaplan (Conservator, Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian), and Rachael Perkins Arenstein (A.M. Art Conservation, LLC). The day was broken into four sessions:

Introduction to IPM principles (including physical prevention, policies and procedures)
Behind-the-scenes (and inside the nooks and crannies) tour and real-life demonstration of pest monitoring and trapping in the Eiteljorg Museum of Native American and Western Art

Presentation/hands-on quiz on pest identification

Presentation/practice session on remedial infestation treatments

While the emphasis was on museum objects (specifically natural history collections), there were many good lessons learned that translate to my field of interest, libraries and archives, as well as to other cultural heritage repositories. I highly recommend this workshop to anyone who has responsibilities in this area (I thought about writing “interest” but when it comes to bugs, that’s putting it a little strongly for many of us). I’d like to see this become an on-going AIC workshop. My only suggestion for improvement would be to expand the pest ID presentation, which sped by too quickly for my novice’s eyes.
Key takeaways:

There is a comprehensive and dynamic resource that pulls together almost all the IPM we would ever need: www.MuseumPests.net, a product of the Integrated Pest Management Working Group, which is an interdisciplinary and independent professional group that is informally linked with AIC and also the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). An associated listserv, Pest List, gives amateurs a place to ask questions of the professional community, confirm ID of pests, etc.
A key guiding principle of IPM is to reduce the use of chemical pesticides for many compelling reasons, including personal health and safety, environmental impact, cost, effective prevention of (rather than reaction to) pest-related damage, and early warning/response in the event of an infestation.
IPM has to be a group effort that requires buy-in from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the highest levels of institution administration, the facilities managers, housekeeping staff, groundskeepers, security managers and patrol staff, pest management experts either within or contracted from outside the organization, curatorial/collection manager/registrarial and support staff, caterers and shop managers, exhibit designers, and human resources staff, as well as conservation/preservation staff.
Including IPM as a part of an overall risk management strategy may be a way to draw resources to its successful implementation.
Well-written, approved, distributed, promoted, and enforced policies and procedures are vital to a successful IPM program.
Species identification is crucial in order to prevent/eradicate; it informs the feeding patterns, reproductive cycles, behavior, and environmental conditions that can be targeted/controlled to ensure successful trapping
Traps come in various shapes, sizes, and odors (pheromones are species specific, so you have to identify what you have before you purchase the pheromone trap). A “blunder trap” has no pheromone or bait but is just sticky and is placed carefully in the likely path of a pest. A pheromone lure with sticky trap mimics the scent exuded by a specific species of female to attract males. Poisoned bait traps are also used, but you can’t control where the pest goes off to die.
IPM is a great field for sleuths and puzzlers; but sometimes the answer (i.e. the cause of the infestation) is elusive, so there are some cold cases.
Common museum pests are mostly moths and beetles, many of which look pretty similar to me so I’d need professional confirmation of my amateur ID; I’m going to seek out and cultivate a relationship with a local entomologist
Remedial treatments include isolation, temperature (heat and freezing), and anoxia (nitrogen, argon, CO2). CO2 requires a pesticide license. Pesticides and fumigation are the last resorts. Heat treatments can be very cheap (black plastic bag in the sun, car with the windows closed on a hot summer day). Do not use anoxia if you have Prussian blue pigments.
Freeze/thaw/refreeze is *not* necessary; just freezing for the right length of time will do the job
My own personal observation: squeamishness may diminish when you get up close and personal on a regular basis.

And here is a list of some of the products and equipment that they demonstrated (this is not an endorsement, just information sharing)

Door sweeps: sealeze.com
Copper gauze for stuffing holes: Stuf-fit
Landscape fabric: Geo Xcluder
Desiccating treatment for high-risk displays (i.e. food art): diatomaceous earth
Oxygen scavenger: Ageless
Films for air-tight sealing: Marvelseal (opaque) and Escal (transparent) or Aclar (also transparent) can be heat-sealed together
Cube of Marvelseal: Zer02 cube system
Current fumigants: sulfuryl fluoride and phosphene (need a license)
Other effective pesticide: boric acid, which is available loaded into a silverfish pack (corrugated board)
Microscope: The Professor, stereoscope, battery powered, by Ken-A-Vision, lowest price at B&H Photovideo (~$80)
We didn’t walk away with samples of sticky traps, but I’d add those to this list if I had the brand names etc.

