AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st “ Contemporary Sculpture; To Contact the Artist or Not” by Rose Cull

I had really been looking forward to this presentation, especially as there were two WAG session presentations on the same topic, and Rose did not disappoint.
Rose began her presentation with some solid background information and began by defining contemporary art as being created by living artists, meaning I believe that the artist and viewer (and in this case the conservator) are both living at the time the art is being viewed. She also reminded the audience that the creation of art has changed from a means of expression based on a solid craft background to a means of expression where issues of stability or longevity may be of little or no concern. As the inherent instability of much contemporary art requires intervention to maintain some degree of the artist’s original intent over time, this lead to a short overview of the Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA) of 1990. The Act grants the moral right of artists to protect their works from derogatory treatment that may be prejudicial to the artist’s honor, reputation, or economic interests. (apologies for a very compressed overview of the Act which may be viewed in it’s entirety on the web). Rose made a point of noting that under VARA an artist cannot claim conservation as a “destruction, distortion, or mutilation of their work unless it is performed with gross negligence”.
Through her past experience in interviewing various museum related stakeholders she made one other important point. A work of art represents a specific point in an artist’s development or career. Although one may communicate with a contemporary artist and ask those questions that seem most vital to know about a specific work, the artist may have moved on, changed his or her working methods and lost or forgotten the inspiration for a past project. An artist may not view a completed work from their past with the same interest or perception as when the work was fresh, and in fact might create the same work quite differently today.
With the background information clearly presented, Rose offered two case studies, one with a sculpture by Louise Nevelson, and one by Cornelia Parker.
With the Louise Nevelson sculpture, Rose read Nevelson’s autobiography, researched her materials, looked at other works, and contacted the Nevelson Foundation. The Foundation is run by Maria Nevelson, Louise’s granddaughter, and Maria contacted Rose directly, offering enthusiasm and support by sending along a list of conservators known to have treated other Nevelson works. Armed with knowledge, support, and the consultation of fellow conservators Rose was able to address the issues and complete the treatment to everyone’s satisfaction.
The Cornelia Parker treatment was a bit more complicated, beginning with the fact that it was created from charred wood collected from a church that had been struck by lightening and burned. In this case she did not contact the artist. Although the reasons for treatment were rather mundane, an accumulation of airborne dust was beginning to distract from the presentation, the questions and answers might have lead to complications (I am paraphrasing here). In the end Rose created a system of careful and effective non-contact “dusting” effectively minimizing intervention.
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the presentation was the limited time left for questions, with only enough time to register the opposing views from the audience that 1. artists and Foundations were often impossible to work with, and 2. times have changed and artists and Foundations are much more receptive. Wish that could have been batted about for another hour!

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Book and Paper Session, June 1, "Tips Session: Contemporary Treatment Tips and Techniques" by Moderator Sarah Reidell

