William Minter and John Baty presented the results of this aging study of particular relevance to those of us working with archives and library materials. The hypothesis: “Encapsulated acidic sheets will degrade faster than unencapsulated sheets”. The question driving the testing was whether deterioration products from the paper can become trapped in the encapsulation, thereby accelerating further damage. In essence, do encapsulated papers “stew in their own juices”? I, for one, certainly would have assumed the answer to be “yes”. But the use of encapsulation as a means of support for brittle and fragile documents beats lamination with cellulose acetate, as would have been the practice decades ago. What else is a paper conservator to do?
Here is how this study proceeded: Minter and Baty acquired different naturally aged papers for use in this study of the effect of sealing papers between film. The papers were typical of those in archives, including bond paper, ledger paper and “onion skin”. All were acidic prior to oven aging. To more accurately mimic natural aging, the temperature used during aging was 45°C instead of the more commonly used 60°C and papers were heated for a longer period of time than normal. The aging “oven” was a sealed glass box with a circulating fan, heating element (pad?), and saturated salt solution that maintained a moderate relative humidity. If you have never been in the market for an official accelerated aging oven, you may be surprised to learn that they cost a pretty penny; we’re talking 10k! Fortunately, this alternative oven was significantly cheaper, and performed very well, consistently maintaining both temperature and RH.
The primary method of checking the papers’ deterioration was by measuring degree of polymerization with size exclusion chromatography. Shorter hemicellulose chains in paper samples after aging equate to loss of strength and flexibility in the paper, properties that were also measured and evaluated with fold endurance and surface pH. Results showed that the encapsulated samples DID NOT age faster than the unencapsulated samples, contrary to the hypothesis! (Maybe some of you will sleep better at night having learned this fact?) I believe this test concluded after 33 weeks. If appropriate, It would be interesting to learn if an even longer aging period would yield the same result.
A second set of aging tests with the same papers revealed that either washing in magnesium carbonate or using a non-aqueous spray deacidification product prior to encapsulation would be equally protective of some papers. It is not known how long this protection would last, however.
This was a very relevant study, the importance of which can be well appreciated by many in the field of archives and paper conservation. A repeat study of a broader range of papers, (maybe photographic?) could also yield very interesting results. For me, this is an essential paper to file under “must read, and read again”.
Category: Book and Paper Conservation
AIC 41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, "Update on Digital Print Preservation Research: What We Have Learned So Far About the Permanence and Preservation of Digitally Printed Books by Daniel Burge"
Digitally printed books are still in their infancy, with the onset of personal, customized and on-demand publishing, made possible in part by the internet. As they have become widespread, the understanding of their aging characterestics must be understood. This is made more critical by the variety of techologies and materials used, as well as the fact that many of the books published may be very small editions, or even one-of-a-kind, as with photo books.
Daniel Burge explained the results of some of the tests performed by the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester. Their tests examined digital inkjet books printed with both dye and pigment inks and electrophotographic books printed with dry and liquid toners. The aging tests compared the humidity, heat, pollution, light, abrasion and water resistance of digital books to traditional offset printed books. These comparisons may be used to evaluate whether the books made with modern technologies need a different standard of care than is provided to older books.
These tests specifically focused on bound materials and are not to be used to evaluate the permanence of art/photo prints or single documents. One critical issue is the material used for the technology. Often, papers must be specifically prepared (optimized) with a coating suited to the printing process in order to improve print quality and permanence. The use of alkaline paper and recycled paper was found to be on the rise, and these could be factors influencing digital book preservation.
In general, the good news is that digitally printed books do not appear to require widely different preservation environments than traditional books. Although they are far more vulnerable to water damage, they generally have equal resistance to humidity, heat, and pollution as do traditional offset books. They also have better resistance to light and abrasion, compared to offset. The vulnerability to water highlights the need for more study and planning regarding disaster and recovery techniques for digitally printed books.
