In his talk, Gordon Hanlon discussed a project that started at the Museum of Art Boston (MFA) in 2005 around a controversy regarding the date of manufacture of a side chair by Philadelphia furniture maker and carver Benjamin Randolph (1721-1791). In his 1972 book American Chairs, Queen Anne and Chippendale, John Kirk argued that a chair bearing a Randolph label and its mate – both in the Karolik Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston – were out of period. Consequently, both objects were removed from exhibition. Kirk’s analysis was refuted twenty six years later by Philip Zimmerman in an article published in American Furniture, entitled “Labeled Randolph Chairs Rediscovered”, available online at: http://www.chipstone.org/html/publications/1998AF/Zim/1998ZimIndex.html. While the Museum of Fine Arts was preparing for the opening of its new American wing, the Randolph chair was X-rayed to study its joinery. This examination confirmed Philip Zimmerman’s judgment that the chair’s construction was consistent with period manufacture techniques, most likely around 1765-75. This investigation was the start of a much larger campaign of study of chairs’ construction through X-Ray examination.
The MFA collection counts 278 American chairs, from early 17th c. to 1950, allowing for thorough comparison of construction techniques and tool marks associated with joinery. The Furniture laboratory started x-raying chairs as they came into the lab, which worked well in conjunction with the American wing project. One type of chairs did not lend itself well to that type of analysis: painted seats with lead based ground.
When film was used in the initial phase of this project, it was scanned at 300 dpi. The file was then enhanced in photoshop, using for instance the “unsharp mask” tool, then brightness and contrast adjustments. Many other options are of course available to reveal various levels of information on the image. The MFA recently switched to digital X-Ray, which seems to surpass film from Gordon’s point of view.
In order to compare information revealed by the X-Ray images, Gordon made mock-ups of joints and looked at a selection of bits. 36 chairs have been x-rayed so far. A few examples were illustrated in the talk, showing tenon and mortise joints as well as dowels.
To record the data gathered, TMS database showed some limitations, leading the lab to use Filemaker pro. The lab already had experience with this database as they used it for two previous projects: in 2005 for a study of historic fasteners (Chris White), and in 2008 for an investigation of painted furniture (Carola Schuller and Michelle Derrick). Currently Christine Schaette, who also gave a talk during this WAG session, is also using Filemaker pro to record her findings on inscriptions found on furniture. Gordon concluded his talk by inviting his colleagues to share results of their own examination of seats. This is something to investigate for WAG, to hopefully find a way to create a platform for everyone to share X-Rays of chairs.
Category: Wooden Artifacts Conservation
42nd Annual Meeting, Paintings & Wooden Artifacts Joint Session, May 31, "The Analysis and Reduction of an Intractable Coating for the Panel Painting by Lluis Borrassa, Christ Before Pilate," by William P. Brown & Dr. Adele De Cruz
The presentation by William P. Brown and Dr. Adele De Cruz was an awe inspiring glimpse at the future of conservation. Through the collaboration of the North Carolina Museum of Art and conservation scientists from the University of Pisa and Duke University, an intractable layer of cross-linked drying oil, animal glues, and pigmented varnish was removed from the surface of Spanish painter Lluis Borrassa’s panel painting, Christ Before Pilate, 1420-25.
The painting, which had not been exhibited for over 40 years, was the victim of previous cleaning and coating campaigns, and several layers of consolidation materials and paints and glazes had been applied to the blue passages of Christ’s robe. As a result of the cross-linking of these consolidants and the dark pigmentation of a conealing varnish layer, Christs’s robe appeared almost black.
During treatment at the North Carolina Museum of Art, solvents were successful in removing the toned varnish from the painting. However, the reduction of the complex layer of intractable material covering Christ’s robe (the abstract describes this as a composite of old consolidant, cross-linked drying oil, and restoration materials) was not so straighforward. Conservation scientists (from the aforementioned institutions) used FTIR, SEM, and GC-MS analysis to identify the components of the intractable layer and to discern them from original material, which consistsed of lapis, indigo, and orpiment pigments in egg tempera and glue or bee pollen.
