After The Museum of Modern Art acquired the Thomas Walther Collection, a rare collection of fine art photographs made primarily between World War I and World War II, MoMA was awarded a generous grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to conduct a comprehensive study of the collection. The survey culminated in a symposium, publication, exhibition, and interactive website sharing the data collected during the four-year endeavor.
During the Photographic Materials Group Session, Lee Ann Daffner focused on the data collected during the survey and the way in which the interactive Object:Photo website uses the analysis to build relationships between photographs by geography, exhibitions, artistic schools and spheres of influence. The site is designed to encourage organic browsing by the user by highlighting action links in red, a bright contrast to the black and white theme reminiscent of the silver gelatin photographs which largely make up the collection. Before reading further about the project, I recommend spending time exploring the site, available at http://www.moma.org/objectphoto. It’s rich with information, yet feels more like wandering through an exhibition than browsing a website full of technical data.
Not only does Object:Photo make the Thomas Walther Collection images available online, it also highlights technical and historical data of each image. High resolution images of the front and back of each photograph, specular images highlighting the surface texture and sheen, detailed description of the photographic paper and technical analysis, as well as essays, exhibitions, and related articles are included to enrich each photograph in the collection.
In collaboration with Paul Messier, polynomial texture map (PTM) and microraking images of paper texture were created. This setup and process is illustrated and described beautifully in the Materials section of the site, and Mr. Messier outlined similar protocols for analysis later in the conference during his presentation titled “Revealing Affinities across Collections through the Language of the Photographic Print.”
Linking artwork with technical analysis, Object:Photo places each photograph in context in comparison to the others an artistic expression of the world between the two world wars. The presentation of the material is geared toward universal understanding by both scholars and museum visitors because “it was important to share all the data,” according to Ms. Daffner. MoMA’s data on x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis, fiber analysis and paper thickness is available for download in Microsoft Excel file format.
While this website pertains only to the Thomas Walther Collection and the research conducted during the four-year survey, the Object:Photo project is an excellent example to other institutions who may conduct similar surveys in the future. Ms. Daffner and MoMA should be proud to encourage the development of industry standards and research protocols with Object:Photo. Please take the opportunity to explore MoMA’s Object:Photo site at http://www.moma.org/objectphoto.
Category: Specialties
43rd Annual Meeting- Architecture and Wooden Artifacts Joint Session, May 14, “How to Salvage your Historic House Museum after a Car Crash: The Marrett House Emergency Preservation and Conservation Project” by Benjamin Haavik and Alexander M. Carlisle, Historic New England
When a drunk driver crashed into the parlor of Marrett House (1789) in Standish, Maine, the staff of Historic New England was able to see first-hand how well their disaster plan worked!
The damage was serious: clapboard smashed, wall studs snapped, wainscoting was knocked out, and furniture was displaced inside the room.
Local staff were on the scene quickly to secure the area. A team drove up within hours of the crash, to add temporary supports for the 2nd floor and to board up the hole in the house. The insurance company was called, and the policy was able to cover some recovery costs.
With such extensive damage, recovery was not straightforward. The floor carpet (dating to 1857) was undamaged, and due to its size, it was rolled and boxed to remain in the room during construction work. Furniture and objects had been removed from the room immediately, to be treated and stored. The house remained open for tours during the entire process.
The conservation and restoration of the structure was carried out with the goal of maintaining as much of the original materials as possible. The 1857 wallpaper and paint finishes were protected in situ. Where new support beams were needed, the modern additions were marked with copper tags to identify them as non-original. Plaster, lathe, and wainscoting were replaced; in the end, only spot retouching of the paint on the paneling was necessary.
Only three pieces of furniture were actually damaged (two chairs and a card table), and one vase fell during the crash. No pictures fell off the walls, and the rug was totally fine. Overall, they feel lucky that the damage was not worse.
