There are two things you should know up front before you read this post. 1) This talk was fascinating. 2) I am not going to do it justice. I couldn’t take notes quickly enough and it didn’t help that I was frequently mesmerized by the beautifully colored images.
This paper briefly reviewed current methods for digital analytical imaging using visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light, but its true focus was on exploring and adapting technology from crime scene investigation for use in object examination. Specifically, the authors looked at the use of an alternative light source (ALS) combined with a different filters on a modified digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR – modified by removing the UV/IR blocking filters). The ALS allows the user to choose specific wavelengths of light for illumination and, by using filters on the DSLR, reflectance/fluorescence can then be captured between 350nm and 1000nm. In this case, a Mini-CrimeScope 400 ALS was used along with a modified Nikon D90.
Multiple projects were featured to show the capabilities and limitations of the technique, all focusing on the investigation of archaeological ceramics. The authors began by creating reference panels of expected ancient pigments and binders, as well as of potential modern materials including adhesives. They then experimented to find successful combinations of excitation and emission. For one of the projects used as an example, an ancient Greek incense burner with a figure of Nike, this method of investigation was able to identify Egyptian blue and madder lake pigments. In this example, illumination was in the green spectrum and capture was in the red and vice-versa (if I’m remembering correctly). On a Roman figurine, the technique identified madder lake, but also pointed to the need for further testing of a green pigment which did not fluoresce (it turned out to be green earth). Additional examples included a Pre-Columbian ceramic and two Italian ceramics.
In summary, this paper demonstrated that forensic photography with a broadband light source can successfully be used for qualitative identification of a variety of ancient and modern materials. What’s exciting about this (at least for me) is its potential application to archaeological field settings. After all, crime scene investigation happens entirely “in the field” and this technique is completely portable. It also promises to be relatively simple once successful combinations are worked out for different materials. The ALS price tag is not exactly cheap, and the cost is likely to vary a bit depending on who’s buying (police department, university, etc.), but at roughly 15K it is in a more affordable category than, say, portable X-ray fluorescence. Plus, you end up with visually appealing and instructive images, which would frankly be great in both scholarly publications and museum didactics.
This paper also highlighted (for me) the debt we owe to graduate students like Alexis North (currently at the UCLA/Getty Program in the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials) and faculty like Ioanna Kakoulli (also at UCLA in the Materials Science and Engineering Department and Chair of the Conservation Program). Where would we be without graduate student research? Many of my archaeology colleagues will be delighted to know about this non-destructive possibility for investigating objects in the museum and in the field.
Category: Objects Conservation
41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 31, "Innovations During Renovations: Evolving Technologies and New Materials for an Encyclopedic University Museum,” by Carol Snow
If you were fortunate enough to hear this talk, you probably had the same thought I did: How can I get a job at the Yale University Art Gallery? In an action-packed twenty minutes, Carol Snow, Deputy Chief Conservator for the Yale University Art Gallery, took the listener on a fascinating tour of multiple conservation projects undertaken in conjunction with the Gallery’s 14 year-long renovation. The renovation itself involved three separate buildings, ranging in construction date from 1866 to 1928, and it dramatically expanded the Gallery’s exhibition, study, classroom, and conservation space.
The projects Carol chose to feature spanned an amazing range, and throughout her talk she emphasized the collaborative nature of each treatment and installation. Conservators, art handlers, exhibition preparators, and riggers – and in many cases engineers and architects – collaborated, as did artists. For an ancient Roman Mithraeum altar, for example, painted wall fragments were treated to remove old backing materials and then installed in their correct configuration in a newly constructed recreation of the altar. This was accomplished using an ingenious structure which allowed each fragment to “float” in place, supported. A scenic painter provided the final touches on the installation, integrating losses to give visitors a better sense of the altar’s original appearance and context.
Roman horse armor from Dura Europos (still backed with its original leather backing!) was installed on a fiberglass horse made from downloading a 3-D scan of a horse. A mosaic from a Byzantine church at Gerasa (Jerash, Jordan) was treated to remove the cracking concrete backing and newly mounted. Period rooms were investigated, pigments identified, and the wood panels dated by dendrochronology and then cleaned before installation. A fragile stained glass window by John LaFarge was supported and displayed on an interior wall using a clever system of hidden LED lights. For a slumping petroleum jelly dumbbell by artist Matthew Barney, conservators worked closely with the artist to recast a dumbbell from his original mold, using the correct composition of petroleum jelly.