Dr. De Cruz took the podium at this point in the talk to describe the methods used to reduce the intractable composite material. Essentially, laser ablation was employed, which before this talk I was only familiar with in the context of dentistry. I have to admit that my intitial reaction to hearing the terms ‘laser’ and ‘art conservation’ used together might have been a wary one, but a refamiliarzing with the techniques involved with laser ablation (and recalling the established use of this technique on the delicate enamel surfaces of our teeth) was an encouraging and exciting reminder of the vast potential of interdisiplanary approaches to art conservation.
Dr. De Cruz explained that the 2940 nm Er:YAG (erbium) operates using an intense monochromatic wave of light (2.94 microwatts) at 15 pulses per second to vaporize the intractable material. The depth of penetration is very controllable, maintaining a shallow depth of penetration between 3-5 microns. This light pulse is highly absorbed by water, and produced a near instantaneous steam distillation. A glass cover slip is placed over the dirt, varnish, and paint layer. The laser is used to break up the intractable surface, which is ejected and contained by the glass cover slip. The debris is then swabbed from the surface of the painting and can be used for analysis.
There are several immediately obvious benefits to this method. It eliminates the need for toxic solvents, it allows for a highly controllable and low shallow depth of penetration. There is also no risk of chemical change to the substrate, and the reaction is low temperature.
Dr. De Cruz went in to incredible depth during this talk, and I realize that my summary only touches on the ammount of information she provided. I was furiously scribbling notes the entire time, and certainly wished I had a camera to take photos of her slides. I certainly look forward to hearing more about this topic in the future, and am excited for the future and ongoing collaboration of conservation and science.
42nd Annual Meeting – We can fix it but should we? Take 2: Part Two – The Treatment of Mr Chips Tad Fallon
As the title indicates this paper is the second part of a treatment that was discussed at last year’s session, and subsequently implimented during the past year. It brings up some fascinating and controversial issues and I admire Tad’s courage and boldness in presenting it to the profession. In short he totally refinished and recolored a work of art-furniture by a living artist.
I strongly encourage everyone, whether WAG or not to read the final paper because the detailed rational for the treatment are beyond what a humble first time blogger is capabable of re-iterating. The treatment was not casual and it is the thought and consideration that enlivens the context and makes this such a stimulating paper.
Tad’s treatment has created a different work of art. It is not the same as the original. The artist-applied colors and varnishes were first destroyed by UV light and the remnants removed by Tad. Tad then applied new colors by working with the artist. Although the resulting furnture is not exactly the same; it could be as close as anybody is ever going to get. He interviewed the artist and the artist assitant, he gathered the exact same materials, he learned the techniques of application (from the artist and otherwise) and documented everything. He also researched the effect of the treatment on the value of the piece which is something he can add to a treatment that few other furniture conservators can provide. He consulted with not only the owner of course, but with dealers as to the effect his treatment would have on value.
It is context that makes this paper so interesting. I would probably never do this treatment because in my lab and with the goals of my institution I would not be justified in such a radical intervention. But I am not allowed to talk to John Townsend, or Lockwood DeForest or any of the hundreds of annoymous workers that have made the furniture that I have treated. Even if I could, I doubt that I would listen to their advice without falling into professional funk.
I treat furniture to be placed in a historic house that is interpreted for the early 21st century viewer. That is my context. An example that occurred to me after Tad’s presentation was an 18th century French commode that I recently returned to a 19th century Gilded Age setting. Like any piece of marquetry furniture it had been stripped and sanded on a probably routine basis to restore the colors. (Not an option for Tad.) At some point the veneers became too thin for this practice to continue and, probably not coincidently, the standards of collectors have changed to accept the patina of age. It has been French polished to a whore’s shine, but still almost everyone that sees it thinks it is beautiful. It has sat in the same corner with everything else in the room for over 70 years. For me to even approach 50% of Tad’s intervention with this piece would be ridiculous.
Tad’s paper stimulated me to look at my own context and the assumptions that I bring to any treatment especially wooden furntiure. “It should suggest the artist’s intent but still show its age” – what exaxctly does that mean? It all depends on context. Now if I could just tone down some of these upholstery fabrics a little bit . . . Why is the context for a chair different than an upholstered chair seat?
42nd Annual Meeting, Paintings & Wooden Artifacts Joint Session, May 31, "Long Term Hygromechanical Monitoring of Panel Paintings," by Paolo Dionisi Vici
As a conservation student entering my first year of graduate study this fall, I was at first intimidated by the topic at hand and the thought of relaying this information to the conservation community, potentially including research scientists, techs, and seasoned conservators who may have a jump-start on understanding these concepts, their implementation, and design execution. However, Paolo Dionisi Vici’s presentation not only made the material pertinent and compelling, but also accessible to a layman like myself. I only hope I can do justice to the complexities of the issue.