Here are some tips they shared for disaster response:
-photograph the damage before starting recovery: this is good documentation practice and can help with insurance claims
-don’t throw anything away: a small bit of veneer from the damaged table was later discovered among the wood splinters and debris swept up during recovery (and saved in a box), and was able to be reattached
-make sure the emergency telephone tree makes sense: HNE is geographically far-flung, and in this case the first people called were NOT the closest to the scene
43rd Annual Meeting – Architecture Specialty Group – May 16, Mid-Century Modern Wood Issues at the Weston Havens House by Kitty Vieth and Molly Lambert
Kitty Vieth, a senior associate at Architectural Resources Group, presented the work required to rehabilitate the most fragile structural conditions of the Weston Havens House. Molly Lambert, a conservator in private practice, discussed techniques she used to remove tide lines from interior cedar paneled walls.
The Weston Havens House is a Mid-Century Modern construction designed by architect Harwell Harris and built in 1941. It sits in the hills of Berkeley and has an 180-degree view of the San Francisco Bay. Weston Havens was the only owner of the house until his death in 2001. He bequeathed the property to the University of California Berkeley who now uses the house for visitors.
The house features a modernist design with upper and lower levels cut into a hillside. A curvilinear stair leads to the lower floors. There are two guest rooms with private terraces. The house contains original finishes at are intact. Kitty Vieth was brought in to evaluate the conditions of the materials and all building systems.
Upon evaluation, two high priority projects were defined. The first project was the Pedestrian Bridge that was in a state of near collapse. The bridge displayed a keel type construction with paired studs. Slow growth Redwood found in the Berkeley area was used to construct the Bridge. All of the wood showed deterioration, especially the structural components. Fortunately, the main beams were still structurally sound, but Vieth was not able to save the rafters and studs. The bridge was reconstructed using long slow growth of redwood that is already beginning to fade to grey and better match the original materials. A finish was used to protect the reconstructed bridge.
The second priority was the East wall and roof area. The seismic activity of the area was considered. Redwood boards were greyed, worn and cupping in some locations. Vieth consolidated and rehabilitated the windows and walls on East wall.
Molly Lambert spoke next about earlier work she undertook in the house when Weston Havens was still alive. This and other modernist structures often have redwood paneled interiors. When roofs leak tide lines form on the interior panels. Molly did two different campaigns to repair tannin tide lines on the interior of this house. She was able to get 80-90% of the tide lines out. Tannins in the wood migrate with water causing the darkened lines.
Her technique was as follows:
- Wipe down the entire panel with wet cotton PVOH sponges (cellulose sponges) with grain.
- Harvest some of the tannins with a swab using distilled water or spit and transfer to needed areas.
- Don’t take too much of the tannins away.
- In-paint with a tannic acid mixture as needed.
43rd Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, May 16, “Let me Help You Help Me: Outreach as Preventive Conservation”, Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group
The structure of this session was three brief presentations followed by three breakout groups to discuss each of the presentations, with the presenters rotating between the groups.
Laura McCann, Conservation Librarian at NYU Libraries, was the first presenter and spoke about library training of student employees.
She gave an interesting presentation on the process their library has undergone in developing a more efficient and successful training program for student workers. Originally the Conservation Department of 3 staff members conducted hands-on training of small groups of students through workshops. While this had benefits of being able to design their own teaching content, increasing awareness among para-professional staff about the work of conservation and library materials preservation needs, and improving communication between conservation and other departments, there were problems such as the students being distracted during the workshop or not attending due to scheduling conflicts, and conservation issues not being correctly identified or work being poorly performed by the students when in placement.
By reaching out to the other library departments, a new approach was devised. Now there are fewer sessions and they involve a presentation (not hands-on) and pizza! The students’ managers are present and the sessions are compulsory. This has resulted in less conservation staff time required in training, more students receiving the training and a large increase in the number of library books correctly identified for conservation treatment.
The next step from here is to adapt this model to other situations, such as NYU’s new allied libraries in Brooklyn, Abu Dhabi and Shanghai with the challenges of geography and time differences added to the usual constraints of limited conservation resources and staffing. Ideas that they are exploring include Preservation Training LibGuides and short video tutorials.
Dawn Walus, Chief Conservator at Boston Athenaeum, spoke next about outreach and access at her institution.
The Boston Athenaeum has a wide and varied outreach program. They hold architecture tours of the building, open house events for the public to view spaces such as the conservation laboratory, evening events with their curators, tours and workshops with groups of young children, and an annual conservation fundraising evening. Members have special events such as specific tours and conservation lab visits, and digital images of the collection made by the digitization team feature in a digital photo frame in the membership office.