Selected recommended publications:
Florian, Mary-Lou. Heritage eaters: Insects and fungi in heritage collections. London: James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd., 1997.
Kingsley, Helen; David Pinniger, Amber Xavier-Rowe, Peter Winsor. Integrated Pest Management for Collections: Proceedings of 2001: A Pest Odyssey. London: English Heritage, 2001.
Pinniger, David. Pest Management: a practical guide. Cambridge: Collections Trust, [2009].
Pinniger, David. Pest Management in Museums, Archives, and Historic Houses. London Archetype Press, 2001 (2004 reprint).
Winsor, Peter; David Pinniger, Louise Bacon, Bob Child, Kerren Harris, Dee Lauder, Julie Phippard and Amber Xavier-Rowe. Integrated Pest Management for Collections Proceedings of 2011: A Pest Odyssey, 10 Years Later. London: English Heritage, 2011.

41st Annual Meeting- Closing Session, June 1, "The Great Debate: Topic #2 (Volunteers)"

The energy, audience participation, humor, and yes, snarkiness, at the second annual Great Debate at this year’s AIC Annual Meeting proved that this is an event that should definitely become a regular installment on the Annual Meeting schedule. After a rousing debate over Topic #1 (whether we should exhibit unstable objects as an act of preservation), the teams for Topic #2 took the stage to debate the statement:

“While volunteers used on preservation projects often allow us to accomplish more work, they undermine our capacity to regularly employ conservation and collections care professionals.”

Arguing for the affirmative were Dawn Wallus, Rose Cull, and Kelly Keegan. Their opponents for the negative position were Beverly Perkins, Will Hoffman, and Michele Marincola. Moderator Richard McCoy (who wore a very dapper bow tie in honor of the “modified Oxford style” of the debate) made it clear that the event was a purely intellectual exercise, and that the opinions expressed by the participants did not necessarily reflect their own or their institutions’ views. It was clear by the energy in the room, however, that this topic represents a significant concern for many in our profession.

First up for the negative team was Will Hoffman, who began his argument by pointing out that the statement in question requires clarification before it can be considered. Hoffman explained that, though many institutions do use the kinds of volunteers that most of us were probably thinking about, such as pre-program interns and good samaritans who help with large tasks such as rehousing projects,we should all expand our idea of the “volunteer.” The speaker then cited examples of experts in other fields who have volunteered their time and skills to help conservators with the things that we cannot do for ourselves, such as a hospital performing a CAT scan on a mummy. The opening statement also touched on the commonly held belief that many institutions simply would not be able to function without volunteers, and suggested that volunteer programs sometimes lead to employment for either the volunteers or for new staff members by demonstrating the need for personnel.

Next, Dawn Wallus stepped up to the podium to set up the argument for the affirmative team. She began by declaring that even though she could hear a “puppy dying” somewhere in the distance, she and her team were still prepared to make a case against the use of volunteers in institutions. Wallus commented that while there are many good volunteers, there are also those who, despite the best of intentions, end up undermining the professional nature of our work (cue Wallus’s teammates holding up masks bearing the image of the unfortunate Ecce Homo fresco that was botched by a volunteer conservator in Spain last fall). The speaker also noted emphatically that there are laws in place that stipulate that non profit organizations cannot use volunteers to further their own agenda, and that any volunteer interns must be present for their own educational benefit only, and not to provide work for the institution.
Next to the podium was Beverly Perkins for the negative team. She reiterated her team’s position that the presence of volunteers can lead to the creation of new staff positions- she even provided an example from her own institution. Kelly Keegan’s rebuttal for the affirmative team made use of the old adage, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Teammate Rose Cull followed up on her remarks by restating the argument about the legality of volunteer labor, adding that our use of volunteer pre-program interns creates a socio economic barrier to entry into our field.
When the time came for audience questions, it was clear that the audience had much to say about this topic. Several people wanted to know whether the affirmative team would outlaw volunteers, or, more simply, how they would address the problem. Among a variety of answers, Rose Cull’s response stood out when she stated that all we have to do is to simply follow the guidelines in our own Code of Ethics. Beverly Perkins delivered a rebuttal in the form of a poll, in which the majority of the room declared that they do indeed follow these guidelines, as their volunteer programs exist for the purpose of training people and not in order to get work done. Other audience questions addressed issues of unskilled vs. skilled volunteers (which instigated one of many subsequent reappearances of the Ecce Homo masks), how to get into formal training programs without volunteering, whether data exists on the actual effect of volunteer programs on employment, and other issues. There was so much interest in the topic that the moderator eventually had to cut off the questions in order to allow time for closing arguments.
After both teams had reiterated their points in closing arguments, the room was polled to determine the winner. Both teams appear to have been equally persuasive, and the debate ended in a tie. The end of the formal debate signaled the end of the conference, but it was clear from the conversations heard in the halls on the way out that it will not be the end of this very important discussion. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments, but please remember to uphold the good-spirited nature of the Great Debate!

