Specialty Sessions – Page 34 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

41st Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 29, "Flip, Flap, and Crack: The Conservation of 400 Years of Anatomical Flap Books by Meg Brown”

Meg Brown gave an engaging talk about a 2011 exhibition at Duke University that showcased the flap anatomies in their collection.
Though there is no standardized terminology for these works (“moveable books”, “anatomical atlases” and “fugitive sheets” numbering among their aliases), Meg defined flap anatomies as “paper based, printed images with more than one layer illustrating an aspect of human anatomy” for the purposes of her talk. She discussed the history of flap anatomies, spoke to the common conservation problems of these unique materials, and gave tips on exhibiting them.
**I have included images of some of the works Meg spoke about (or similar works). I will give the same warning that she did – many of these images depict the naked human form. If that is not something you wish to see, do not keep reading**
Flap anatomies began in the 16th century, and were primarily printed in Germany. It is thought that they were used by barbers and surgeons as reference guides, for dissection was rare even where it was not outright illegal.

The first known flap anatomy (then known as a fugitive sheet) was printed in 1538 by Vogtherr, Heinrich. Duke University holds a 1539 copy of one of his works. The illustrations were hand-colored. Copies of this work are generally in good condition for a number of reasons:

The paper stock is high-quality
The top layer, which shows the skin level of human anatomy, is large enough to protect the smaller layers.
The top layer is well adhered.

Johann Remmelin (c. 1618) — Remmelin, Johann (c. 1618)

Johann Remmelin (c. 1613) produced highly technical flap anatomies that were believed to have been created for students and professionals. His images were highly valued, and they were republished and stolen for many centuries.
Remmelin’s works also owe their survival to high quality paper and a large/well-adhered top layer. The top flap layer is a full printed sheet with the flap area hand cut before adhesion. Interior pieces were adhered by tabs or even left loose within the protective covering of the surface sheet so that they could be removed and inspected. Instructions to the binders for this practice survive to this day.

In the mid-1800s, Edward Tuson produced his Myology. The flap anatomies in this volume are produced with multi-directional tabs that provide resistance against lifting it. Meg described the sensation of lifting the flaps as akin to muscle tension!
Myology was a lithographic print, which was hand coloured.
Myology displayed small bits, such as veins and muscles in addition to organs.

Two decades later, George Spratt published a flap anatomy that served as an instructional for midwives. Like the Remmelin volumes, Sprat used the sandwiching effect of full pages for both his base and surface sheets. Spratt’s base page was blank, and the surface sheet was slit – allowing the layered tabs to be adhered in between the two, sandwiched sheets.

Hollick, Frederick (c.1902) — Hollick, Frederick (1902)

Beginning around the same time that Spratt was educating midwives, Frederick Hollick created the first mass-market flap anatomies. He continued to publish into the early 1900s. His volumes were intended to educate the public at large. As you can see, the surface layers became quite a bit more demure once the flap anatomies were marketed for public consumption.
Quality of paper and construction went swiftly downhill, as publishers sought to make economical mass-market flap anatomies. As a result, the flap anatomies of Hollick and his successors are in much worse condition than earlier works.

Gustave Witkowski followed in Hollick’s footsteps. His flap anatomies were part of a larger trend of popularized science. New technologies like die cutting and double-sided color printing helped economize Witkowski’s editions. Minimal adhesive was used, because die-cutting allowed many diagrams to be cut from one sheet. Unfortunately, the new technology of wood-pulp paper also insured that his editions are extremely brittle and fragile today.

Exhibiting such fragile, three dimensional works is difficult proposition. How does one best display the intricate layers while providing gentle support? Meg’s answer came from a colleague – and thus her talk came with handouts! Meg used small rolls of a light-weight mylar to support the flaps. The mylar was flexible enough that the flaps could determine their own angle of open-ability and clear enough to be no detriment to the layers beneath.
To accompany Duke University’s exhibition, Meg prepared a Flap Book Biography, a supplemental online exhibition and a video as well!
Thanks to Meg for a fantastic talk.
P.S. Marieka Kaye of the Huntington Library gave a talk on their use of facsimile flap anatomies for their Beautiful Science exhibition. Long story short? Make your facsimiles STURDY. Laminate the pieces. Use elastic thread. Make multiple copies for replacement parts. (You can imagine which pieces go missing most often). The blogpost on her discussion group talk can be found here.