As well as public encounters, the Boston Athenaeum offers summer institutional exchanges, internships in conservation through a relationship with the North Bennet St bookbinding school, and scholarships for researchers to study the collections available in the research room. They also take advantages of public curiosity of collection institutions through articles in traditional and social media.
This last point linked well to the third speaker, Suzy Morgan, Preservation Specialist at Arizona State University Library, who spoke about using social media to promote conservation.
Social media is a very powerful tool that conservators can use to direct and control the conversation about conservation without the message being misrepresented or diluted by traditional media. She pointed out that it is resource-light, requiring ‘only’ staff time and not expensive equipment, specialized staff (such as IT) or knowledge.
People are very curious about conservation, so there is a fresh audience out there waiting to respond to your efforts. The online community is very interactive, allowing you to have a conversation with both positive and negative responses, and presenting teaching moments as well.
Some advice Suzy gave was to look at how large institutions are using different social media platforms and copy the approaches you like. Be humorous, allow for some silliness, and keep it short. She reminded us tha the work conservators do is very photogenic and social media platforms are ideal for sharing photos, sound clips and short videos, which often represent our work better than text.
Finally, she said that there are lots of resources on the internet to explain ‘how to’; don’t be discouraged by the well-established platforms that large institutions have, be prepared to give it a try – start small take it slowly, and have fun.
Discussion groups
The three presentations were followed by breakout groups where each presenter came to speak to a group about the issues raised in their talk.
Laura McCann:
– Q: How many students per year do you train?
– A: About 20 people; they are tied into the general student orientation program for the library. Also, they use short training videos for patrons and para-professionals.
– Q: Have you made your own training videos?
– A: No, not yet. Need management approval. Also, some rare book departments might want more hands on or intensive training for their materials.
– Q: Could we crowd source this?
– A: In theory some of these information guides should be able to be assembled collaboratively, but each institution will likely want to add their own specific or specialized information. Other ways of distributing information include putting information cards around the library and in the reading room, or using table tents to inform general readers.
Dawn Walus:
– Q: What is a good/not good age range for children to come and tour a conservation lab?
– A: Young children can really appreciate a ‘book hospital’ or ‘make a book’ workshop experience and then take home a souvenir to show to siblings and parents; teenagers are hardest to engage – insist on no cell phone usage in the lab
– Have workshops on old audio-visual equipment, as some people still have these things at home but don’t know how to use them
– Q: How can you tell is your lab tours or other outreach programs are a success?
– A: Speak to docents to see if they get questions about conservation programs; have a kids activity table and monitor its usage; talk to membership office and see if have increase in memberships or donations
Suzy Morgan:
– Q: Is the social media you do part of a larger institutional social media program?
– A: No, they are personal accounts, but contribute to the library’s larger social media efforts
– Q: What is your favorite platform and which are the most effective?
– A: Suzy is into Twitter and Tumblr and having a go with Vine; she hasn’t tried Instagram. Tumblr is easy to start, has no length limit, can post text, photos, video, links etc and also schedule posts for future release. Each platform has its own style; some are more personal and interactive than others. You need to work out your communication style and decide on the audience you want to reach, then write appropriately.
– Q: Do you have restraints on your content ?
– A: No, because she is doing it through personal accounts. To avoid onerous institutional policies, it takes time to build management trust in the social media program to see that no inappropriate content is released.
– Q: Any advice on gaining institutional trust?
– A: Start by offering to help with the social media program, provide content and slowly build up your involvement. Show examples of other institutions’ successful social media programs to build faith in your own.
– It was noted that some institutions force staff to spend large amounts of time contributing to social media programs, and that can adversely affect the time available to spend on other work. If this is the case, ask for help from other staff/workshop participants etc and delegate. You could also point back at your job description if social media is not included.
43rd Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Group Session, May 16, 2015. “Multitasking on a Shoestring: Storage and Display Mounts for Oversized Maps at the Library of Virginia” by Leslie Courtois
The talk began with an introduction to the Library, which as a state resource, also houses the archives and is mandated to make all content accessible, from the original object to digital access. The original building was built on a Jeffersonian model, which is supplemented with a massive offsite storage comprising some 97 million items over fifty-five miles of shelving, and yet has a very small staff for conservation and exhibit preparation. The Library has a very enthusiastic curator of maps, a benefactor with a interest in sponsoring maps scholarship and a robust interest group that seeks to use the collection. As such, Courtois presented a solution she has come up with that allows her to access and mount for display their extremely oversize maps without much additional help, using a modular system of her own invention and implementation.