41st Annual Meeting – ECPN Happy Hour sponsored by Tru Vue, May 29

This year, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network’s (ECPN) Happy Hour was sponsored by Tru Vue, who generously provided food and drink tickets. It was a great success, with at least 100 attendees. Since the Happy Hour was on Wednesday, it was a great opportunity to mingle and relax before launching into the busy conference. It also directly followed ECPN’s Portfolio Seminar, which provided a nice segue and allowed participants to continue their conversation over food and drinks. We hope you’ll join us at next year’s Happy Hour in San Francisco!

41st Annual Meeting-Tours, May 29, "Indiana Historical Society"

A slight communications glitch caused the group from the Indiana State Museum Tour to start without the group that was only doing the Indiana Historical Society tour; we knew that they were supposed to rendesvous with us, but they didn’t know that we existed.
We finally caught up with the other half of our tour group in the Isolation Area of the Indiana Historical Society building, where Paper Conservator Ramona Duncan-Huse was explaining how they set aside a purpose-built space to quarantine, inspect, and treat incoming collections. Because the Historical Society actively acquires entire pallets of archive boxes, staff cannot examine every single item as it enters the collection. This holding room gives the Conservation Department the opportunity to detect insect evidence or mold and prevent cross-contamination with other collections. The room was the envy of many on the tour who could only dream about a room with such great features: negative pressure, floor drains, industrial freezers, etc. The Historical Society’s mold treatment room was a smaller room contained within the Isolation Area that had polyethylene sheeting over its entrance, easily-cleaned tile walls, and its own negative pressure air handler, designed to prevent the outflow of airborne particles through doorways.
After being “wowed” by both the size and quality of the contaminated holding area, the tour moved on to the conservation exhibit. The “History Lab” is a delightful, interactive, kid-friendly installation in a second-floor gallery adjacent to the conservation lab. The exhibits’ objective is to explain what conservation is and what conservators do. The exhibit has been popular with audiences and funders, so the Conservation Department will be undertaking a renovation and expansion of the exhibit and the Conservation Lab. Facilitator Nancy Thomas oversees the hands-on paper mending practice area in the current exhibit. There are also computer-based interactive exercises.
Romona Duncan-Huse turned over the next part of the tour to Sarah Anderson, the designer who is helping to transform the History Lab in its next phase, scheduled to open in September. She showed storyboards for the new exhibit and explained its objectives. The current exhibit is very popular with school groups and families, but some visitors see it as a children’s exhibit and walk right past it. There will be “before and after” objects, and lots of touchable materials, as well as touchscreen computer-based items. Duncan-Huse maintains a conservation Pinterest page, so they plan to incorporate that into the new exhibit. The new exhibit will explore more of the “why” and “how” of conservation treatment decisions, and it will be a lighter, more open design (think Brookstone or Sharper Image meets Apple Store meets Williams-Sonoma); it still incorporates hands-on interactive activities, but with a more sophisticated feel than the old exhibit.
With the new gallery construction slated to begin in June, the impending removal of some walls of the conservation lab meant that there were no treatments in progress during our visit. Conservation staff were happy to describe some of their recent activities to us. Tamara Hemerlein, the Local History Services Officer, explained the IMLS Statewide Connecting the Collections (C2C) project, which includes a traveling conservation panel exhibit, “Endangered Heritage.” The project also includes training for volunteers and museum boards around the state, and she has done 85 site visits to collecting institutions. In late August, they plan to release Deterioria and the Agents of Destruction, a conservation graphic novel. They let us see advance proofs, and it is AWESOME! Several members of the tour (including me) were involved with C2C, so we were all jealous. I asked if they had plans for conservator action figures.
After the lab tour, we had the opportunity to visit the galleries on our own. I went back to the conservation exhibit to get a closer look and to take a few pictures. I want to thank Ramona Duncan-Huse and everyone at the Indiana Historical Society for such an interesting tour.

