Category: Specialties

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Frederick Hammersley: An Artist’s Documentation of His Painting Practice” by Alan Phenix

Pacific Standard Time is not just a time zone.  It is also the title of a Getty-funded initiative, jointly launched by the Getty Foundation and Getty Research Institute, that enabled more than sixty cultural institutions across Southern California to tell the story of the art scene in Los Angeles, California.  The initiative focuses on archives, research, exhibitions, publications, and other programs to record the region’s artistic history.  A substantial part of the project is dedicated to Los Angeles art from post-World War II through the 1970s.  In 2011/2012 The Getty Center held an exhibition entitled Crosscurrents in L.A. Painting and Sculpture, 1950-1970.  One of the artists in the show was the painter Frederick Hammersley, who died in 2009.  After Hammersley’s death a artist-endowed Foundation was established to preserve and maintain his artistic legacy.  Getty researchers first encountered the extensive archive of materials held by the Hammersley Foundation during preparations for the Crosscurrents show.  Alan Phenix presented to the Paintings Specialty Group some introductory observations on the wealth of that information.

Frederick Hammersley was a leading abstract painter in Southern California in the postwar period.  He first gained widespread notoriety in 1956 when he was included with artists Karl Benjamin, Lorser Feitelson, and John McLaughlin in an exhibition entitled Four Abstract Classicists.  The show led to the coining of the painting movement known as “West Coast Hard-Edge”.  Hammersley was born in 1919 and studied art in the 1940s at the Chouinard and Jepson Art Institutes in Los Angeles.  He stayed on at the Jepson Institute in a teaching capacity after he finished his studies.  He also held subsequent teaching positions at Pomona College (1953-62), Pasadena Art Museum (1956-61), and Chouinard (1964-68).  In 1968 he took a teaching position at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, which he kept until 1971 when he stopped teaching to concentrate on his painting.  He continued to work at his home studio until six months before his death and his space remained essentially untouched after his death, serving as final documentation of his life and work.  Hammersley had also fastidiously documented his artistic process in series of notebooks for a period of more than 50 years with few interruptions.  Among the most notable of these were four “Painting Books” that consist of cumulative and descriptive chronological lists of works completed.  The project being undertaken by the Getty Conservation Institute aims to examine and interpret that archive of materials for what it may reveal about Hammersley’s process, materials and techniques, and what it might mean for the preservation and conservation of his work.

Hammersley’s painting had a strong psychological element, which is illustrated in the evolution of his work.  From 1954 to 1959 he worked on a series he called “Hunch” paintings, which developed without preparation as the artist relied on “hunches” coming from reflection and intuition to guide his work.  In 1963 until 1965 he worked on series defined as “Organics” and “Cut Ups” that expanded upon his intuitive painting with more organic processes.  In several periods throughout his career he also worked on more hard-edged geometric paintings.  An early instance of his documentation and creative evolution was found in a set of notes on labels on the back of a 1956 “Hunch” painting entitled In Front Of, in which he recorded dates for the addition of specific shapes in the composition.

The artist began keeping his “Painting Books” in 1959, wherein he kept lists of his work, information about his process, when and to whom each work was sold, and other related information.  The details of his records continued to increase and by 1966 he’d expanded his notes to include additional items, such as information on specific paints.

It was interesting to hear that Hammersley’s documentation was not limited to formal records and itemized lists; his notebooks were also works of art in their own way.  Some of his books contained visual composition ideas in thumbnail sketches.  When he liked a composition he would execute it in a slightly larger (ca. 3″ x 3″) format.  Eventually he began including sequential breakdowns of the development of particular artworks.  On occasion he would revisit past artworks and those changes were also documented in his notebooks.  The artistic process was not limited to the works themselves.  Hammersley kept a “Titles” folder that contained lists of words written by free association.  When he came across words he liked he would underline them and then retrofit them to create titles for particular works.

This presentation just scratched the surface of the available information in Hammersley’s personal documentation.  The goal of the Getty Conservation Institute’s work is to make the mass of information of Hammersley’s archive available to a wider audience, including conservators who may have cause to work on his paintings in the future.  A searchable database is envisaged once the material is transcribed, collated, and interpreted.

This year’s annual meeting was focused on connecting to conservation through outreach and advocacy.  A searchable database of artists’ materials and techniques certainly has potential to assist with that effort.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Relating Artist Technique and Materials to Condition in Richard Diebenkorn’s ‘Ocean Park’ Series” by Ana Alba

When Ana Alba was working at the Hirshhorn Museum she undertook a research project on four paintings from Richard Diebenkorn’s “Ocean Park” series.  Her study compared the materials used in each of the paintings and assessed how that tied in to their current condition.  She presented her findings at the 2010 annual meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Two of the paintings had severe cracking while the other two were in good condition; the paintings with the cracking had an acrylic preparatory layer.  At this year’s annual meeting she presented research conducted at the National Gallery of Art that expanded upon her intial study.