With insights into the use of maps, “a highly aesthetic visual documentary material”, Courtois discussed several of local interest, including: the Mitchell (1755), the primary map used to define the nation after the revolution; the Sayer & Bennett map of the Chesapeake bay (1777); the John Henry map of Virginia (1770); and the “monster” Boye Map of Virginia (1826), printed from nine copper plates. Indeed, the scale of these editions permitted the publisher space for extreme detail and decorative elements that formerly were best perceived by the original user up close in their folded, pocketed format. The irony of the preservation rehousing, a 5mm thick Mylar and map folder hybrid, which permits flat storage and prevents improper folding damage, is that it can prevent the observer from seeing the details due to enforcing a certain distance due to its dimensions (up to 40” x 60” standardized, and custom for sizes beyond that). The flat housings also take up space on tables, if not exceeding the surface area available for reference, thus limiting the number that may laid out at one time, and lastly makes for an ergonomically unsound, and risky relationship of viewer to the object. For these reasons, the goal was to go vertical, for the least cost, and without having to rehouse the object in yet another expensive format.
The solution arrived at was to use Hexamount panels (or alternately, double laminate cross-directional corrugated board) as the vertical panel support, which are fastened to arms on independent wooden floor stands (or stanchions), hand-built by Courtois of simple materials and construction. The stands themselves are sturdy and functional, and once the panel is attached to swiveling arms by hook-and-loop tape, the feet are only visible part. The stand bases are made up of 3/4” furniture plywood, and two-by-fours are used as the risers. The arms to which the panels are attached, are fixed to the risers with a hex bolt that may be loosed and tightened, to allow for an angled presentation. There is no cross-brace or frame other than the panel itself, allowing the independent stands to be adjusted in width to each other based on the size of the Hexamount panel, allowing for flexibility of size. All told, the stands cost about $184 or about $30 each to make up six, including drill bits, wood, paint, wide Velcro ™ strip; the Hexamount runs about $87 per panel not including shipping.
The maps are supported on the panel using a pass through hinge system: the storage folder is pierced with wide slits above the map, and Mylar strapping is passed through matching slits in the panel behind and below and and affixed at the back.
Difficulties include supporting wide maps in the middle where sagging is a potential issue, but this can be resolved with additional strapping. Mounting and dismounting the large panel tends to be the stickiest issue, if you’ll pardon the pun. Once a large surface area of hook-and-loop tape attaches, it can be difficult to pry apart, so when setting up, it is helpful to place a removable barrier such as a slim ruler or other in between the hook and loop to allow for a break-away point if the strips are aligned improperly. For removal, it helps to have an assistant, and using a ruler to split the hook-and-loop as sort of zipper helps to peel them apart. (It was suggested during Q and A that leaving a few thin squares of Mylar or metal foil in place could also serve as a tool entry point for later removal; although visible tabs might present a security concern). For the Boye map, which was previously treated and edge mounted with a fabric extension similar to that which is used for quilt-hangings, a folded over fabric tube at the top allows for a rigid strut piece of corrugated or other material to be slid through the tube and which is tied in with linen tapes to the support board.
Courtois suggests a couple of further tips during the Q and A:
Michelle Facini, co-author of Big Paper, Big Problems (see also:poster and tables) noted that in responses to her Kress-funded survey even the use of the term oversized is challenging – every institution’s parameter for oversize is different! However, all face the same expensive choices, as sizes increase, so do material costs. Inquiring about the Boye map, Courtois replied that indeed, that one is rolled on a core for storage.
Courtois notes that this vertical, modular system allows the observer to get really close up in viewing the map, with little risk and much reward. The reward for all this hard work “is the engagement of the users – when you go to lengths to accommodate them, people really do value that effort.” In viewing candid shots from map society visits, and random visitors walking by encountering a map of size for perhaps the first time, this reviewer can only agree.
