“Cataloging Is Preservation: An Emerging Consideration in Photograph Conservation Programs” was the first talk of the Biannual PMG Winter Meeting in Cambridge, MA, February 20-21, 2015. Speaker Robert Burton began with a quote from his mentor Sally Buchanan, who stated, “Cataloging is preservation.” Burton went on to show how that is no overstatement. In a sense, the goal of all conservation is to preserve materials to enable continued access to them, and there is a direct relationship between cataloging and access. Descriptive records in prescribed formats, organized under controlled headings, make photographs discoverable. This in turn sparks research interest, helps institutions identify preservation priorities, and even helps them organize storage more efficiently. Burton showed that cataloging is the foundation of a comprehensive view of collections management and preventive conservation.
A good record should answer the questions: who, what, when, where, why, and how? It gives an institution administrative and intellectual control over its photographic materials. Whereas books and other text-rich objects are more self-identifying, photographs require additional data to be contextualized, and collecting this data requires a cataloger with the appropriate training. A cataloger might be the first person to go through a photograph collection, and that person should possess visual literacy, an understanding of photographic processes, an ability to carry out basic preventive measures such as rehousing, and be able to bring objects in need of special care to the attention of conservators. Because different institutions have diverse approaches (different databases, digital asset management systems, missions, and constituents), catalogers must understand and apply data value standards to bring some consistency to searches for terms such as artists’ names, geographic place names, and so on. (Burton mentioned the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the Name Authority File from the Library of Congress as examples.)
Recent advances in digital recordkeeping and digital imaging have reduced the administrative burden of cataloging and have also reduced the need for over-handling photographic materials, which can result in handling damage. There are new technologies on the horizon that will help with cataloging, such as automatic captioning of newly created images, or giving photographers a way to record voice annotations as additional metadata. Nevertheless, catalogers will need to find a way to enter this information so it can be searched.
Without knowing its holdings, instititions will not be able to adequately value or safeguard their materials, nor will they be able to care for them. Uncataloged items are essentially invisible: vulnerable to loss, their condition and value unknown.
Burton acknowledged that few library school programs provide students with the opportunity to study photographic materials specifically. He urged this audience to view cataloging as a preventive conservation method on par with environmental monitoring, housings, and the like. He traced the development of this thinking to the 2002 Mellon survey at Harvard, which in turn became the model for the Weissman Preservation Center’s Photograph Conservation Program, and then FAIC’s Hermitage Photograph Conservation Initiative. These surveys show that, by coordinating conservation, cataloging, and digital imaging, photograph collections are more accessible and in better condition. This positive trend should continue as more institutions adopt Susan Buchanan’s mindset: “Cataloging is preservation.”
Category: Specialties
Getty Conservation Institute Announces Photographic Materials Conservation & Preservation Workshop (July 13-24, 2014)
The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) is pleased to announce the third in a series of annual two-week workshops that focus on specific topics relating to the conservation and preservation of photographic materials. The workshop Photographs and Their Environment: Decision-making for Sustainability— will be offered from 13 – 24 July 2015 in partnership with the Institute of Art History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague.
The workshop is open to fifteen mid-career conservators with at least three to five years of experience working in the area of paper or photograph conservation. Paper conservators should have prior knowledge of photographic processes and photograph preservation. Priority will be given to applicants currently working with these materials.
Additional information and an application are available on line. The deadline for application is March 16, 2015.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/education/cons_photo/advanced.html
If you have questions, you may contact euphotos@getty.edu<mailto:euphotos@getty.edu>
NCPTT announces Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation 2015 Symposium
![By Daniel Schwen (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](http://www.conservators-converse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/St_Louis_night_expblend.jpg)
The NCPTT symposium on the materials and preservation issues of Mid-Century Modern Structures will be held in St. Louis, MO, on April 14-16, 2015. Go to ncptt.nps.gov to learn more. Register now!
This three-day symposium will feature a keynote speech on preservation of Mid-Century Structures by Gunny Harboe, plus 23 lectures, a panel discussion, poster session, and tours by leading professionals from across the country.