The talk abstract provides a great summary as to the ‘why’ of hygromechanical monitoring of panel paintings. Mathematical models and theoretical systems regarding the short and long term effects of environmental conditions on objects need to be substantiated by real life data sets in order to move forward with our understanding of the impact of microclimates (and their fluctuations) on objects. This topic is in direct diologue with the conference theme, Conscientious Conservation: Sustainable Choices in Collection Care, and harkens back to the opening session talks broadly titled Exploring Sustainable Preservation Environments, in which the generally accepted environmental paramaters of the museum were discussed, questioned, and even at times directly challenged. Data-logging by experimental measures, as exemplified by Vici’s talk, is paramount to the future of this conversation.
Vici posed an excellent question at the beginning of his talk by asking “What does stability really mean?” As an example of the potential complexity of this issue, he refered to the localized monitoring of one of the viking ships in Oslo, in which different data responses were logged based on the instrumentations’ location on the ship. The abstract aptly states, “Due to the specificity of each artwork… the analysis of an artifact’s response… can supply useful information about its “individual” sensitivity to the exhibition microclimate….” As the viking ship demonstrates, the complexity of individual responses can even vary within a single (albeit enormous in this case) object.
Now to get to the nitty gritty of the talk, and the part where I formally apologize for my unavoidable oversimplication (of what I suspect Vici already drastically simplified) of the sophisticated instrumentation used to monitor panel paintings. I should mention that while this instrumentation can be used to monitor a variety of wooden objects (such as the viking ship), the abstract notes that “panel paintings are useful in representing the complexity of possible reactions.”
The system of monitoring, the Deformometric Kit (DK), employs two displacement transducers, attached perpendicularly to the grain of the wooden panel. Linear deformations in the panel can be measured based on the proportional change of length of the transducers and subsequent trigonometric calculations. The transducers can be mounted on the back of a panel in different configurations and are not visible while the object is on exhibition.
The DK has undergone several design modifications to improve the specificity of the data being collected and its practicality in a museum context. In earlier models, the transducers were screwed directly into the panels. This complicated the data, because the specifics of what was being measured (surface vs. interior deformations and fluctations) could not be determined. Improvements at the Metroplitan Museum of Art were tested, and the transducers were eventually glued to the surface of the panel. According to Vici, minor shifts in the mounting glue would not negatively reflect the recorded data, because the information being gathered between the two vertical elements reflects general, averaged fluctuations. A further improvement was made when the base of the system was split, with ‘clips’ being glued to the surface of the panel and the transducers then being attached to these clips, making the transducers removable for transportation of the panel.
Vici provided several examples of the DK in action. Simulations of the potential asymmetry of a panel’s surfaces were conducted by connecting transducers to both sides of test panels. The effects of the movement of moisture as it reached equilibrium within the panel could then be monitored. The data Vici shared with us from these trials spanned hundreds of days, and the applicability of this system’s monitoring to both short and long term condition fluctuations should not go unmentioned. The DK also assisted in inform conservators regarding the appropriate crosspieces needed to provide auxiliary support for a long crack running through The Annunciation, oil on wood, Peter Candid, 1585. The DK was able to assist in determining how rigid the cross pieces needed to be and what kind of connection to the panel would be most appropriate.
I would like to reiterate that Vici did an incredible job engaging the audience with what could have been a very esoteric topic. And, yes, while it could be said that this is AIC, and perhaps only we could be ‘enthusiastic about dust’ (a group of people of which I am proud to be among), I felt the room earnestly abuzz after his talk. One of the most important thoughts that I took away from this talk was the importance of empirical validation of theoretical modeling. It is this sort of empirical validation that will inform our decisions as conservators and museum specialists moving forward with the care of our collections.
POLES, POSTS AND CANOES: THE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND CONTINUATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN MONUMENTAL WOOD CARVING.
