“Significant Preservation: Inventories and Assessments for Strategic Planning”
North Carolina Preservation Consortium Annual Conference
William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
November 7, 2014
http://www.ncpreservation.org/events.html
Inventories and assessments of heritage collections and sites are vital for meaningful strategic planning that conveys the importance of allocating scarce resources for preservation programs. Establishing the significance of tangible heritage to the communities we serve is essential for prioritizing conservation, storage, exhibition, and emergency planning decisions to protect cultural treasures for present and future generations. This conference will help you influence organizational, political, and community leaders who have the authority to improve preservation funding. Register today for a valuable learning experience with state, national, and international preservation leaders.
Keynote Speakers
Veronica Bullock is the Co-founder and Director of Significance International. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Prehistory/Archaeology from the Australian National University and a master’s degree in Applied Science (Materials Conservation) from the University of Western Sydney. Her fellowship at the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property explored how significance assessments and risk assessments are taught in graduate conservation programs in Australia, Canada, the United States, and several countries in Europe. Ms. Bullock will provide an overview of the Significance Assessment methodology developed by the Collections Council of Australia.
Lisa Ackerman is the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the World Monuments Fund and a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Pratt Institute. She holds a BA from Middlebury College, an MS in historic preservation from the Pratt Institute, and an MBA from New York University. Her professional service has included membership on the boards of the Historic House Trust of New York City, New York Preservation Archive Project, St. Ann Center for Restoration and the Arts, Partners for Sacred Places, Neighborhood Preservation Center, and the U.S. National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Ms. Ackerman will present an introduction to the Arches heritage inventory and management system.
Dr. Paul R. Green is a Cultural Resources Specialist for the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, an Adjunct Associate Professor at Old Dominion University, and a modern Monuments Man. He holds a BS from Marshall University, MA from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a PhD in Anthropology (Archaeology) from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Green is a member of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Historical/Cultural Advisory Group and the International Military Cultural Resources Working Group. He will address the challenges and importance of prioritizing global heritage collections and sites for the protection of cultural property during war and armed conflicts.
Lightening Session Speakers
Martha Battle Jackson is Chief Curator for North Carolina Historic Sites. She will provide an overview of the Museum Assessment Program (MAP) for Collection Stewardship sponsored by the American Alliance of Museums.
Andrea Gabriel is Outreach & Development Coordinator for the North Carolina State Archives. She will present an introduction to the Traveling Archivist Program (TAP) administered by the North Carolina Office of Archives & History.
David Goist is a painting conservator in private practice. He will give an overview of the Conservation Assessment Program (CAP) sponsored by Heritage Preservation.
Schedule
8:00 Continental Breakfast
8:30 Registration
9:00 Welcome
9:15 Significance Assessments
10:10 Morning Break
10:30 Arches Heritage Inventory & Management System
11:25 Round Table Discussions
12:00 Lunch
1:00 MAP, TAP, & CAP
1:55 Afternoon Break
2:15 Protecting Cultural Property
3:10 Round Table Discussions
3:30 Final Q & A
4:00 Closing
Networking
The NCPC annual conference is an excellent opportunity to meet collections professionals from a wide range of disciplines and organizations. Take advantage of morning and afternoon refreshment breaks, our communal lunch, and round table discussions to meet new colleagues and visit with old friends. Share your valuable experience and learn from others.
Conference Audience
This conference is designed for professionals, staff, and volunteers working in museums, libraries, historic sites, archives, conservation centers, archaeological collections, and other preservation institutions; advocates for preservation on friends boards, advancement councils, and advisory committees; those working in organizations with a preservation mission; members of the preservation industry; and faculty and students in conservation, museum studies, public history, archaeology, archives, library science, and other preservation disciplines.
