Specialty Sessions – Page 2 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 1, 2017 – “Using Butvar® B-98 as a Consolidant for Friable Matte Paint by Claire Winfield”

Covering a pair of practical case studies, Claire Winfield’s presentation on her recent uses of Butvar® B-98 was clear and informative. Winfield, the Associate Painting Conservator at Saint Louis Art Museum (SLAM), featured two artworks that share the characteristic of having friable matte paint, but the process and purpose for consolidation of each one varied. Her ability to modify her approach for each situation was guided by research and first-hand tests with Butvar® B-98.

Molecular structure of Butvar®. Image taken during presentation.

Butvar® B-98 is one of a series of trademarked polyvinyl butyral resins, which are valued for their clarity, adhesion to varied surfaces, rheology, toughness, flexibility, and aging characteristics. Butvars® are available in a range of molecular weights (MW) and can be applied in a variety of solvents by brush or spray. They are typically used in objects conservation for materials such as deteriorated wood, stone, plaster, bone, fossils, and baskets, because they can retain a matte surface and cause little color saturation.

In both of Winfield’s featured treatments, she needed to stabilize paint without altering its optical properties – a steep challenge given their powdery surfaces. Winfield focused on the energy relationships between Butvar® B-98 and the painted surfaces, reducing the adhesive’s particle size (B-98 is the lowest MW Butvar® available) and spray applying it in multiple dilute coatings to promote penetration. Keeping the spray tip completely clean and pre-wetting the surface with solvent were helpful in this process.

Historic information about Fabspray. Image taken during presentation.

The first case study was Enforcer (1962) by Larry Poons, composed of Liquitex acrylic paint and Fabspray on canvas. The Fabspray, a spray paint for fabric with vinyl and alkyd resin binders, unfortunately aged very poorly, having deteriorated to the point of actively shedding pigment. The goal of treatment was to keep the paint in place for safe dusting of the surface. Adhesive tests included Butvars® of varying weight, gelatin, and methylcellulose. Due to its small particle size, low viscosity in ethanol, strength, and minimal visual effect, a 1% Butvar® B-98 in ethanol was chosen as the consolidant. Since the Liquitex and Fabspray were applied to the painting in discrete areas, it was possible to mask the Liquitex areas while spray applying six coats of dilute consolidant to the Fabspray. The results were successful in that the paint no longer actively sheds and remains visually matte; however, the surface still cannot be safely dusted, and there was a slight but acceptable saturation of the color.

Photomicrograph of problematic paint. Siegfried Reinhardt, Micenic, 1942, oil, Siegfried Reinhardt. Image taken during presentation.

Micenic (c. 1942) by Siegfried Reinhardt, an oil painting on pressed board, was the second case study. The paint layer was locally cracked and lifting away from the board, and it was also lacking in cohesive strength: the lifting paint crumbled from brush contact and could not withstand heat. Following tests, the surface was pre-wet with 60:40 toluene:ethanol then then sprayed overall with 2% Butvar® B-98 in the same solvent mix to give the paint cohesive strength. Ethanol helped lower the viscosity of the adhesive, and toluene prevented tidelines caused by the paint’s slight ethanol sensitivity. BEVA® 371 in naphtha with heat assistance could then be applied to readhere the lifting paint to the board without undermining the cohesion provided by the B-98. This two-layer consolidation process successfully preserved both the structure and appearance of this painting.

Winfield’s work provided two responsible and creative examples for how Butvar® B-98 can be a useful addition to a paintings conservator’s toolkit.

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 1, 2017 – “Conserving the Paintings of Romaine Brooks by Tiarna M. Doherty”

On the final day of specialty group presentations at AIC’s Chicago meeting, Tiarna Doherty, Chief of Conservation at the Lunder Conservation Center, Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM), rewarded attendees with a lovely presentation about the singular artist Romaine Brooks. The Smithsonian Renwick Gallery mounted the exhibition “The Art of Romaine Brooks” in 2016, and Doherty examined over 30 paintings by Brooks in preparation, many of which were featured in the show. Weaving into a captivating story Brooks’s biography, aesthetic preferences, and technical practices, Doherty also conveyed the rationale for her practical conservation approach in response to how the paintings have altered over time.

Still image from presentation. Painting show in detail (left), overall normal light (center), and ultraviolet illumination (right). Romaine Brooks, Una, Lady Troubridge, 1924, oil, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Gift of the artist, 1966.49.6.