41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, “Establishing Conservation in an Unconventional Venue in Okinawa” by Anya McDavis-Conway

Ms. Conway’s paper presented multiple themes: the establishment of a new conservation lab, brief history of Okinawa, and cultural materials and their subsequent materials research and treatment. What is particularly different about the first theme is that the Conservation Laboratory was begun without a museum collection. The laboratory was established within the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) – a new, international research university staffed with 50% Japanese and 50% international staff. OIST applies advanced technology while using an interdisciplinary approach to higher education, and includes giving back to the Okinawan community in its mission statement. OIST President Jonathan Darfan was interested by the merging of art and science and wanted the conservation lab to be an important part of community engagement. Thus, with the establishment of the conservation laboratory, it was incumbent upon the conservator to find her museum collection partners.
Anya described this process as “setting up conservation in reverse”, and stated that the Okinawans were rather suspicious of her. I can believe their skepticism: “why would I want to had over my collections to a non-Okinawan” (prevalent in an island with a history of occupation) or: “Why are you doing this for free?”. Anya took time to visit the museums, got to know the only Okinawan conservators, a paper conservator named Toma-san and his son. She learned from him and other museum staff that all other treatments would either not get done or would be sent off the island (likely to Japan). Occasionally there was someone on Okinawa who would do lacquer repairs, and I wondered if they would be the gold repairs that we see on Asian ceramics sometimes.
Eventually Anya found two partners in the Yomitan Village History Folklore Museum, a small historical museum focusing on the small port of Yomitan. The other was the Tsuboya Pottery Museum. In the Yomitan museum, there was a definite need for collections improvements and conservation. The museum is located next to Zakimi Castle, which meant that there were also archaeological finds, in addition to historic, in the collection. There is also a traditional house, which was presented kind of like a period room (but house).
Tsubo means pottery in Okinawan (the Tsuboya Museum), and the curators there are very interested in pottery technology. Anya’s lab and connections in OIST are a perfect fit for their interests, and she discusses, later, the pottery research project they begin together.
Once Anya began getting treatments, she quickly realized that she needed more space than her 1/2 counter in OIST’s biology lab that she was given initially. I must think that they intended to provide more space, but perhaps wanted to wait until the projects actually came. OIST ultimately provided a decent lab space and some analytical equipment. Anya worked with the physicists to obtain such equipment: a Raman with a horizontal exit so objects can be placed next to it for analysis without sampling them, FTIR with ATR and, coming soon, a p-XRF. Jennifer Mass, the scientist from the Winterthur program, was also able to consult, in person, in the analytical set-up.
Interesting investigations were discussed. The first described looked at the leather on sanshins, which are three-stringed instruments that look a little like a banjo. They were originally played at the Royal Court, but now are played by more and more people. The sound box of the sanshin is usually covered in python skin, which is imported from the mainland. The two that were brought into Anya’s lab, however, were not made with python. Their origin was not easily detectable, so Anya worked with Sasha Mikayav, a scientist at OIST, to look into DNA sequencing for identification. The skins were ultimately too contaminated to provide good data, and Sasha recommended liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry instead. They prepared a sample from a cowhide from a music store as a control/test, and this was successfully identified as bovine. They will analyze other types of skins as they obtain them, and then test the sanshins after. But the fragile leather could wait no longer, and losses were filled with Japanese tissue toned with Golden acrylic emulsion paints and tacked in place with methyl cellulose. She made appropriate storage boxes and mounts for the sanshins after treatment because she thought it would begin a conversation about collections housing. I am curious if this worked, as it was an interesting decision.
The other major project begun is the pottery analysis project undertaken by Anya, OIST and the Tsuboya Pottery Museum. They are beginning to characterize pottery – both individually and as a group – using pXRF and XRD. They will be working with an Okinawan geologist to look at sources, tempers and inclusions using thin sections and traditional petrography. This project is the beginning of a long collaboration, as Okinawa has a long history and tradition of pottery making, and it has never before been systematically analyzed. Importantly, Anya wants to know if anyone in the audience had Okinawan pottery in its collections. If so, she wants to know! Please contact her if you have information on Okinawan pottery and/or specimens in your collections. Her information is in the AIC directory.

41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 31, “Intersecting Conservation Approaches to Ethnographic and Contemporary Art: Ephemeral Art at the National Museum of African Art” by Stephanie E. Hornbeck