For more information, see the DP3 (Digital Print Preservation Portal) project website. www.dp3project.org
41st Annual Meeting, Book and Paper Session, May 30, “Conservation of Dieter Roth’s Snow,” by Brenna Campbell, Scott Gerson, and Erika Mosier
[a conservation conundrum: “wait, later this will be nothing”]
Erika Mosier, Paper Conservator at The Museum of Modern Art, presenting on behalf of co-authors Brenna Campbell (Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Conservation, MoMA) and Scott Gerson (Associate Paper Conservator, MoMA), highlighted some of the conservation and exhibition challenges presented by Snow, a major book project by Swiss-German artist Dieter Roth. Snow is the centerpiece of the MoMA’s current exhibition [February 17 – June 24, 2013] “Wait, Later This Will Be Nothing: Editions by Dieter Roth.”
Snow represents a transitional moment in Roth’s career, a movement away from his earlier Constructivist works towards more experimental book forms and explorations of entropy and decay. The treatment and exhibition of Snow not only posed an array of physical and material challenges but also raised questions about the biases, values, and long term considerations of our work as conservators. These considerations, as well as attempts to balance a respect for the integrity of the object with the artist’s intent, were further complicated by the fact that this particular artist was especially interested in material decay and viewed museums as “funeral parlors.”
Roth was commissioned make an artist book in 1964; over the course of three months, he produced thousands of drawings, prints, and notes in preparation, tacking them to the walls of his studio. Though the book was never published as originally conceived, Roth compiled a few hundred of the notes and drawings into a cardboard album and titled it Snow. In the late 1960s he fabricated a table and chairs to house and display Snow; the book was exhibited open on the table with a selection of pages removed and hung on the wall.
[Roth’s definition of a book: “a community of like-minded things”]
The mixed media nature of Snow posed a variety of conservation challenges. In addition to tracing papers, diazo types, printing proofs, plastic sleeves, and pressure sensitive tapes, the book includes a small wax still-life, paper cups, plastic tubing, and is housed in what is essentially a cardboard suitcase. Roth’s abundant use of pressure sensitive tape resulted in extensive damage, especially at the edges of the plastic sleeves where the deteriorating adhesive caused them to stick together. Sticky residue leaching from the PVC sleeves has made it difficult to remove items. A previous stabilization effort (initiated by Roth) involved adhering the tracing papers to cellulose acetate film, leading to structural and chemical damage.
Conservators also faced the challenge of attempting to determine the original order of the pages. Some elements appear to be missing and the conservators and curators had to guess at Roth’s original order, using clues such as evidence of stubs, lining up holes on the pages that were shot through with a BB gun, and comparing stains from failed adhesives. Roth was making changes to Snow into the late 1960s. For example, neither the plastic sleeves nor the cellulose acetate sheets were present in the 1964 version of Snow; these were added later at Roth’s request in order to stabilize the pages for exhibition. Though the artist added these elements, curators determined that they were not part of his original concept for the piece and since they had already caused irreversible damage, it would be acceptable to remove them in the course of conservation treatment.
Treatment goals for Snow included stabilization for handling and display, identification of materials used, and treating individual components for imaging. Removing the acetate linings allowed the tracing paper pages to move and drape more naturally. Torn tracing paper was then repaired with a 1:1 Lascaux:water heat set tissue. Acetone and xylene were used to reduce the staining and stickiness of remaining adhesive residues, and a water/ethanol mix was used to reduce stickiness on the PVC sleeves. Failing pressure-sensitive tapes were either removed or re-attached with PVA.
Snow is now displayed open on the table with many more elements displayed on the walls. Digital images of all pages can be viewed on a display screen in the gallery. In its current iteration, Snow does not function as a book but could technically be returned to book format if requested for use by a researcher.
41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, “Testing the Waters: Applying New Techniques to the Cleaning of Acrylic Paint Film by Amy Hughes and Daria Keynan”
New York-based paper conservator Daria Keynan and Amy Hughes, third-year graduate student at NYU Institute of Fine Arts, shared exciting new contemporary cleaning techniques that have the potential for more effective and efficient treatment of paper-based objects by custom-matching the pH and conductivity modular stock solutions to the original object. This presentation was a wonderful and inspiring cross-specialty exploration of how paintings conservation techniques can be applied to paper conservation – and who doesn’t want more tricks up their sleeve?