43rd Annual Meeting, Electronic Media and Objects Joint Session, Co-Organized by Voices in Contemporary Art (VoCA), May 14, “Preserving What is Right: Learning the Ethics and Similarities of Collaborating with a Living Artist and Buddhist Monks,” Céline Chrétien
Object Conservator Céline Chrétien described her experiences working with contemporary artist Richard Fauguet to conserve his piece Mirida and her more recent work with Buddhist monks to conserve actively-used liturgical objects. Though on the surface these projects seem very different, they both raised interesting questions about how to apply conservation ethics to situations in which the artist – or, in the case of the liturgical objects, the believers – still have a living relationship with their objects.
While working at the FRAC (Regional Fund for Contemporary Art) in Besançon, France, Chrétien was responsible for the conservation of the 1993 piece Mirida by artist Richard Fauguet. Mirida consists of three translucent silicone rubber horse heads covered in glass marbles. The silicone heads are somewhat soft and intentionally deformed to evoke Fauguet’s dreamlike aesthetic. The heads were damaged from the mounting screws and the silicone had discolored. Conservation was necessary, but no alterations could be made to the piece without permission from the artist. During an initial conversation Chrétien had with the artist to discuss the condition of the piece and its need for conservation, Fauguet was concerned that the silicone had discolored too severely and he believed that the best approach would be for the piece to be remade, either by him or by Chrétien. The collections manager immediately rejected this proposal, however, since in reconstructing the piece its authenticity would be lost. Once Fauguet was able to come see the condition of the piece in person, he determined that the discoloration was not as drastic as he feared and agreed to treatment of the original work. Chrétien mended the horse heads with Beva and constructed new mounts and crates that offered more support to the silicone forms. Chrétien had to navigate complex ethical considerations through multiple conservations with the artist, his colleagues, and her colleagues at FRAC to arrive at the best outcome.
This collaborative experience served Chrétien well during her more recent work at a Buddhist monastery in northern India. The monastery was preparing for a new exhibition space, and many of the clay figures and masks used in religious ceremonies were in need of conservation treatment. These objects had never been repaired by outsiders, only local members of the community. Chrétien interviewed the monks to learn more about how the objects were used and their goals for treatment. People still leave offerings at the objects, which serve as homes to various deities. The deities will leave when the object becomes damaged, so they must be repaired in order to invite the deity back to reside there again.
Since the Buddhist objects were being actively used, they couldn’t be treated in the same ways ethnographic objects are treated in Western museums. As a result, Chrétien and her fellow conservators had to take an approach that is more similar to working with living contemporary artists. Chrétien drew interesting parallels between conservation of ethnographic objects in an active monastery setting and conservation of contemporary art in consultation with the artist. In both cases, the interview is a crucial tool. The conservator is an outsider and must act as mediator. And care must be taken not to privilege the norms of traditional Western conservation ethic.
CALL FOR PAPERS – HISTORIC AND MODERN ASSEMBLAGES: TREATMENTS OF WOOD BASED MULTIMEDIA ARTWORKS / INTERIORS IN CONTEXT
Joint Interim Conference of the ICOM-CC Working Groups: Wood, Furniture, and Lacquer and Sculpture, Polychromy, and Architectural Decoration, in association with the German Association of Conservator-Restorers (VDR) Specialty Group: Furniture and Wooden Artifacts.
Hosted in collaboration with the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam
8-10 April, 2016
Location: University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Set within the historic gardens and palaces of Potsdam, this conference will focus on site-specific wooden works of art of a composite nature. Included in this broad theme are the exploration of the purpose and the complex means used to create these works consisting of multiple elements and mixed materials as well as the conservation strategies designed to preserve and display them. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to, secular and religious interiors or assemblages (in situ or removed from their original setting), composite works of art, architectural elements, and historic and modern artist installations.