Ana’s current research involved the examination of more than 45 paintings and samples for analysis were collected from approximately 15 paintings.  All of the information gathered was compiled into an extensive chronological database.  An additional list of travel histories with photographic references was completed.  The results of this study showed changes in the artists materials both between paintings and within individual works.

Diebenkorn worked for weeks to years on some of his paintings.  He painted consistently on unsized cotton duck but his choice of preparatory materials fluctuated over time.  Between 1968 and 1973 he used white acrylic gesso and toned it with diluted acrylic.  In some cases he added alkyd.  From 1973 to 1978 he transitioned from white to clear preparatory layers, presumably in order to maintain the raw canvas color and achieve transparencies in his paint layers.  Scientific analysis suggested the clear material was synthetic and consistent with Rhoplex AC-33.  This was more or less confirmed by photographic evidence of showing large jugs labeled as Rhoplex located in the artist’s studio.  By 1979 Diebenkorn had returned to using acrylic gesso almost exclusively.

Diebenkorn primarily painted with acrylics and alkyds.  He added oils sparingly and extended his paints as far as possible.  He also used charcoal, graphite, and colored pencil to define his images.  Infrared reflectography of his paintings show numerous alterations in his compositions, which is unsurprising given his appreciation of layering and the amount of time he spent working on each piece.  Once a painting was finished he applied matte fixative to the surface.  In his early works he applied this in 6 or 8 consecutive layers that left a glassy, heavy surface.  Eventually he shifted his process and masked out the painting to limit application to the charcoal areas.

The condition assessment of this larger group of paintings seem to support the findings of Ana’s initial study.  Paintings executed between 1960 and 1973 vary and some show some cracking.  The cracks follow drawn lines, compositional changes, and are greatest on the paintings with heavy layers.  Paintings completed after 1973 and before 1980 have heavier, more pronounced cracking with broad and isolated areas of cupping.  These paintings follow the same trend as the earlier works with the greatest cracking located in the layered areas.  Diebenkorn’s paintings after 1980 are in much more pristine condition with less cracks.  The trend of this condition timeline show that the paintings in the poorest condition are located in the middle of the Ocean Park series.  This supports previous findings by showing that paintings with Rhoplex and acrylic exhibit the worst cracking, especially when they are painted thickly with numerous layers.

This study highlights concerns regarding some of Diebenkorn’s selection of materials.  Alkyds are brittle so putting them over flexible preparatory films and unsized canvas makes them susceptible to cracking from impacts and physical movement of the substrate.  Fortunately, they do not seem prone to delamination so the cracking does not lead to significant paint loss.  In addition, when Diebenkorn diluted his materials he reduced their strength.  That left them with a greater chance of deformation in response to physical and environmental factors.

Ana pointed out that there are some limiting and extenuating factors to consider in this research.  The are as follows:

  • No samples were taken from privately owned paintings.
  • His assistants did not see him working so they could not provide information about his process
  • Diebenkorn did not keep detailed records of his work or do preparatory drawings.
  • The study compares paintings in good and poor condition only.
  • The artist destroyed some works, painted over others, and skipped #5 when creating the series.
  • One large painting from Brooklyn was an outlier in the study; it was completed prior to 1973 but it shows significant cracking across large ares of the surface.
During the question and answer session following the presentation it was also noted that areas with Rhoplex on raw canvas showed discoloration.
I have a personal appreciation for Diebenkorn’s work and have enjoyed following the progression of Ana’s research project.  By coincidence, I had the opportunity to realize that interest in person this week when the exhibition, Richard Diebenkorn:  The Ocean Park Series, was deinstalled at the Orange County Museum of Art in California.  I conducted outgoing condition assessments of some of the paintings and was able to see exactly what Ana had discussed in her presentation.  The exhibition will open at its final destination, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, on June 30th.  I encourage all of you to check out the show if possible to see the subjects of Ana’s research side by side for the first time on such a large scale.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Print or Painting? The Treatment of a Penschilderij by Willem van de Velde the Elder” by Kristin deGhetaldi

Penschilderijn*, also known as “penpaintings“, involve drawing an image in black ink on top of a substrate prepared with a white lead oil ground.  The technique originated in seventeenth century Holland and was popularized by one of its most skilled practitioners, Willem van de Velde the Elder.  The artist’s painting, Dutch Ships Near the Coast, became the first penschilderij in an American public collection when it was gifted to the National Gallery of Art in 1994.  Treatment of the painting began in 2010, which gave conservators the rare opportunity to conduct an in-depth study of the materials and techniques utilized in its creation.  Kristin deGhetaldi headed the treatment of the painting and presented the current study findings and treatment results to the Paintings Specialty Group.