Major topics include:
- Preserving the Gateway Arch
- Establishing an appreciation for mid-century structures from ranch houses and commercial buildings to architectural icons
- Understanding preservation and materials issues in mid-century structures including metals, glass, concrete, and fiberglass
- Learning from case studies of unique buildings such as the Farnsworth House, Fallingwater, and the Knapp Centre
Distinguished speakers include: Justine Bello, David Bright, Mary Reid Brunstrom, Amanda Burke, Bradley Cambridge, Barbara Campagna, David Fixler, Ann K. Dilcher, Christopher Domin, Carol Dyson, Evan Kopelson, Joshua Freedland, Holly Hope, Catherine Houska, Nancy Hudson, Mary Jablonski, Pamela Jerome, Stephen Kelley, Walter Sedovic, Laura Kviklys, Alan O’Bright, James C. Parker, Joe Sembrat, Robert Silman, Tyler Sprague, Claudette Stager, Anne Weber, Ashley Wilson and more.
A special public lecture on Monday, April 13, at Washington University in St. Louis will feature Kevin Roche, Susan Saarinen, and Robert Moore. Video recordings of lectures and published proceeding will extend the symposium to a broad audience. Brought to you by the Friends of NCPTT, the National Park Service, the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the American Institute for Architects St. Louis, Washington University in St. Louis, and the World Monument Fund.
Read more at http://ncptt.nps.gov/events/mid-century-modern-structures-2/.
Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation (BROMEC 35) is now available
The trilingual site BROMEC is the online resource for research dissemination by conservators and scientists of metallic cultural heritage artifacts.
BROMEC 35, the Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation is now available online at the following websites:
- http://www.warwick.ac.uk/bromec
- https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Metals-Conservation-Discussion-Group/files
- http://www.icom-cc.org/10/documents?catId=13&subId=127
Ten research abstracts and 5 announcements are presented, together with the usual lists of related contacts and informative metal research/conservation websites and discussion groups.
You will find English, French and Spanish language versions for downloading as PDF documents.
To subscribe for email updates about BROMEC:
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/bromec-subscription
BROMEC Editorial Team
Anglophone Editor & Translator:
- James Crawford
Francophone Coeditor:
- Michel Bouchard
Hispanophone Coeditor:
- Diana Lafuente
Francophone Translators:
- Nathalie Richard
- Elodie Guilminot
- Julie Masson-MacLean
Hispanophone Translators:
- Ana Crespo
- Ana Pastor
Job Posting – Two Year position: Assistant Conservator (Textiles/Preventive Conservation), Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, VT
The Shelburne Museum is seeking a textile conservator with a strong interest in preventive conservation for a two-year full time position.
The conservator will undertake a variety of projects related to the treatment of objects in the floor cover, bed cover, and upholstered artifact collections and ongoing preventive conservation initiatives. For all treatments, the textile conservator will take documentary photographs and write condition reports, treatment proposals and treatment reports. The conservator will train and supervise volunteers to assist with preparation of large textiles for exhibition and other appropriate textile conservation related tasks.The conservator will also participate in ongoing projects related to integrated pest management, the efficient and proper operation of the exhibition and storage area HVAC systems and exhibition lighting systems. The conservator will become familiar with established lab procedures for health and safety and help maintain conservation documentation and treatment files and conservation databases. The conservator will work with the registrars and art handlers to improve exhibition and storage conditions for the collection, conduct practical research that informs conservation treatment as appropriate, and contribute to Shelburne’s public outreach program.
The conservator will be joining a conservation department with two staff conservators: an objects conservator and a preventative conservator/conservation administrator. The lab is equipped with suction discs and a suction table, a Wild binocular microscope, and a Leitz research microscope with polarizing light and UV light attachments.
Qualifications for this position include a Master’s Degree in Conservation or equivalent training with a specialization in textiles and minimum treatment experience of 3 years beyond conservation training.
Candidates for the position should have good communication skills, the ability to work well as a member of a team, and be a member of AIC, IIC, or other appropriate conservation organization. They should be creative problem-solvers, flexible, and adaptable with a positive attitude.
Competitive salary and generous benefits to include medical and dental insurance.
