Collection Care – Page 3 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Joint 44th AIC Annual Meeting and 42nd CAC-ACCR Conference – Pre-session, May 13, “Share the Care: Collaborative Preservation Approaches, a Joint AIC /IAMFA Meeting” by Priscilla Anderson, Dawn Walus, and Patricia Miller.

Image of powerpoint slide with text "Collaboration is not about gluing together existing egos. It's about the ideas that never existed until after everyone entered the room." — Credit: Sarah Stauderman

This pre-session was a joint meeting between conservation professionals and facilities engineers, architects, and administrators who belong to the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators. The topic of the day was how to foster a collegial and collaborative working relationship between conservation and facilities staff so together we can preserve collections with well-managed storage and exhibition facilities. The day was structured in three sections, each with a panel of experts and a tabletop exercise. The three of us attended, and agreed to blog together as the day was jam-packed with inspiration and useful tips. We were hoping to learn strategies for building relationships with our facilities managers, including developing common language, shared understanding of goals, and respecting each other’s areas of expertise.
The first session, Share the Risk: Collaborative approaches to facilities construction, renovation, and operation was moderated by Joelle Wickens, (Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library). Key takeaways from this session were that no one person owns a facilities problem, and monthly meetings, meaningful and well-planned monthly meetings, are a good strategy for building relationships that successfully address the inevitable problems. Out of work time is also important…sharing a beer with each other was mentioned throughout the day as a way to break down those silo walls.

Image of workshop participants witting around a round table talking and laughing — Image courtesy of P. Anderson

Panelists included Jack Plumb (National Library of Scotland), John Castle and Lois Price (Winterthur), Rob Waller (Protect Heritage Corp), and Deborah Potter (Tate). One of Jack’s tips was to build in an orientation for new contractors with collections care to explain the local policies and behavior expectations that might be different from one jobsite to another. Jack also has a very interesting program for doing temperature and humidity mapping research using students from Heriot Watt University doing their dissertations. I wanted to know more about this program, and how to find students that are interested in this work!
Lois Price and John Castle got an NEH Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections grant to improve their wireless building management system, and in the process, found that the working relationships between conservation and facilities staff, and each assumptions made about each other, were not so productive. So they set about doing a qualitative survey of their peers across the world, and they reported the results to us. The data set is rich, with lots of variable possible including institutional budget, frequency of joint meetings, rate of success, and decision-making rights. Their conclusions, while not statistical, point toward the fact that nothing can substitute for a good team, and the meeting more frequently can cure a number of long-standing challenges. For the skeptic who says “More meetings? I ain’t going to no more stinkin’ meetings” one merely has to say, “Let’s get you into the right meetings!”
Rob Waller talked about prioritizing different risks to collections, focusing on clearly defined goals. He explained the importance of filtering what falls under facilities managers’ ability to control. He reiterated that in many cases, the 80/20 rule applies: 20% of the risks contribute to 80% or more of the total risk, so these should be prioritized if at all possible.
Deborah Potter shared Tate’s collaborative approach to facilities planning for six sites, 72,000 works of art and a million library and archive materials. In debriefs from system failures, they discuss the impact on the collection, and approach how to prevent it from happening again, also taking a risk-based approach to collections care. Their team includes registrars, collections,, communications, and facilities staff. With a “green vision” aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 15%, they are embarking on an ambitious but doable program including energy plant and HVAC controls replacement, LED lighting, solar panels. Other sustainability initiatives include waste management, recycling, up-cycling, a flower meadow, and beekeeping! They’re not the only ones keeping bees…we found these on the roof just outside the door of the pre-session room!