Willem van de Velde the Elder built his career on pen paintings but his beginnings were much more humble.  He was born in 1611 as the son of a skipper and spent most of his early years on ships, giving him a natural familiarity with navigation and the sea.  He was also an excellent draughtsman and became skilled at sketching maritime scenes.  As his skill improved he was sought for victory images and his clientele of wealthy patrons increased.  He gained significant notoriety with his penpaintings as early as the end of the 1630s and it was said that his penschilderij were considered more popular and valuable than his other works.

Penpaintings were often done on panel or vellum primed with oil.  Working atop these surfaces with pen and ink made it difficult to make corrections to the composition.  Van de Velde was a perfectionist who was easily dissatisfied with the quality of his work.  If he did not like a sketch he would go over the basic outline in wet ink and quickly press the image to another substrate and begin again.  He also utilized both fine line drawing and washes to create his images, with washes becoming more prominent in his work by the 1650s.  Washes provided the advantage of covering large areas quickly without the need for intricate underdrawings.  This allowed the van de Velde workshop to generate larger penpaintings at a faster rate in order to meet teh demands of the market.

A visual analysis of Dutch Ships Near the Coast was conducted in comparison to van de Veldes other known works and some characteristics stood out.  Although it is dated to the 1650s, the work is smaller than his other penpaintings and it lacks the expected fluid washes in favor of fine linear strokes.  The penpainting does have an underdrawing, though it remains unclear whether it was sketched in silverpoint or graphite.  In addition, the ground layer composed of calcium carbonate instead of the slightly darker ground that is common in his similar works.  Finally, unique raised lines are present where the ink is applied and in other areas of the white ground.

Scientific analysis was conducted in an attempt to clarify some of these discrepancies.  Cross-sectional microscopy revealed two layers of lead white, with the topmost layer containing particles that were more finely ground.  The presence of only carbon black in the ink design confirmed that iron gall ink or bone black was not used by the artist.  Analysis using GCMS was conducted in an attempt to identify the binding medium of the ink, though the tests were inconclusive.

Conservators decided to create a reconstruction of the penpainting to gain insight into the identity of the oil binder and find possible causes for the raised lines.  Linseed oil was used in the reconstruction but it yellowed quickly, leading conservators to believe a slower drying oil was used in order to avoid the discoloration.  Next conservators tested reed and quill pens dipped in gum based ink to determine how the ink was likely applied.  Reed seemed like a good candidate but they produced broader and less precise lines than the sharp, fine lines created with quills.  Goose quills were ideal but quills from raven and crow feathers were also acceptable.  It was hypothesized that the sharp quills may have scratched the ground before it was totally dry and created the fine lines.  However, that did not account for the raised nature of the lines or the fact that they existed in areas where ink was not applied.  At that point conservators wondered if the lines could be the result of engraving techniques.

The Dutch artist Experiens Sillemans was a contemporary of van de Velde and also created penschilderijn.  Sillemans was known to use printmaking practices such as engraving in the creation of his works.  The technique involved pressing a freshly inked engraving on to a primed support.  To create raised lines, however, van de Velde would have had to press his inked copper plate into the soft preparatory ground of the support.  Given the art historical evidence, it still seems unlikely that van de Velde used this practice as no two of his penschilderij are alike.  In addition, there are no prints in his oeuvre to suggest he was a practiced engraver.

Ultimately the technical study of Dutch Ships Near the Coast left more questions than answers and conservators are hopeful that future study will lead to greater understanding.  At that point it was time to address the treatment of the piece.

Examination of the painting revealed fills and overpaint, discoloration, flaking, and crumbling around the fills.  The abraded surface was almost ghost-like in some areas and the face of one man in the foreground was completely lost.  The painting was stabilized using sturgeon glue.  During removal of the varnish layers, Kristin did not have to worry about solubility issues.**  Once the painting was given an isolation layer of MS2A varnish, losses were filled using a mixture of Aquazol 200 and Modostuc.  To begin the inpainting process Kristin  isolated the painting with MS2A and then used pigmented micropens under magnification to conduct a painstaking recreation of the abraded areas.  The damaged background was reinforced with thin HB micro graphite sticks.

A question and answer session followed Kristin’s presentation and someone asked what additional theories she may have regarding the cause of the fine lines.  Kristin said she has a few weak theories.  One theory is that the penpainting was put in the sun to bleach and dry, during which time the black ink may have absorbed more heat and created the lines.  Her second theory was that a slower drying oil like walnut or poppy may have left the grounds soft and created uneven drying which could have led to the raised lines.  She stressed that more study is necessary.

I thought this was a very interesting presentation and look forward to hearing about future developments in the study of Willem van de Velde’s penschilderij.