Keynan was first introduced to the concept at the 2011 CAPS (Cleaning of Acrylic Painted Surfaces) workshop at the Museum of Modern Art. (I am now kicking myself for thinking that these workshops wouldn’t necessarily apply to my work as a book and paper conservator, so jealous!) To date there have been four innovative series of CAPS workshops supported by the Getty Conservation Institute to further the dialogue between theory and practice among conservation scientists and conservators as well as to introduce the concept of modular cleaning systems. Struck by her experience at the 2011 CAPS workshop and impressed by their use for treating acrylic paint films on art on paper, Keynan has further explored the use of pH and conductivity customization for other areas of paper conservation.
The CAPS workshop introduced several different cleaning techniques to minimize removal of surfactants when cleaning acrylic film surfaces. Acrylic paint and modern materials are scary (my word, not theirs.) Emulsions are often complex with many proprietary and artist-introduced ingredients. Colors react differently after drying, in treatment, and as they age. Some colors may be more sensitive to chemical and mechanical cleaning than others. Surfactants and other soft solids may never solidify, creating a tacky surface that can attract dust and grime. Conservation treatment, particularly aqueous treatment or mechanical cleaning with damp cotton swabs, can introduce immediate disfiguration like abrasion or swelling. Readily soluble surfactants can leach to the paint film surface or verso of the paper substrate. Treatment can also jumpstart deterioration that is not apparent until the future due to unknown chemical and mechanical consequences.
Of the many cleaning techniques available within contemporary conservation, Hughes and Keynan limited their presentation to the customization of pH and conductivity as a more finely-tuned and safer aqueous cleaning technique. They shared their methods by highlighting the treatment of works of art on paper brought to the Daria Keynan Paper Conservation in Manhattan for treatment where adjusted water – tweaking the pH and conductivity of the deionized water – was a key factor of success.
In the Garden (1986) by Paula Rego was surface cleaned to reduce dust and embedded grime altering the surface sheen. After dry cleaning with cosmetic sponges, Hughes tested various acrylic paint colors for pH and conductivity testing. Cylindrical pellets of cast agarose gel (recipe and supply information to be published in their BPG Annual post-print) were uniformly shaped with a medical-grade biopsy punch. (Heed Hughes’ warning, online image searches for “biopsy punch” are not for the weak-stomached!) The agarose pellet, acting like a poultice, was placed in contact with the acrylic paint film for 45 seconds to absorb the surface pH and conductivity. Agarose was selected because it imbibes the surface readings without visibly swelling the paint with excess moisture as in more aggressive techniques like local, direct application of deionized water. Keynan explained that the contact time of the agarose pellet can be matched to the estimated treatment time so that testing parameters can meet real-world treatment situations, increasing the predictability and reproducibility of testing results.
The pellet was transferred from the paper surface to the well of a pocket-sized, hand-held pH meter (Horiba Laqua pH Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the pH of the paint surface. A droplet of deionized water was then placed on the pellet and transferred to another pocket-sized, hand-held conductivity meter (Horiba B-171 Twin Conductivity/Salinity Pocket Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the conductivity of the paint surface. (As someone who absolutely dreads calibrating our cumbersome pH meter I was overjoyed to hear how easy these were to use – my purchase order request is already submitted.)
The conservators used the recorded pH and conductivity for a given area of the painted surface to identify the optimal working solution for cleaning. They selected from among a variety of premixed stock solutions that were created according to the CAPS workshop directions using deionized water, glacial acetic acid, and ammonium hydroxide in a range of ph 5-8 and conductivity 1000-6000 µS (micro Siemens.) Once mixed, the stock solutions can be stored in the refrigerator for up to several months. Keynan also reported that they often add several drops of an antimicrobial preservative for a longer shelf life.
The embedded material and dust on In the Garden released easily with 3-4 passes of lightly damp, pre-blotted cotton swab rolled over the surface. Hughes warned that since acrylic film is susceptible to abrasion it is important to monitor the paint surface during treatment. Cotton might not be appropriate for all acrylic surfaces so additional experiments with different swab materials may be useful. Similar success was seen in the mold removal and stain reduction of Maquette for Smoking Cigarette Relief (1983) by Tom Wesselmann.