In this paper, Stephanie discusses similarities between conserving ethnographic and contemporary works of art. She includes previous discussions about the two types of conservation and the variety of viewpoints associated with them, demonstrated, visually, through case studies of treatments of both traditional and contemporary art.
Stephanie briefly discussed her training, which began at the Guggenheim before working at more focused ethnographic collections. She has worked for several years for the National Museum of African Art (NMAA). This museum originally housed just traditional arts, but, in the 1990’s, also began collecting contemporary art. They now have a collection of over 600 contemporary works of art, and I believe she said this is the largest collection of contemporary African art in the United States (or the world?). She and her colleagues Steve Mellor and Dana Moffett have found that these contemporary works, while using materials common to non-African contemporary art, also draw upon materials from traditional African arts.
Both traditional arts and contemporary art are often composed of ephemeral material (sometimes by design, sometimes not) – composite media, repurposed materials, and inherently fragile materials. Conservation is often directly opposed to ephemeral art. While Stephanie proposed that this statement has been addressed many times previously, there are as many different opinions on how to deal with contemporary art and ephemeral materials. The opinions posed in this paper are Stephanie’s own.
Stephanie presented a number of case studies to discuss their approach to ephemeral materials as well as to highlight similarities between traditional and contemporary art. The first examples were of a traditional, wooden artifact by Olówè of Isè, and a contemporary ceramic piece, Untitled 1, by Magdelene Odundo, in 1994. In the former, there was a darkening of the surface of the bowl, which conservators thought might be a resin applied later in its life and might be inappropriate to the artifact. Analysis showed that the dark material was in fact a gum-carbohydrate mixture – one that could have been historic. The artist, Olówè, died in 1938, however, and could not be interviewed about it.
Magdelene Odundo’s Untitled 1 is a beautiful, pristine ceramic vessel with a rich, earthy-red and smooth surface. What soon became apparent, were areas of lime within the clay body that would swell and cause the ceramic above to pop off, resulting in a pit with a white dot in the middle (the lime). [This is exactly what occurs in pottery from Southwest United States.] These areas mar the pristine surface intended by the artist. In this case, as opposed to the wooden figurine, the artist could be interviewed. Popping from lime inclusions can be avoided by different firing conditions and temperatures, but with these different techniques the shape and color of her pieces would change. This was unacceptable to the artist, who decided to accept the consequences of the lime popping in exchange for the color and shape she desired in her works.
In documentation, there are surveys for living artists: Maters in Media Art (Tate Modern), the Guggenheim Museum’s Variable Media Approach, and those available through INCAA. In these surveys, there is an anthropological aspect. For instance, inherent vice (present in both traditional and contemporary arts) can be intentional – or not. In Ghada Amer’s Hunger, from the “Earth Matters” exhibit currently on display until January 2014, “HUNGER” is spelled out on using seeds and plants in the grounds of the NMAA. The letters will change with different plants in different seasons, and will naturally decay.
Artist-Conservator interactions are possible perhaps more easily with contemporary pieces, though the inherent vice can be the same. In Henreique Oliveira’s Bololo from 1991 was destroyed after the exhibit (it was a huge piece(s) of brazilwood installed to appear as if it were growing out of a wall, filling the gallery in serpentine forms). Willem Boshoff’s Writing in Sand from 2005 consisted of white sand spread over the floor with black sand letters forming a text. The public was able to touch the piece, and the artist liked that the public could damage it; still, the meaning of the piece was intent on its words, so they had to be restored. This occurred about once/week, and by the end of the exhibit, the sand was mostly gray.
In the conservation of ethnographic objects, treatments are often conservative, though problems many be similar to those encountered in contemporary works. Berni Seale’s (Searle?) To Hold in the Palm of the Hand is a 2006 installation, and incorporated powdered henna on its surface. Stephanie had to replace this henna (after finding an appropriate source) while on display. Conversely, Powdered pigment would not be replaced on a traditional object, such as a Zulu hat that also had a powdery, red pigmented surface.
Regarding artist intent and conservation treatment, sometimes contemporary materials require more immediate conservation. 1997’s amendment to AIC’s Code of Ethics/Guidelines for Practice were amended with Commentary 23, paragraph D, to provide rationale for greater intervention. Stephanie Hornbeck, however, fells the commentary is too vague and broad, and can be contrary to conservation principles. (Louise Nevelson’s Dreamhouse XLIII, 1993, at the Miami Art Museum is a dilemma for Stephanie.) For contemporary art, how far into the past and future do invasive treatments, such as repainting, apply?
The Getty has a publication entitled The Object in Transition, which is available online for the public and discusses specific examples. Pretty much, pieces must be evaluated on a case by case basis, but the outcomes are truly variable. There is a dilemma between accepted standards and “case by case” bases for treatment, and this is a really interesting point that I think conservators should consider more deeply.
The VARA act came into being in 1990. This discusses copyright law and ownership. VARA 106 A (c) (2) is an important paragraph. In Europe, the future of a given piece is guided by the artist; in the United States, it is guided by the owner. This has a great influence on the direction for conservation in the two continents.
—
Q&A: there was an interesting discussion about when treatments on ethnographic collections became more restrained. Sanchita Balachandran offered an interesting insight, stating that some of that restraint occurred when museums changed from being “owners” of the collections to “stewards” of the collections.