 

 

* A past study by David Freedberg, Aviva Burnstock, and Alan Phenix refer to these works as penschilderijen.  Since I am not fluent in dutch, nor an expert on penpainting, I deferred to the spelling used by Kristin deGhetaldi.

** The question of solubility was raised during the question and answer session, to which Kristin replied she detected absolutely no solubility issues in the materials of the penpainting, especially since the painting had already been subjected to harsh overcleaning in the past.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Treatment of Izhar Patkin’s ‘The Black Paintings’–Collaboration and Compromise” by Jennifer Hickey

Israeli-American artist Izhar Patkin’s work combines traditional painting and sculpture with nontraditional techniques.  In 1986 he completed his work, The Black Paintings, a series of twenty-two pleated neoprene panels painted with images based on Jean Genet’s play, “The Blacks: A clown show.”  The 14′ long panels hang side by side to create a 28′ x 22′ installation.  Recently, the sculpture and painting conservation departments at the Museum of Modern Art in New York collaborated to address the treatment of this work.  Jennifer Hickey presented the challenges, philosophy, and compromises of the project to the Paintings Specialty Group.

When conservators took on The Black Paintings they were met with a host of interesting challenges.  The first set of issues had to do with the materials.  Neoprene is a stable synthetic rubber that maintains its flexibility over time and wide temperature variations.  It is not an ideal substrate for painting because of its flexibility and the size and weight of each panel exacerbated that problem.  The artist was aware of those issues and used spray paint and vinyl paint under the assumption that the spray paint would crack while the vinyl paint would remain flexible.  Unfortunately, the expected interactions of the materials proved false as the entire painted surface cracked and flaked with the stretch of the neoprene.  The cracking and losses were compounded by the handling required to deinstall and reinstall the panels each time they were exhibited.

The physical incompatibility of the neoprene and paint media was not the only problem.  Neoprene is often coated with a talcum-based release agent to keep it from being sticky.  The application of the talc leaves a hazy gray surface that the artist liked so he painted on it without removing the coating or preparing the surface with another material.  Therefore, the release agent that kept the neoprene from being sticky also acted as a release agent for the paint media.

Conservators were also faced with challenges that went beyond the materials.  Izhar Patkin is a living, working artist so conservators were able to consult him during the assessment and planning stages of the project.  This may sound like a blessing if we consider all the times we’ve wished for input on a complicated project from its creator.  However, it can be a double-edged sword and that was the case with The Black Paintings.

As previously mentioned, Patkin was aware that the painted surfaces would deteriorate and enjoyed the nonstatic idea it presented.  He chose his materials to encourage that deterioration and scratched into the paint to initiate the process.  He also appreciated how the heat of the installation space intensified the smell of the neoprene.  Perhaps it was serendipitous that such heat adds to the risk of instability in paint films.  Conversations with the artist allowed conservators to understand where he’d intended damage and deterioration, which guided their treatment decisions.  At the same time they ran into complications during their discussions.  For example, the artist and conservators used the word “craquelure” to describe different phenomena and the conservators had to contend with impractical suggestions from the artist.

In the end the treatment of The Black Paintings was limited to triage with the understanding that maintenance treatment will be required each time the panels are unrolled.  Conservators designed a cleaning system that accounted for the sensitivities of the solvent based paints and avoided heat, which could have compromised the rubber.  The panels were hung and then gradually lowered to a table for access, at which point they were cautiously dry cleaned and a very time consuming consolidation was undertaken using an acrylic emulsion adhesive.  An old interleaving was replaced with finely woven undyed cotton and permanent cleats were secured to the tops of each panel.  At that point the panels were rerolled and stored.  A manual was prepared to instruct all individuals on the proper handling during all future installations and deinstallations.

This was a very complicated project that illustrated many of the issues that arise when dealing with modern and contemporary artworks and the involvement of a living artist.  A question and answer session following the presentation continued to highlight the gray areas surrounding these kinds of treatments.

One conservator asked Ms. Hickey why they chose to roll the panels with the paint side facing inward rather than out because of the added risk it posed to the already unstable paint.  Ms. Hickey explained that the size and weight of the panels necessitated this compromise because they were too large and heavy to flip over once the panel was unrolled.  Rolling them in this way may risk the paint but significantly reduced the level of handling and resulting unavoidable losses.

A second question posed to Ms. Hickey was whether or not they thought of alternatives to the permanent cleats because rolling the paintings with the cleats creates a risk.  When Ms. Hickey explained that the budget of the project would not allow other preferable but more expensive alternatives she was asked if they considered the fact that additional costs at present could maintain value in the piece and curtail future treatment costs.  Ms. Hickey addressed this question with great poise by reminding us all that conservators do not always have the final say when it comes to the cost of a treatment and sometimes we must find the best compromise available within our limitations.