This year’s Book and Paper Group tips session was truly impressive. The whole session was jam-packed with helpful hints and I found myself in frantic note taking mode, trying to record all of the great advice. In just over an hour, eleven “tippers” presented an array of useful descriptions of experiences, treatment methods, housing projects, and emergency preparedness information. Everyone had great visuals with photos and diagrams, physical examples to examine, and even take-away samples.
Several tips had emergency preparedness and response in mind. First, we learned of Laura McCann’s experience with the flooding in NYC as a result of Hurricane Sandy. When the East River overflowed and completely submerged a medical library’s records storage, the materials were not accessible for weeks! The importance of prior planning was highlighted. When power is lacking, it is extremely useful to have headlamps and absolutely necessary to have your emergency plans accessible at home. Consideration of priority collections, BEFORE the stress of an emergency situation, was emphasized. Those in attendance were able to collect a sample of a TEK wipe, which is absorbent and reusable. Also on the topic of emergencies, Emily Rainwater explained how Karen Pavelka tested the effectiveness of polypropylene fiber pads for absorbing oil, a common contaminant in flood water. These pads attract oil, but repel water. Finally, Roberta Woodrick showed us how to creatively use hairpins to attach Colorplast awnings as a shield for library shelving in areas with recurring leaks.  She had also built a mobile humidity chamber of ¼”acrylic sheet and furniture movers with wheels, in order to humidify large architectural drawings.
There was a presentation on lead white reversion by Amy Hughes, which lead to some interesting commentary and discussion of the mixed results several conservators had experienced when trying to reduce the discoloration of lead white pigments. As might be expected of an oxidation-reduction reaction, hydrogen peroxide treatment to improve discolored lead pigment may be temporary. There was suggestion that inpainting over discolored lead white is a viable option that should be considered. In any case, it seems important that conservators communicate the reactivity of lead white to clients and curators to warn of possible changes after treatment.
For reducing mineral deposits on paper, Karen Dabney demonstrated how “huffing” into a beaker of deionized water produced an effective solution of carbonic acid (pH 4).  Her before and after images revealed just how effective this could be, but be careful not to hyperventilate if you try this yourself!
Judy Walsh was not present, but she created some impressive diagrams of a method of creating a cheap and effective suction disk for treating individual book pages, while still bound.
Renate Mesmer provided some examples of neatly engineered storage enclosures for a hanging wax seal and a sliding tray for a vellum manuscript broken in half, inspired by the mechanics of a pop-up book. She also had a video of how a hot air gun can magically correct errors in folds and angles when making book exhibit supports of Vivak (clear thermoplastic sheet of polyethylene terephthalate).  http://www.professionalplastics.com/VIVAKPETGSHEET
These were some, but not all, of the tips we heard this year from BPG members.  Thanks to all of the tips contributors; Shelly Smith, Beth Doyle, Renate Mesmer, Karen Dabney, Deborah Rohan, Judy Walsh, Jamye Jamison, Karen Pavelka, Roberta Woodrick, Amy Hughes, and Laura McCann, and many thanks to Sarah Reidell for moderating.
Look for these tips and more, to be published in the next BPG Annual.

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, “Bon Appétit? Plastics in Julia Child’s Kitchen” by Mary Coughlin

AIC_photo
I wonder what Julia would think about the current state of her kitchenware?  In Mary Coughlin’s talk, “Bon Appétit? Plastics in Julia Child’s Kitchen,” Mary discussed issues she and her Museum Studies class faced while inside the Julia Child Kitchen exhibition at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH).  Mary is an objects conservator and professor at George Washington University.  Her class carried out a condition survey of the exhibition as it transitioned from its original installation into part of the new FOOD: Transforming the American Table, 1950-2000 exhibition.
The kitchen was originally located in Julia Child’s Cambridge, Massachusetts home from 1961 to 2001 and was the setting of her last three television shows.  When Julia donated it to NMAH, the museum accessioned over 1,200 objects, ranging from spatulas to a Rubik’s Cube.  The kitchen was installed in the museum as Bon Appétit! Julia Child’s Kitchen, a temporary exhibition that was probably only meant to be on display for less than one year.  But as is often the case with well-loved exhibitions, it ended up being on display for a decade.
Mary’s class worked within the exhibition, actually in Julia’s kitchen on view to the public, as they carried out the condition survey.  It seems as though many of the museum visitors also wished to step inside the kitchen, as Mary humorously noted that they often heard the thud of visitors walking into the glass partitions.  In an effort to provide outreach to the public, a curator was posted outside the kitchen to discuss the project with visitors.  In addition, the students wrote blog posts about their experiences which can be viewed on the NMAH’s blog “O Say Can You See?” (For example, see one student’s post here).
After the condition survey, the class made recommendations for ways to incorporate preventive conservation into the new exhibition.  Two of the main problems encountered in the old exhibition were dust and degraded plastics.  The old exhibition did not have a ceiling, and the vents above the kitchen created a significant dust problem.  This issue was particularly problematic considering that many of the plastics within the kitchen are oozing and sticky.  The new installation is sealed on the top, and during Mary’s evaluation of the new exhibition six months later, she found a significant decrease in dust accumulation.  One problem area was a large gap around one of the glass door covers, but it has since been gasketed to create a better seal.
Mary’s class also found evidence of fading and discoloration in plastics.  For instance, the top surfaces of a set of rubber kitchen gloves had turned black, while the undersides remained blue. Mary placed mylar barriers underneath and between problematic plastics to prevent sticking and oozing on surrounding objects.  And when the gloves were reinstalled in the new exhibition, the top glove was flipped in order to display the blue side, following the request of the curator.
Mary mentioned the curator’s desire for authenticity within the exhibition and that they wished to have all the original objects on display within the kitchen.  While Mary’s class found evidence of plastic degradation, the museum continues to display the degrading plastics in a relatively similar environment as the previous exhibition (although the HVAC system is improved and dust is being mitigated.  She also noted that the degrading objects were not causing damage to other objects).  Mary’s talk raised questions that many museums and conservators must face, such as authenticity versus preservation?  Does displaying original degraded objects or surrogate objects in good condition change the meaning or importance of the work?   The answers to these questions may also be different within the context of a history museum as opposed to an art museum.
As I viewed images of oozing spatulas that are not dissimilar to those sold today, one of the questions I had (but didn’t get a chance to ask Mary) is whether there was any discussion with the curators about purchasing surrogate objects either to be displayed now or in the future?  Maybe similar objects could be purchased now, while they are still readily available, and stored in more optimal conditions (dark, cold storage?) to be displayed later if needed.
I can’t help but wonder, what will the plastics in the exhibition look like in another ten years?  And what would Julia Child think?  Bon Appétit?