Registration
NCPC is committed to keeping registration fees extraordinarily affordable to encourage attendance. Early Bird fees for registrations received before October 1st is $50 for NCPC members and $75 for non-members. After October 1st registration is $60 for NCPC members and $85 for non-members. Registration on-site is $70 for NCPC members and $95 for nonmembers. Those who register on-site are not guaranteed lunch. The registration fee for graduate students is $40 for early bird, $50 after October 1st and $60 on-site. Please register via the NCPC web site.
Scholarships
We value the involvement of students, working professionals, and volunteers whose institutional support is insufficient to attend this conference. NCPC offers a limited number of conference scholarships. This scholarship covers full registration. It does not cover travel, lodging, or other expenses. The application process is simple and consists primarily of telling us why attendance is important for you. The scholarship is intended to promote continuing preservation education and professional networking. Applicants must be employed by or volunteer at a North Carolina institution with a preservation mission that has little or no funding for professional development or a graduate student enrolled in a preservation related discipline at a college or university in North Carolina. To apply, please complete the scholarship form on the NCPC web site by October 1st. Early registration fees will be honored for any applicants who are not granted a scholarship.
Location
The conference will be held at the William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Category: Conferences, Courses, Workshops & Seminars
2014 IIC Forbes Prize Lecturer Announced
The Organising Committee requests the honour of your presence at the 2014 Forbes Prize Lecture at the forthcoming IIC 2014 Hong Kong Congress Opening Ceremony! The Forbes Prize Lecture will be delivered on Monday 22nd September at Hong Kong City Hall, the main venue for the Congress. The IIC Congress will take place from 22nd to 26th September, 2014.
The Forbes Prize Lecture is one of the most important awards in the field of conservation and the lecture is delivered by a person who has made an outstanding contribution to the profession. This year IIC’s Council has been delighted to announce that Dr. Jixiang Shan (單霽翔博士), Director of the Palace Museum in Beijing, will be delivering the 2014 lecture.
Dr Shan was formerly the Director-General of China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) before his appointment as the Palace Museum Director in 2012. Dr Shan graduated from the School of Architecture of Tsinghua University with a Doctor of Engineering degree in urban planning. Since then, Dr Shan has been a pioneer in China’s historic preservation movement and has developed his profound research interest in urban planning towardsseeking the preservation of cities of historic and cultural importancein an era that has witnessed an ever-accelerating pace of urbanization. In 2005, Dr Shan received an International Leadership Award from the American Planning Association, honouring his outstanding efforts and achievements in the field.
During his term of office at SACH, Dr. Shan has promoted China’s heritage preservation development by launching nationwide surveys of heritage sites and setting up a legal conservation framework through the introduction of National Cultural Relics Protection Law. His efforts have led to the successful implementation of many major heritage conservation projects, as well as the partnership with World Monuments Fund to restore the Qianlong Gardenand other renovation projects in the Palace Museum. Focusing on the Museum’s ancient complex of buildings and gardens, its unique collections of artifacts and objects, and on the safety and guidance of visitors, Dr Shan implemented the “Secure Palace Museum” Project in 2012. Looking forward, he is committed to nurturing future museum and conservation professionals, and resolving the limitations on museum development within the Forbidden City, with a view to passing down this splendid site to the generations of the next 600 years.
More details of the IIC 2014 Hong Kong Congress can be found at the IIC web-site: www.iiconservation.org
42nd Annual Meeting- Luncheon, May 31, "Wiki Edit-a-thon Luncheon"
As a contributor to the AIC wiki, it was nice to meet some of the other contributors and put names to faces. I was hoping to see more enthusiastic contributors at the Edit-a-thon, but it was still a useful way to get an update of what is happening with the wiki outside my own bubble and feel more a part of that community. Join us next time!
Rachael Perkins Arenstein, the AIC e-Editor, started us off with an introduction to the wiki overall and the current projects that she wanted to highlight, such as:
1. Lexicon http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Lexicon – Nancie Ravenel was there to give an overview of where she was this going and how it filled a gap in current resources.