Throughout the talk, the expertise and resourcefulness of the Art Gallery’s team was apparent. But it gets even better. At heart university museums are teaching collections, and although they serve to inspire the wider community, education and access are their primary missions on campus. Conservators are instrumental in achieving these goals, and Carol demonstrated this in spades. From her discussion of how a rooftop terrace was engineered to safely display outdoor sculpture, to her explanation of the Gallery’s clever use of steel-faced honeycomb panels and rare earth magnets to provide a simple and quick method for rotating displays of textiles, she highlighted the crucial role of conservators in achieving the Gallery’s mission. One of my favorite projects featured in this talk was a Marcel Duchamp Rotary Glass Plates sculpture. Conservators repaired a broken blade for this complex object, but then went on to assist in creating a working model of the sculpture which can be used for classes and workshops. Talk about engaging with artwork! Who wouldn’t appreciate seeing this in action?
In closing, I should say that I could not take notes quickly enough during this talk, and the projects I’ve mentioned here are not all-inclusive. So read the post-print! There’s something in this paper for every objects conservator, no matter your sub-specialty. There’s also something for any conservator interested in innovative solutions to tricky display questions or in ways of increasing context and access in the gallery. And if you’re looking for great models of teamwork in an institution, this is definitely for you. Congratulations to Carol and the YUAG team on a job well done.
41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 30, "Rethinking the Monumental: A Creative Approach to the Preservation of a Landmark Tony Smith Outdoor Sculpture,” by John Steele and Abigail Mack
This talk had so much to like: an incredible case study of Tony Smith’s massive Gracehoper, a great film clip featuring 1970’s Detroit, and a nuanced look at how community and stakeholder values influence the preservation of public art. But most valuable was the clear exposition of the collaborative decision-making process that went into creating a treatment plan for this Detroit landmark.
Gracehoper is owned by the Detroit Institute of Arts and sits on the Museum’s north lawn. It’s the largest of Smith’s sculptures to be fabricated during his lifetime and is roughly 22 feet high and 46 feet long, with a whopping 3,800 square feet of surface area. Smith designed a cardboard maquette for the sculpture in 1961, but the full-size version wasn’t fabricated until 1972. In a delightful short film clip, we were able to see the fabricated steel sections being trucked into Detroit and listen to Smith talk about the joy of seeing this monumental sculpture installed. Although not part of the clip shown, Tony Smith mused that Gracehoper, “looks like someone’s nightmare…I guess the reason that it’s not my nightmare is because it’s on the lawn of the Detroit Museum.”
- Gracehoper at the DIA
41 years later the sculpture is, if not a nightmare, then a very challenging conservation project. The painted exterior – meant to be a “dull semi-gloss” black specified by Smith – is now faded, streaked and disfigured by graffiti. Corrosion has created rusty staining and caused paint to lift. The sculpture now desperately needs conservation treatment not only to restore its appearance, but also to insure its preservation for the future; unless existing corrosion is removed and the surface recoated, corrosion on outdoor sculptures like this one will continue, eventually undermining structural integrity.
The project team assembled to develop a treatment plan included conservators John Steele and Abigail Mack; John is the DIA’s Conservator of Sculpture and Decorative Arts, and Abigail, of Abigail Mack Art Conservation LLC, specializes in the conservation of modern outdoor sculpture. Also on the team were the DIA’s Associate Curator of Contemporary Art, Rebecca Hart; James Sejd, President of the industrial painting company ASCo; and Sarah Auld, Director of the Tony Smith Estate. Together, they considered the monumental size of the sculpture, its current condition, Smith’s desired aesthetic for Gracehoper, and current coatings technology.
Adding to the complexity of the project was the fact that as the team weighed treatment options, the DIA was facing an important regional tax vote which would, if successful, support operations for the Museum over the next ten years (it was successful, by the way). The Museum could not afford negative public opinion, and the Gracehoper project team knew that their recommendations would need to be sensitive to cost and feasibility as well as conservation goals. This was no mean feat for research and treatment on a sculpture of this size. It’s also worth noting that the DIA did an amazing job of raising funds for this project; the cost of treating Gracehoper will be paid exclusively by grants and private donations.
Ultimately, the project team decided to treat Gracehoper on-site and to repaint the surface using a roller-applied high performance paint. But the simplicity of this statement belies the complexity of the decision-making process. The team investigated every aspect of the sculpture’s current condition and evaluated an amazing number of treatment options. They were guided by 2 primary questions: 1) Could the sculpture be treated on-site or would it need to be disassembled and treated in an off-site facility? 2) What paint would best match Tony Smith’s aesthetics while also meeting the team’s requirements for durability, application, maintenance, and availability?