Romaine Brooks (1874-1970) is known for her stunning portraits, often featuring friends who were leading figures in the arts and humanities at the time. Born in Italy but raised in New York, Brooks’s father left when she was young, and her mother was not supportive of Brooks’s artistic pursuits. From 1890-1900, she lived in Capri with many other ex-patriots with non-traditional lifestyles; the location was a refuge following Oscar Wilde’s 1895 trials in London. Brooks met her husband in Capri, but their marriage was unsuccessful in no small part because he disapproved of her preference for masculine attire. She eventually settled in Paris in 1905. Her unpublished autobiography, which she illustrated with drawings, was titled “No Pleasant Memories.”

Brooks recorded very little about her aesthetic preferences or artistic technique, leaving only her artistic output and a few historic photographs to fill in the blanks. Her painting technique reveals some academic knowledge, though she may not have had formal training. Chalk lines and colored ground layers, such as the salmon orange preparatory layer in The Charwoman (1904), were followed by thin washes of paint and numerous glazes composed of her own mixture of oil and resin. She often used oil paint to reinforce contours on top of natural resin varnish layers to create the final surface. Painted black dashes, and in one case silver dashes, define the outer boundaries of many paintings.

In addition to painting and drawing, Brooks demonstrated an innovative attentiveness to interior design. Frame design and surface finish were clearly a consideration in her pursuit of Whistler-influenced harmony of color and tone. In one example from Doherty’s presentation, Brooks had a particular frame with a large rabbet in mind when planning a painting’s composition, as she painted the canvas only where it would show within the frame window. In another example, both the painting and the frame had a black ground layer visible beneath the finished surface – such efforts earned the accolades of “reigning in harmony” in a 1910 exhibition review.

Not surprisingly, the natural resin-containing layers of Brooks’s paintings have darkened over time. Brooks herself may even have seen the changes begin, as she chose to keep most of her paintings until her death. The presence of glazes and varnish in alternating layers with original oil paint make conservation especially challenging. In addition, conservators at SAAM observed that later applications of Paraloid® B-72, now getting cloudy, were difficult to remove safely due to sensitivity of the original materials beneath. Treatment goals leading up to the Smithsonian’s exhibition were therefore a combination minimal intervention and passive technology. When possible, degraded varnishes were reduced and surfaces resaturated. To restore some of the original cooler tonality, gallery lighting was employed to virtually compensate for some of the current altered appearance.

Doherty reminded us of Oscar Wilde’s relevant words from The Portrait of Dorian Gray, that “some things are more precious because they don’t last long.” But a conservator does what she can. This careful study of an artist and her technique led to both a thoughtful approach for displaying Brooks’s paintings, aged but still striking; as well as this transmission of her harmonious original vision.

45th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 1, “Well That Didn’t Work, Now What? Stain reduction on a 10th-century Iranian ceramic” by Claire Cuyaubère and Ellen Chase

Claire’s talk highlights a topic that I’m glad we conservators are beginning to talk about more openly – treatments that didn’t necessarily work. This subject also fit in nicely with the overall conference theme of treatment and innovation. Although some of her treatment steps did not bring about the desired results, Claire was successful in safely and aesthetically preparing the ceramic so that it can be exhibited at the Freer Gallery of Art.

The earthenware dish features a reddish-buff ceramic body, off-white slip, and transparent glaze, with minimal brownish-black and red inscription decorations. The ceramic was previously broken into about 40 pieces and restored, with multiple campaigns of adhesive and overpaint. The museum has records of one treatment in 1964, and while removing old repairs, Claire found evidence of at least two previous restorations which likely occurred before the object was acquired in 1954. The major condition issue was various types to staining, including general yellow and gray stains. Additional disfiguring stain lines were present a few millimeters in from the edges of the sherds, including some areas with two or three separate rows of parallel staining.

Claire carried out analysis in an effort to determine the cause of the staining. Using SEM-EDS, among other tools, she determined that the staining contained little iron and was primarily organic in nature, meaning it is likely not from burial but from the various restoration campaigns. Adhesive identification was inconclusive, likely because multiple types are present; however, Claire noted the presence of hide glue, some type of acetone-soluble adhesive, and possibly shellac. During testing, the staining did not appear to be soluble in a range of solvents, likely because of crosslinking. Soluble salts were also identified with a microchemical test for chlorides, although no salt efflorescence was visible. An iron-containing accretion on the back within the footring was likely from burial and was mechanically reduced to avoid transfer to other areas of the ceramic during stain reduction treatment.