CALL FOR PAPERS
JULY 21ST – 22ND, 2014, HIBULB CULTURAL CENTER AND NATURAL HISTORY PRESERVE, TULALIP, WASHINGTON
The call for papers for Poles, Posts and Canoes: the Preservation, Conservation and Continuation of Native American Monumental Wood Carving (July 21st – 22nd, 2014, Tulalip, Washington) has been extended to February 28th, 2014. We still have a few spaces for presentations, especially those angled towards general collections management, display and use of these objects in native and non-native managed museums, and the use in a museum setting of traditional means of maintenance.
This two day symposium (preceded by an opening ceremony and meal on the evening of July 20th) will gather Native and non-Native museum professionals, tribal members, and contemporary Native carvers to discuss the challenges of preserving and exhibiting historic monumental wood carvings from both a Native and Non-Native view point. It will also serve to connect Native carvers and the museum community in the hope that the resulting dialogue will help support the continued development of this traditional art form. The format of this gathering is aimed at encouraging discussion, so presentations will be relaxed and brief, and an equal amount of time will be scheduled for general discussion of the topics addressed.
Registration will open January 21st, 2014, and a provisional program will be available at that time.
Further information and details about the conference will be posted at www.hibulbculturalcenter.org/Events/Symposium/
Call for papers:
The meeting is heavily focused on inclusive discussions amongst participants, therefore we are seeking short presentations (10 – 15 minutes maximum) that encourage constructive dialog. While technical papers are welcome, we ask that presenters keep in mind the broad background of the expected attendees. The event will be recorded and the proceedings published.
Proposals for presentations on the following topics are invited:
- The history behind the past care of poles, posts, canoes and similar large Native carvings held in conventional museum settings.
- The care of these objects in Native museums and communities from the Native perspective.
- What types of large artifact conservation treatments and care work best in Native and non-Native museums?
- The importance and relevance of these objects for the personal visions of the Native carver.
- The potential use of traditional methods and materials in the preservation of existing objects in collections.
- How can conservators, custodians and Native carvers bridge the communication gap and support each other’s work?
- How can a balance be struck between technical and non-technical methodologies?
- How can we define a range of “best practices” in Native museum collections regarding treatments, storage, moving and mounting techniques for this material?
Information to be included in your proposal:
- Presentation proposal should be not more than 250 words.
- Please include a 100 word summary that will be included on the conference website, should your paper be accepted.
- Provide your name, occupation/institution and contact information, including e-mail address.
- Indicate the format of your presentation – PowerPoint, presentation from written notes, etc.
Deadline for submission: February 28th, 2014.
Please submit proposals to: J. Claire Dean at info@hibulbculturalcenter.org (include “PPC paper proposal” in the subject line). You will be notified by e-mail whether or not your paper has been accepted by March 24th, 2014.
For full details of proposal requirements, as well as registration information for both the symposium and the totem pole maintenance workshop that follows on July 23rd – 25th July, please visit http://www.hibulbculturalcenter.org/Events/Symposium/
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st, “We Can Fix It, But Should We? Take 2: Contemporary Art Comes Knocking” By Tad Fallon
In addition to Rose Cull’s presentation on contacting the contemporary artist, or not, is a single case study by Tad Fallon. The object in question is a “Kosode” form cabinet titled “Meet Mr. Chips” by the California furniture maker, John Cederquist. I encourage everyone to check the website for images of other Kosode cabinets.
The cabinet is one of a series made of mixed woods, aniline dyes and epoxy resin and was completed in 2006. The owner had purchased it directly from a gallery exhibition. Displayed in a bright and sunny room in Connecticut, the highly decorated façade of the cabinet had faded dramatically, and the owner contacted Fallon and Wilkinson to have them treat it. The owner did not want to send it back to the artist for restoration.
Tad began the project with background research and then contacted John Cederquist directly. John was interested and friendly, and the conversation led to a visit by Tad to the artist’s studio. During the visit, Tad was given an in-depth tour by the artists assistant Chris Labont, and was able to take extensive notes and photographs of the artists materials, techniques and tools, enough to completely recreate the work from scratch.
However, the take-away was more complicated then that.
-From a conservators point of view, the materials and techniques were inherently problematic and prone to light damage.
-The large Kosode series techniques evolved over time and the techniques used at the end of the series were somewhat different from those used at the start.
-The range of materials available to the artist had changed over time, due to California VOC compliance.
-From the artist’s point of view, he had moved on, this was old work, and he was looking forward rather than back.