Since Superstorm Sandy hit New York City in October 2012, Keynan’s studio has seen many complex treatments because of the unusual and unknown composition of the storm water which was often contaminated by sewage (uh, gross.) Many of the paper-based objects were stained with tidelines that were difficult to remove and fluoresced brightly under UV. Standard paper conservation techniques often visibly removed the tidelines but were deemed unsuccessful since under UV they shifted along the paper fibers or sank but were not completely removed from the paper support. She related that altering the pH and conductivity of her treatment water dramatically improved treatment results. Removal of the fluorescing blue tidelines (both external and internal) was achieved by local application of the adjusted water and using fumed silica poultices to block the formation of new tidelines.
The last example Keynan shared was a sample of naturally aged 2-ply paper board. (This was exciting, anyone else ever stare blankly at a nasty tideline on an illustration board and just sigh?) Traditional and adjusted treatment waters were applied with cotton swabs in several passes to clean the surface with varying results. Traditional deionized water cleaned less and was uneven, leaving a soft and vulnerable surface. The solution set at pH 6.6 and 6,000 µS glided more easily and had more even results. It also felt more controllable when working. The third sample solution set to pH 5.5 and 14,000 µS gave the most effective cleaning but in real life would probably not need three passes. After drying, the surface readings for all three areas had almost identical conductivity and pH readings.
Keynan concluded that by matching a pH- and conductivity-adjusted solution to the surface of the object it is possible to create a near chemical equilibrium at the surface to eliminate leaching from or depositing into the paint film. In treatment, using adjusted solution equals maximized cleaning efficiency with less wetting out of substrates, less pigment transfer, less repeated action, less loss of surface texture, and reduced distortion of the working area. Conservators have always adjusted pH for various uses, but by measuring the conductivity we can tailor our treatments to the physical needs of the object material with more refinement and subject it to less invasive treatment. Adjusted waters are an incredibly useful tool for improving and refining treatments in our conservation practice.
Hughes and Keynan’s presentation was an approachable and exciting take on the contemporary research going on in the field of conservation science and paintings conservation, especially as led by Chris Stavroudis (freelance paintings conservator in Los Angeles) and Richard Wolbers (Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation) in, well, all things related to cleaning painted surfaces and the Modular Cleaning Program.
Other presentations at the AIC meeting in Indianapolis such as “Mass Spectrometric Imaging of Acrylic Emulsion Paint Films: Engineering a Microemulsion-Based Cleaning Approach” (Paintings + Research and Technical Studies Thursday, May 30) show that the MCP and CAPS research continues. During the question-and-answer period Dr. Anthony Lagalante (Villanova University) shared that he and Stavroudis had recently recorded a video about using and calibrating the meters – it was on the cutting room floor, but will be posted to the CAPS website soon. Lagalante also sent me a link to their illuminating Studies in Conservation article that is currently available as a pre-print:
C.E. Dillon, A.F. Lagalante and R.C. Wolbers “ Aqueous cleaning of acrylic emulsion paint films. The effect of solution pH, conductivity and ionic strength on film swelling and surfactant removal” Studies in Conservation 57(1), (2014). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/sic/pre-prints/2047058412Y.0000000076
The concept presented by Hughes and Keynan in “Testing the Waters” has the potential for wide application for all book and paper conservators. Working with stock solutions is a fast and economical lab practice. Customizing treatment solutions increases the workability and effectiveness of the treatment. Many of us in the room instantly coveted the easy-to-use digital meters as we thought of the hassle of calibrating traditional models. I’m intrigued by how this research can be applied to aqueous treatments meant to introduce alkaline reserves to acidic paper.
This was a welcome multi-disciplinary presentation that encouraged conservators from other specialty groups like PSG and RATS to attend the BPG program. I am not alone in hoping for more presentations like it at future meetings so we can all benefit from the exciting things happening in all areas of our conservation community.
41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, May 30, "The Materials, Techniques, and Conservation Challenges of Richard Serra’s Oil Stick Prints" by Im Chan
I knew very little about Richard Serra’s works on paper prior to Im Chan’s interesting presentation. She had the challenge of examining and housing a collection of Serra’s enormous oil stick prints at the National Gallery of Art.