AIC's 41st Annual Meeting- Art on Paper Discussion Group

The inaugural meeting for this group took place on May 31, 2013 at the AIC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, ID.  Organized by Nancy Ash, Scott Homolka, Stephanie Lussier and Eliza Spaulding, the session presented the Draft Guidelines for Descriptive Terminology for Works of Art on Paper which is a project under way at the Philadelphia Museum of Art and supported by an IMLS 21st Century Museum Professionals Grant.
Continue reading “AIC's 41st Annual Meeting- Art on Paper Discussion Group”

41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30 – Three Decades Later: A Status Report on the Silver Lacquering Program at Winterthur by Bruno Pouliot, Catherine Matsen, Jennifer Mass, William Donnelly, Kaitlin Andrews, & Margaret Bearden

For me, this presentation was one of the high points of the conference – a thoughtful re-examination of a typically undertaken protocol.
The Winterthur Museum  collection of silver numbers around 11,600 and over 2,000 of those pieces are on display in period rooms and galleries at the museum. Indeed, as characterized by Bruno Poliot, this is a massive task. To reduce wear and handling, silversmith and then conservator Don Heller began a program of cleaning then coating silver in 1974.  After a period of experimentation, Don chose to use Agateen Air Dry Lacquer #27, a cellulose nitrate, for coating, suggesting that it should be replaced every 10 years but could last up to 28 years in a museum environment with careful handling. Over 1000 silver objects were thus treated between 1982-1987. While the conservators at Winterthur experimented other coating materials, including Acryloid B-72 and Acryloid B-48N in the decade that followed, research undertaken by conservation scientist Chandra Reedy and others, presented in the OSG Specialty Group at the 1999 AIC annual meeting,  indicated that cellulose nitrate prevented tarnish better than acrylic resins, and Agateen #27 became the only lacquer used for silver at Winterthur from 1997 onward.
In 2009, the collection on display was surveyed systematically to assess the condition of the lacquer coatings. They found that:

  • the lacquer on 42% of the objects had moderate to major problems and would require cleaning and re-lacquering
  • condition of the coating did not directly correlate with age, method of application, or composition of the silver alloy
  • condition of the coating did correlation with how well the lacquer was applied and the complexity of the object’s surface
  • the degree to which the coating had yellowed was difficult to assess, but it was found along with tarnish

In 2011, the museum received a 2 year grant from IMLS for a re-lacquering project. The objects to be treated were grouped into one of three categories:

  • objects treated in 1985 or earlier,
  • those with coatings which were defective or otherwise failing,
  • objects which had never been lacquered before. These were often complex.