2. Oddy/Materials Testing http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Oddy_Tests:_Materials_Databases – I happen to be one of the contributors for this section of the wiki. We know that this is a controversial topic, but want to share information in an attempt to get others to do the same. The database is really several sortable tables with the information collected during testing. I got some good feedback about how to improve the pages.
3. Exhibiting Conservation http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/PR_and_Outreach-Exhibiting_Conservation
4. K-12 Educational Resources http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/K-12_Educational_Resources_on_Conservation
5. History of Conservation & Conservators http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/History_of_Conservation_and_Conservators
6. Reading Lists http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Education_%26_Training
7. Conservation Courses for Allied Fields http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Conservation_Courses_for_Allied_Academic_Fields
8. Setting up a Conservation Lab http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Setting_up_a_Conservation_Lab
I think one of the most interesting portions of the luncheon was a report on responses the BPG got from a survey about the wiki. My take-away, to get more information onto the wiki we have to build relationships between conservators of differing experience by pairing conservators who are wiki-fluent (typically younger and less-experienced) with those who have content (usually more experienced, but less tech savvy). This seems like a promising way to build the wiki and mentorship relationships! Maybe we should pitch this to ECPN… There was also some review about the disclaimers and banners that run across the top of most pages. These were never meant to be left there and the creator wishes we would just do away with them. The outgoing OSG wiki-Editor, Lee-Ann Barnes Gordon, pitched some ideas she has been mulling over in regards to the banners. Such as, a progression of headers to give readers a better idea of where the page was in an informal review process. For example, “under construction/adding content,” “under review,” “reviewed.”
So not much content was added, but some important information was shared. So please check out the wiki and if you see an area that you feel you could improve- contribute!
Thanks to the NCPTT for funding this great luncheon! Sorry I didn’t get everyone’s name.
42nd Annual Meeting – Collection Care & HVAC, May 31, "Some trends in examining six years of utility and climate data at the Museum of Modern Art" by Jim Coddington
Jim Coddington, the chief conservator at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, presented some trends that were found from analyzing the environmental data that was collected at MoMA over the past six years. This was particularly interesting because it compared two relatively new or newly renovated buildings with different types of usage/functionality and HVAC systems. The building on 53rd street, Jim admits, is very leaky from a number of sources, including the many doors through which thousands of people pass, and has a steam and electric HVAC system. The building in Queens (QNS) on the other hand is mostly concrete with very little glass and has a gas powered HVAC system. The data that Jim presented was collected from across the museum including finance, operation, conservation, and vistor services. Needless to say there are a lot of people invested in this.
Jim showed mostly graphs and charts. These included data showing the temperature and %RH outside, inside the buildings, dew point, and comparing this energy usage. I’ve included images of the graphs that I found most interesting or informative.
In QNS there is a large expenditures of gas in august and dips in winter. This is because that are able to use free cooling to extract excess heat for 8 or9 months, or 3 out of 4 seasons, through a heat exchanger on the roof. In this process, heat is absorbed from the condenser water by air chilled water. The length of time they are able to use free-cooling is based on set points of T and RH (see second image) and is affected by air temperature, relative humidity, and water supply temperature. Non-free cooling with the RH set at 50% happens over the summer and is longer at lower temperatures. So during the summer the temperature set point is allowed to drift to 22 degrees C. Jim mentioned that having a narrower set point may actually equal cost savings, but they have no data for that.
On the analysis for the 53rd street building, Jim highlighted that this is a very different situation. It is a high use building, with lots of leakage points and demand on the systems- steam and electric principally. Therefore, the energy usage is much higher.
It has been asked whether heat from visitors is significant? In Chris McGlinchey’s calculation, the 360 kJ/hr given off by the visitors with a typical stay of 4 hours, this is not a huge contributing factor.