Portfolios and career transitions: pre-program, graduate, and post-graduate portfolio tips

The following article was written by Suzanne Davis and posted on her behalf by Carrie Roberts. Suzanne Davis is Associate Curator of Conservation at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, and a member of the Education and Training Committee of AIC. Suzanne will be speaking on the subject of conservation portfolios at ECPN’s Portfolio Seminar at AIC’s 41st Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 starting at 4PM.
I can still remember the satisfaction of creating my portfolio in graduate school. This was before digital photography or Adobe Photoshop, and the black cloth-covered binder is filled with slides, black and white photographs (that I printed myself in my school’s cramped dark room), and intricate hand-drawn condition diagrams. Sixteen years later, this binder sits on the bookshelves just above my desk at work, and I still like to look at it sometimes.
Your portfolio is a representation of your identity as a conservator and scholar, so it’s a good idea to be constructive and discriminating in the way you assemble and use it. Typically it’s most useful early in your career, at a time when you might feel pressure to showcase every conservation experience you’ve ever had. But it can serve you best if you’re selective. Think about what you want a review committee to notice, and which experiences you want to highlight. Make it work for you.
If you’re applying to a graduate program, the admissions committee will be concerned with your academic ability in addition to your pre-program conservation experience. If you’ve undertaken research projects in conservation or a related field like art history or archaeology, feature these! The committee will also be looking to see if your research and career interests are a good fit for their program. How does your portfolio demonstrate this? At this stage in your career, your portfolio should clearly reflect your academic identity, interests, and your potential to succeed as student and professional.
Once in graduate school, it’s most helpful to think about your vision for your future. Knowing what kind of job you’d ultimately like to have will help you shape your graduate experience, choose classes and internships, and create a useful portfolio. Talk to conservators who have the kind of job you’d like. Try to intern with them, if possible. Learn what do they do every day, and what experiences and skills they value. What would they want a prospective employee to feature in a portfolio?
When using your portfolio to apply for post-graduate fellowships and jobs, it’s important that it reflect the full range of your experience. Many portfolios that I see for young conservators focus almost exclusively on conservation treatments and technical studies. But treatment is only one small piece of what most professional conservators do on a daily basis, and technical research is an even smaller component. Preventive conservation knowledge is very important, as is the ability to assess condition, prioritize work, and manage projects. The same is true for communication skills and working with students and volunteers. Experience with outreach and education activities is also good. As you read a fellowship or job description, think about ways to use your portfolio to highlight the skills and experience that the employer seeks.
When presenting your portfolio in an interview, it’s useful to pre-select the projects you’ll discuss. If it will be reviewed in your absence, indicate the projects you’d like reviewers to turn to first. The portfolio should be well-organized, with a table of contents and tabs that will make different sections easy to find. Consider including short project summaries to give readers a quick overview of each experience. Too much information can be overwhelming, so think about removing projects that are not relevant and do not contribute to the overall message you want to communicate. Many prospective employers will expect a presentation in addition to or in place of the portfolio, so spend some time thinking about how to translate the experience captured in your portfolio into an engaging talk.
Finally – and this is very important – don’t focus on your portfolio to the neglect of other application components. An interview and portfolio review is usually the very last step in a selection process. Without a well-crafted curriculum vitae and cover letter or personal statement, no one is ever likely to see your amazing portfolio. Good luck!
ECPN’s Portfolio Seminar is a FREE event for AIC’s 41st Annual Meeting attendees and will cover topics including ideas for building your portfolio, digital portfolios, and ‘beyond the portfolio’ topics like application materials and networking.
If you are a conservation student or recent graduate and are interested in sharing your portfolio during the ECPN Portfolio Seminar, please contact Carrie Roberts at carrizabel@gmail.com.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Tamarind Institute Tour

Posted on behalf of Debora Mayer.