41st Annual Meeting, Book and Paper Session, Archives Conservation Discussion Group (ACDG), May 31, “Is it real?: The value and ethics of using surrogates,” co-chairs Cher Schneider and Tonia Grafakos

Encapsulating an hour-and-a-half discussion into a blog post isn’t easy, but fortunately the speakers in the Book and Paper Group’s Archives Conservation Discussion Group, “Is it real?: The value and ethics of using surrogates,” riffed on a few common themes, namely: When is it appropriate to use surrogates in place of original materials? and What are some ethical considerations to take into account when doing so? While the discussion rarely focused on archives, as might be expected given the normal focus of the ACDG, the presentations nicely encompassed a wide range of book and paper scenarios.
The panel of speakers provided a wealth of experiences with and uses for surrogates including replacing originals (in total or in part) and utilizing copies in exhibits and in interactions with private collectors.
Jeanne Drewes (Chief, Binding and Collections Care Division and Program Manager, Mass Deacidification, Library of Congress) presented “Replace, repair, remove or remake: Decision making for severely damaged items in general collections.” Drewes noted that because the Library of Congress (LC) is the library of record and often the “library of last resort” it is imperative that the general collections remain in usable condition. When Drewes came to LC she created workflows (provided as a handout) to guide decision making to more actively approach damaged or fragile materials, as opposed to just boxing and deferring treatment. Fragile items are assessed for physical condition, copyright restrictions, and replaceability. Whenever possible LC retains a physical copy. Options include creating an entire facsimile, replacing part of an item and/or retaining original colored plates or cloth cover with a facsimile copy of the textblock, providing a digital surrogate, withdrawing if multiple copies of an item are available, or going to extraordinary lengths to find a replacement. Drewes clearly explained how the use of surrogates plays a role in providing long-term access to mechanically sound general collections materials.
In his theoretical take on the question of surrogates, titled “DIORAMA,” Gary Frost (Conservator Emeritus, University of Iowa), discussed the interplay of originals and copies in exhibits, and the conceptual space–or “third thing”–between the two. Museums have always reinterpreted items, be it in diorama, a cabinet of curiosities, or a born-digital exhibit. Frost noted that until the turn of the 20th century exhibits rich in artifacts were the norm; since then there has been an increasing “pervasive displacement of physical artifacts.” Frost argued that in museum and library exhibits, no falsification is intended by composite displays of originals and copies; exhibits induce a suspension of disbelief. He referenced two books that may be of interest: Matthew Kirschenbaum’s Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination and Orhan Pamuk’s The Innocence of Objects.
Jane Klinger (Chief Conservator, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) noted her museum’s strong commitment to authenticity. In order to remember victims, honor Holocaust survivors, and respond to Holocaust deniers, USHMM determined to display only original artifacts. Small nods could be made to preserving light-sensitive materials if a like item could be found to replace like or one copy to replace a second copy. The chronological nature of the Museum exhibits creates challenges for substituting items for each other; similar items must be the same size, format, and content. Occasionally USHMM has chosen to display surrogates and has opted to use artist-made facsimiles to achieve a similar look and feel to the original. In one example, two letters that belonged to another museum were reproduced by an artist using period typewriter, paper, and artist-made stamps. In another situation, an artist-made facsimile of a child’s watercolor owned by another museum stands in for the original. Where the presence of a copy might serve as fodder for Holocaust deniers to question the authenticity of historical events, USHMM has been careful to clearly label as a surrogate both the exhibit text and the item itself—and provide access to the original on a case-by-case basis. Based on the questions posed by the audience at the end of the session, the use of artist-made facsimiles may be a new idea to many.
Valerie Hotchkiss (Andrew S. G. Turyn Endowed Professor and Director of The Rare Book & Manuscript Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) provided a counterpoint to earlier discussion in “From physical artifacts to copies to super surrogates: The use (and abuse) of surrogates in special collections.” Hotchkiss noted that while there is a distinct place for surrogates, it’s generally not in exhibition cases. She pointed to the “thrill of the original”: students and faculty come to the rare book library to see the original, and we should not fool the public into thinking they are seeing something they are not. Hotchkiss provided the “Clooney Law of Exhibitions” that was so compelling that it was also quoted as a case in point by one debater during Saturday’s Great Debate, namely that seeing George Clooney in a film is not at all the same as sharing wine him in person. Much the same can be said of seeing a surrogate in place of an original. Hotchkiss promoted the use of facsimiles, however, when they augment the original, such as in a text panel with additional images of a book on display or in a digital display to flip through an entire book. Online exhibits are different in that everyone understands that they are not viewing the original. Newer “e-rare books” or “super-surrogates” contain value-added materials such as translations, transcriptions, and text introductions and can reach broader (and often younger) audiences.
Marieka Kaye (Exhibits Conservator, Huntington Library) presented a case study on the use of surrogates in interactive exhibits. The Huntington Library recently mounted an exhibit of anatomical books with moving flaps and parts. In order to provide the viewer the experience of handling and interacting with the books, full-size surrogates were printed, with parts laminated and sewn with clear elastic cord to open and close properly. Many copies were created as the surrogates wore out over the course of the exhibit. While digital exhibits—especially those allowing people to page through a digital copy of a book—are interactive, having physical copies of the books available allows visitors to come as close as possible to experiencing the books as they were intended to be enjoyed.
Meg Brown (Exhibits Librarian and Special Collections Conservator, Duke University Libraries) will soon become a full-time exhibits librarian. She provided many points to consider when using surrogates in exhibits. The first is that sometimes the curator may not need or want the original in an exhibit, and advised us to consider that “sometimes it is easy to say no to the original–but you have to ask!” In some cases, the “original” in our institutions is already a surrogate, such as a photocopy of a photocopy. In such situations, displaying a surrogate may seem less troubling. There are situations in which making a copy might allow the exhibit staff to enhance visibility or understanding of the item, such as in scanning, printing, and assembling a sheet of paper puppets that are decidedly one-dimensional in original form. Others situations in which surrogates may be warranted include when the original is too large to fit in an exhibition case, when the item is too valuable, too controversial, or brittle, or when the exhibit conditions are not safe to display originals. Brown has successfully used an item light-damaged after a few months on display in a sub-par space to lobby for improved exhibitions conditions in her institution. She urged the audience to share with one another examples of exhibition damage to help us all make positive changes.
“Conservation conversations: Surrogate creation and the private collector” was the topic of Anne Kearney’s presentation. Before becoming Collections Conservator at the University at Albany, the State University of New York, she worked for many years in private practice. She encouraged the audience to remember that collectors are also professionals who have collected for a reason. They may desire surrogates for display, research, and safety. They may not want to handle or display the real thing, but worry about the expense involved in creating a surrogate. Kearney encouraged us to consider user-centered business models and closely observe, listen to, and interact with collectors. Their goals and concerns can add knowledge to what we as conservators bring to the table. Kearney helpfully provided a handout with additional resources, both electronic and paper-based.
Questions from the audience and responses from the panel included a discussion of the lack of standard terminology for what constitutes a facsimile; how to describe or note the use of facsimiles in exhibit labels and text panels; how to ensure that facsimiles on “loan” to other institutions are clearly delineated as such in exhibit labels; and how to draw attention to the use of facsimiles in order to inform the public about conservation issues such as light damage.
The Archives Collections Discussion Group presenters were well chosen, focusing on varying aspects of the surrogate question. The panelists agreed that the use of surrogates should always be openly and honestly disclosed, and that surrogates do indeed, in some situations, play a role in exhibitions, repair, and private work.