In Jim’s summary and conclusions- The expected was stated that they are consuming more energy in the 53rd St building than QNS. This is mostly in winter (see the third image). The QNS building is more efficient because of the free cooling, lower set point temperature and equates to lower energy usage thanks to an efficient building design. Online Resources:
- Steam- natural gas utility converter: http://www.coned.com/steam/default.asp
- NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) 2008: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf
- Humidity converter: http://www.cactus2000.de/uk/unit/masshum.shtml
- Dewpoint calculator: http://www.decatur.ed/javascript/dew/index.html
- NOAA, National.ncdc.noaa.gov/
42nd Annual Meeting- OSG, May 31, "Restoration by Other Means: CT scanning and 3D Computer Modeling for the Re-Restoration of a Previously Restored Skull from the Magdalenian Era by J.P. Brown and Robert D. Martin"
After collaborating with JP at the Field Museum on rendering CT scans a few years ago and seeing his article about this work in the spring MRCG newsletter, I was excited to see some images about this in person. JP has been working with CT scanners since 2006 starting out by taking advantage of the kindness of local hospitals and more recently renting a portable unit that came to museum on a truck.
As many of us know, CT scanners can look inside objects non-destructively and provide accurate images with 3D geometric accuracy. JP started the talk be reviewing some of the physics of getting a CT scan done, the benefits, and limitations. Here’s a run-down:
1. The scanner has a donut shaped gantry consisting of a steel ring containing the X-ray tube and curved detector on the opposite side, so your object has to fit within the imaging area inside the steel ring.
2. On each revolution you get lots of images scanned within 30 seconds to 5 min- this is very fast.
3. The biggest logistical challenge is moving objects to and from the hospital safely.
4. During the scanning you immediately get slices, which are cross-section images from three different directions. Volumetric rendering is done from the slices and there is free software for this.
5. Apparently it is relatively easy to do segmentation, segment out regions of interest, and extract wire frame models, just time consuming. From there you can get images of the surface and texture and can even print the models. It is relatively easy to go from slice to wireframe, but harder to achieve a manufacturing mesh to produce a 3D print, which can be expensive in comparison to traditional molding and casting.
6. PROs of scanning and printing: there is no contact with the object, complex geometry is not a problem, the scans and volumetric rendering are dimensionally accurate, you can print in lots of materials; prints can be scaled to make large things handleable or small things more robust for handling or increase visibility; subtractive manufacture, in which you can use a computerized milling machine to cut out a positive or negative, is also a possibility.
7. CONs of scanning and printing: printing is slow, the build volume is limited, a non-traditional skill set is required of conservators to produce the final product, and only a few materials age well. The best material is sintered nylon, extruded polyester may also be safe, but it doesn’t take paint well; it is hard to get the industry to think about permanence.
The object at the center of this project was a Magdalenian skull. The skeleton itself is of considerable importance, because it is the only magdalenian era skeleton of almost completion. A little history: it was excavated, quite professionally, in 1911 when they lowered the floor of the site. Unfortunately the burial was discovered when someone hit the skull with a pickax. Needless to say, the skull did not come out in one piece. In 1915 the full skeleton was removed in two blocks. My notes are a little fuzzy here, but basically at some point between the excavation the skull was restored and then went from being 2 pieces to 6 pieces, as it is documented in a 1932 publication by von Bonen. It appears that at that point the skull was also skin coated with plaster. Thankfully (?) those repairs have held up. Great, so why, did they need to scan and reconstruct the skull? Well according to Dr. Robert Martin, JP’s colleague at the Field Museum, the skull doesn’t look anatomically correct. Apparently during the time period when it was put together there was an interest in race and the skull fragments could have been lined up incorrectly accentuating cultural assumptions.
A previous x-ray showed that two fragments in the forehead are secured with a metal pin. In 2012, when the mobile CT scanner came to the museum, they were all geared up to start with the Magdalenian skull. Unfortunately there was not much difference in attenuation between bone and plaster making it tricky to define between the two materials in the scans. JP consulted a cranial reconstruction group and asked them to pretend this was a pediatric car crash victim with a cranial injury; they asked, why aren’t you using the mimics software package?