This was an excellent presentation and I hope it will lead to continued discussions regarding the issues that arise in these kinds of complicated projects.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Challenges and Choices in Conserving an Early Abstract Expressionist Painting by Clyfford Still” by Barbara Ramsay

American painter Clyfford Still (1904-1980) was a leading Abstract Expressionist artist.  In November of 2011 the new Clyfford Still Museum opened in Denver, Colorado.  For more than seven years prior to the opening conservators in the ARTEX Conservation Laboratory worked to prepare Still’s paintings for travel and exhibition.  One of those paintings was the oil on canvas,  1943 (PH-286).  Barbara Ramsay carried out the treatment of the painting and kept coming back to the question, “Should we hold the artist accountable for the materials and techniques that he has used, or should we attempt to reintroduce aspects of his original intent as we perceive them?”   As one might expect, the answer is often complicated and open to interpretation.

1943 (PH-286) is a key early painting in Still’s oeuvre that serves as an excellent documentation of his artistic process.  The painting represents his transition from abstracted figurative work to the complete abstraction for which he is known.  It is understood that Still considered the painting to be an important work and he exhibited it more often than most of his other works.  The painting also important because it has the inscription “White and Black” on the verso, which may be an early title because he did not completely abandon titling his work until some time in the 1940s.

The stretched painting was executed on unsized cotton duck canvas with a white ground.  The canvas showed signs of being unstretched and restretched more than once.  It was slightly stained but otherwise it was generally stable.  Examination of the paint layers revealed mingling of matte and glossy areas and a discolored surface coating.  The areas of highest gloss appeared bluish white under ultraviolet irradiation but whether there was a local or overall surface coating remained unclear.  There were also areas of marked drying cracks in the black paint layers but all of the cracks appeared to be stable.

After minor consolidation, the structure of the painting was stable so the focus of treatment was on the aesthetic qualities.  Barbara’s approach was to open up a dialogue between curators, the representatives of the Still estate, and conservators to discuss the interpretation of the condition and determine a course of action that prioritized minimal intervention.  Unfortunately, such conversations are often complicated and this case was no exception.  Some of the stakeholders felt the painting should be left as is.  Others wanted the drying cracks to be inpainted.  Still others wanted a complete aesthetic treatment to remove and replace the discolored varnish, saturate the matte areas, and inpaint the drying cracks.  Barbara wanted to do more research before determining her ideal course of action.  The critical questions:  could it be done safely and should it be done at all?

To answer those questions Barbara focused on Still’s working process.  GCI analysis suggested that he used titanium white ground, zinc white, carbon black, organic colorants, and some commercial tube colors on his paintings.  Many of Still’s paints are known to be particularly sensitive to water and organic solvents.  The variable gloss in the paint surface posed several other issues for consideration.  The matte areas could have indicated an original difference in leanness in the paint.  It was possible that Still applied an overall surface coating that soaked into areas of underbound paint over time and left an unexpected variable gloss.  There was also a chance that Still applied the coating to specific areas of the painting.  So, did Still apply a coating?  Was it local or overall?  Did he intend or like the uneven surface?  Research turned up examples where Still did both localized and overall surface coating applications.  It was documented that paint that appeared “too dry” was not his original intention.  However, what did he mean by “too dry”?  Was this an “overly matte” surface or did it describe a surface that had traces of efflorescence?

Additional study by the GCI identified a drying oil on the surface and it was determined that Still likely coated the painting with the oil in the 1970s.  Examination under ultraviolet irradiation supported the theory that the oil coating was absorbed by leaner areas of paint, resulting in localized matte patches.  Although the oil was applied by the artist there was no documentation to indicate what effect he was trying to achieve.  Since the discolored coating was very disfiguring and misleading, it was decided that it should be removed.  But could it be removed?

As expected, solvent sensitivities in the paint layers complicated the removal of the surface coating.  As a result, it was determined that selective and partial cleaning was the most viable option.  Using solvent compresses the coating was reduced in the whites, grays and colored areas, but was left untouched over the black paint.  A varnish was not applied either to the cleaned areas or to the matte black paint passages.

The last step in the treatment was inpainting of the craquelure.  Barbara preferred to leave the craquelure as evidence of the artist’s materials and working methods but finally agreed to inpaint the most distracting craquelure with a reversible medium.  At that point the treated painting was ready for exhibition.