Claire proceeded with stain reduction tests, following Bruno Pouliot, Lauren Fair, and Richard Wolbers’ method of three rounds of poulticing using a chelator, bleach, and a final rinse.* She ultimately chose sodium citrate (2% at pH 8) as the chelator because it was mild yet effective, and she used carbamide peroxide (20% at pH 8) as the bleach. For both of these steps, she used agarose gel (2%) as the poultice material, favoring its ability for controlled, localized application. The gel poultices were only applied to stained areas on the front surface of the ceramic.

Agarose gel is made by mixing the powder with water, heating to a low temperature, pouring the mixture out to cast, and then cutting into blocks when cool. The gel blocks can then be soaked in solution; for instance, Claire soaked blocks in the chelator for one hour before applying to the ceramic. Plastic wrap was used to cover the gel blocks while on the ceramic to reduce evaporation. For the final rinse, the sherds were soaked in baths of deionized water, which served to clear the chelator and bleach as well as desalinate the ceramic.

To complete the treatment, the sherds were joined using Paraloid B-72, which was also bulked with microballoons and fumed silica to fill gaps and losses. These areas were inpainted as the dish will be displayed in an art museum, as opposed to an archaeological context, and the curator preferred to have the losses integrated.

Although the staining was somewhat lightened, its appearance was not sufficiently reduced by the poulticing steps. Claire carried out many poulticing trials, but the staining proved tenacious and she did not want to take the treatment so far as to risk causing damage to the object. Although improvements were made, the curator still did not find the dish to be in exhibitable condition, since the staining lines were still visible and particularly distracting against the overall stark, white appearance of the ceramic. At this point, Claire decided to try painting out the stains, over a barrier layer of B-72. Although she did not like the idea of painting over the original ceramic surface, this seemed to be the only reasonable option for preparing the object to be exhibited and accessible to public. Painting light over dark and matching the surrounding off-white glazed slip must have been a challenging task. But in the end, conservators and curators were both pleased with the results!

Overall, I think Claire’s treatment was a success, and I look forward to seeing the dish on display when the Freer Sackler reopens their newly renovated galleries this fall.

* For more information, I recommend: Bruno Pouliot, Lauren Fair, and Richard Wolbers. “Re-thinking the Approach: Techniques Explored at Winterthur for the Stain Reduction of Ceramics,” 2013 in Recent Advances in Glass, Stained-Glass, and Ceramics Conservation, pre-prints of the ICOM-CC Glass and Ceramics Working Group Interim Meeting and the Forum of the International Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Stained Glass, Amsterdam. pg. 211–223.

45th Annual Meeting—Textiles Session, Tuesday May 30th—“Making the Mold: A Use for Fosshape in Upholstery Conservation” by Kirsten Schoonmaker and Abby Zoldowski

After much ado and various delays, I am happy to post about Kirsten Schoonmaker’s fascinating presentation!

The task at hand was creating consistent custom upholstery packages for eight Heppelwhite shield back chairs. Belonging to the Philip Schuyler Mansion State Historic site, the chairs are part of a suite of Heppelwhite pieces, which all date between 1790 and 1804. The pieces were on display when the site opened to the public in 1917. They were removed from the house in 1926, and were recovered in the 1950s, altering the profile and the show fabric. After returning to the mansion in the 1970s, the chairs were again recovered, this time in a Scalamandre fabric.

As 2017 marks the centennial of the Philip Schuyler Mansion, it was decided to return the chairs to their former glory. The chairs were suffering from saggy backs and over-stuffed arm padding, and the seats in the set featured two different profiles. Removal of the replacement show fabric and additional layers of padding on the arms of one of the chairs exposed some of the original show fabric, informing the decision regarding new show fabric. Still, a decision had to be made regarding the upholstery profile. A modern, all-archival materials solution was considered, as was the possibility of leaving all of the remaining period materials intact and part of the piece. In the end, it was decided to remove all of the additions from the 1950s restoration onward. In the case of the chair backs, whose structural condition was compromised the most, the conservators worked from the bare frame. Kirsten presented the process piece by piece, with illustrations and photographs to clarify her descriptions (a very important element for audience members with little upholstery experience like me!)

The new shield back upholstery required complex curves, which are hard to achieve when carving ethafoam. Kirsten explained the interest in utilizing the adaptable qualities of Fosshape to recreate the proper silhouette for the new upholstery packages. Both the customized shape and the resistance of set Fosshape to changes in relative humidity made the material desirable. Fosshape 600 was used to test the creation of a new chair back. The conservation team created a plywood cradle and used air-dry clay to create molds of the front and back curved pieces. The fosshape was draped over the mold and steamed to follow the correct shape. The front and back layer were then sewn together with a layer of polyester batting sandwiched between. The unified piece was then covered in muslin (and eventually a new silk fabric). Two application approaches were tried with the new shield back packages, and the effectiveness depended heavily on tack placement.