Procedures for re-treatment were standardized in order to reduce the amount of application defects. Two conservation assistants were hired for the project, and they underwent a two month training program, working on simpler objects before moving on to more complex ones. Bruno did go into a fair amount of detail about the treatment procedures, and I’m sure his paper will also explore those in greater depth than I will here. One key feature of their procedure is examination one hour and then again 24 hours after application of the lacquer to look for imperfections and iridescence, which would indicate that the coating is too thin. Then a final examination of groups of objects is undertaken 2-3 weeks after the lacquer has been applied to ensure that all solvent has evaporated out of the film and to ensure that the coating is free of defects. Touch-ups to the coating can then still be done, and this period allows enough time for the solvent to completely evaporate, ensuring that it is safe to return them to display.
The team also investigated how Agateen #27 ages, looking both at objects coated with the lacquer in Winterthur’s collection as well as from the collections of two individuals who kept their pieces in home environments. The coatings on the pieces from the private collections exhibited a particular pinkish-brown discoloration, not found on any of the museum pieces. Though analysis of degraded coatings with FTIR and XRF and SEM-EDS provided information about the breakdown of the nitrocellulose polymer and elements found within the degraded films, it was the results of  Time of Flight-Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (TOF-SIMS), used to further characterize corrosion within degraded nitrocellulose films, that provided some unexpected results.
In TOF-SIMS, a high energy primary ion beam bombards a sample to ionize molecules on the sample surface. These ionized molecules are then characterized using mass spectroscopy. Looking at the lacquer films from the silver from the private collections, silver sulfide, silver oxides, silver chloride, silver sulfate, sulfate anion and silver cyanide were identified. Except for silver cyanide, all of these corrosion products were also identified in tarnish and corrosion products on uncoated silver.
Bruno pointed out that silver cyanide ranges in appearance from colorless to grey-white in color but could result in the pink-brown color noted in the lacquered objects if mixed with cuprite, which is another corrosion product found on silver objects due to a low copper content. They will next determine whether silver cyanide remains on the silver once the degraded lacquer has been removed and whether this corrosion product is detrimental to the silver.
This pink-brown discoloration was the topic of discussion following the talk. One conservator noted that she had also encountered this condition on lacquered silver from a private collection, and that the condition re-occurred within a few months following re-treatment. She mentioned that Agate, the company which produces Agateen, suggested that this might be a result of exposure to direct sunlight. Another conservator suggested that one potential source of cyanide might be a dip that was used in the past to plate or clean the silver, and that these dips may form complexes on the silver surface which may affect or react with a lacquer treatment. We need to look at how a past procedure may affect a current treatment.
Bruno concluded his presentations with a list of recommendations based on the 550 silver objects completed, and as the team at Winterthur contemplates re-lacquering 500 more pieces in 2015.

  • The condition of nitrocellulose coatings on complex silver objects should be re-assessed every 5-10 years, given their finding that the majority of the coatings on complex silver objects failed within a 10-15 year time frame.
  • When considering application of cellulose nitrate lacquers on silver, resources and time to maintain a silver lacquering program need to be considered as the time needed to remove and replace a cellulose nitrate lacquer is significant.
  • Research into how degraded nitrocellulose lacquer affects silver needs to continue, as does finding alternative options for protecting silver against tarnish.

 

41st Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session – June 1st – “The Role of the Technical Narrative for Preserving New Media Art” by Mark Hellar

Mark Hellar used the example of the website artwork “Agent Ruby“, acquired by SFMoMA in 2008, and how the use of a technical narrative has helped with the continued preservation of this evolving work of art.
The “Agent Ruby” work was interactive, so it required many components that worked together.  The technical narrative had 4 parts:
1.  A high level functional description of the artwork
2.  Modular examination of components and how they work as a system
3. Detailed description of the artwork as it exists on acquisition, and how the components serve the operation.
4.  Analysis of current technology and longevity
“Agent Ruby” is an avatar made up of 22,000 entries that create Ruby’s personality.  Visitors interact with Ruby online in a chat setting. The archive of the work from 2001-2009 of visitor interactions was an 80 GB text file. There were some non-essential components that were archived like the original interface and a 3-D model and Hellar discussed how these types of artworks have many components and how the obsolescence of one component (like Flash which is now unsupported on an iPhone) will require creative solutions to allow the work to continue to function.
A migration plan was discussed with the artist, and it was interesting to note that the artist did not want the AIML Interpreter to be updated, even though when Ruby is asked “Who is the President of the United States” she answers “George Bush” the artist said about this, “Ruby will learn”.
 