Applications should consist of a letter of interest, CV, and contact information for three references and should be sent to Nancie Ravenel at nravenel[at]shelburnemuseum.org by January 20, 2015.
Call for Papers: Collaboration with Artists in the Preservation of Artistic Heritage: Theory and Practice
The Electronic Media Group (EMG) and Objects Specialty Group (OSG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) join with the International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art –North America (INCCA-NA) to call for papers for a special joint session on the topic of collaboration with artists at the upcoming AIC Annual Meeting in Miami, FL, May 13-16, 2015.
Recognizing that artists have a stake in the legacy of their work has shifted conservation practice in recent decades. Moreover, it is possible to maintain a critical art historical discourse while also integrating the voices and opinions of the artists within preservation strategies for their artworks. The mission of organizations like INCCA-NA has been guided by the possibilities of this shift. Increasingly, these practices are flourishing at major museums across the country.
Many conservators are actively seizing opportunities to interview and otherwise interact with artists. This session seeks to provide a venue for novice and experienced practitioners alike, from conservation and allied preservation-related fields, to share their outlook on and practice of collaboration with artists and their associates.
Topics to address may include but are not limited to:
- The AIC Annual Meeting theme of “Practical Philosophy or Making Conservation Work” What are the practical considerations in collaborating with artists? How does theory translate into practice and how does practice inform theory?
- What is the value in collaborating with artists? How has practice supported this?
- Interview tips and techniques.
- Collaboration with artists beyond the interview.
- Case studies.
- Collaboration with artists in the preservation of ephemeral materials, obsolete media, and installation art.
- Finding time and resources for an artist interview program.
How to Submit an Abstract
Email your abstract in Microsoft Word (NOT as a pdf) to Ruth Seyler, AIC Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org.
Please send an abstract of 500 words maximum, along with a bio of 300 words maximum per author to Ruth by Wednesday, September 10, 2014. In the case of multiple authors, please list all authors and include an email address for each author. If you have questions or would like to discuss an idea for a session, please contact Ruth Seyler.
You may also submit your abstract for consideration for other sessions at the AIC Annual Meeting, as detailed below.
Please indicate your first choice session for your submission as “EMG/OSG/INCCA-NA Joint Session”.
Session Types
Abstracts will be considered for the following session types.
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. Recent efforts to provide a variety of session formats will continue and authors accepted for general session presentations may receive requests to participate in lightning rounds or concurrent general sessions.
Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty. Specialty sessions will include: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collection Care, Electronic Media, Health & Safety, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Sustainability, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.
Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines
- You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
- If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
- Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
- Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Objects Session, and 3rd Choice: Wooden Artifacts Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Poster Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: Photographic Materials Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Session
- 1st Choice: Book and Paper Session, 2nd Choice: Book and Paper Session, 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session
- When listing your three session choices, please remember that if you are interested in a joint session you only need to list that as a single option. For example: if you want your second choice to be the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session, don’t list it as either Book and Paper Session or Photographic Materials Session but list it as the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session.
42nd Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Group Session (BPG), May 30, “Salvage of Paper Materials from the Flooding of São Luiz do Paraitinga” by Fernanda Mokdessi Auada
On Friday May 30th, Ms. Fernanda Mokdessi Auada presented an account of the joint salvage effort undertaken by the Nucleus for Conservation of Public Files of São Paulo (APESP) and the Nucleus of Restoration-Conservation Edson Motta, Laboratory del National Service for Industrial Apprenticeship (NUCLEM-SENAI) following the 2010 flooding of São Luiz do Paraitinga, Brazil. Collective gasps went up from the audience as Auada showed photographs of the devastated city. Among the images was the city all but subsumed by the Paraitinga river, and shots of devastating structural damage to the city’s principal church (São Luiz de Tolosa) and its municipal library.
Thousands of documents, over 15 linear meters in total, were immersed in the flood waters for over 20 days. The papers related primarily to the population’s citizenship and legal identity, making it vital for conservators to save the information contained in the wet and moldy files. Despite the grave condition of the documents–and the challenge of having virtually no money or trained support staff–the overall salvage was a success, Ms. Auada said.