41st Annual Meeting-Electronic Media Session, May 31, "Technical Documentation of Source Code at the Museum of Modern Art" by Deena Engel and Glenn Wharton

Glenn Wharton began with an overview of the conservation of electronic media at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). When he set up the Media Conservation program at MoMA in 2005, there were over 2,000 media objects, mostly analog video, and only 20 software objects. The main focus of the program was digitizing analog video and audio tapes. Wharton was a strong advocate for the involvement of IT experts from the very beginning of the process. Over time, they developed a working group representing all 7 curatorial departments, collaborating with IT and artists to assess, document, and manage electronic media collections.
Wharton described the risk assessment approach that MoMA has developed for stewardship of its collections, which includes evaluation of software dependency and operating system dependency for digital objects. They have increased the involvement of technical experts, and they have collaborated with Howard Besser and moving image archivists.
The presenters chose to focus on project design and objectives; they plan to publish their findings in the near future. Glenn Wharton described the three case study artworks: Thinking Machine 4, Shadow Monsters, and 33 Questions per Minute. He explained how he collaborated with NYU computer science professor Deena Engel to harness the power of a group of college undergraduate students to provide basic research into source code documentation. Thinking Machine 4 and Shadow Monsters were both written in Processing, an open source programming language based on Java. On the other hand, 33 Questions per Minute was written in Delphi, derived from PASCAL; Delphi is not very popular in the US, so the students where challenged to learn an unfamiliar language.
Engel explained that source code can be understood by anyone who knows the language, just as one might read and comprehend a foreign language. She discussed the need for software maintenance that is common across various types of industries, not unique to software-based art projects. Software maintenance is needed when the hardware is altered, the operating system is changed, or the programming language is updated. She also explained four types of code documentation: annotation (comments) in the source code, narratives, visuals, and Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams.
Engel discussed the ways that the source code affects the output or the user experience and the need to capture the essential elements of presentation in artwork, which are unique to artistic software. In 33 Questions per Minute, the system configuration includes a language setting with options for English, German, or Spanish. Some functions were operating system-specific, such as the Mac-Unix scripts that allow the interactive artwork Shadow Monsters to reboot if overloaded by a rambunctious school group flooding the gallery with lots of moving shadows. Source code specified aesthetic components such as color, speed, and randomization for all of the case study artworks.
One interesting discovery was the amount of code that was “commented out.” Similar to studies, underdrawings, or early states of a print, there were areas of code that had been deactivated without being deleted, and these could be examined as evidence of the artist’s working methods.
Engel concluded by mentioning that the field of reproducibility in scientific research is also involved with documenting and preserving source code, in order to replicate data-heavy scientific experiments. Of course, they are more concerned with handling very large data sets, while museums are more concerned with replicating the look and feel of the user experience. Source code documentation will be one more tool to inform conservation decisions, complimenting the artist interview and other documentation of software-based art.
Audience members asked several questions regarding intellectual property issues, especially if the artists were using proprietary software rather than open-source software. There were also questions raised about artists who were reluctant to share code. Glenn Wharton explained that MoMA is trying to acquire code at the same time that the artwork is acquired. They can offer the option of a sort of embargo or source code “escrow” where the source code would be preserved but not accessed until some time in the future.