41st Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session – June 1st – "A hands-off approach to controlling media-based artworks" by Brad Dilger and Richard McCoy

Brad Dilger showed how the IMA has transitioned from manually controlling all media-based artworks (meaning that someone had to physically turn on every artwork at the power source each day) to the current system that can be controlled remotely. He walked us through the process of choosing different systems, the museum began using a server which crashed when devices were added or taken away and a programmer had to redo the whole system each time which was expensive.  The second version of the system was a stable integrated control system, they had 3 manufacturers to choose between: Cresteron, Exteron, and AMX.  Exteron was the only system that had an open source, free configuration and wouldn’t require a certified technician for maintenance.  The Exteron processor was made to function as a network or a stand alone device with serial communication and/or a remote power control unit (RPC) power strip.
The Exteron setup has a software configuration is straightforward to use, and the user can set up a schedule, and set notifications by e-mail, for example, for projectors it is possible to set up an e-mail notification when the lamp bulb nears 2,000 hours so the bulb can be changed. The system prevents circuits from overloading if the artwork requires a high draw (13 amps).
He showed 2 case studies: Julianne Swartz’s 2008 “Terrain” and Will Lamson’s 2010 “A line describing the sun” and how those two works functioned using the Exteron system.  The presentation offered many solutions to the issues surrounding the display and maintenance of electronic artworks.

41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, "Conservation and Encasement: 1297 Magna Carta" by Morgan Zinsmeister and Terry Boone

In 2011, senior conservators Morgan Zinsmeister and Terry Boone of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), thoroughly documented, conserved, and encased a copy of Magna Carta that dates to 1297.  During his presentation at AIC’s 41st Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Zinsmeister recounted the project.  His presentation, which I’ve summarized in this post, beautifully illustrated the measures taken by NARA conservators to preserve documents and artifacts so essential to the history of our nation.
First drafted by a gang of rebellious barons in 1215, Magna Carta asserted the individual and property rights of its authors in opposition to the tyranny of King John of England (1166-1216).  This document also addressed the fundamental principles of majority rule and due process that would prove essential to later charters.  Magna Carta served as a precedent to the British Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Constitution.

Magna Carta Front 1297 Old Military and Civil Records
Magna Carta, 1297 after treatment

Between 1216 and 1297, Magna Carta was reissued four times and copied many more.  Today, 17 extant copies are known: 15 in the United Kingdom, one in Australia, and one in the United States, that is the copy conserved and exhibited at NARA courtesy of its current owner, David M. Rubenstein.
Magna Carta, 1297 is written Latin with iron gall ink and metal-point ruling on parchment.  A sur double queue wax seal with parchment tag served as a closure.  When the document was removed from its previous encasement–an anoxic acrylic case designed by Dr. Nathan Stolow at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin–it was closely monitored for change as parchment is extremely sensitive to moisture and fluctuations in relative humidity.  Once removed, Magna Carta was examined closely and its condition documented.  It was during this examination period that conservators made the happy discovery that a portion of the text previously obliterated by water damage was made legible again through photography using ultraviolet radiation.  To learn more about this discovery, see a past blog post by AIC’s own E-editor Rachael Perkins Arenstein.
Following thorough examination and documentation, a three-step treatment was devised that included removal of previous mends, reduction of adhesive residues, and humidification and flattening of the document in preparation for re-encasement.  Magna Carta was first selectively surface cleaned.  Next, adhesive residues were carefully reduced, old repairs removed, and acrylic-toned, handmade kozo (long-fibered mulberry paper) used to create new fills and repair tears.  Prior to humidification and flattening, transparent polyester film was used to make outline tracings of Magna Carta to document any dimensional changes that might occur during treatment.  Humidification was carried out using the damp-pack method and the document was dried under tension for several months to allow the moisture content of the parchment to reach equilibrium.
The tight environmental control required to preserve Magna Carta lead NARA staff to partner with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in designing the new encasement.  Together, NARA and NIST developed an anoxic (without oxygen) display that inhibits oxidative degradation to preserve the document as long as possible.  A perfect collaboration!