JP and his team also imaged the skull with a micro CT scan that has a 0.1 mm resolution versus the normal modern setting of 0.3 mm. They had previously identified 36 fragments of bone from the previous scan. It was hard to tell if some of those separations were just cracks or actual breaks between fragments. The hope was that the micro CT scanner could better define these areas. The micro CT scanner works opposite to the industrial/medical scanner. As you can see in the image to the left, the tube and detector are fixed, while the sample is rotated. Other differences are that it is slower, one scan takes 30-90 minutes and because of scanner geometry the skull had to be imaged in two scans . Because of this, JP used the previous scan to mill out a contoured support to hold the skull in the exact position. JP noted that digitally filling in the holes of the skull to create the support was the most time consuming part of that process and suggests using different radio-opaque marker dots to identify left and right for orientation during the later stitching process. With the new scans at least three separations were identified as cracks vs. breaks.
Now for the virtual reconstruction… the biggest obstacle in this stage was how to achieve something more anatomically correct using the virtual fragments when they have no boundaries. The fragments don’t push back in the computer- and the fragments can easily move into each other. With the software JP used mostly the translation and rotation functions and the free animation software Blender (which has a high learning curve and took several days to get accustomed to) to create hierarchical parent child relationships between the fragments as he joined them together. Just like putting a vessel together, right? In the virtual world at least there is no worry about lockout. They had a 3D printed of the final skull reconstruction and had an artist do facial reconstruction, which JP thinks always look related to Jean Luc Picard… So how successful was this? From a conservation perspective- awesome, it’s fully reversible! Scientifically though, it’s decent, well documented and scientifically justifiable- However, someone else could go through the same process and come up with a different reconstruction because of their reliance on left right symmetry for this reconstruction…
So what did I take away from this talk? This was a very cool project and if I have a question about CT scanning and 3D renderings, I will call JP! The scans can be extremely informational and there seems to be a lot of potential in their use for mount-making, crates, and storage, and possibly virtual reconstructions. Hopefully at some point in the future the software will become more intuitive and easier to use so that more of these types of projects can be done.
42nd Annual Meeting, Workshop Session, May 28, 'Essentials of Inpainting' by James Bernstein.
The Essentials of Inpainting workshop was well attended and greeted by a very welcoming James Bernstein adorned in wonderful kilt regalia. The one day workshop was presented predominantly through power-point presentation with plenty of interaction and discussion with the participants. The main head table was packed with portable workstation blocks holding a huge array of color pigments. The workstations were made from Ethafoam® and were light-weight and versatile. Examples of fillers were also available to examine which emphasized the essence of choice and considerations when thinking about filling and inpainting surfaces.
The day focused on practical application rather than ethical considerations due to time limits and varying contexts that conservators work within. A great booklet full of useful handouts which echoed the content of the presentation was provided from the start which helped prevent excessive note taking and increased knowledge transfer throughout the day. The booklet provided a summary of the content of the workshop; materials, concepts and participants experiences which included preparation, techniques, varying reactions of the choice of media, brushes, study of pigments, paints and their properties, toning and patination and in-painting standards. Complementary material relating to the presentation was included which was thorough in content which really helps with later revision.
James reminded the delegates of the importance of establishing a sense of the character of the object and all layers beneath the paint film need to be evaluated as all these elements effect one another. When thinking about inpainting, wicking and capillary actions need to be controlled and identifying inherent and altered states needs to be deciphered. These were just many of the considerations taken into account when trying to approach inpainting on various surfaces. Good support during treatment application was considered essential to enable good control. Painting sticks, plexi blocks and rolls were other alternatives if working with other substrates. Having a well organized and labeled pigment selection was highly recommended along with strong light and magnification.