41st Annual Meeting, Object Session, May 30th, 2013. “Three-Way Plug Three Ways: Conservation Treatments of Three Editions of Claes Oldenburg’s Cor-Ten Steel and Bronze Giant Three Way Plug.”

Mark Erdmann, Conservator of Objects, ICA Art Conservation; Adam Jenkins, Conservator in Private Practice; Robert Marti, Co-Owner, and Marianne Russell Marti, President, Russell-Marti Conservation Services, Inc.
Presented by Mark Erdmann, this talk described the treatment of three versions of Claes Oldenburg’s Three-Way Plug sculpture by three separate conservators. Erdmann treated the Allen Art Museum’s (AAM) version in Oberlin, Ohio; Jenkins treated Philadelphia Museum of Art’s (PMA) version; and Rusell and Russell Marti treated the Saint Louis Art Museum’s (SLAM) version. While working separately, the authors shared their experiences with each other, and seized a great opportunity by aggregating these experiences in one place to be referenced by others faced by similar challenges.
The outdoor sculptures consist of Cor-Ten steel and bronze plug prongs, assembled with no internal armature. Uncoated at installation, the sculptures are sunk into the soil on gravel beds with no platforms, and contain drainage holes. The authors’ research revealed interesting insights into Oldenburg’s intentions, both in installation and fate of the multiples; he wanted the Plugs to deteriorate in relation to the environment, and hoped they might end up in dramatically different environments that might shape their appearances. This was not to be, and the sculptures experienced similar patterns of deterioration, primarily caused by accumulation of moisture and debris on the sculptures’ interiors. Each Plug had been previously treated for corrosion at least once and given protective coatings. Corrosion of the PMA and SLAM versions was most severe, with areas of localized steel collapse. Galvanic corrosion also occurred at the interface of the bronze prongs and adjacent steel, and localized tarnishing was found on the prongs.
Treatment of all three Plugs involved removal of existing coating and corrosion, followed by coating reapplication. The SLAM and PMA Plugs required partial replacement of the Core-10 body in areas of collapse, with patches welded in place following applicable ASTM standards and textured to match the original. The AAM’s Plug was cleaned with glass bead peening, followed by coating with an epoxy coating. The SLAM version was cleaned by sand blasting, followed by coating with a zinc primer and acrylic/polyester/polyurethane topcoat. The PMA’s Plug was also abrasion-cleaned, followed by coating with a Tnemec Co. zinc urethane primer and epoxy topcoat. The most notable difference in approach was that of treatment of the interior – while the interior of AAM’s Plug was coated overall with Ship-2- Shore marine coating containing corrosion inhibitor, the interior of the SLAM’s Plug was only locally coated, and the interior of the PMA’s plug was left uncoated in favor of ongoing maintenance and inspection. It will be interesting to compare preservation outcome of the three in relation to this difference in approach.
To address deterioration due to galvanic corrosion at the prong’s bronze-steel interface of the AAM’s version, joins were strengthened via TIG welding. The authors acknowledged this would not remediate the problem, but solutions involving disassembly and isolation of the metals were financially unfeasible. Cathodic systems for overall corrosion protection were likewise financially out of reach, and difficult to monitor over the long term. In each case the prongs were cleaned and re-coated, and drainage was improved. Most importantly, each conservator recognized that frequent inspection and removal of debris from the interior was key to the preservation of the Plugs, and emphasized this to the owners.