As a resident of metro-Detroit, I’ve watched the progress of this project with interest for several years. I was fortunate to have an insider’s look at the investigative process and clearly remember the massive whiteboard flow-chart in the DIA’s Objects Conservation Lab that tracked the group’s decisions as they worked through questions and weighed possible approaches. Although attendees of this talk didn’t get to see the whiteboard with all its scribbled queries and findings, John and Abigail’s talk suggested it by elegantly following the group’s comprehensive and carefully considered research. I suspect that this will be the most important and useful aspect of this paper for most conservators – not the details of the final treatment plan, since every painted outdoor sculpture is different and most are not as large as Gracehoper – but the way in which the team developed it.
For conservators considering similar projects with painted outdoor sculpture, or conservators considering ANY large-scale treatment project, this paper provides a great guide for what questions to ask and how to find the answers. Look for it in the OSG 2013 post-prints! Treatment of Gracehoper is slated to begin in July of 2013, so stay tuned to learn how it goes.
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, 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 25th 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.
AIC 41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, Friday, May 31, 2013. Preserving an Aesthetic of Decay: Living Artists and the Conservation of Contemporary Objects by John T. Campbell.
Disclaimer: I am not the fastest note-taker, and may have misspelled some names or gotten some of the concepts a bit wrong. If something I say is critical for you, please check directly with the presenter(s) for corroboration.
The purpose of this presentation was to present a framework for collaboration between the artist and the conservator. Of course, this is only possible with living and still-cognitive artists. If you are working with such an individual, do not delay as the opportunity may close at any time without warning.
The presenter broke the process into two main areas. The first is artist education – enhancing the likelihood of a favorable outcome. The second is documentation – facilitated through an artist interview. The anecdote presented was the work The Hill near El Paso, TX by artist Jim Magee.
Decay happens to all object with only a very few exceptions, especially those exhibited outdoors. Complicating this fact is that some artists intentionally use decay (or “patination”) as part of their art. What is intended, and what is not, that is the question. And then there is the million dollar question, if decay is intended to be arrested at a certain point, can that be done, and how?
In order to even get to the artist documentation stage, it is necessary to foster a level of cooperation with the artist. In some instances, this will be easy. They will know about deterioration, conservation, maintenance needs, and so forth. In other cases, they will be oblivious, or even worse, will have had a bad experience with conservation/conservators. This requires diplomatic skills to foster a common ground that allows effective communication to occur. At this point of common listening, it is possible to educate the artist, and of course the conservator as well. The interview becomes possible.
Ideally, the interview will be in person. Long-distance interviews are very difficult, especially if the object has not been examined in person by the conservator. First, determine the artist’s expectations, then help manage their expectations. Ask questions such as is deterioration wanted or not? Entropic art desires deterioration as part of its evolution. Is dirt/dust considered part of the object or an unwanted intrusion? Is maintenance intended/desired or not?
If time allows, create a manual of care for the object. This will incorporate and memorialize in writing the intent and desires of the artist, as well as the recommendations of the conservator. Of course, as with any written document, its presence must be kept in the consciousness of the responsible entity, or it essentially does not exist. This is a HUGE problem. How many of us have done CAPs for an organization, and five years later, no one there knows it exists, much less is following its recommendations? It has happened to me probably a dozen times. This problem alone could be the subject of a future AIC conference.
What was not discussed was how to affect arrested decay. If layered on top of this is that the artist states they do not want any changes or alterations in appearance, the conservator is in an impossible position with our current technology. Perhaps deaccessioning/selling is the best ethical solution? 😉
In my own practice, I did treatments for a California State Park where their park ethic and even motto was “arrested decay.” Literally! They were a mining-era ghost town supposedly left the way it was when abandoned. In reality, a good deal of “interior decorating” was done in the 1940s and 1950s before it became a park, including cutesy furnishings of rooms, and decrepit horse-drawn vehicles in the fields. But they wanted arrested decay, so they did not fix the holes in the roofs. Not that long afterwards, the roofs began to collapse. But they did not want to repair or fix anything, and no modern materials were supposed to be visible. That had to change, obviously. Now, they repair roof and other leaks, but still do not treat the exterior siding of the buildings. I am sure their policy will have to change again. Decay can be “arrested” perhaps for the memory of an individual, but not for centuries or millennia, at least for outdoor objects.
My project at the park was to preserve several of the horse-drawn vehicles with minimal effect on their appearances. The park staff wanted them to be continued to be exhibited in the fields, which was actively contributing to their deterioration. But they did not want anything to change in their appearance. The compromise reached was that some of them got moved to interior spaces in barns and sheds and their stabilization could be less invasive, but some were kept outside and had more aggressive treatments that altered their appearance a bit (but much less than what had happened because they had previously had no treatment). But this treatment is destined to fail in a relatively few years, and hopefully the park will have awakened to a painful reality. Arrested decay outdoors currently is not possible.
Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation (BROMEC 34) is now available
The trilingual site BROMEC is the online resource for research dissemination by conservators and scientists of metallic cultural heritage artifacts.
BROMEC 34, the Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation’s April 2013 issue, is now available online at the following websites:
- www.warwick.ac.uk/bromec
- tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Metals-Conservation-Discussion-Group
- www.icom-cc.org/10/documents?catId=13&subId=127
Eight research abstracts and 8 announcements are presented, together with the usual lists of contacts and informative metal research/conservation websites and discussion groups. The issue includes articles on:
Calls for collaboration:
- Survey on the stabilization of marine iron-organic composite artefacts
New research projects:
- New approaches and applications of electrochemical techniques and corrosion inhibitors for in situ monitoring of shipwrecks and treatment of recovered marine metal-organic composite artefacts
- MAIA: Microbes for Archaeological Iron Artefacts
- Fabrication, corrosion and conservation of the silver jewellery from Lumbe’s Garden, Prague Castle
Ongoing research projects:
- The MIFAC-Metal project: a methodology for studying and analyzing microstructures and corrosion profiles of heritage metals; application to metallographic samples from Swiss collections
- The St Maurice project: development of an electrolytic pen for cleaning tarnished gilt silverware with wooden cores
Finalized research projects
- Conservation of a fluvial deposit of bronzes from Agde-La-Motte
English, French and Spanish language versions are available for downloading as PDF documents.
To subscribe for email updates about BROMEC: www.warwick.ac.uk/bromec-subscription
BROMEC Editorial Team
Anglophone Editor & Translator:
· James Crawford
Francophone Coeditor:
· Michel Bouchard
Hispanophone Coeditor:
· Emilio Cano
Francophone Translators:
· Nathalie Richard
· Elodie Guilminot
· Marc Voisot
Hispanophone Translators:
· Diana Lafuente
· Inmaculada Traver
New Archaeological Conservation Workshop at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research
We (LeeAnn Barnes Gordon and Suzanne Davis) are pleased to announce a new conservation workshop session at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). This year’s session will be held on Friday, Nov. 16th from 4:20 – 6:25 pm at the Chicago Marriot Downtown Magnificent Mile, and we would like to encourage Chicago-area conservators to join us for what promises to be an interesting and constructive afternoon.
The workshop, Archaeological Conservation Strategies in the Near East, aims to foster collaboration and promote information sharing among conservators and archaeologists working in the Near East. Contributors will present multi-disciplinary projects and research on archaeological heritage from Egypt, Israel, Turkey, and Iraq. Topics examined will include regional trends in conservation, balancing preservation and access, site management, treatments of challenging materials, and collaborations with local conservation and archaeological communities. A moderated discussion will engage the contributors as well as the audience, creating an ongoing dialogue that we hope will ultimately improve preservation for archaeological materials and sites in the Near East.
The first two presentations of the session will focus on site work. Hiroko Kariya will discuss the Luxor Temple Fragment Conservation Project, which includes the documentation, treatment, and monitoring of tens of thousands of sandstone fragments. Kariya’s presentation will address two particularly challenging aspects of the project: the protection of a massive number of semi-portable, inscribed fragments and providing accessibility to the collection on site for a high volume of visitors. In the following presentation, “Getting What You Came For: Conservation and Research at Tel Kedesh, Israel,” Suzanne Davis will demonstrate how on-site conservation activities can successfully contribute to archaeological research. This talk will also introduce the important discussion topic of how to balance the expectations of local conservation and archaeological authorities with the on-the-ground realities and priorities of international project teams.
Case studies presented by Krysia Spirydowicz and Catherine Foster will discuss the challenges of preserving two exceptional and fragile archaeological collections. Spirydowicz will outline the methods used to conserve ornate, wooden furniture from the royal tombs at Gordion. This presentation will highlight the difficulties of preserving ancient wooden objects, while addressing the particular conservation problems posed by the charred and fragmentary Gordion furniture. The focus of Foster’s talk will be the preservation of the Nimrud ivories, which resulted from a joint Iraq-U.S. project undertaken at the Iraqi Institute for the Conservation of Antiquities and Heritage in Erbil (the Institute). The project initiated a program of conservation and improved display of the famous ivories, as well as provided training to Iraqi conservation professionals. The final presentation by Vicki Cassman will elaborate on the history and goals of the Iraqi Institute. Institute participants receive training by international conservation experts, as part of an effort to build a sustainable conservation community that will serve preservation needs at sites and museums throughout Iraq.
This workshop session will be held at the 2012 ASOR Annual Meeting on Friday, Nov. 16th from 4:20 – 6:25 pm.
To learn more about ASOR and/or to register for the 2012 Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, please visit the ASOR website at www.asor.org.