The tour of the Tamarind Lithography Workshop was a highlight of the conference. Tamarind was founded in Los Angeles in 1960 as a means to invigorate the art of lithography by training master printers and forging collaborations with artists. Tamarind moved to Albuquerque in 1970, became affiliated with the University of New Mexico and continues to train printers in a MFA program.

As a student in lithography in the 1970’s I was enamored with and extensively referenced the textbook The Tamarind Book of Lithography Art and Techniques by Garo Antreasian and Clinton Adams. My copy of the book is now deteriorating and brittle from exposure to studio chemicals. Many of my favorite artists such as Jim Dine and Ed Ruscha have printed at Tamarind and their prints were on the wall and their presence was felt on the day of the tour.

The tour began with the group watching a 1973 documentary film “Four Stones for Kanemitsu” detailing the collaboration between artist Matsumi Kanemitsu and Master Printer Serge Lozingot as they create and print a four-color lithograph. Best of all, was the delight of seeing in the film– co-star, conservator and colleague Betty Fiske. Betty was curator at Tamarind at the time of the filming and she spoke to the process of creating the documentation sheet that records the materials and techniques used to create each edition. By the way these documentation sheets are in the process of being scanned and will soon be available as PDFs for collectors.

The tour continued to the print studio filled with presses, shelves of rollers, inks, and litho stones. A print of an owl was being pulled by MFA students in the apprentice program. The smell of ink was wonderful.

Walking across the street to the U of NM Art Museum I participated in the (AIC) tour of the museum. To complete the story, the museum is the repository for the print archive of the Tamarind workshop- housed in their newly renovated print study and storage area.

Debora Mayer

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Angel’s Project, “AIC Chicks Make Bricks,” San Miguel Chapel, May 8th

One of this year’s Angel Projects took place at San Miguel Chapel (sometimes also called the San Miguel Mission) in Santa Fe. Avigail Charnov, architectural conservator at Jablonksi Building Conservation and ASG member who organized the project, wanted AIC member’s to get involved and help in the restoration of this important historic structure. The restoration project of the chapel is being undertaken by Cornerstones Community Partnerships, a non-profit organization which works with communities to restore important historic monuments and structures in New Mexico. The projects they work on are those requested by communites and they are committed to involving the community in the work that takes place.They work primarily on adobe structures and incorporate traditional materials and methods in the restoration of the places they preserve.

This year’s all female team of Angels, made up of architectural, paper, paintings and objects conservators, worked with Cornerstone’s project members to make mud bricks that will be used in the repair of the historic walls of the church and re-plastered previously repaired walls.

History of San Miguel Chapel
San Miguel Chapel plays an important role in the history of Santa Fe. It is one of the oldest structures in the city and was originally built when the Spanish came into the area in 1610 (or 1620, the records are not so clear). The Franciscans who came to the area at that time brought with them Tlaxcalan Indians from Mexico, who had helped them conquer the Aztecs, to build the church. The church was in use until 1640 when it was destroyed but then rebuilt. It was destroyed again in 1680 during the Pueblo Revolt when the local indigenous people turned against the Spanish and colonization, as well as the imposition of the Catholic religion. The Spanish were pushed out of the area until 1692. When they reconquered the area, they saw that the local people had torn down the church as part of their rejection of Catholicism and the Spanish. But the Spanish were not deterred and rebuilt the church in 1710 (a date confirmed using dendrochronological dating of the timbers used to construct the church). This 18th century layout is the basic church layout we see today.

The carved altar screen, or reredo, in the chapel was made in 1798 and is the oldest reredo in New Mexico.