The documents arrived for salvage in three allotments. The first two allotments were treated manually, using traditional flood damage salvage procedures. First, the documents were separated and air dried flat on top of absorbent paper. The documents were then individually documented and inventoried during dry cleaning, these steps carried out in a dedicated cleaning area. Documents that could not be separated mechanically after drying were separated while immersed in an aqueous bath. Papers soiled with heavy accretions of dirt and mud were washed to recover legibility. The papers were then mended, flattened and rehoused in paper folders and corrugated polypropylene boxes. Incredibly, 95% of the documents in the first and second allotments were recovered.
The third allotment, from the Public Ministry, proved to be more problematic, calling for radical treatment. These documents arrived at the APESP three months following the flood, after having been stored wet and housed in garbage bags. Upon drying the materials, it was determined that the extensive mold damage would be impossible to treat using traditional methods. Representing a “worst-case” scenario, this allotment of 176 files was submitted to decontamination by gamma irradiation. The moldy documents were packed in corrugated cardboard boxes and sent to the Radiation Technology Centre for Nuclear and Energy Research Institute (CTR-IPEN) at the University of São Paulo. While still within the cardboard storage boxes, the documents were dosed for disinfection (not sterilization) at 11kGy. This was the first time this type of salvage procedure had been carried out in Brazil.
Following irradiation, the papers were separated and dry cleaned using brushes. The dry removal of the mold spores proved easier and faster than the first two non-irradiated allotments, with sheets separating easily. Perhaps most importantly, the biohazard was eliminated, eliminating the need to quarantine the documents during documentation and dry cleaning. Ms. Auada described the costs of the treatment as acceptable, even within the project’s meager budget. The irradiated documents will be monitored for long term effects of the radiation, with polymerization of the cellulose being of primary concern.
42nd Annual Meeting – Textile Session, May 30, “Stressed about Pests? A Panel-led Discussion on Integrated Pest Management” Moderators: Bernice Morris, Patricia Silence, Rachael Arenstein.
This session included three presentations on Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The first speaker, Bernice Morris, is the IPM coordinator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA.) Bernice said that IPM began in earnest at the PMA in 1990. She has built on this foundation, developing an IPM system consisting of dividing the museum into risk zones, the use of barcoded (numbered) blunder traps (with pheromone lures as needed), and iPhones outfitted with barcode readers. The iPhones scan the bar code on each trap. The pest type and count are entered, and the data is sent to a computer, becoming a row on a spreadsheet. This makes the gathered data accessible for analysis. The number of traps and the frequency of monitoring are dependent on zone type. In addition, all museum staff are now aware of the importance of prevention and vigilance. The staff has a “bug hotline,” and Internet reporting for pest sightings. It is a very low cost system with the exception of the iPhones, and for those with moth problems the pheromone lures are expensive but worth the investment. The textiles in the collection are most vulnerable while moving in and out of the galleries, and the museum. New acquisitions and loans come into the museum wrapped in plastic. They are isolated and examined, and if evidence of infestation is found the objects are treated with low temperature treatment or anoxia treatment to kill all insect life stages of the infestation.
Patricia Silence is the Conservator of Museum Exhibitions and Historic Interiors at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (CW). As she said it is “the oldest and largest outdoor living history museum in the United States.” CW had always depended on outside pest management professionals. She and her colleagues developed a vision of what a successful IPM plan would accomplish: “prevent harm to people, collections, and buildings, use minimal pesticides, and foster a sense of ownership of the IPM program in the foundation employees.” Due to the complicated interconnected nature of the collection, architecture, landscaping, livestock, commercial entities, and residences, it was determined that it is would be best to have someone who was on the CW staff to manage the IPM. Ryan Jones was hired as the integrated pest management specialist. The IPM has been so successful the program has expanded to include monitoring and treatment of termites. He and an army of other staff members have certification for pesticide application, but housekeeping, routine trap monitoring, and building inspections and maintenance reduce the need for pesticides. A holding room, and freezing and anoxic treatments are used for objects with infestations. The staff can report pest sightings via intranet; identification sheets with common pests are made available with a pest specific follow-up sheet sent after identification. Patricia has taken a holistic approach.