First she explained how the prints were made using a combination of screen printing and oil stick. The oil stick itself was actually an adaptation of proprietary paint sticks that Serra would melt down, adding linseed oil and wax to make a large soft brick that could be drawn across the paper or pushed through a silkscreen, giving the print surface a thick texture. Im recreated the mixture and described it as being like butter. As an amateur artist, the idea intrigues me, but as a paper conservator, it sounds a bit horrifying! But I was impressed to learn that Richard Serra actually prepared his papers with a coating of Golden acrylic gel medium to protect the paper from oil penetration, and some prints even have acrylic gel between layers of ink. Naturally, however, there is some yellowing of the paper, and the media itself is also tacky.
The scientific analysis of her presentation dealt with the problem of the oils. She explained that oleic acid usually oxidizes to azelaic acid as it ages, but if it does not then the media will remain tacky and malleable, vulnerable to indentations and dust. The free fatty acids in the oils can migrate to the surface of the image and appear as cloudy efflorescence, marring the visual uniformity of the black ink field. She mentioned that when stored with cover sheets, many of the prints had transferred media and efflorescence to those cover sheets as well. Framed prints did not have glazing, and thus they were vulnerable to dust.
Im Chan’s work involved identifying and analyzing the problem, not actively treating all of the prints, and I could sympathize when she said it was difficult to resist getting her tweezers out to pick off all the dust and stray fibers stuck to the ink surfaces. She and her colleagues planned storage systems that would allow the prints to breathe, such as a box made of honeycomb board that had a sheet of microchamber paper across an opening in the lid to allow the exchange of air but to trap offgassing elements, having mentioned earlier that the prints had a strong smell of linseed oil, as I can well imagine!
Incidentally, the next day Joan Weir presented a talk on displaying another Richard Serra work on paper with some similar problems. It was quite interesting to hear her talk after Im Chan’s scientific presentation, so I already had a good understanding of what the artwork was like. That talk was:
(Contemporary Art Session 1) “When Conservation Means Stapling: Touring an Unsupported, Unglazed, 9ft x 21ft, oil paint stick on Paper to Three Venues” by Joan Weir.
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-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 – General Session, May 30, "Contemporary Colorant Change: Assessing Changes in the Herblock Collection Due to Exhibition and Storage of Fugitive Media, Part II," by Fenella G. France
Caveat: This review presents very little of the data from this study, but is instead a quick overview so that you know what the Herblock team is working on and what to look forward to in the published study.
This presentation addresses a looming problem in the conservation of 20th century material culture – the color change of ubiquitous late twentieth century drawing and writing materials. Fenella G. France’s talk is the second AIC presentation of an ongoing ambitious study at the Library of Congress on the aging of drawing materials used by the editorial cartoonist Herbert L. Block (Herblock). Although this study looks at the materials of a single artist, it has applications for both late 20th century and contemporary archives and for contemporary fine art on paper. France reminded the audience that the Library of Congress is the depository for the Members of Congress’s papers, which often contain the same materials Herblock was using, including White-Out, Avery Labels, and paper with optical brighteners. In short, this Library of Congress team is looking at the future of paper conservation.
When the Library acquired the Herblock collection, which spans 72 years and includes 14,400 drawings and 50,000 rough sketches on newsprint, Holly Krueger, Head of the Paper Conservation Section at the Library of Congress, had the foresight to gather some of the artist’s materials. (Collecting contemporary artist’s materials turned out to be a theme at the 2013 meeting, with Michelle Barger’s “Artist Materials Collection at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art” presentation, Tiarna Doherty’s passing reference to a few spare television sets acquired to replace sets as they broke, as well as the acquisition of an entire inspirational archivein “Nam June Paik: Global Visionary: from the Archive to the Exhibition,” and on a more conceptual level, the acquisition of people with specialized knowledge for the conservation of performance art in Dr. Pip Laurenson’s “Collecting the Performative: the Role of the Conservator in the Conservation of Performance-Based Art.”) In the future the Library is hoping to work with the U.S. Secret Service, which has its own collection of modern ink and fugitive materials.
In the 1970s, Herblock made the transition from India ink and graphite (which are relatively permanent, and have a long history of use) to modern materials that he bought at the corner store, including porous-point (felt-tip) pens, white correction fluid (White-out), pressure-sensitive labels (Avery brand) and coquille board, a textured drawing board with optical brighteners.