Kirsten noted several factors to keep in mind for any future experimentation using Fosshape in this manner. Addressing the inflection points and tacking edges in the mold stage would improve the process. Also, experimentation to determine Fosshape’s self-adhering qualities could prove useful in future projects. The notion of using a 3-D scanner to create a printable mold in the future could speed the process along even more. In the end, there are plenty of possibilities to take away from this fascinating project.

45th Annual Meeting — Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, 2017 — “Revealing the text and folds in 17th-century locked letters” presented by Jana Dambrogio

The final talk of the June 1st RATS session was by Jana Dambrogio, Thomas F. Peterson (1957) Conservator, MIT Libraries, Curation & Preservation Services. Jana has been working for several years on the subject of “letterlocking,” the many techniques by which a letter can be folded to form its own envelope. Some of these letters are folded very simply while others are outfitted with complex security features that indicate if a letter has been opened by someone other than the intended recipient. Jana’s research has even suggested that a single individual might have had more than one technique for folding letters.

Most of this research has been carried out by studying unfolded letters, examining folds, cuts, and other physical evidence in order to reverse engineering the original folded structure. Now, Jana and a team from Queen Mary, University of London are using Computed Microtomography (CT scanning) to discern the interior structure of unopened letters. A collection of 600 such letters is held by the Museum voor Communicatie in The Hague, Netherlands.

The letters are part of a group of 2,600 that came to the Museum stored in a 17th century trunk. Jana explained that in the period when the letters were written, the mail operated on a “cash on delivery” system. The letters in the trunk were never retrieved, and thus remained in the custody of the postmaster. While about 2,000 have previously been opened, the “Signed, Sealed & Undelivered” project team are studying the 600 that have never been opened, using a novel application of CT imaging.

During the talk, Jana shared many videos from the project website, demonstrating techniques for letterlocking and showing the potential of the imaging technique.

For more information visit:

brienne.org
letterlocking.org

45th Annual Meeting — Book & Paper Session, May 30, 2017 — “Removing Oil From Paper: A Collaborative Conservation Challenge” presented by Holly Herro

It’s probably safe to say that most book conservators have encountered at least one oil-stained textblock. In many cases, the source of the oil was leather dressing, historically applied in an attempt to improve the suppleness, appearance, and longevity of leather bindings. Many different formulae of leather dressing have been documented, but one of the best known is a roughly 1:1 mixture of neatsfoot oil and lanolin.

Treating this staining is challenging for a number of reasons: while conservators can speculate about the type and age of the oil causing the stain, they can’t always make a definitive identification, so extensive testing is often necessary; oil-based printing inks can be susceptible to the same solvents that will act on the stain; treatment of any stain in a bound textblock is difficult; and finally, depending on the amount of oil still saturating the binding, there is the potential for the stain to return or expand over time.

Holly Herro, Conservation Librarian for the History of Medicine Division at the National Library of Medicine presented on the development of a process to remove oil stains from book paper. The project was carried out in collaboration with paintings conservator Scott Nolley, Chief Conservator at Fine Art Conservation of Virginia, and paper conservator Wendy Cowan of Richmond Conservators of Works on Paper. Tests were conducted on a blank modern paper endsheet from a 15th century book. The sheet was stained with what the conservators suspected was a combination of neatsfoot oil and lanolin, applied approximately 30-40 years ago. Several protocols were tested, but the most successful at reducing the staining was as follows:

Pre-wash the affected page in a 50/50 solution of deionized water and ethanol buffered to pH 9 with ammonium hydroxide. In the tests, the samples were washed in three baths totaling one hour and air dried. Using suction, first apply a pipette filled with petroleum ether, a low polarity solvent that solubilizes the lanolin. Then apply acetone with a pipette, a high polarity solvent, to solubilize the neatsfoot oil. Continue alternating these solvents in a 1:1 ratio, changing the blotters regularly, until the oil is visibly reduced. Periodically view the substrate using a ultraviolet light checking for any oil residue. After the oil is reduced, wash the paper in a deionized water buffered to pH 9 with ammonium hydroxide.