Fill material and techniques were discussed and the importance of isolating areas requiring infilling to reduce the risk of leeching of binders. James spent a lot of time explaining the varying techniques to apply fill material to enable good inpainting. I particularly enjoyed learning about the use of cellulose fibers as they were compatible with cellulose materials such as canvas, paper and other organic objects. The material is inert and is easy to remove. Solka-Floc® was used as an example of Microcellulose Purified Cellulose fibers available in varying fiber lengths which can be used with the adhesive/consolidant of your choice. Differing techniques regarding reversibility of inpainting was also discussed such as how the Getty Conservation Institute use tissue overlays as an isolating method and as a form of reversibility. Drying time and shrinkage of fill material was considered an issue; if the fill is not applied well they have a tendency to sink in the center due to the material drying from the outside in, leaving the center to dry last. Applying the fill as thickly as possible will aid in less shrinkage, which is another common challenge with fills. James explained the effects of fill materials on inpainting through a failed project he had completed some time ago which highlighted how an incorrect fill could be detrimental to the inpainting applied. This was a great lesson. James presented all kinds of techniques with regards to good lighting, burnishing and smoothing.
Color and pigments were reported which led to a reminder of the color theory and pigment indexing. It was rather rewarding as a textile conservator to learn James is more fearful of dyes than pigments which really emphasized the complexity of dyed textile substrates in comparison to the complexities of pigmented paint film. The potential for dyes to migrate and bleed is a very real one and control can be difficult. Refraction and transmission of light were covered, as were issues surrounding whites, inerts pigments and black pigments. These can be difficult pigments to manipulate and a comprehensive pigment and particle chart was supplied which included health concerns.
The session progressed onto binders and polymers and the effects of low and high molecular weights with regards penetration. James advised to always check the composition of pigments, just because pigments have been selected for conservation use, it does not mean it is safe. Building up color slowly is essential to help with replication.
When first I realized the amount of information which was being packed into this one day workshop I thought the day would be too overwhelming. I was pleasantly surprised as to how much I actually understood due to the steady and consistent pace James presented his expertise. The handbook was incredibly comprehensive and James is very approachable as an instructor, both not just essential to inpainting but to training and developing.
42nd Annual Meeting – RATS Joint with Objects Session, May 30, “Technical Study and Conservation of the ‘Bat Wing Ship,’ Background, Challenges and Surprising Discoveries, Lauren Anne Horelick , Objects Conservator, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum
The compelling object at the center of this paper is an experimental prototype of a Nazi German jet powered fighter aircraft discovered by the Allies at the end of World War II and brought to the United States for study. Designed by the Horten Brothers (Reimar and Walter), this craft with a steel structure, paper-thin plywood veneers, and no vertical tail is regarded as a design predecessor to the stealth bomber. The aircraft, a model Horten Ho 229 v3 (the third and final version of this particular airframe) was captured when it was near completion in the Gotha workshop http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19600324000 Charcoal was said to have been added to the construction adhesives to make the aircraft invisible to radar.
While always a favorite of air flight/military history buffs, this craft has never been exhibited and has been the subject of increased interest in recent years due to what the paper’s author describes as a “sensationalized” documentary entitiled “Hitler’s Stealth Fighter.” This video, available on YouTube, is replete with inaccuracies including the assertion that it is stored in a “secret government warehouse” when, in fact, its current home is the Smithsonian’s Paul E Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland. However, it will soon be moved to another disclosed location – The Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia where it will have its big reveal.
In preparation for this move, conservators at the Smithsonian NASM carried out a technical study to inform treatment protocol for the stabilization of the unstable and extensively delaminating veneers. They sought to characterize and identify the adhesives and other materials employed and, in particular, seek evidence for the presence (or apparent lack) of charcoal.
The aircraft is 55.4 feet wide with a tubular steel frame. The engine rests in the center of the craft and it is covered in a plywood skin. There is a clear canopy for the pilot. Due to complications of working on the object in its storage location, the decision was made to disassemble the damaged plywood portions to allow for treatment of the panels in the conservation lab. The composite materials that were examined and analyzed included the plywood board, structural supports and spacer blocks including the adhesives used to attach these portions to one another.