The ongoing study of composition and aging characteristics has been conducted with 23 of Herblock’s drawing materials on both Whatman paper and on samples of Herblock’s favored coquille drawing board, all exposed to 5 different conditions. The discovery that some of the pen components fade even in the dark has added cold storage as another variable for future study.
The study is further complicated by Herblock’s use of several different porous-point black pens that are indistinguishable in normal light but that have different formulations and fading characteristics. The team used a progressive LED illumination sequence (hyperspectral imaging) to allow them to distinguish between individual blacks.
The team used a range of techniques to investigate both the samples and a selection of Herblock drawings, including hyperspectral imaging, UV-VIS colorimetry, micro-fade-ometer, and micro-sampling (of the sample sheets) for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). The sample media that showed change were also subjected to thin-layer chromatography (TLC) to separate out the components, and analyzed with Direct-Analysis in Real Time (DART) Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry.
I will not attempt to present the team’s results, but a very quick and general summary would be that many of the inks are highly light sensitive, so far there is no dependency on substrate (Whatman vs. coquille board) for the color change of the media, and certain elements of the porous-point pens fade rapidly, even in the dark. France shared a before and after picture of one TLC plate that had been kept for 8 months and several of the porous-point pen ink components had already noticeably changed color within that time frame.
This study provides a unique chance to delve into the wide array of proprietary formulations of drawing and writing implements from the late 20th century and to look into the implications for their long-term preservation. I am sure I am not the only one eagerly awaiting the publication of the study to get a glimpse of what we will face as the century continues.
41st Annual Meeting-Tours, May 29, "Indiana Historical Society"
A slight communications glitch caused the group from the Indiana State Museum Tour to start without the group that was only doing the Indiana Historical Society tour; we knew that they were supposed to rendesvous with us, but they didn’t know that we existed.
We finally caught up with the other half of our tour group in the Isolation Area of the Indiana Historical Society building, where Paper Conservator Ramona Duncan-Huse was explaining how they set aside a purpose-built space to quarantine, inspect, and treat incoming collections. Because the Historical Society actively acquires entire pallets of archive boxes, staff cannot examine every single item as it enters the collection. This holding room gives the Conservation Department the opportunity to detect insect evidence or mold and prevent cross-contamination with other collections. The room was the envy of many on the tour who could only dream about a room with such great features: negative pressure, floor drains, industrial freezers, etc. The Historical Society’s mold treatment room was a smaller room contained within the Isolation Area that had polyethylene sheeting over its entrance, easily-cleaned tile walls, and its own negative pressure air handler, designed to prevent the outflow of airborne particles through doorways.
After being “wowed” by both the size and quality of the contaminated holding area, the tour moved on to the conservation exhibit. The “History Lab” is a delightful, interactive, kid-friendly installation in a second-floor gallery adjacent to the conservation lab. The exhibits’ objective is to explain what conservation is and what conservators do. The exhibit has been popular with audiences and funders, so the Conservation Department will be undertaking a renovation and expansion of the exhibit and the Conservation Lab. Facilitator Nancy Thomas oversees the hands-on paper mending practice area in the current exhibit. There are also computer-based interactive exercises.
Romona Duncan-Huse turned over the next part of the tour to Sarah Anderson, the designer who is helping to transform the History Lab in its next phase, scheduled to open in September. She showed storyboards for the new exhibit and explained its objectives. The current exhibit is very popular with school groups and families, but some visitors see it as a children’s exhibit and walk right past it. There will be “before and after” objects, and lots of touchable materials, as well as touchscreen computer-based items. Duncan-Huse maintains a conservation Pinterest page, so they plan to incorporate that into the new exhibit. The new exhibit will explore more of the “why” and “how” of conservation treatment decisions, and it will be a lighter, more open design (think Brookstone or Sharper Image meets Apple Store meets Williams-Sonoma); it still incorporates hands-on interactive activities, but with a more sophisticated feel than the old exhibit.
With the new gallery construction slated to begin in June, the impending removal of some walls of the conservation lab meant that there were no treatments in progress during our visit. Conservation staff were happy to describe some of their recent activities to us. Tamara Hemerlein, the Local History Services Officer, explained the IMLS Statewide Connecting the Collections (C2C) project, which includes a traveling conservation panel exhibit, “Endangered Heritage.” The project also includes training for volunteers and museum boards around the state, and she has done 85 site visits to collecting institutions. In late August, they plan to release Deterioria and the Agents of Destruction, a conservation graphic novel. They let us see advance proofs, and it is AWESOME! Several members of the tour (including me) were involved with C2C, so we were all jealous. I asked if they had plans for conservator action figures.