Subjects could include:
- Case studies related to the challenges of conserving in situ architectural interiors,
- and of installing architectural interiors removed from their original settings
- The disarticulated Gesamtkunstwerk: case studies related to the presentation of religious and secular works of art removed from their original architectural settings
- Case studies of treatments involving discussion with stakeholders and special consideration of intangible heritage that these complex works and spaces represent
- Construction and manufacturing techniques
- Reconstruction of lost elements; loss compensation
- Preventive Care (climate, display, access, storage, transportation, “green” solutions)
- Case studies exploring the juxtaposition or combination of traditional and modern conservation methods
- Working in situ versus the conservation studio – methodology, challenges (health and safety issues) and advantages
- Contamination and alteration of artworks through the application of insecticides, preservatives, and conservation materials
- Innovative techniques for analysis and documentation
This three-day conference will bring together an international roster of conservators, art historians, conservation scientists, and artists to share new research, past experiences, and their specific and varied expertise. Submissions related to completed and in-progress treatments, newly developed treatments and preventive conservation are especially encouraged. Authors interested in presenting a paper or poster, please submit an abstract (400-600 words, 1-2 images) by August 1st, 2015 to assemblage.potsdam.2016@gmail.com
All work submitted must be original and may not have been published elsewhere. Abstracts should be in English and must include a short biography and contact information for the corresponding author (affiliation, address, telephone, fax and e-mail). Abstracts will be reviewed by the Conference Organizing Committee and invited experts. In September 2015 authors will be informed whether their submissions were accepted. It is the intention of the organizers to publish all accepted papers, and authors are required to submit a first draft of their papers no later than one week prior to the start of the conference.
For a downloadable PDF of the call for papers visit the ICOM-CC website.
The Conference Organizing Committee
- Daniel Hausdorf, Coordinator, ICOM-CC Wood, Furniture, & Lacquer Working Group, daniel.hausdorf@metmuseum.org
- Stephanie de Roemer, Coordinator, ICOM-CC Sculpture, Polychromy, & Architectural Decoration Working Group, stephanie.deroemer@glasgowlife.org.uk
- Prof. Dr. Angelika Rauch, Professor for Conservation and Restoration (Wood), University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, rauch@fh-potsdam.de
- Carola Klinzmann, Coordinator, VDR Working Group: Furniture and Wooden Artifacts, c.klinzmann@museum-kassel.de
- Jörg Weber, Head of Wood Conservation Laboratory, University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, jweber@fh-potsdam.de
- Jan Dorscheid, Assistant Coordinator, ICOM-CC Wood, Furniture, & Lacquer Working Group, j.dorscheid@outlook.com
- Prof. Dr. Stephanie Auffret, Assistant Coordinator, ICOM-CC Wood, Furniture, & Lacquer Working Group, sauffret@winterthur.org
- Helen Hughes, Assistant Coordinator, ICOM-CC Sculpture, Polychromy, & Architectural Decoration Working Group, helen@helenhughes-hirc.com
- Wolfram Bangen, Assistant Coordinator, VDR Specialty Group: Furniture and Wooden Artifacts, wolfram.bangen@lwl.org
- Dr. Martina Grießer, Assistant Coordinator, ICOM-CC Wood, Furniture, & Lacquer Working Group, martina.griesser@khm.at
43rd Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 16, "Revealing Affinities across Collections through the Language of the Photographic Print" by Paul Messier
The language used to describe silver gelatin prints revolves around four main attributes: paper tint, thickness, texture, and surface sheen. These characteristics are advertised subjectively in paper manufacturers’ descriptions using terms such as “warm”, “double weight”, “smooth” or “glossy”. But what do these terms really mean when side by side comparisons of prints denoted as “glossy” by their respective manufacturers exhibit a striking visual difference in surface sheen? A need to quantify these terms was apparent, and Paul Messier delivers with a repeatable, interoperable, and non-invasive protocol which he presented during the Saturday afternoon photography session at AIC’s 43rd Annual Meeting.
The protocol for obtaining measurements of thickness, paper tint, and surface sheen is fairly straightforward and employs tools well-known to conservators and scientists to collect the data. A micrometer measures thickness of the paper in millimeters; a glossmeter records the surface sheen in gloss units; and a spectrophotometer calculates the paper tint (highlights) using L*a*b* values. Quantifying texture, however, was not as simple, so Messier challenged teams from several universities to come up with a characterization algorithm based on images of the surface of photographic papers under the magnification in raking light. Using area-scale fractal analysis, the teams were able to meet his request and translate the 2-D images into information about the 3-D surface texture of silver gelatin papers from Messier’s extensive personal collection.