Image of beehive and hexagonal wooden honeycomb sculpture on a roof — Image courtesy of P. Anderson

This first session ended with a tabletop exercise in which temperature and humidity parameters for an incoming loan challenge our fictitious small institution, stemming from poorly written loan agreement, lack of historical data, and lack of communication between the director and the staff. Of course we sorted it all out in 15 minutes, but with the understanding that these problems are ongoing and are exacerbated by the fact that we have no industry standards for libraries, museums and archives. One group noted that such agreements can be used as leverage to make needed upgrades.
The second session, Share the Planning: Collaborative approaches to emergency management, was moderated by Rebecca Fifield, Chair, AIC Collections Care Network, and Head of Collection Management, Special Collections at New York Public Library

Image of workshop participants seated around a round table smiling and talking — Image courtesy of P. Anderson

Collection Emergency Plans at Museum Victoria
Maryanne McCubbin, head of Strategic Collection Management for the Museum Victoria, presented the approach they have to managing risks in the multiple museum buildings and storage facilities where they house over 17 million state collection items. Citing recent floods that have tested their plan and preparedness, she emphasized how crucial it is for collections staff to communicate accurately and often with facilities and provide a liaison with facilities as well as emergency (first) responders (fire, police, authorities). She also commented on an often overlooked approach to managing risks, or inherent dangers, within a collection, such as hazardous substances in collections.
She stressed that a plan should be thorough yet brief. It can have appendices that provide more specific and detailed outlined activities for departments. However the plan should be developed through extensive negotiations with facilities, conservation and security. She cited a couple pitfalls for any great plan: failure to regularly induct new hires to the plan, especially in departments with high-turnover such as facilities and security; keeping contact information for key personnel up to date; reviewing incident reports to improve your plan; and practice!
The Lone Responder: Building an Emergency team with limited resources
Laura Hortz Stanton, Executive director of Conservation Center for Art & Historic Artifacts (CCAHA), discussed how crucial it is for small historic house museum, societies and municipal museums with limited staff and resources to connect with their local emergency management personnel. Reaching out to your local fire or police is important so they can become familiar with the building(s) as well as the contents, and key staff members. They can even review your emergency response plans and provide recommendations. Another key point was the importance of being prepared for the recovery after a disaster. “Who you gonna call?” A small museum that does not have a conservation and/or collections staff needs to keep an up-to-date contact list for local or regional collections professionals that can respond quickly to a call for assistance after a disaster of any size. She pointed out resources available online to help develop plans, including online templates and training, opportunities to benefit from mutual aid memberships in your state, local assistance networks, as well as AIC’s National Heritage Responders (NHR, formerly AIC-CERT). The majority of these links can be found on AIC’s website.
http://www.conservation-us.org/emergencies
NFPA Codes for Cultural Heritage Institutions
Nick Artim of Heritage Protection Group was not able to attend the session as scheduled. He did participate in the half day pre-conference session on Saturday titled Choosing and Implementing a Fire Suppression System for a Collecting Institution. (AIC Blog Link http://tinyurl.com/hhdtv6z) For more information regarding Codes and Standards for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) see links provided at the end of this blog post.
The session concluded with a tabletop exercise titled An 88-year old dam and a hurricane on the way! Teams were tasked with emergency planning for the fictional Decoy Museum, a small museum located on the coast of Maryland with a history of flooding. The museum is down river from an 88 year old dam and a hurricane is quickly approaching. Teams were shown a photograph of the exterior of the building and it’s proximity to the water, history of the site as it has fared in previous storms, images of the interior and a description of the collection. We were also told that our emergency plan is out of date and the only copy stored on a computer. Using the expertise at our individual tables we were asked to review our emergency preparedness and how we would respond in our respective roles. As the clock counted down we were provided with updates on storm progress, a status report on rising flood waters, and given a 24 hour evacuation notice to see how circumstances would affect our strategies.
Although initial discussions were focused on collections, most teams concluded that the safety of the public and staff came first, followed by securing collection data (hard drives/ records), securing the building, and initiating organization for return and recovery. Two key takeaways from the exercise included a discussion around FEMA’s Incident Command Structure and the concept of “dead” building. ICS is a standardized approach to the command, control, and coordination of emergency response. ICS offers flexibility to respond to small to large incidents, defining key roles to be filled rather than strictly identifying individuals. “Dead” building is a term used by facilities professionals to describe a full building shutdown and disconnection from utilities. As part of your plan it is important to know how long it will take to shut down your building as well as bring it back online.
The third session, Share the Responsibility: Collaborative approaches to selecting appropriate environmental guidelines, was moderated by Patricia Silence, Director of Preventive Conservation, Colonial Williamsburg.