Rachael Arenstein is currently the conservator at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem, Israel. However, as a former conservator in private practice she spoke about some of the challenges she noticed with smaller museums that lack IPM plans. She felt that the biggest problem was most often that pest damage is not recognized and is thought to be the natural effects of age or light damage. Rachael pointed out that all museums have some kind of pest problem. Small museum are understaffed, under-resourced, collections are crowded, and if there is an infestation the staff is just “grossed out.” Mistakes are made using inappropriate products and procedures. Rachael is a member of the IPM Working Group, which grew out of colleagues banding together to learn how to deal with infestations. Over the past ten years Rachael and these colleagues have created an invaluable resource, Museumpest.net. It is everything one might want or need to know about IPM: prevention, monitoring, identification, treatment solutions, and implementation of an IPM plan, and more. Through the site you can join the Pestlist, an e-mail distribution list that allows members to ask questions, and receive answers and advice from museum and preservation professionals, entomologists, and other practitioners.
The speakers opened the floor to questions and discussion. The first question was concerned with how to get the staff to “buy into” the importance of protecting the collection. The reply to this was that presentations to staff showing damage, or potential damage were helpful. Unfortunately, it often takes a major infestation to drive home the importance of IPM. Other questions were asked about pheromone traps, how to handle a museum wide dermestid infestation, if there were any lasting effects from the use of Vikane fumigation, and “are crack and crevice” treatments of any use. The answers were helpful, but too lengthy to address here. All roads lead to http://museumpests.net (and housekeeping.)
The speakers have posted their presentations on the Museum Pest web-site:
http://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AIC-2014-Stressed-about-Pests-Morris-FINAL.pdf
http://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AIC-2014-Stressed-about-Pests-Silence-FINAL.pdf
http://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AIC-2014-Stressed-About-Pests-Arenstein-FINAL.pdf
42nd Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 30, “The Reconsideration of a Reattribution: Pierre-Edouard Baranowski attributed to Amedeo Modigliani” by Elise Effmann Clifford
Elise Effmann Clifford, Head of Paintings Conservation at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF), presented a case study dealing with the complex topic of evaluating a painting’s attribution, drawing on the research of psychologists to consider the biases at play when conservators and scholars approach such investigations. The artwork in question was a portrait of Pierre-Edouard Baranowski, which entered the collection of the FAMSF as a painting by Amedeo Modigliani from 1918. After a demotion in attribution in the 1990s, the painting was subsequently reattributed to the artist in recent years. Effmann traced the research trails of both investigations in her talk, evaluating the reasoning of each that led to their opposing conclusions.
Photo: art.famsf.org
The first of these investigations began soon after the painting entered the FAMSF collection in the early 1980s, when scholars and dealers first raised doubts over the authenticity of the work. These were based on the existence of another portrait of Baranowski by Modigliani in the collection of Robert and Lisa Sainsbury from 1937-1999, and referred to as the ex-Sainsbury painting in this talk. This work has airtight provenance and little doubt over authorship. It is painted in a style typical of the artist. Two portraits of Baranowski were mentioned in the earliest catalog of Modigliani’s work, but this states both were on canvas, where the FAMSF painting is on hardboard. Only the ex-Sainsbury painting is mentioned in subsequent catalogs. The provenance of the FAMSF painting was unknown prior to 1953, the year the donor purchased the work. A report from the FAMSF conservation department notes an underlying composition of what appeared to by a figure similar to those in an early series by Modigliani. Early restoration treatments to address flaking paint were noted, as was an early campaign of overpaint in the face. Expert opinions were sought, and at least 7 records from dealers and scholars exist in the curatorial file stating they did not consider the painting to be by the artist, that something was not quite right. The FAMSF painting’s lack of technical similarities to the ex-Sainsbury painting, incomplete provenance, its absence in early catalogs of Modigliani, including the irrefutable Ambrogio Ceroni catalogue raisonne, and the frequency of Modigliani forgeries all contributed to a decision to deattribute the painting. This was made official after the painting was taken to England to compare to the ex-Sainsbury painting in 1994.