So what’s a conservator to do? The original work has faded and no longer resembles the original appearance or intent of the artist. The color and appearance cannot be “brought back” through intervention. The options are largely limited to:
- Leaving it alone.
- Creating a complete overlay from original materials on a reversible ground. (only marginally feasible)
- Restoring the façade completely using the artist original materials and techniques as recorded directly from the artist and artist’s assistant.
- Recreating the façade completely using improved materials that remain true to the original intent and appearance of the artist.
Not easy choices, not one of them. What would you do? I for one truly hope that Tad will be able to present “Take 3” next year!
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st “ Contemporary Sculpture; To Contact the Artist or Not” by Rose Cull
I had really been looking forward to this presentation, especially as there were two WAG session presentations on the same topic, and Rose did not disappoint.
Rose began her presentation with some solid background information and began by defining contemporary art as being created by living artists, meaning I believe that the artist and viewer (and in this case the conservator) are both living at the time the art is being viewed. She also reminded the audience that the creation of art has changed from a means of expression based on a solid craft background to a means of expression where issues of stability or longevity may be of little or no concern. As the inherent instability of much contemporary art requires intervention to maintain some degree of the artist’s original intent over time, this lead to a short overview of the Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA) of 1990. The Act grants the moral right of artists to protect their works from derogatory treatment that may be prejudicial to the artist’s honor, reputation, or economic interests. (apologies for a very compressed overview of the Act which may be viewed in it’s entirety on the web). Rose made a point of noting that under VARA an artist cannot claim conservation as a “destruction, distortion, or mutilation of their work unless it is performed with gross negligence”.
Through her past experience in interviewing various museum related stakeholders she made one other important point. A work of art represents a specific point in an artist’s development or career. Although one may communicate with a contemporary artist and ask those questions that seem most vital to know about a specific work, the artist may have moved on, changed his or her working methods and lost or forgotten the inspiration for a past project. An artist may not view a completed work from their past with the same interest or perception as when the work was fresh, and in fact might create the same work quite differently today.
With the background information clearly presented, Rose offered two case studies, one with a sculpture by Louise Nevelson, and one by Cornelia Parker.
With the Louise Nevelson sculpture, Rose read Nevelson’s autobiography, researched her materials, looked at other works, and contacted the Nevelson Foundation. The Foundation is run by Maria Nevelson, Louise’s granddaughter, and Maria contacted Rose directly, offering enthusiasm and support by sending along a list of conservators known to have treated other Nevelson works. Armed with knowledge, support, and the consultation of fellow conservators Rose was able to address the issues and complete the treatment to everyone’s satisfaction.
The Cornelia Parker treatment was a bit more complicated, beginning with the fact that it was created from charred wood collected from a church that had been struck by lightening and burned. In this case she did not contact the artist. Although the reasons for treatment were rather mundane, an accumulation of airborne dust was beginning to distract from the presentation, the questions and answers might have lead to complications (I am paraphrasing here). In the end Rose created a system of careful and effective non-contact “dusting” effectively minimizing intervention.
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the presentation was the limited time left for questions, with only enough time to register the opposing views from the audience that 1. artists and Foundations were often impossible to work with, and 2. times have changed and artists and Foundations are much more receptive. Wish that could have been batted about for another hour!
41st Annual Meeting, Textile and Wooden Artifacts Session, June 1. "Treatment of a Suite of Baroque Revival Style Seating Furniture by Genevieve Bienisoek, Biltmore
There’s a growing body of publications which detail the features of well-provenanced period upholstery. Such case studies are extraordinarily important for comparison when one is examining upholstery layers on historic seating furniture. In this presentation, Genivieve Bienisoek walked us through her examination and treatment, working together with Anne Battram and Nancy Rosebrock, of a chair and settee from a suite of 12 chairs and 2 settees.
This was one of a number suites which were purchased or produced to furnish Biltmore, a 250 room house built by George Washington Vanderbilt III, completed 1895, and opened to the public in 1930. The pieces in this group of seating are ornately carved, in the style of Italian sculptor Andrea Brustolon (1662-1732), and covered with an embossed velvet, referred to as gauffrage. This particular fabric has a linen ground with a wool pile, and was fairly coarsely woven. The design in the velvet was created with a hot roller pressed into the nap. Apparently this was a popular pattern which was once quite common and produced in France, Great Britain and the United States by a number of companies. Though the fabric had originally been bright gold in color, it looked grey-green due to fading and color shift. Genivieve took note of a second fabric – an unstamped wool plush which was used in less visible places, such as under the arms. This fabric was also gold in color but had a thicker pile and a tighter weave. Both fabrics appeared to have been used originally on the chair and settee as no extra nail holes were noted during de-upholstery of the seating furniture.