After a literature review of plywood available in Germany before WWII, reference materials were acquired for the potential materials. A sampling protocol was developed and the object and reference samples were examined under visual and Polarized Light Microscopy, FTIR, Raman, and for selected samples XRD was employed. (There may have been other methods employed that I missed in my notes– GC-MS and 3-D microscopy were mentioned in the abstract – sorry if I have omitted something significant.) The analysis was done in conjunction with the Museum Conservation Institute.
The analyses yielded some unexpected results as some of the wood sample results varied from those specified by the Horten Brothers (as reported in their interrogation). However the substitutions of European Beechwood/Scots Pine for the specified birch was not very surprising to the authors given the materials shortages at the end of WWII. The adhesives tested were identified as urea formaldehyde and phenol formaldehyde. Confirming the presence of charcoal in the black paint/adhesive layers proved elusive. The black particles were difficult to separate from the matrix. PLM examination did not support the charcoal identification and they were found to be amorphous with XRD. FTIR analysis pointed to the presence of cellulose, hemi cellulose and phenolics. This could mean oxidized or charred wood – or neither.
Plans for treatment do not include repainting damaged areas as the author mentioned a growing trend toward exhibition of aircraft in a less heavily restored state. Beech veneers will be employed in areas of loss but were unavailable in the United States in the <1mm thickness required so must be ordered from Germany. Because the urea formaldehyde has cross-linked with age and become insoluble, the conservators are not as concerned as they might have been about adding new materials when they choose an adhesive to stabilize the veneers.
Details and updates on this research project and the treatment are available on the on the National Air and Space Museum’s Airspace blog http://blog.nasm.si.edu/restoration/horten-h-ix-v3-bat-wing-ship-may-2014-update/ The Bat Wing Ship is poised to be a popular attraction when it goes on exhibit – I know my interest has been piqued by this interesting talk!
Lighting Art and the Art of Lighting
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 from 8:30 am to Noon, Scott Rosenfeld will be leading a seminar on museum lighting at The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). There is no cost to attend, please see the link below to register. Sacramento is a 90 minutes by car from San Francisco ( if anyone is showing up early for AIC).
Lighting Art and the Art of Lighting
New energy efficient lighting sources are flooding the marketplace providing incredible new lighting tools along with new challenges. Museums have become an important test bed for these lighting technologies because museums demand the highest quality and employ full time professional lighting staff that maintain quality over time. LED lighting sources, in particular, present museums with a fantastic opportunity to reduce energy consumption, improve the reliability of their lighting systems, and reconsider ideas about how light can improve the visitor’s experience while minimizing the damaging effects of light. This talk provide an in depth discussion of museum lighting and show how these techniques can be used in a wide range of applications from retail to residential.
At the core of lighting design are the five fundamental controllable properties of light (intensity, angle, distribution, color and movement). The presentation will include extensive visual examples showing how to manipulate each of these properties and then make lighting choices for exhibitions so they are better seen, understood and experienced. Special attention will be given to developing criteria so lighting products can better match users specific needs.
Additional topics covered will include: a survey of LED lighting sources, how LEDs compare to legacy incandescent sources, how to access the color of light using mockups, how to access the color of light using metrics like CRI and CQS, how to utilize track lighting to its fullest potential and a review of lighting standards for light sensitive materials.
The presentation will use information gleaned from the Smithsonian American Art’s collaboration with the Department of Energy (DOE). The goal of the project with DOE was to match the quality of incandescent (and halogen) lighting fixtures using 100% LED technology. The museum succeeded in reducing energy costs by 70% while preserving a very similar lighting quality as the legacy incandescent lighting. The payback period, for the comparatively expensive LED lamps, was 16 months. The collaboration with DOE also identified areas where LEDs need more development. For example, unstable color and flicker in many of the MR-16 sources. The session will also include the research derived from collaborations with The Getty Conservation Institute, The Illuminating Engineering Society (IESNA), The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and various units of the Smithsonian Institution.