Image of four speakers seated at the podium table talking and laughing — Image courtesy of P. Anderson

Select Guidelines and Standards
Selecting guidelines and standards can’t be boiled down to just a number because it depends on factors such as the building envelope, outside air temperatures, HVAC equipment, climate, etc. and how well their interaction matches capability of building and environment. The speakers discussed using guidelines and not standards as a basis for procedures and policies, and how to maintain the notion that the indoor environment is a fundamental component to preservation of collection. Other key points made by this panel included:

Consistent monitoring leads to meaningful conversations
Environmental control includes lighting, ventilation, and pest control in addition to temperature and RH
Customized specifications should be developed for each institution and collection, looking for “parameters in lieu of more science” and reinforcing the point that “70/50 is no longer an appropriate, practical, sustainable, or useful set-point.”

This session ended with a table-top exercise involving an old swimming pool, a famous elephant, and a collection of ivories that need special environmental controls for exhibition. There was role-playing and even name-calling, and things got a little silly, but it was a great way to end the day.
A number of useful references were shared:
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 2011. Chapter 23 of ASHRAE Handbook – Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Applications.
https://www.ashrae.org/resources–publications/handbook
BSI (British Standards Institute)
PAS 197:2009 Code for Practice for Cultural Collections Management
http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030175180
PAS 198:2012 Specification for Managing Environmental Conditions for Cultural Collections
http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2012/3/New-standard-from-BSI-helps-protect-the-UKs-cultural-collections-and-address-carbon-emissions-/#.VvVSOHqFnfc
PD 5454:2012: Guide for the Storage and Exhibition of Archival Materials
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030228041
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) BS EN 15757:2010: Conservation of Cultural Property-Specifications for Temperature and Relative Humidity to Limit Climate-Induced Mechanical Damage in Organic Hygroscopic Materials
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030173518
IAMFA Cultural Institutions Benchmarking Exercise
http://newiamfa.org/museum-benchmarks.php
ISO (international Organization of Standardization) ISO 11799:2015: Information and documentation – Document storage requirements for archive and library materials
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=63810
National Archives and Records Administration – (US)– 2002. Archival Storage Standards, NARA Directive 1571
https://www.archives.gov/foia/directives/nara1571.pdf
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association)
NFPA 909 : Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properties – Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship, 2013.
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=909
NFPA 914: Code for the Fire Protection of Historic Structures, 2015
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=914
National Museum Directors’ Conference. Guiding Principles for Reducing Museums’ Carbon Footprint, 2008
http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/what-we-do/contributing-sector/environmental-conditions/
Proceedings of the Smithsonian Institution Summit on the Museum Preservation Environment, 2016
http://opensi.si.edu/index.php/smithsonian/catalog/book/111

44th Annual Meeting – May 15th – (Textiles session) Dark Side of the Force: Magnets, Velcro & Unintended Consequences – Maureen Merrigan and John D. Childs

A site-specific artwork to span the distance of a corridor which joins the two central thematic halls was commissioned for the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which was awarded to Spencer Finch for his proposal,“Trying to Remember the Color of the Sky on That September Morning”. The museum’s exhibition staff worked with the artist to design a suitable mounting understructure, which only revealed problems within days of the official opening.
The underlying structure proposed by the exhibition staff was to mount the 2,983 pieces of heavy watercolor paper that make up the composition onto a steel mesh grid using bulldog clips. However, the artist’s desire was for the watercolors to appear to float, with a varied distribution – the clips restricted positioning to a linear grid, so the team worked to create a more randomly positionable mounting strip using earth magnets, contained in small coin enclosures affixed to the back of each component piece.
The work had to be installed during construction phase, and so when completed, the team wrapped it entirely in polyethylene sheeting. Despite these precautions, when checked prior to opening day, it was noted that a circular pattern of dirt, focused around the underlying magnets, had appeared upon pieces of the art work, which would be come to be called the “owl eyes” phenomenon.