Prompted by questions raised by the family of the donor, a technical investigation of the painting began in 2011. Effmann found more information on the unusual underlying painting, finding other similar compositions by the artist, also on hardboard. She found other examples of similar paint application, and discussions with conservators and scholars revealed that the artist showed a great deal of variety in his technique. There were several fingerprints found in the paint, ignored in the earlier investigation. Effmann also traced the provenance almost back to the artist. Current experts were consulted in light of the new information, and the attribution to Modigliani was reinstated.
Effmann notes that in hindsight, the authenticity of the painting seemed obvious. She found herself reflecting on the trajectory of research and reasoning that led to the initial conclusion that the painting was a poor-quality copy, and the role that bias may have played. The idea that such research outcomes may be influenced by cognitive biases has never been examined in the context of conservation, so Effmann turned to psychology, where the topic has been a significant area of research since the 1970s. She discussed the implications of heuristics, or cognitive shortcuts, we make constantly in order to quickly and efficiently process the vast amount of information we encounter. These heuristics usually serve us well, but cognitive psychologists have studied numerous ways in which they can lead to predictable errors or biases. Effmann identified several biases at play, including Attribute Substitution, when a difficult question is unconsciously replaced by a simpler one. Here, the question of ‘is this painting genuine?’ was replaced with ‘does this painting look like the other painting?’ Confirmation Bias (the tendency to favour information that agrees with preconceived hypotheses), Overconfidence Bias (overestimating the accuracy of one’s conclusion), and even Hindsight Bias (feeling as though one ‘knew it all along’) were all at play in the course of these events. (A good introduction into this topic is Daniel Kahneman’s ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
When we sit down at our microscopes, don our UV goggles, take endless notes, measurements, and photographs for documentation, it is easy to think we are looking at these artworks objectively. But the reality is: we’re not. Whether we’re embarking on a large-scale research project, or writing a condition report, we are drawing on previous experience and opinion which is necessary to guide us and make sense of the world around us efficiently, but can also lead us astray. Effmann says she’ll continue to research the topic of bias in the future, and I look forward to seeing what she finds. I know that I’ll be considering the reasons behind my reasoning much more carefully from now on.
Electronic Materials Group: Call for Papers for 2015 AIC Annual Meeting
The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 13-16 2015 in Miami, FL.
For information about EMG, please see- http://www.conservation-us.org/specialty-groups/electronic-media#.U8x2h6g2ndQ
The theme of the meeting is “Practical Philosophy or Making Conservation Work.” (For details, please see: http://www.conservation-us.org/annual-meeting/submit-an-abstract#.U8x2oag2ndQ ) Submissions are particularly encouraged that address practical considerations in the preservation of electronic media and considerations of how theory translates into practice and how practice informs theory. However, all topics of interest to the Electronic Media Group will be considered.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships. – http://www.conservation-us.org/grants-scholarships#.U8x3cag2ndQ
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Wednesday, September 10, 2014.
How to Submit an Abstract
Email your abstract in Microsoft Word (NOT as a pdf) to Ruth Seyler, AIC Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org.
Please send an abstract of 500 words maximum, along with a bio of 300 words maximum per author to Ruth by Wednesday, September 10, 2014. In the case of multiple authors, please list all authors and include an email address for each author. If you have questions or would like to discuss an idea for a session, please contact Ruth Seyler.
You may also submit your abstract for consideration for other sessions at the AIC Annual Meeting, as detailed below.
If the EMG Session is your first choice as a venue for your paper, please be sure to indicate this within your submission.
Session Types
Abstracts will be considered for the following session types.
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. Recent efforts to provide a variety of session formats will continue and authors accepted for general session presentations may receive requests to participate in lightning rounds or concurrent general sessions.
Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty. Specialty sessions will include: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collection Care, Electronic Media, Health & Safety, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Sustainability, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.
Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines
- You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
- If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
- Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
- Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Objects Session, and 3rd Choice: Wooden Artifacts Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Poster Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: Photographic Materials Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Session
- 1st Choice: Book and Paper Session, 2nd Choice: Book and Paper Session, 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session
- When listing your three session choices, please remember that if you are interested in a joint session you only need to list that as a single option. For example: if you want your second choice to be the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session, don’t list it as either Book and Paper Session or Photographic Materials Session but list it as the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session.