The samples were examined under UV and visible light before and after treatment to determine the effectiveness of each treatment. The alternation of a polar and non-polar solvent over a suction table seems to have been an effective way to reduce both suspected components of the stain. The protocol was also tested on an endsheet in a bound book using a suction platen.

Leather dressing stains in books continue to be a common problem faced by book conservators and additional tips and tricks are always useful to have on hand. A great next step for this work would be testing of the impact of the protocol on printing inks.

To read more about the project and about techniques for reducing oil and leather dressing staining on paper, consult the following resources:

“Oil on Paper: A Collaborative Conservation Challenge” by Kristi Wright and Holly Herro: https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2015/06/16/oil-on-paper-a-collaborative-conservation-challenge/

“Treatment Options for Oil Stains on Paper” by Denise Stockman: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v26/bp26-22.pdf

“The Removal of Leather Dressing from Paper” by Brenna Campbell: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v28/bp28-22.pdf

45th Annual Meeting: Lunch Session: BPG Wiki Discussion

At the 2017 AIC Annual Meeting in Chicago, we, Katherine Kelly, Denise Stockman, and Alex Bero, gave an overview of the 2016-2017 developments in the BPG Wiki and sought feedback from an audience of about 60 interested members about how to move forward in 2017-2018. We want to thank the BPG Officers, who made certain that this discussion group had a place in a very busy schedule!

There have been a lot of changes to the BPG Wiki in the past year. We followed through on our promise to increase communication with the BPG membership, and this has led to much greater participation in return. We have a long list of contributors to thank, which we have included at the end of the post.

Reformatting
We undertook a reformatting campaign across the wiki. Standardization is crucial to allowing for the future growth of the Wiki, so we created a template to choose among the many variations of page design. We resolved many issues along the way, such as how to reduce numbering but differentiate between sections, how to include links and references, and how to thank new and old contributors without top-loading the page. The elimination of the original numbered outline format makes it much easier to grow and move information around.

All of the shared BPG pages and all of the Book Conservation pages have been updated in this way. For the pages derived from the original Paper Conservation Catalog, 10 pages have already been reformatted. We are looking for volunteers to re-format 16 other pages. See our Call for Reformatting on the Help Wanted Page.

Annual Tips
The first contributors to the Wiki this year were the Tips presenters in Montreal, who shared images and PDFs from their 2016 presentations. This was a great way to quickly share new techniques. These contributions were available within a month of the Annual Meeting and are now gathered together with Tips from 2013 and 2014. (There were no Tips Sessions in 2015 or 2017.)

Bibliographies
Alex Bero spoke about the activities of the Bibliographies subgroup. A recent priority has been to update the format of bibliographic entries of the wiki, in order to bring them into line with the JAIC Style guide, with a few modifications for the online format.

For 2017-2018, we intend to build a new Guide to Resources page with information on how to get resources that are not freely available online, and on resources that are underutilized.

If you have suggested improvements to any BPG Bibliography, please consider becoming a wiki editor or sending your citations or annotations to alexander.bero@nyu.edu, who will format them and post them on the wiki.

Images Added
It has long been our goal to get more images on the Wiki pages. This year, progress was made on several pages, including the Fiber Identification page. Jennifer McGlinchey Sexton offered us the images she had created for CAMEO, the Conservation & Art Materials Encyclopedia Online, and Xiaoping Cai offered to add them to the Wiki. The result is a much more appealing and useful page.

Adhesives Recipes and Tips
The first call for content this year asked for contributions to Adhesive Recipes and Tips. This is a companion page to Adhesives for Paper, which offers a more in-depth and technical discussion of adhesive properties. With contributions from seven book and paper conservators, Adhesive Recipes and Tips now offers recipes for making methyl cellulose, Klucel G, funori, isinglass, and wheat starch paste in a variety of ways. There is also an annotated bibliography on remoistenable and pre-coated tissues.

Non-Western Bookbindings and Their Conservation
This year’s blockbuster success was a new page on Non-Western Bookbinding Structures and Their Conservation. This topic was identified as one that had very little coverage in the wiki, but that might interest many of conservators. Immediately after the Call for Content, this page took off, and in a month, ten conservators had contributed more than 130 citations on Armenian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Islamic, Palm-Leaf, Thai, and Tibetan manuscript and bookbinding traditions.

In addition to the benefits of many minds coming together to create good content, there were collaborations between well-established and emerging conservators. This type of collaboration can combine deep experience, the perspective of someone new the field, and wiki-editing skills – with excellent results.