encasement-m
Installation of Magna Carta, 1297 in its new encasement at NARA

To create the new encasement, NARA drew upon past experiences housing important documents and applied lessons learned from encasement of the Charters of Freedom: the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.  Magna Carta was scanned and its exact profile obtained to produce a custom support that would eliminate any strain to the document and protect it from damaging vibrations.  A special paper with high alpha-cellulose content created by Timothy Barrett was used as a barrier between the document and the encasement’s metal support.  Ultimately, this paper serves two functions: it works as a buffer to help maintain the desired relative humidity within the encasement and as a sort of non-invasive optical brightener.  The whiteness of the paper barrier combined with the parchment’s translucency actually caused the document appear more luminous!  Polyester film tabs with rounded edges hold the document in place.  The encasement is fitted with o-rings to create a tight seal and a leak-detection system.  Once sealed, the air trapped inside the case was flushed out using the inert, humidified argon gas to create an oxygen-free environment.
In March 2012, Magna Carta, 1297 was re-installed in NARA’s West Rotunda where it remains on view.  When we take a moment to reflect upon the important role that historic documents like Magna Carta play in telling the story of a nation, their preservation becomes unquestionable and the essential nature of the conservator’s work is underscored.  Thanks to the amazing work of NARA conservators Morgan Zinsmeister and Terry Boone, their collaborators at NIST, and David M. Rubenstein who brought the document to NARA and underwrote its treatment and encasement, the Magna Carta will be preserved for the education and enjoyment of many generations of visitors to come.
To learn more about the exciting story of Magna Carta’s preservation, visit NARA’s website or YouTube channel to view videos on the treatment and the encasement.

41st Annual Meeting – Joint Textiles and Wooden Artifacts Session, June 1, “Challenges and Compromise: Preserving the Miller House Textiles, by Kathleen Kiefer”

Kathleen Kiefer, who was until recently Senior Conservator of Textiles at the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA), gave the final talk of the joint Textiles and Wooden Artifacts session on upholstery. The talk, “Challenges and Compromise: Preserving the Miller House Textiles,” was written with IMA Director of Historic Resources, Bradley Brooks, and IMA Scholar in Textile Conservation, Wendy Richards, was a fitting end both to the session and to Kathleen’s time with IMA, as it brought together many strands of conservation, preservation, and presentation.
The Miller House in Columbus, IN was designed in 1957 by Eero Saarinen and Alexander Girard (who did the interiors) for J. Irwin Miller and his family. Mrs. Miller lived in the house until her death in 2008. In 2009 the house was acquired by the IMA. IMA administration decided that the house should be opened to the public by 2011, which gave the conservation/curatorial team a huge challenge.
Kathleen reviewed the design of the house, showing how the architects (and landscape architect Dan Kiley) connected the interior, exterior and landscape design, partly through the use of natural light through large windows and skylights. She pointed out, of particular interest to this audience, that the house is believed to have the first designed conversation pit. She also talked about how Girard’s fondness for textiles and folk art were an important part of the design of the house.
The IMA team began by deciding on their conservation philosophy for the house. Should they interpret it to 1957? Would it be better to interpret it as it exists today? In part because of the limited time in which to prepare the house for the public, they decided to show it as it is today, taking a conservative approach and not doing anything irreversible. Kathleen noted that the public seems pleased with this approach. She mentioned one scholar who said he was pleased to see original, if worn, Eames chairs, because if he wanted to see new ones, he could go to a Herman Miller showroom!
Among the issues they have addressed so far are access and light levels. Public access, in the broadest sense, was an issue for the surrounding community, as the house is in a neighborhood. The neighbors did not want an increase in traffic and parking problems. As a result, all tours of the house begin from the town’s Visitor Center; visitors are taken by small buses to the house. On the more local level, the IMA team decided to create a “tour path” through the house, using new runners. They chose a light color for the runners and created some wider areas as “gathering areas,” where visitors would stand to look and listen to the docent. In a creative, but extremely practical way, they used craft paper to make mock ups of where the runners would go and how they would be sized.
To reduce light levels, they have added uv-filtering and light-reducing film to the windows. They have begun to monitor the environment using PEM dataloggers.
Before the house went to the IMA, the Miller family took or sold some of the furnishings and sold the art work. Thus, the house was somewhat bare when it was acquired. To rectify this, IMA has been purchasing similar pieces.
On the other hand, the family did leave quite a few pieces that they had no longer been using in the garage/barn. Kathleen described a project in which they removed carpets from the barn, documented and accessioned them, vacuumed them, and re-rolled them properly. For the time being, they had to return these pieces to the barn, but are working to find a better long term solution for their storage.
IMA Textile Conservation Scholar Wendy Richards has worked as a woven fabric designer and weaver. As part of her work, she produced graphs of the weave structures of some of the fabrics. She also helped with commissioning some reproduction carpets from Edward Field. This aspect of the project was particularly intriguing to me.
Many in the audience had been to the Miller House as part of the AIC tour to Columbus earlier in the week. I was not among them and, after hearing and seeing this talk, regret that I was not. I will look forward to learning more about how IMA preserves and interprets this house, as well as to seeing how this work relates to preservation/interpretation work being done on other modern houses, such as the Eames House in Los Angeles.