The mission became a school, St Michael’s High School, in the 1850’s. In the 1880’s, an earthquake caused structural damage to the church and it was going to be torn down, but the building was important to the community and the city and so it was saved. It was rebuilt in the Mission Style, which is what we see in most of the building today. The front however is in the Santa Fe style (modified in this style in 1955). One of the main changes that occurred at this time was to replace the mud plastered adobe with a cement stucco layer. Cement was also used to reinforce some of the adobe bricks. Areas of the roof that were flat were also altereed to have a pitch and drain into a courtyard on the southside of the church. These changes would cause problems in the future, but more about that in a bit.

Project director Jake Barrow shows us some of the stucco applied in the 1950’s.

In 1968, the high school grew too large for the chapel and associated buildings and moved to a different site. Over the years, the building was not maintained, though is still held church services, and was in need of repair. That’s when the community contacted Cornerstones for help.

Condition of the Chapel
The Chapel suffered damage primarily due to repairs done in the 1950’s which used materials with poor ageing and that were incompatible with the adobe. The stucco applied at this time covered up the adobe bricks so their condition could not be monitored for any maintenance to take place. Changes to the pitch of the roof also caused problems, as did poor drainage in the courtyard off the north side of the church and run off of rain water toward the front side of the chapel. Cornerstones worked with the Getty Conservation Institute who came out to conduct a condition assessment of the chapel. They found damage due to moisture and deterioration of wooden supports in the wall in addition to the items mentioned above.

Wall showing new adobe bricks (upper section of photo) inserted into the wall as part of the restoration, and original adobe bricks.

Restoration work
The work Cornerstones has undertaken has mainly focused on removing all the stucco applied in the 1950’s, replacing any damaged/deteriorated adobe bricks, reinforcing and replacing the wooden beam supports and replastering the walls with mud. As part of the committment to community involvement they allow people to volunteer in the restoration process. That’s where this year’s Angels got to contribute and also learn about traditional building techniques.

The day started off by learning how to make mud bricks that will be used in the repair of the walls. The bricks are made by mixing alluvial soil (made of silt, clay and fine sand) with coarser sand and straw. The soil and coarse sand are mixed in a 2:1 ratio of soil:sand.

Straw is added after the soil and sand have been mixed a bit and some water has been added. The straw acts as a binder and helps to hold the mud together. The amount of straw added is a basket ball sized clump to each batch of 30:15 shovel-fulls of soil:sand.

Once mixed, the mud is taken in a wheel barrow over to the sidewalk where we’ll be making the mud bricks. The wooden brick molds are prewet first to make sure the mud doesn’t stick to them. The mud is then added to the mold (which makes 2 bricks at a time) and tamped into the mold by hand. When both sides of the mold have been filled, the mold is lifted and voila, you have mud bricks!

After making mud bricks, we learned how to make mud plaster and how to plaster the walls. Mud plaster is applied over the walls to create a protective layer over the bricks and to act as a sacrificial layer to the elements so the bricks don’t deteriorate so readily and don’t need to be replaced so often. The smooth plaster layer needs to be maintained and requires re-plastering about every 2 years.

To make the mud plaster, we first need some very fine and pure clay. The clay Cornerstones is using comes from Nambe. This clay dries to a color very similar to the 1950’s facade. The clay is first screened to remove large pieces and create a fine texture. The lumps of clay are broken up with a pick and then tossed against an upright screen.

The fine clay that comes through on the other side is added to water and mechanically mixed to make mud. The mud is then taken and mixed with sand and chopped straw. The mud to sand ratio for the plaster is 3:1. The amount of straw that is added is a few handfuls.

To apply the plaster, the wall is prewet first and then the plaster is applied with a large trowel. Not much smoothing or working is required, and too much smoothing can cause the plaster to fall off. The plaster is applied across the wall to create a layer about 1/8″ thick. We managed to replaster the lower half of a wall of the facade of the chapel and we did a pretty good job for the first time. But that’s no surprise since we’re all conservators and therefore perfectionists!

I had a great time volunteering for this project and loved learning how mud bricks are made. It was great to work with such an enthusiastic team of conservators and members of the Cornerstones project. It was also really satisfying to know that while we were having so much fun, we were also helping to restore an important historic structure and that the bricks we made that day, would some day be placed into the newly repaired walls of San Miguel Chapel. If you’re in the Santa Fe area and want to volunteer with Cornerstones at San Miguel Chapel, you can find more information here.