41st Annual Meeting, Object Session, May 30th, 2013. “Metal Health and Weld Being: Conservation Strategies for a Collection of Sculpture by John Chamberlain.” Shelley Smith, Objects Conservator, Menil Collection, and Catherine Williams, Objects Conservator, Silver Lining Art Conservation, LLC

Presented by Catherine Williams, the talk started with a warning for more sensitive viewers – alluding to forthcoming descriptions of welding, an uncomfortable proposition for many conservators. The Menil Collection in Houston, Texas conserved a collection of sculpture by John Chamberlain in preparation for the museum’s 25^th anniversary in 2012. Ranging from 8 to 22 feet in height, Chamberlain’s sculptures are composed of multiple pieces of salvaged sheet metal covered with layers of original automotive and applied artists paint, joined by mechanical fasteners and tack welds. Several sculptures were structurally unstable due to the spontaneous nature of their assemblage, with poorly prepared surfaces and poorly executed oxyacetylene welds. (The authors observed that the quality of welds improved after around 1981, when Chamberlain’s assistants executed more of the welding.) Paint (both the artist’s and original automotive) was lifting and flaking, and the sculptures were dirty.
Chamberlain’s studio was consulted over the course of treatment planning, but played a limited role in part due to the artist’s death in 2011. An interview with Chamberlain archived through the Artists Documentation Program offered guidance in terms of the artist’s priorities, especially in terms of aesthetic reintegration. In the end, it was determined that adhesives would not be sufficient to stabilize failed joins, and Chamberlain’s studio concurred with the conservators that welding would be an appropriate solution. The conservators contacted Guido Schindler of Schindler Metalworks in Houston to execute TIG weld repairs. It was emphasized by both the authors and responding audience members how much the eventual success of these treatments depended on the expertise of this highly skilled craftsman.
In executing the welds on four sculptures, Schindler added welding rod only where necessary, working around existing slag on surface and retaining the original welds’ “messy look.” In response to priorities expressed by the Chamberlain in an interview, artist’s paint was given priority in reintegration, though both the artist’s and automotive paint layers were stabilized. Balanced cleaning of the pastiche sculptures with so many contrasting surfaces proved a challenge. Careful documentation of each sculpture included painstaking numbered mapping and description of each intervention. In all, 20 sculptures were documented, 12 were cleaned, and 4 were structurally stabilized in preparation for exhibition.

41st Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, Thursday May 30, "Traditional Artist Materials in Early Paintings by Andy Warhol" by Christopher A. Maines

Photo of Christopher A. Maines of National Gallery of Art giving his presentation at AIC 2013: Traditional Artist Materials in Early Paintings by Andy Warhol

I was looking forward to hearing this talk by Christopher Maines, Conservation Scientist from the National Gallery of Art, on artist materials used by Andy Warhol in his earlier artworks, especially since it mentioned the possibility of traditional materials. Maines began his talk with a brief summary on Warhol’s early techniques as a commercial artist between 1949-1960, specifically the blotted-line technique. Warhol’s first pop paintings during 1960 and 1962 consisted of acrylic paints on primed, stretched canvas which he hand-painted, such as 1962’s A Boy for Meg. The end of the 1960s, Warhol moved into using hand-cut silk screens with synthetic polymer paints, such as 1962’s Green Marilyn. Warhol continued to use these silk screens and synthetic polymers into the 1980s, before dying in 1987. In summary, Warhol chose to use these particular materials because they were quick drying, offered a thrill or chancy nature, and Warhol was accepting of any imperfections which occurred during the creative process, such as drips.

A Boy for Meg. Andy Warhol 1962 (left). 129 DIE IN JET!. Andy Warhol 1962 (right).

Maines continued to discuss synthetic polymer paints and thoughts when they were originally introduced. The NGA began analysis of Warhol’s A Boy for Meg in preparation for an upcoming exhibition to determine it’s material composition. The artwork was sampled in four places and GC-MS analysis revealed Warhol was using drying oil and egg when he was transitioning from his commercial work into his pop paintings. It was likely that Warhol was using egg as a material because he was already familiar with its behavior. NGA was fortunate enough to be granted the opportunity to sample from two other artworks from this time period owned by museums in Germany: 129 DIE IN JET! and DAILY NEWS. Both revealed drying oil and egg in these samples, as acrylic paints over a ground layer consisting of drying oil and egg.
I found this talk very interesting, especially to know that Andy Warhol was using a mixture of traditional and modern materials in his artworks. Scientific analysis can provide such fantastic insight to the working materials and methods of artists and I am very glad NGA shared their findings for this time period of Warhol’s career at this year’s AIC Annual Meeting.
Any there any other Warhol fans out there? What are some of your favorites of Warhol works? If you could read the scientific analysis report for any famous artwork to find out exactly what the artist used, what would it be? Please share any thoughts or comments!