More than half of this suite had been re-upholstered in 1976, according to the records, when they were placed in Biltmore’s Music Room. One chair has been left untreated for future reference and research.The aim of this treatment was to return the chair and settee to return them to a nearly new appearance.
Genevieve also made mention of some other features of the chair and settee. Removable pieces of the chair were held with spring clips and slots and screws. The entire back panel of the settee is removable, held in place with turn buckles. The mortises for the arms were slightly larger than necessary to allow for shimming to adjust the level of the ams, ensuring they were horizontal.
After documenting the various upholstery layers and fasteners, she used chalk to track where nails had been removed, and compared it to the show cover, to ensure there had been no empty nail holes. She filled flight holes and other losses in the frames, and inpainted scratches. Re-using existing tack holes, a new linen layer was applied over the exposed original upholstery layers, to a act as an isolating layer against the new show cover and to act as a sewing base.
To ensure that new holes won’t need to be added in future campaigns, she added staples around the spring clip plate to provide a stronger means of attachment of this linen cover. Future campaigns are sure to happen sooner than they might otherwise since Biltmore has no climate control and it is not uncommon for windows to be opened in the house. Everything gets handled and cleaned regularly.
Polyester batting was added to the front of the seat to re-establish the proper shape.
The reproduction show cover was woven by the French firm Prelle. They had the pattern for the gauffrage in their archive. On seeing the reproduction fabric, Genvienve noted that there are actually three levels of stamping in the fabric, adding detail and depth to the design. These details were also in the original fabric, but were difficult to see because of the dirt.
The show cover was stitched to the linen isolating layer with curved needles. Though the trim was originally applied with hide glue, Genievieve used a hot melt adhesive to adhere the reproduction trim, obtained from Heritage Trimmings in the United Kingdom.
If you’re like me, you’re looking forward to the published version of this presentation, which, I’m sure, will be complete with images of the hardware and schematics of the various upholstery layers.
41st Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31, “Schooner Virginia: Addressing Inherent Issues in Ship Restoration” by Nicole Wittig
As a furniture conservator who was fascinated by sailing ships in his childhood, and spent many hours carving and building ship models, I was eagerly awaiting Nicole Wittig’s presentation on the preservation efforts regarding the schooner Virginia, which is currently in a storage shed at the National Civil War Naval Museum in Columbus, Georgia.
Looking forward to the mechanics of a ship’s restoration, I soon realized that this talk was going to address a much more fundamental issue that conservators face on a near daily basis: what aspect of an objects history should be brought back, and how will that affect the viewer’s perception of the object. How should the Virginia, a vessel that was significantly altered over time, be restored and ultimately perceived?
Beginning her talk with a historic narrative, Ms. Wittig described Virginia as a sailing vessel built on the eastern shore of Mobile bay in 1865. Utilizing historical records, Ms. Wittig related how a series of ads appeared in 1866 in Mobile papers, mentioning ships of a very similar tonnage and description. She surmised that the Virginia was probably constructed not from plan, but by local master shipbuilders, and had been designed to service the region’s oyster fishing fleet. Decades later, in the 1930‘s, it was mentioned as one of four such vessels in the Historic American Merchant Marine Survey (HAMMS), and recorded as a fishing vessel now working the west coast of Florida. The Depression Era HAMMS endeavor was significant since it was designed to record the disappearing American wooden sailing fleet, before the such vessels would be replaced by ones built of metal with engine propulsion. As such, the survey went into great detail regarding Virginia’s physical description and included construction drawings and photographs. I was especially taken by a photograph of the schooner, which depict it with twin masts and sails. It immediately brought back memories of a challenging childhood project, to build an accurate wood model of a Gloucester schooner, and the many hours I lovingly spent carving masts and fitting thin cotton to simulate sails.