Bio
Scott Rosenfeld has 22 years of service as a museum professional, since 1997 as the Lighting Designer at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and Renwick Gallery. Mr. Rosenfeld is the chair of the Museum Committee for the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and has lectured on museum lighting to many groups including PACCIN (Getty Museum with James Druzik), the Washington Conservation Guild (with Steven Weintraub), The U.S.DOE (CA & WA), The University of Florida, LightFair International (NY & NV). Scott is accredited as Lighting Certified (LC) with the NCQLP.
Scott Rosenfeld is Lighting Designer at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and Renwick Gallery. Mr. Rosenfeld is the chair of IESNA’s Museum Standards Committee and has lectured on museum lighting to groups including PACCIN (Getty Museum with James Druzik), the Washington Conservation Guild (with Steven Weintraub), The US D.O.E. (CA & WA), The University of Florida, AIA (DC). and LightFair (NY & NV). Scott is accredited as Lighting Certified (LC) with the NCQLP.
Scott Rosenfeld is the lighting designer at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and Renwick Gallery. Scott main interest is lighting museum collections so they can be better seen, experienced and preserved. The advent of energy efficient LED lighting has led Scott to research how to measure and manipulate spectrum to enhance vision and slow the degradation of light sensitive materials. Other lighting projects include: The Hirshhorn Museum, The National Postal Museum, The Freer and Sackler Galleries, The Walters Art Museum and The Phillips Collection. Scott is chair of the IESNA Museum and Art Gallery Committee.
Scott Rosenfeld, Lighting Designer, Smithsonian American Art Museum
Early Bird Registration for Poles, Posts and Canoes Closes Soon
The early bird registration period for the “Poles, Posts and Canoes: the preservation,conservation and continuation of Native American monumental wood carving” conference ends on May 30th, so now is the time to register! 
The conference takes place in Tulalip, Washington (about 45 minutes north of Seattle), July 21st-22nd, 2014, with a late afternoon opening event at the Hibulb Cultural Center, July 20th. Registration includes breakfast and lunch both days, and a ticket to the opening feast on the 20th. Visit the symposium website for a provisional list of speakers, and look for a link on the left side column of the page. We have had a terrific international response to this event and have presentations and attendees from New Zealand, various parts of Europe, Canada and the USA.
Topics include current and past conservation practices, the importance of these objects to both native and non-native museums and collections, methods of documentation, insights into the collaborative process between contemporary native carvers and conservators, and much more. We also are honoured to have as a keynote evening event, a presentation by Maori artist George Nuku and conservator Charles Stable on their work together renewing a Maori Waka from the collections of National Museums Scotland.
And don’t forget you also have a chance to attend the “Caring for Totem Poles Workshop” July 23rd-25th, 2014, which immediately follows the conference and is also hosted by the Hibulb Cultural Center. This workshop is being lead by Mike Harrington, Andrew Todd and Felix Solomon (Lummi) – the same folks responsible for similar workshops held in Canada in recent years. Details and registration forms can be found at http://www.hibulbculturalcenter.org/Events/Symposium/
J. Claire Dean Co-organizer, Senior Conservator Hibulb Cultural Center
You can only be in one place at any one time
When one lives in New York City, she is sometimes faced with the choice of which of a number of conservation related events taking place at the same time to attend. Tonight was one of those times. On lower Fifth Avenue, the Salmagundi Art Club was hosting a program on “Investigating Authenticity in Art: Scholarship, Scientific Analysis and Connoisseurship”, while on upper Fifth Avenue, the Institute of Fine Arts was hosting a program on “Cultural Heritage in Troubled Times: War Damage, Pillaging and Saving the Monuments”. I chose to attend the IFA program. I wonder if I made the right choice.