For a quick fix, the visible dust was lifted in-situ with low-tack masking tape, but the team kept watch and eight weeks after opening, they repeated the cleaning upwards to a distance of eight feet from the floor level, based upon the ladder height. Due to high profile and high numbers, all exhibit maintenance has to be done after hours, and the work cannot be blocked from use or view, so scheduling and moving the scissor lift was prohibitive.
Knowing that repeated intensive cleanings were not a solution for an installation expected to last five years (and likely longer), the team considered a new mounting protocol for reinstallation that would reduce the attractive force of the magnets to atmospheric dust. The first intervention mocked up placed greater distance between the primary support and the magnet by embedding the mounting magnet into Velcro attached to the emptied magnet pocket but it was ultimately unsuccessful due to differential relative humidity causing curl of the papers away from the pressure sensitive adhesive on the back of the hook tape attached to the envelopes; the hook portion remaining attached to the loop up on the grid.
The dust/dirt were tested by both air sampling and particulate identification. The museum has a regular health and safety sampling protocol due to a high level of nuisance dusts from entries, and potential of asbestos release from the collections themselves. Interestingly, no iron was detected in the air sample, potentially because the deposition settles at a rate too slow or is too diluted over a volume for an eight hour test. Conversely, particle identification showed that seventy-five percent of the dust were definitively iron particles. Environmental sources for airborne iron in cities such as include vehicular traffic exhaust, brake dust, incinerators and more. (An aerial view of the site was provided to show adjacent high-contaminant zones, and sources of pollution near the intake vents.) Although the intake air for the museum is filtered, there are many sources of these at the densely settled and circulated location at the tip of Manhattan that can also enter via the access doors, loading dock, and on dust carried by visitors and staff. The thought that dust was one-time construction related was disproved, from having noted that other objects in cases that mounted with magnets around the same time do not have the same problem.
Therefore, with cooperation from the artist, elimination of the magnets was decided to be the best solution. In the full intervention, the team sliced away the leading side of the coin pockets, removed the magnet, and placed the pressure sensitive adhesive Velcro onto the remnant pocket, a total of 11,932 instances, which was performed in overnight shifts over four weeks. Unfortunately, within a few weeks, this was shown to be ultimately unsuccessful due to differential heating and cooling of the front of the artwork causing curl and failure of the pressure sensitive adhesive (from which to which?). A new round of testing was undertaken, with a goal to maintain the artist’s careful non-linear placement, by continuing to depend on the hook and loop attached to the wall mesh. The primary supports were carefully adhered overall to a mat board, which would be pressed to the receiving tape, now stapled through the mount support.
These test mounts using extra paintings supplied by the artist, were installed between the upper two air vents for an observation period. When the new method proved successful, 150 facsimile prints made from digital captures of the artwork components were created as placeholders while the artwork components were switched out overnight for remounting, so as to avoid interruption for the visitors, numbering in the thousands daily, and include in rapid succession heads of state, such as the Presidents of the United States, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Pope.
The question and answer period was lively with the following exchanges:
Q: if dust is still in the air, is that not a problem elsewhere for unglazed works such as paintings?
A: Yes, dust has been noticed also on vertical surfaces, and so there is a regular housekeeping program to clean these
Q: How do you protect against fading for this long exhibition?
A: In discussions with the artist, he selected Winsor & Newton colors with the highest lightfastness ratings, plus created digital captures. If fading becomes noticeable, they will be replaced with digital facsimiles, and there is a record copy of the artworks to compare against for the long term 5 year timeline, but that could be extended.
Q: [Gwen Spicer, conservator and author of a forthcoming book on magnets in conservation commented:] Noting that aerosols of particulates can be up to 10-20% in cities’ air [for more info on particulate matter and Air Quality Index, see data from the Environmental Protection Agency]. The particle size is critical to the attractive force – and in lower Manhattan with it many towers, you have a canyon effect for intake of highly concentrated flows of fine iron oxide particulates. This is a real health issue – and research is ongoing into low tech ways of finding and binding pollutants. In Oregon, tree moss is being used as a particle sink to identify pollutant sources. Also, it is now common for computers to have magnetic shielding/filtering to protect electromagnetic media, but not buildings. [In a suggested technology transfer, she noted] Could RFID blocking scrim be repurposed to protect indoor air?
Q: Why was choice made to use Lascaux in uncontrolled environment, versus paste & paper? Why were the artworks mounted to another hygroscopic board overall versus an inert support – was there a weight issue?
A: The choice was due to the need to turnaround multiple objects in limited space and time, without ability to lay out and weight a water based adhesive with a water soluble artwork. A paper support was preferred to reduce the differentiation in dimensional change or moisture uptake between the artwork and the support.
Q: Was actual Velcro(TM) used or generic hook and loop tape?
A: “We used generic hook and loop tape from Eastex Products. They were able to provide the custom sized pieces in the timeline we needed.”