The Virginia continued its service as a fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico over the following years, and was discovered by the Coast Guard in 1967, naming it to be the oldest operating fishing vessel in continuous service. When retired in 1990, Virginia had achieved a remarkable 127 year operational career. It was then purchased by the National Civil War Naval Museum, in the desire to preserve the vessel as an example of a Civil War blockade runner. Ms. Wittig went on to mention that definitive documentation regarding this possible aspect of the vessel’s life has not yet been fully discovered.
The following portion of her talk was devoted to documenting Virginia’s overall and interior dimensions, which are a length of 55’, a breath of 14’, and a draught of 3’, considerably larger than any object this conservator has treated. One approach to this task involved the taking of hand measurements and producing Adobe Illustrator drawings. Another approach utilized Total Station, a terrestrial laser scanner, noting millions of exterior points, which then permitted one to create a 3D image of the vessel. Although this technique does not lend itself to measuring interiors, it was able to produce striking multidimensional images, as seen in Ms. Wittig’s Power Point presentation.
Virginia’s current condition was also noted. One of the major preservation issues that has developed since the vessel has been out of water since the year 2000 has been the drying out of the timbers. This has led to dimensional changes in the wood, such as the keel twisting, necessitating not only the vessel’s cradling, but also the drilling of holes through its breath, and the installation of long metal rods to stabilize the structure. Sections of wood exhibit splintering and dirt and debris are now found in the wood crevices, retaining moisture and leading to wood deterioration. Although Virginia is stored in a covered shed, metal components are degrading, such as the rudder, which exhibits gross corrosion, with the metal delaminating in sheet-like sections. What was immediately striking to this conservator was the apparent lack of an ongoing maintenance program for this vessel, permitting these conditions to fester.
The presentation closed with an outline of the various preservation choices and goals that will need to be decided upon. If Virginia is designated as a Civil War blockade runner, would that not disregard its long fishing history? Were it to be reconstructed to its sail configuration, would that not also negate its engine propulsion history? And if other choices are made, such as preserving it as the longest operationally running fishing vessel, where would the money for its preservation come from, if the Museum of Civil War Naval History decide to deaccession it? Noting these challenging issues, Ms. Wittig suggested basing any decision on the HAAMS survey, since it provided the most thorough and reliable documentation for the vessel.
The Q&A afterwards was lively, with questions regarding tracking the name of the vessel, Virginia’s possible Civil War involvement and conservation costs.
All in all, a welcome revisit to an aspect of my childhood!
41st Annual Meeting- Textiles + Wooden Artifacts Joint Session, June 1, “Two's Company: Supportive Relationships” by Nancy Britton
Nancy Britton presented several interesting examples of innovative upholstery treatments using carbon fiber support for the underupholstery. She also shared interesting discoveries from examining construction methods and written markings on multiples and sets of furniture from the same workshop and from the same collection.
The treatments used carbon fiber as woven “fabric” sheets which can be cut, shaped, and embedded in epoxy to create very strong, rigid supports for the upholstery layers above. Nancy has used the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix by casting it onto an ethafoam base, casting smaller parts to assemble, and making a one-piece shell. She also makes up flat stock to have on hand which can be cut and shaped more quickly than casting pieces.
Carbon fiber is also available in many other forms from numerous suppliers, including a sandwich board similar to honeycomb aluminum panels, available from the company Protech: http://www.protechcomposites.com/categories/Sandwich-Panels/ (Please note, I am not aware if this specific product is suitable for conservation use.) More information on carbon fiber is available over on the wiki: http://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Carbon_Fiber
Next, I was very interested to see and hear how Nancy examines pieces, and all the information that can be gained even from a bare, deupholstered frame. By looking at the tool marks, hole patterns, and remaining hardware, she has been able to see differences in working method that she feels indicate the work of different craftsmen. One set of furniture she examined had identical materials but differences in working style that suggest they were made in the same shop and time period, but upholstered by different people. Variations in the stitching also provide clues.
Finally, Nancy showed examples of markings (numbers) found on chair frames and upholstery layers of pieces from the Met’s Hoentschel show at Bard Graduate Center. By looking at the marks and comparing them to early photographs of installations at the Met, along with other exhibition information from the archives, she was able to learn more about the upholstery timeline and how the chairs looked in the past.
Nancy’s talk reminded me that careful documentation of an entire piece, down to the smallest and apparently insignificant details, can provide a wealth of knowledge. We may discover new information about the piece’s history, and learn more about past upholsterers, who remain largely unknown.