Culturally Sensitive Treatment
One of the contributors for the Non-Western Bookbindings page, Marieka Kaye, from the University of Michigan, saw an opportunity for an offshoot page that focuses on the Culturally Sensitive Treatment of book and paper objects. The aim of this page is to discuss the conservation ethics involved in treating materials from a wide variety of cultures and help identify components of those artifacts that should not be lost during treatment. The page currently focuses on East Asian materials, but we hope to expand into other cultures.

Related AIC Wiki Pages
The BPG Wiki is part of the larger AIC Wiki. A long-term goal is to connect BPG pages to those in other Specialty Groups, and to contribute to pages of common interest. These efforts are in the early stages, but there are some good successes to report, including Conservation Supply Sources, Oddy Testing Results, History of Conservation, and the recent ECPN page on Gels, Thickeners, and Viscosity Modifiers.

Discussion
Following the presentation, we asked the audience for feedback on how the Wiki should grow in the coming year.

There were discussions about the appropriateness of moving content around to allow certain topics to grow (for example, iron gall ink might benefit from having its own topic page), removing excessive information, updating out-of-date or inappropriate terminology, improving bibliographies with software like Zotero, and soliciting images.

There was also an enthusiastic debate about how the wiki should deal with outdated treatment techniques. The pages on Alkalization & Neutralization and Bleaching have several examples of treatments that, while accepted practice at the time of their writing, have fallen out of favor (e.g. Diethyl Zinc). It was agreed that outdated techniques should be indicated within the wiki. There was a suggestion from the audience that keeping information on the same topic page was better, ideally in a separate section for historical or superseded techniques. Another audience member stressed the importance of adding a date for when techniques were moved to that section (or when the technique was in common use).

Another audience member pointed out that treatments change and are updated all the time. She recommended a review cycle for pages (perhaps every 10 years) to review the content of a chapter and provide updates.

We are grateful for the thoughtful debate on these issues and feel that this year’s discussion group has provided excellent guidance and direction for the year ahead.

How You Can Help
If you have ideas about how you would like to get involved in the Wiki, please send the Wiki Coordinators an email. You can also look at the page called BPG Help Wanted, where we list topics in need of attention, recent Calls for Content, and ideas for future growth. Please also join the AIC-Wiki listserv as this is the main way that Wiki editors communicate among themselves.

Denise Stockman, Paper Conservation Wiki Coordinator, New York Public Library
Katherine Kelly, Book Conservation Wiki Coordinator, Library of Congress
Alex Bero, Wiki Bibliographies Team, New York University
bookandpapergroup.wiki@gmail.com

2016-2017 BPG Wiki Contributors
Linda Barone
Adrienne Bell
Alex Bero
Rachel Bissonnette
Xiaoping Cai
Susan Cobbledick
Amélie Couvrat Desvergnes
Sue Donovan
Quinn Ferris
Eliza Gilligan
Amy Hughes
Seth Irwin
Marieka Kaye
Katherine Kelly
Yasmeen Khan
Evan Knight
Natasa Krsmanovic
Nora Lockshin
Steven Loew
Terry Marsh
Debora D. Mayer
Laura McCann
Suzy Morgan
Jan Paris
Dan Paterson
Olivia Primanis
Sarah Reidell
Jennifer McGlinchey Sexton
Denise Stockman
Michelle Sullivan
Tina C. Tan
Christina Taylor
Jodie Utter
Yana van Dyke
Aisha Wahab
Stephanie Watkins
Emily Williams
Renée Wolcott

45th Annual Meeting, Electronic Media, June 1, “Establishing a Workflow for the Preservation of Software-Based Artworks.”

Warning: I am a paper conservator who knows her way around a computer, but that doesn’t mean I totally get all of this. We’re starting to consider doing work like this at my home institution, so I thought I’d better see what it was all about. Luckily, there are a lot of pictures of slides, and it was presented in such a way that I just saw it as another case of documentation of an artifact – it just happens to have many moving parts (literally). Oh. And I apologize in advance for the photobombing microphone stand in the slides.

The basic summary is that the Tate collaborated with Klaus Rechert from Freiburg University to develop a workflow, and created a report describing a framework for the use of emulation for preservation of artworks. This was made possible by PERICLES, a European funded project which focuses on evaluating and representing the risks for long-term digital conservation of digital resources. As part of that collaboration we then tested that approach in a workshop with the participation of Dragan Espenschied of Rhizome on works from the Tate’s collection. One of those artworks was “Subtitled Public” by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer (T12565).