This was a complicated project full of the difficult questions that seem inherent in the treatment of modern and contemporary art.  As a result, the conclusion of Barbara’s presentation was followed by a very interesting question and answer session.  I was unable to keep a written record of the various dialogues that occurred but I can recall one question and answer that I thought was interesting and could lead to additional discussion:  One conservator asked Barbara why she decided to inpaint the craquelure when Still had chosen to exhibit it for so many years in that condition.  Barbara replied that she had considered this factor and believed it was a valid reason not to inpaint.  She did not want to inpaint the craquelure but she feared the other alternative was that the painting would not go on exhibit.  She felt it was necessary to compromise on inpainting the cracks to ensure that such an important painting would be included in the inaugural installation in the new museum.  She noted also that Still had not intended that the drying craquelure would form.  She felt the museum’s desire to show Still’s work to the public for the first time looking its very best was also a valid concern. What do you think?

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting, Objects and Research and Technical Studies Joint Session, May 9, “The Qero Project: Conservation and Science Collaboration over Time,” by Emily Kaplan et al.

Emily Kaplan (Presenter), Objects Conservator, Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian; email: kaplane@si.edu

Ellen Howe, Conservator, Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, Metropolitan Museum of Art; email: ellen.howe@metmuseum.org

Ellen Pearlstein, Associate Professor, Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials, UCLA; email: epearl@ucla.edu

Judith Levinson, Director of Conservation, Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History; email: levinson@amnh.org

The qero research project is a seventeen-year-long collaboration among object conservators at four museums with qeros in their collections: the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Brooklyn Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA), and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian (SI, NMAI). Emily Kaplan (SI, NMAI) presented an update of the research to date on behalf of her co-investigators, Ellen Howe (MMA), Ellen Pearlstein (formerly Brooklyn Museum, now GCI-UCLA), and Judith Levinson (AMNH). The project is an in-depth technical study of materials and techniques of fabrication of a corpus of qeros, polychrome wood drinking vessels fabricated around the time of the Spanish conquest of Peru in 1532; the qeros in these four collections date from the Inca period (13th-15th c.), through the Colonial period (16th-19th c).  Consequently, the qeros offer material culture insights produced over a span of centuries and reflect the influences of both indigenous cultures and Spanish colonizers.  Principal goals of the project involved: understanding techniques of fabrication, the analytical identification of materials, and the correlation of the technical data with the stylistic data proposed by others (i.e. curators, art historians).

The qero project was an apt presentation for the joint OSG-RATS  session. Kaplan articulately presented the cultural history of the vessels, as well as the technical research undertaken by numerous conservation scientists, principally at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Indeed, both cultural and scientific research were presented in nearly equal measure, which underscored the efforts of the primary researchers to cover both aspects in depth.  Efforts at replication of techniques of manufacture, cultural exchanges with colleagues and artisans in Peru, and the application of the full arsenal of analytical  methods employed (including FTIR, GC-MS, PLM, XRD, and XRF) were discussed.  Kaplan noted that YouTube videos exist showing contemporary Columbian artisans in Pasto working with the sheets of resin.  The presentation was accompanied by quite beautifully photographed images of the vessels themselves, comprised of tropical woods with polychrome resinous inlays, which illustrate geometric (Inca) and figural (Colonial) design registers of increasing complexity.

Funding from the MMA and NMAI allowed Kaplan and Howe to travel to Peru to meet Andean artists and scholars; to collect raw materials; and to visit private and public collections.  Eventually botanical samples of the plant elaeagia were correlated via FTIR and GC-MS to the mopa-mopa resin noted in early literature and the samples from qeros.  Interestingly, the palette was identified as largely unchanged from the pre-Colonial period.  Colorants identified include cinnabar red, orpiment yellow, cochineal red and pink, indigo blue, copper-based greens, carbon black, lead white and titanium white.  A notable, recent reassessment is the meaning of the analytical identification of titanium white (cristobalite anatase in mineral form) on some vessels.  Early in the project, the noted presence of titanium white—a  pigment that found wide usage only in the 20th century—was  thought to indicate areas of restoration.  Further study focusing on the presence of elaeagia in the media, led the conservators to believe it to be a pre-Colonial pigment.  A known Andean ore does exist.

Current research questions involve study of the ore source(s) of the cristobalite anatase and pigment comparisons to Colonial Andean paintings.  Further, the research and data collection evolved with technological advances and the collaborators are now considering ways to aggregate and share the data on-line.

This research project can be seen as a model for other conservation projects involving multiple institutions.  The sustained curiosity about these objects inspired a prolonged inter-museum collaborative effort , involving international allied professionals.  I’ve followed the progress of the qero project over the years, attending presentations and watching the list of publications in the US and South America grow longer and longer, as new findings emerged.  Near the beginning of the project (which started in 1995), while a graduate conservation student at New York University, I participated for two years as a research assistant on the project.  The concerted efforts to study both historical techniques of fabrication and the scientific results of analytical testing represent for me why the qero project ideally embodies the captivating interdisciplinary aspects of the conservation profession.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting- “Assessing Risks to Your Collections” Workshop with Robert Waller, May 8th, 2012

I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in a workshop at the beginning of the 2012 AIC Conference with Robert Waller entitled, “Assessing Risks to Your Collections”. I decided to attend this particular course because many museums struggle with creating preservation priorities for their collections and this task is daunting to both small and large museums. Risk assessment tools can assist in identifying priorities for collections care and a museum can in turn invest strategically in projects to protect collections from hazards both in the present and future. I hoped to gain an understanding of risk management tools to better assist future preservation planning in my own museum and to relate the information I gained to the members of the Museum Association of Arizona, a museum organization that helped support my registration.