41st Annual Meeting, Textile and Wooden Artifacts Session, June 1. "Treatment of a Suite of Baroque Revival Style Seating Furniture by Genevieve Bienisoek, Biltmore

There’s a growing body of publications which detail the features of well-provenanced period upholstery. Such case studies are extraordinarily important for comparison when one is examining upholstery layers on historic seating furniture. In this presentation, Genivieve Bienisoek walked us through her examination and treatment, working together with Anne Battram and Nancy Rosebrock, of a chair and settee from a suite of 12 chairs and 2 settees.
This was one of a number suites which were purchased or produced to furnish Biltmore, a 250 room house built by George Washington Vanderbilt III, completed 1895, and opened to the public in 1930. The pieces in this group of seating are ornately carved, in the style of  Italian sculptor Andrea Brustolon (1662-1732), and covered with an embossed velvet, referred to as gauffrage. This particular fabric has a linen ground with a wool pile, and was fairly coarsely woven. The design in the velvet was created with a hot roller pressed into the nap. Apparently this was a popular pattern which was once quite common and produced in France, Great Britain and the United States by a number of companies. Though the fabric had originally been bright gold in color, it looked grey-green due to fading and color shift. Genivieve took note of a second fabric – an unstamped wool plush which was used in less visible places, such as under the arms. This fabric was also gold in color but had a thicker pile and a tighter weave. Both fabrics appeared to have been used originally on the chair and settee as no extra nail holes were noted during de-upholstery of the seating furniture.
More than half of this suite had been re-upholstered in 1976, according to the records, when they were placed in Biltmore’s Music Room.  One chair has been left untreated for future reference and research.The aim of this treatment was to return the chair and settee to return them to a nearly new appearance.
Genevieve also made mention of some other features of the chair and settee. Removable pieces of the chair were held with spring clips and slots and screws. The entire back panel of the settee is removable, held in place with turn buckles. The mortises for the arms were slightly larger than necessary to allow for shimming to adjust the level of the ams, ensuring they were horizontal.
After documenting the various upholstery layers and fasteners, she used chalk to track where nails had been removed, and compared it to the show cover, to ensure there had been no empty nail holes. She filled flight holes and other losses in the frames, and inpainted scratches. Re-using existing tack holes, a new linen layer was applied over the exposed original upholstery layers, to a act as an isolating layer against the new show cover and to act as a sewing base.
To ensure that new holes won’t need to be added in future campaigns, she added staples around the spring clip plate to provide a stronger means of attachment of this linen cover. Future campaigns are sure to happen sooner than they might otherwise since Biltmore has no climate control and it is not uncommon for windows to be opened in the house. Everything gets handled and cleaned regularly.
Polyester batting was added to the front of the seat to re-establish the proper shape.
The reproduction show cover was woven by the French firm Prelle. They had the pattern for the gauffrage in their archive. On seeing the reproduction fabric, Genvienve noted that there are actually three levels of stamping in the fabric, adding detail and depth to the design. These details were also in the original fabric, but were difficult to see because of the dirt.
The show cover was stitched to the linen isolating layer with curved needles. Though the trim was originally applied with hide glue, Genievieve used a hot melt adhesive to adhere the reproduction trim, obtained from Heritage Trimmings in the United Kingdom.
If you’re like me, you’re looking forward to the published version of this presentation, which, I’m sure, will be complete with images of the hardware and schematics of the various upholstery layers.