The emulation challenge with “Subtitled Public” (2005) was that it involved electronic and live components in addition to the operation of cameras. Good news is this is one artwork that was deeply documented, so it was a good test case for developing a workflow. Below is the extent of the documentation (BTW the computers were Mac Minis):

Selecting Preservation Strategies: These are the Essential Steps, which are complimentary:

Note on artwork’s significant properties: one of the elements of the artwork is projecting words on people. The entire artwork would need to be reinstalled in order to compare completely and properly.

Note on resources, sustainability, and application: how many artworks can you support? You need to think about the collection as a whole; resources, sustainability, and application for the long term.

Defining boundaries will help you identify commonalities among artworks, which can help with prioritization and creating systems that will work for multiple artworks.

In the emulation environment, you have the artwork itself as a digital artifact. This does not change over time and can one of any huge number of different objects. The computer system are a rather small number of different hardware environments, but they require constant replacement.

In between is the most interesting work to approach the problem: keeping the operating system monitored and functional. If the OS is interfering with artwork directly, monitor and maintain technical interfaces (OS and CS – hardware environment).

So why do it this way? Scalability!

Making emulation approachable is the ultimate goal.

Image disk and normalize it. Make it work in an emulator. Unify hardware configuration. Disk controller issues may appear if moved to different emulator.
Generalize disk image otherwise you’ll get the blue screen of death. Goals: All images share the same technological risks.
Yay! It works! Changed a layer on top to original image to get it to work, but the original image was untouched.

EaaS: automate image ingest of disk image. Select matching machine template. Automatic check of hardware configuration of operating system.

The proposed workflow is reversible and recyclable. One can try different ways and every revision can be forked.

The operating and computer systems are not specific to the work itself. Emulation can be considered since the digital artifacts and the hardware are not tied to the artwork itself.

Unfortunately, the entire installation couldn’t be completed, so further testing needed for this artwork. But now they understand the process, and disk images are captured and archived.

45th Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, “Less is More/Recapturing the Subtleties” by Adam Novak

For the first BPG Session of a treatment-themed AIC Conference this year, Adam Novak, a paper conservator at Daria K. Conservation, LLC in New York gave his presentation on a topic that is very important but not often discussed in the field: using one’s senses to determine the appropriate treatment for an item. With a multitude of treatment options available, the conservator is (ideally) able to control the outcome and intensity of the treatment by understanding the effects of time, moisture, conductivity, and expansion on the item. Adam referred to the thorough research and presentation at last year’s AIC meeting by Amy Hughes and Michelle Sullivan on minimally invasive treatments using gels as an example of how the conservator can control the treatment.

The primary concern in conservation is obviously the effectiveness of a treatment, but the possible repercussions of the treatment on an object in the future is a concern. Adam spoke of how every treatment carries with it both risks and benefits, and as conservators we can control how invasive (and how effective) we would like a treatment to be. Drawing from conservation’s relatively short past, it is apparent that reversibility is key and often “less is more.” The less invasive the treatment, the better the longevity for the object. This is of course balanced with the efficacy of the treatment as well, which Adam mentioned.

Adam gave a few examples of different paper treatments involving different kinds of media in excellent detail, describing how he approached each object with the idea that one’s “senses are as important as the science.” Which is to say, if you can detect the subtleties of the paper surface, quality of the ink, etc. then you are more able to control your treatment in such a way to retain the integrity of the work. Ideally, if the conservator is honed in on the subtleties of the item being treated, then the overall outcome of the treatment will have little trace of invasion. This quote was integral to the message of the presentation, and appeared twice(!):

As the treatment “toolbox” grows and changes moving in to the future, taking a closer look at qualities of an item to be retained after its treatment and cleaning will become more important and certainly more achievable.

45th Annual Meeting- Paintings Specialty Session, June 1, 2017- “Mapping a Way Forward: Bringing an artwork back from self-destruction, by Per Knutås and Samantha Springer”

Confession time. Having done my third-year intern in the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA), I was already familiar with the artwork and treatment involved in this presentation. The first time I heard about it, I was shocked, then curious, then awed. The complexity of the problem and solution never ceases to impress me and make me question my previous opinion, a feeling familiar to those who specialize in the conservation of modern and contemporary art.