Once the four values described above are calculated, Messier gives them context by plotting them on a diagram based on percentile within each category. A diamond-shaped field is created with texture represented on top, thickness to the right, surface sheen on the bottom, and paper tint on the left (see image below). So called “practical” papers (smooth, glossy, neutral white, and single weight) tend to have points lying near the middle of the diagram while more “expressive” papers ( rough, matte, war m-toned, and thick ) have points towards the outer edges. These diagrams are useful for comparing prints across collections, interpreting artist’s intent, dating, and matching paper type and manufacturers to a growing database of known papers evaluated in this way.
The first large scale project using this method was carried out by Messier and his team to characterize prints in the Thomas Walther collection at the Museum of Modern Art and then compare them to prints made from the same negative at Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. Messier’s essay on this subject in MoMA’s Object: Photo website and publication is titled Image Isn’t Everything: Revealing Affinities across Collections through the Language of the Photographic Print (see link below). In addition to essay, the website also provides a clear description of the Messier’s protocol and includes specifications about the equipment and setup. Broader applications for this data are still being discovered, and the protocol is currently being used by the Center for Creative Photography to map the gelatin silver papers used by Harry Callahan. With this, Mesier presents a working method for the objective analysis of basic paper characteristics which still “honors and preserves the language that photographers knew and used.”
Link to Essay: http://www.moma.org/interactives/objectphoto/assets/essays/Messier.pdf
43rd Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session, May 16, "Cross-disciplinary Conservation: Building a Synergetic Time-based Media Lab,"by Joanna Phillips
Time-based media art is still a relative newcomer to art conservation practice. Even at institutions that have embraced the developing theory and practice of conserving time-based works limitations of space and resources can affect this emerging area more acutely than more established areas of conservation. In her presentation at the electronic media session of the AIC’s 43rd annual meeting, Joanna Phillips, associate conservator of contemporary art at the Guggenheim Museum, described how time-based media conservation has evolved within the environment of the Guggenheim, culminating in the recent establishment of a lab devoted to this work. Phillips, who joined the Museum in 2008 and whose contributions to the development of conservation for time-based works includes publications and the organizing of the AIC-sponsored “Tech Focus” conferences of 2010 and 2015, described the new lab as a cross-disciplinary hub that integrates this practice within the larger mission of the Museum and its constituent departments.
Previous to the establishment of the lab the Guggenheim Museum had no permanent space allotted to conserving time-based works. Conservation was achieved on a fluid and ad hoc basis that utilized existing lab facilities, screening equipment and staging areas via coordination with the Museum’s audiovisual technicians and conservators. A movable cart of electronic devices for screening time-based works was assembled so that any space within the conservation and media departments could be used as a staging area for viewing and documenting works. While this arrangement allowed the conservation staff to optimize the use of existing facilities, the cart was a less than ideal solution. And with such limited real estate available to stage time-based works, conservation might also necessarily be conducted in the exhibition space during installation and, hence, was subject to the strictures of the installation timeline. Time-based media art conservation evolved at the Guggenheim through the coordination and flexibility of conservation and technical staff, but the situation posed many disadvantages. Troubleshooting conservation measures under the time crunch of installing exhibitions incurred additional costs and threatened to impact the integrity of the works’ exhibition where compromises were necessary. The existing lab facilities were not built to accommodate the special needs of time-based works and the necessity of constantly relocating equipment and components to whatever space was available hindered the development of documentation and workflows.
The establishment of the time-based media lab addresses the inadequacies of the ‘floating’ media lab that preceded it. The lab is equipped with screening equipment for previewing works. An interchangeable space is devoted to performing mockups of installation equipment, allowing conservators to make side-by-side comparisons of equipment performance to determine the best display method.In this new setting formalized methods for containing and tracking media components have been implemented to differentiate works that may exist simply on a nondescript flash drive and safeguards such as write-blockers have been installed to ensure that the integrity of digital objects is not disturbed during treatment. This devoted space also affords more space and time for creating richer iteration reports regarding the performance of these works and allows for a fuller investigation of custom-built electronics.
Phillips emphasized that, more than simply an amelioration of past inadequacies, the time-based media conservation lab presents opportunities that extend beyond lab work to engage other museum staff and researchers in a groundbreaking way. Describing the lab as a cross-disciplinary hub, she explained that researchers, curators and education staff are invited to engage with works in an authentic way that was previously limited to fleeting exhibition installations. The staging area can also facilitate artist interviews to establish which components and aesthetic features are most integral to a work’s integrity, and how the work might be treated without disturbing its authenticity.