The workshop began at 9am and, in regular workshop fashion, participants began to introduce themselves to the group.  This, of course, enabled participants to get comfortable with one another in order to start the business of learning about risk assessment. There was a large constituency of Latin American Scholars present at the workshop, as well as other international attendees from places like Haiti and Korea. Attendees were also diverse in specialties which included photographs, objects, paintings, textiles, as well as different levels of education including some pre-program students, but all of course had an interest in the preservation of cultural heritage.  I was fortunate to have been in a group of both intelligent and friendly people that were willing to discuss and work together on all of the exercises.

Robert Waller introduced the overall objective and methods he would be using in order for participants to quickly learn the materials in this intense one day workshop. He was patient in describing each step, but also moved the workshop along to get in as much information as possible in such a short amount of time.  The main goal of the workshop was to demonstrate the Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model. By identifying risks to collections using this tool, museums can target resources more efficiently through strategic planning.  More specifically, the workshop enabled participants to:

  • Identify risks – by ”agent of deterioration” and “type of risk”.
  • Define risks clearly.
  • Assess the magnitude of defined risks.
  • Evaluate data and present information to stakeholders.

Systematically plan risk mitigation strategies by:

  • Identifying means of control – methods and levels.
  • Evaluating costs/risks/benefits of mitigation strategies.

The workshop was extremely interactive(not for the shy)and participants learned through a variety of means including lectures, demonstrations, brainstorming in small groups, group presentations, exercises, practice, and discussions. Small prizes were utilized to further motivate the groups (my group got chocolate!!). A well composed manual with a shiny protective cover was given to all participants. The manual consisted of all the course content exercises, references and a glossary of terms which I know will be a good resource and was much appreciated.

One of my favorite exercises was estimating the magnitude of risk to the display cases at the Albuquerque convention center. Each group was assigned their own case which encompassed a variety of materials and preservation issues. The groups worked together to calculate the magnitude of risk by using all of the steps worked out in class. We had to define the specific risks in our case, determine the fraction of susceptibility, the loss in value, the probability of occurrence, and the extent to which the susceptible is affected. This exercise really helped me put together all of the components discussed in the workshop lectures. Working with the other participants was also very valuable as they had differing opinions and it was necessary to work together to come to a consensus, much like in a real life scenario working with other museum colleagues. This gave participants a realistic view of what is involved in performing a risk assessment and gave a level of comfort in using what was learned.

In the end, I feel like I have a much better grasp of assessing risks to collections and will be able to more effectively communicate these risks in a way that will be useful to facilitate strategic preservation planning. This model of comprehensive analysis of risks can provide a guide for appropriate actions in order to effectively mitigate the rate of loss to a collection. All of the information provided during the workshop will be very useful to me and I hope to use these strategies in the near future and share them with my colleagues.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Session, “Recent Investigations into a Mechanical-Chemical Method for Removing Corrosion from Furniture Brass” Delivered by Delphine Elie-Lefebvre and Mark Anderson, paper by Delphine Elie-Lefebvre, Richard Wolbers, Elena Torok, Mark Anderson & Stephanie Auffret

“Recent Investigations into a Mechanical-Chemical Method for Removing Corrosion from Furniture Brass” Delivered by Delphine Elie-Lefebvre and Mark Anderson, paper by Delphine Elie-Lefebvre, Richard Wolbers, Elena Torok, Mark Anderson & Stephanie Auffret

OK, I have to admit that part way into this talk I rather regretted putting my name in to blog about it. It had a lot of information and a lot of chemistry in a short amount of time, and I couldn’t hear the speakers very well. I recommend looking into a future article I hope the authors will publish with their fascinating experiments and findings.

The talk was the story of “observation, discovery and reverse-engineering” to evaluate new methods to clean brass furniture mounts on wood substrates. Brass is often damaged from commercial products and overcleaning with abrasives. The authors came up with and tested protein glues made into peel-off gels to remove corrosion, cleaning products and grime from brass. They tested different types of glues and gelatins at different pH, applied with Japanese paper and peeled off after 20 minutes. Then vinyl erasers were used afterwards to further reduce corrosion.