NOTE: Other authors on lecture are Suzanne Q. Lomax, Organic Chemist and Jay Krueger, Senior Conservator of Modern Paintings, both at the National Gallery of Art.

41st Annual Meeting-Book and Paper Session, May 30, "Treatment and Housing Techniques for Pastel Paintings on Paper-Case Studies" by Soyeon Choi and Jessica Makin

Soyeon Choi, Senior Paper Conservator, and Jessica Makin, Manager of Housing and Framing Services, divided their presentation into two parts: first they addressed the treatment of one individual pastel portrait, then they described a variety of housing options used at the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts, a regional conservation center in Philadelphia. The treatment and rehousing protocols were all intended to reduce the loss of friable pastel image material and to protect the weak (often brittle) paper support. All of the examples were originally mounted onto wooden stretchers or strainers, further complicating treatment and rehousing efforts. Most of the items also retained original frames or period frames.
Soyeon Choi began by describing the work of folk artist Micah Williams (1782-1837), who was active in the early 19th century. He created 274 known portraits, and he tended to line them with newspaper, a fact that has provided valuable provenance and date information. The first case study portrait was mounted onto a white pine stretcher, and treatment was performed in situ.

Soyeon Choi showed how she used a mockup of a complex, sprung tear to devise a sympathetic repair for one of the portraits. Repair adhesives were determined by the location of the tears. In general, Klucel G was strong enough to hold most tears, yet weak enough that it didn’t place too much stress on the fragile paper support. Klucel was applied to thin kozo in advance, and individual repair strips were reactivated with ethanol when needed. More traditional wheat starch paste repairs were possible on the edges where the paper was in contact with the strainer and more pressure could be applied safely. Lascaux 498 HV was also used for some pastels, but I didn’t hear exactly what mix was used or how it was activated. Choi also explained how she used ground pastels, powdered colored pencils, and dry pigments with ethanol to inpaint losses in the portraits.

In the second half of the presentation, Jessica Makin showed photographs and diagrams of different spacer configurations and frame profiles. The spacers were wrapped with toned, 1-ply Bainbridge matboard that was attached to the lignin-free, corrugated board with 3M 415 tape. Most of the frames were altered by building up the backs to accommodate the additional thickness of the spacers and glazing. In the case of a pastel by Mary Cassat, the frame could not be altered, so Makin constructed a tray with thin sides to contain the pastel and the glazing, while also supporting the glazing away from the media surface.
I feel that this presentation loses a lot without the photographs and diagrams, so I will ask the authors to share a link to images of at least one example to better illustrate their work.

41st Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, Friday May 31, "Panel Discussion: Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation" by Levenson, Phenix, Hill Stoner, Proctor

I’m am extremely excited that I signed up to write a blog post for this Paintings Group Session at the 41st Annual Meeting for AIC: The Contemporary in Conservation this week in Indianapolis. As an emerging conservator specializing in the conservation of paintings, I found this discussion very important for our field and I was so pleased that Matthew Cushman gathered this renowned group of conservators together for the discussion. The discussion (Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation) was well attended and the four presentations provoked important questions and topics for group discussion. This post isn’t intended for solely paintings conservators, but for all fine art conservators, restorers, and any people looking to find out more about the preservation and future of fine art.

Photo of discussion panel for Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation. (second from the left: Joyce, Hill Stoner, Rustin Levenson, Robert Proctor, and Alan Phenix). — Photo of discussion panel for Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation (from left: Tiarna Doherty, Joyce Hill Stoner, Rustin Levenson, Rob Proctor, and Alan Phenix).

Fair warning: this post is going to be a long one. I found so much relevant and notable topics were mentioned and I think they all deserve to brought up. This post is a little less personal opinion and a little more regurgitation of the facts – which is great for anyone who was not able to attend the discussion. The discussion panel consisted of mediator Tiarna Doherty from the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian Art Museum, and panelists: Rustin Levenson private conservator and owner of Rustin Levenson Art Conservation Associates; Alan Phenix conservation scientist from the Getty Conservation Institute; Joyce Hill Stoner educator in paintings conservation at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation; and Rob Proctor Co-Director and private conservator at Whitten & Proctor Fine Art Conservation.
Tiarna started the discussion with an introduction to each panelist, which was followed by a 10 minute slide-show presentation by each panelist discussing key points and topics each thought related to current trends and upcoming challenges in paintings conservation. This format acted as a starting point for the group discussion which followed. All the panelists came from different backgrounds which consisted of private, educational, institutional, and scientific positions, so different perspectives for the field of paintings conservation could be properly represented.
Continue reading