The development of conservation documentation can enrich curator’s and audience’s understanding of the works and their creators which, when shared with audiences outside of the lab, builds awareness of the unique properties of time-based works and the challenges they present to conservators. By interfacing with development and education staffs the lab further increases the profile of time-based works and their conservation, enriching the Museum’s exhibitions and resources.
The time-based media conservation lab itself is a signal of time-based media’s increasing integration within the Guggenheim’s mission, one that opens opportunities for conservators and other museum staff to engage with these works in ways that were much inhibited in its previous time- and space-bound state. And as a cross-disciplinary hub the lab affords a new platform for sharing the development of this emerging practice within the Museum and beyond.
43rd Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session, May 16, 2015, “Archiving the Brotherhood: Proposing a Technical Genealogy for Time-Based Works” by Joey Heinen
Warning! If you are a techy, you will have to wait for the published paper for the complete technical details; read on if you can stomach a more philosophical overview.
I recently heard a thought-provoking presentation by photograph cataloger Robert Burton who quoted his mentor, Sally Buchanan, and then explained how cataloging is preservation. Joey Heinen pushed that envelope further for me with his recent Electronic Materials Group presentation on his archival work focused on The Brotherhood, a technology-based, interactive, kinetic artwork (1990-1998) by Steina and Woody Vasulka that no longer exists. Since the artwork can no longer be experienced as an installation, preserving the archival record of the piece is the closest we can get to preserving the work.
The only way to understand or study the work now is to imagine it through immersion in its archival record, and Heinen argued further that understanding the technology is as important as understanding the visitor experience when representing the history of the artwork, much as a traditional conservator might integrate a technical study of manufacturing methods into a conservation treatment plan. As part of his graduate internship, Heinen spent the better part of a year analyzing, documenting and processing a disassembled collection of components and archives that form the corpus of The Brotherhood. And so I pose a question to you: is this preservation, or is it conservation, both, or neither?
Have you ever made a robot move to the rhythm of your voice when speaking into a microphone? Made from scavenged vintage warfare machinery from Los Alamos, the Vasulkas jury-rigged hardware, composed software, and used midi protocols to connect the gadgets to inputs like microphones and video cameras that took input or signal from the visitors (both inadvertent and purposeful), resulting in a stimulus/response sequence that integrated the visitor into the artwork and its experience.
Now disassembled and on the verge of being donated to the Brakhage Center at the University of Colorado – Boulder University Library, the work was originally installed in several venues including the InterCommunications Center in Tokyo. The artists do not intend for the artwork to be reinstalled. However, as the work integrated cutting-edge technology of the time and pushed limits of technical and aesthetic experience, they would like the collection (consisting of the work’s physical components as well as their personal archival materials) to be able to be studied. While ample video documentation of visitors experiencing with the work exists alongside a paper-based archival collection, there was no handbook to guide Heinen in how to document and therefore preserve the elements of the work that are possible to preserve.
How did Heinen accomplish this? He went way beyond normal archival processing, and instead imposed order on what I overheard one audience member describe as “chaos on so many levels.” He examined not only the physical objects, but the archival documents (e.g. notes, drawings and instructions) that were part of the artists’ design process, and videos of visitors experiencing the artwork. The analysis yielded complex mappings of the various components and their relationships to each other. He delved into the software code, creating what he calls a technical genealogy, and traced the various types and connections between inputs and outputs.
What is left to do to facilitate researchers successfully accessing the collection? One could develop curriculum to guide exploration of this kind of media, perhaps in the fields of history of computer science, or media archaeology, or enrich the archival record with artist interviews. While it may seem like a unique, one-off type of preservation project, in fact, in digital experience realms, the skills and tools Joey developed to document this project could have broader applications in documenting web-based experiences as well. I’ll be honest, some of this talk was over my head, but the rest of the audience feedback was incredibly positive, and confirmed my reaction: Wow, what a massive amount of work, and thank goodness Joey Heinen did it, or it would all be lost!
Joey Heinen’s internship was funded through the IMLS as part of requirements for the Moving Image Archiving and Preservation MA program at NYU.