Through their discussion of the analysis they carried out, which threw me back to first year of graduate school and made my heart race from nerves, they suggested that some of the components of corrosion (which were removed from the alloy at different rates) bound with the amino acid components in the protein glue. The physical removal of the glue by pulling produced an even appearance on the brass and this suggested that chemical cleaning was part of the effectiveness of the treatment. Further cleaning with the erasers was made easier by the first part of the treatment.

Copper-alloy coupons were used to test different glues at various pH along with controls. The authors hope to carry out more tests to come up with analytical results that show more definite differences between coupons. These methods, however, have a lot of potential for furniture and objects conservation. It looks like it must take some practice, and there are a lot of variables to test, but for a big cleaning project, this is one to put in your treatment repertoire.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Session, Thursday, “Hello Walls Revisited: Conservation Treatment of Eighteenth Century Chinese Lacquer Panels at The Elms –An Update” by Jeff Moore, et. al.

“Hello Walls Revisited: Conservation Treatment of Eighteenth Century Chinese Lacquer Panels at The Elms –An Update”
Talk given by Jeff Moore, Chief Conservator, The Preservation Society of Newport County

Jeff Moore gave a fascinating talk about the conservation project at The Elms to treat three Asian lacquered and one European japanned panels in one room of the mansion in Newport, installed in 1900. The panels have had a long history between their pre-twentieth-century beginnings. They have traveled the world to arrive in Rhode Island, suffered degradation from light, had detached lacquer nailed down (what a sight!), had Western varnishes applied, and suffered degradation anew. Even Urushi repairs were added around the time of the 1900 installation.

The target conservation philosophy was to restore the panels to their 1900 state. A variety of analyses were performed before treatment. More information is available on the website: http://www.newportmansions.org/learn/scholarly-papers

A complicated rigging system was designed and implemented to de-install the panels from the walls, the panels were faced, and sleeved cushions were put on the corners for removal and moving to the basement of The Elms. The climate conditions of the original room at different seasons were mimicked during conservation.

Hide glue was selected to adhere the lifting flakes, and moisture and heat were applied to manipulate the lacquer.

One of the challenges of the project was that the panels were 83 inches across, therefore clamping tables with beams spanning the panels were built and the panels laid horizontally. Several shimbari materials were tested, and Moore and his team came up with an ingenious tool: modified quick-grip clamps turned into spreader jacks with a compression spring. Another clever tip: They used copper tubes to surround the syringes in hot water to keep them warm. I confess I’m not sure how this helped, but some polyvinyl alcohol was added to the glue to help it travel further.

Varnish was removed due its jarring blanched appearance. A Pemulen gel with a mixture of solvents (I missed which ones!) were used to remove some of the gel, and was cleared with water at pH 8.5.

Moore’s public outreach is truly impressive. The treatment is part of the “behind-the-scenes” tour at the house museum, and a whopping 10,000 people visit each year. I highly recommend you try to get there before it’s over.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting, Electronic Media Session, Thursday May 10, 2012, Toward an ontology of audio preservation, Sarah Norris

The final talk of the morning session was a fascinating lecture by Sarah Norris. Sarah described herself as a musician and librarian and how she has been exploring the theoretical ideas about the preservation of original or reproduction materials through the preservation of audio materials.

The preservation of audio materials has a number of difficulties, audio recordings are made on unstable media which leads to format obsolesce, requiring reformatting, which separates the content from the carrier. This is a unique part of the conservation of electronic media that is not practiced by conservators in other disciplines.

Walter Benjamin (1936) famously discussed reproduction and the idea of aura in art – the uniqueness that lends a work of art authority.  There are differences between an original and a fake and an original and a copy in that the copy has integrity, there is also an authenticity of multiples which is often dependent upon production history.  In The Languages of Art, by Nelson Goodman (1968) Allographic authenticity was defined as musical score where the authenticity depends upon conformity to established notation or performance of the piece. Because a painting does not have an established notation system it can be forged, the idea being that the authenticity would be forged, where the authenticity could be realized in the performance of the musical score.

Autographic authenticity preservation could involve a novel or an intaglio print that are concerned with the preservation of the object as well as the preservation of the content.  Allographic preservation would be concerned with the recorded content only.

Sarah Norris covered general Eastern and Western preservation values, using an example of a Shinto shrine and the preservation of meaning instead of the preservation of the original materials.

Modern art and audio recordings may force an acceptance of change to preserve the material substance of the work, the artist and the conservator could be considered as co-creators, working with an audio technician attempting to establish playback settings for a synthesizer recording.

A few examples of Platonic vs. Aristotelian ideas were presented, for example:

Plato – believes matter and form can be separated – this approach is used in general collections that are digitized.

Aristotle – believes form and matter cannot be separated – this approach is used in special collections.

The paper concluded that allographic, Eastern, Platonic items can be duplicated.  Autographic, Western, Aristotelian items cannot be authentically duplicated.