After the lab tour, we had the opportunity to visit the galleries on our own. I went back to the conservation exhibit to get a closer look and to take a few pictures. I want to thank Ramona Duncan-Huse and everyone at the Indiana Historical Society for such an interesting tour.
41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, May 30, "A Technical Study and Conservation Project of Roy Lichtenstein's Screenprint on Plastic 'Sandwich and Soda', 1964," by Marion Verborg
The fourth presentation of the Book and Paper Group session examined neither a book nor an object on paper, but instead a print on plastic: Roy Lichtenstein’s 1964 Sandwich and Soda, a screenprint in red and blue ink on plastic. The object occupies a sort of conservation no-man’s-land: it’s a print, so it’s not something an objects conservator would normally deal with, but it’s on plastic, which is not a paper conservator’s area of expertise. Marion Verborg, Craigen W. Bowen Paper Conservation Fellow at the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies at Harvard Art Museum, jumped into the void with this print on plastic, part of the portfolio X + X (Ten Works by Ten Painters), published as an edition of 500 by the Wadsworth Athenaeum in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1964.
Verborg’s problem was typical for a paper conservator—removing degrading pressure-sensitive tape that someone had once used to hinge the object. The Harvard Art Museum has more than one copy of the work. One print had an office-type pressure-sensitive tape, and the other had a Filmoplast-like tape. Both supports showed a small amount of planar distortion. There were already dark stains around the pressure-sensitive tape areas, causing concern that the adhesive would continue to sink into the media. The problem was complicated by the adhesive’s being directly adhered to the ink of the object, and by the plastic support, which would probably react poorly to heat application.
Verborg viewed other copies of the print in other institutions, and had access to the records of the print shop where they were made, as well as to recorded interviews with the artist and the opportunity to get information from Lichtenstein’s wife and a printer’s assistant from the print shop.
One interesting question arising from Lichtenstein’s use of a transparent support is which side is the recto? Lichtenstein, when asked many years later, said that the print should be ink-side up, which is reasonable for a print. However, both the printer’s assistant and Mrs. Lichtenstein remember that the ink should be on the verso, so that you have the glossy effect as well as the extra depth from looking through the support to the image. This is further supported by having the drinking glass in the composition on the right, where a right-handed person would normally place it.
Verborg had the materials tested with GCMS, FTIR, Raman Spectrometry, and LDI-MS (Laser Desorption Ionization Mass Spectrometry). The original printer’s invoice called the plastic “acetate,” but this seems to be a generic term for any clear sheet plastic. Analysis revealed it to be polystyrene, which is no longer available in clear sheets like this, and today we are more familiar with it in products like Styrofoam. The inks used a polystyrene binder as well, with PB 15 (phthalocyanine blue) as the colorant in the blue ink, and chrome red and some barium sulfate in the red ink. The paper-type tape was made of cellulosic material and the clear tape used PVA for both carrier and adhesive.
No one seems to sell clear polystyrene sheets anymore, so Verborg had to make do with other plastics for her mock-ups. As expected, heat caused the sheets to warp, making a heat treatment unwise. After removing the carrier, Verborg was left with sticky adhesive. Finding the right solvent for aged PVA adhesive that wouldn’t affect polystyrene would be difficult, as demonstrated by evidence of previous solvent tests on the ink layer, so she had to get creative, especially without the ability to make exact mock-ups. She finally tried sprinkling cellulose powder on the adhesive and then using a silicon color shaper to move the cellulose powder around, allowing her to remove the adhesive in small cellulose-powder/adhesive balls, leaving a clean surface.
This research has not only provided better insight into the working process of Roy Lichtenstein and his transition into experimenting with unusual print supports (one of the great advantages of screen printing) but also addresses other more universal problems such as the artist’s memory versus the artist’s probable intention, the unreliability of the labels people give to the materials they use, and how to remove sticky adhesive residue from a delicate surface.