*Mapa estelar en árbol*. Image courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Per Knutås, Paintings Conservator and Chief Conservator at the CMA, and Samantha Springer, Conservator at the Portland Art Museum and former Objects Conservator at the CMA, gave a joint presentation on the issues and treatment process of Gabriel Orozco’s Mapa estelar en árbol (Stellar Map in Tree). Their presentation was a drastic change of pace from the previous two lectures that dealt with 15^th-16^th century European altarpieces (the Ayala and the Monopoli altarpieces), both of which coincidentally had problems with the formation of insoluble oxalates on the surface (a possible topic for a future symposium?). Although a three-dimensional object, the thought here was to look at Mapa estelar en árbol as a modern panel painting which is how the artist conceived the piece. The treatment crossed traditional conservation specialty boundaries and required collaboration between conservators and the artist.

The artwork

Mapa estelar en árbol is a 30-40 cm thick cross-section of a salvaged mango tree trunk, 70 cm in diameter. Mexican artist Gabriel Orozco wanted to resurrect the tradition of panel painting and used the tree trunk as a modern and unconventional panel. He prepared the end-grain surface in the classical manner by covering it with fabric and layers of gesso. The geometric sgraffito design was created by applying graphite all over the gesso and then incising into it with a compass, another tool that has fallen out of use. The back (other end-grain surface) was sealed with a waxy material. The work debuted at the Kurimanzutto Gallery in Mexico City in 2009. A CMA curator bought the work on opening night.

Detail of the damaged surface. Image courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

The problem

Mapa estelar en árbol arrived to the CMA months after its debut in Mexico City. The work had already developed hairline cracks and delamination in that short amount of time. It was unexhibitable within a year. The wood had shrunk with changes in RH, the canvas buckled, and the gesso/graphite layers were severely cracked and lifting from the surface. No conservation treatment, however extraordinaire, would be able to mask the damage and restore the pristine surface. It would leave a scarred surface and the viewer would only see the hand of the conservator. From the CMA’s point of view, the piece was dead.

The meeting

Hoping to get a replacement or get the work re-made, the CMA team got in contact with the gallery and the piece was sent back to Mexico City to be examined by the artist and his team. The Mexico City meeting included Per Knutås, Reto Thüring (Curator of Contemporary Art at the CMA), Gabriel Orozco, his fabricator (who also happens to be a conservator), and the Kurimanzutto Gallery. While the artist initially said he didn’t mind the changes as they spoke to history of the piece, he then suggested his fabricator/ conservator carry out a restoration treatment to fix it. The CMA reserved the right to reject the restored work if the appearance didn’t meet their standards and expectations as this was an option they had previously discussed and rejected in-house. After a failed attempt by the Mexico City fabricator/ conservator, a new arrangement was reached.

The Solution

Refusing to have the work remade in the same way as the original, the CMA staff proposed the addition of a new layer to the original stratigraphy: an inert substrate that would serve as an interleaf of sorts between the dimensionally unstable wood and the fabric. After several rounds of mock-ups and testing back in the Conservation Department at the CMA using green cuts of Mulberry trees (no mango trees to be found in Cleveland) to mimic the original, they settled on the use of a stainless-steel plate that would be adhered to the wood with a custom-made silicone adhesive that could be flexible enough to move with the wood. The canvas would be wrapped around the stainless steel and adhered with BEVA Film. Per traveled to Mexico City where he adhered the canvas-wrapped stainless-steel plate to the original tree trunk. Gabriel Orozco and his team completed the rest of the recreation.

Samantha Springer doing materials testing. Image courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Per Knutås in the artist’s studio adhering the fabric to the stainless-steel plate with BEVA Film. Image courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Conclusion

*Mapa estelar en* *árbol* as it is currently displayed in the CMA galleries. Image courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

The second iteration of Mapa estelar en árbol returned to the CMA months later, where it was left under watch in the Conservation Department for several months (this is when I first met the piece). The new inert layer worked perfectly and no changes or damages have since been observed on the piece, which is now happily displayed in the Modern and Contemporary galleries. The original creation date was kept as they deemed it to be too confusing to list a new intervention date. Also, the artist created another version of this piece (now in a private collection), and he wanted both to be a pair with the same dates.

While the artist retained the traditional conceptual role, this treatment put the conservators in the unusual role of producers driving the process and pushing ethical boundaries. Most would question if it even is the same work of art. Many in the audience struggled to come to terms with it. The Q&A session was dominated by questions on whether they tried to do any consolidation or transfer techniques before deciding to scratch the original surface. An audience member brought up an interesting point. Where Per and Samantha acting as conservators or collaborators? They were not using their technical information as conservators. They were collaborators and technical resources for the artist and as such, the ethics of our profession didn’t apply. This was one of the longest Q&A sessions I have been in, a clear sign that the presentation provided much food for thought.