C2CC Webinar 7/7: Seeding Engagement and Cultivating Volunteers through Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing is a method of gathering information and data generated by audiences as a collaborative, distributed problem-solving exercise to address tasks that might otherwise be overwhelming. At our next C2CC webinar, learn about using crowdsourcing to engage with and invite audiences to help improve your collections. Join us July 7, 2:00 EDT. It’s free!
http://www.connectingtocollections.org/seeding-engagement-and-cultivating-volunteers-through-crowdsourcing/
Connecting to Collections Care (www.connectingtocollections.org), a program of the Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation, provides free training and resources to help smaller cultural institutions take better care of their collections.

44th Annual Meeting – Collection Care Session, May 15, "Spoiler alert! Planning around the pitfalls of construction projects" by Jeffrey Hirsch and Angela Matchica

Construction projects have been on my mind lately and I thought this would be a good complement to Angela Chang’s presentation about her experiences during two major construction projects at the Straus Center (she spoke at the Conservation & Exhibition Planning: Material Testing for Design, Display, and Packing conference in DC in November 2015). Jeffrey Hirsch and Angela Matchica from Ewing Cole (an architect-design-engineering-planning firm) put together a clear and useful review of how conservators and collections care professionals can be active participants in a construction planning process. They took turns speaking, with Jeffrey giving an overview of each issue or area of collaboration, and Angela providing the in-practice examples from her experience as a lighting designer. The concrete examples were helpful in illuminating how collaboration goals can be translated into actual practice and decision making.
Jeffrey emphasized the complexity of the team on both sides of a museum construction project, with a wide variety of interests being represented. He noted that while those from Facilities departments are probably used to talking to architects and designers, the rest of the museum representatives may not initially be as comfortable, but need to make the time to stay at the table and speak up whenever they have questions. The slide below started out as just two dots – Design Team and Museum – and then grew and grew to encompass all the different roles that are part of the discussions around planning a new space or changes to an existing space.

In this diverse group, achieving consensus can be difficult, and knowing everyone’s individual needs is important. Angela discussed one instance in which repaired dinosaur skeletons were going on view, and light levels were initially assessed for the bones themselves, though it turned out that the most sensitive material present was the adhesive in the repairs. She also mentioned that they built a standalone mockup so that lighting levels could be experienced by all stakeholders, to get a real sense of what the space would feel like with different lighting, to achieve consensus. I thought this slide was helpful in illustrating all the sub-questions from different stakeholders that are a part of one major design decision.

Jeffrey noted that what looks like one construction project is really a number of simultaneous and interdependent projects – structural, exhibit design, conservation, and so on – all coming out of basically one pot of money. Scheduling all of this was likened to a symphony, in which it’s very difficult to get the multiple instruments to finish the piece at the same time.

As always, communication was underscored as the most essential element. Each group should be aware of how the other groups are progressing, and know if someone’s end date is shifting, and what that means for all the others. On this point, he stressed how important it was to have a contingency amount of funds specified in the budget very early on. Changes cost a lot more at the end then they do at the beginning, so it’s also important to assess all your options early on and make choices then, with full information about the long-term costs of each option. Here, Angela presented the choices between various types of light bulbs, some of which are low cost but require frequent replacement, while spending a bit more at the beginning can lead to major savings in time and materials later in the life of the building – value engineering.

The end message for all involved parties was to stay at the table, attend all meetings, read and familiarize yourself with all the minutes and notes, and keep track of what decisions are made. No sweat! I still feel like the only way to really know how to predict and prepare for all the things that can go wrong in a construction project is to go through one and learn from your own mistakes – but it was great to hear from the other side of the table, especially from a team that has a real sense of the wide-ranging and diverse concerns of working in a museum setting and the energy to work towards collaboration.

44th Annual Meeting – General Session, May 15, “When disaster mitigation is a priority: Evidence from risk analysis of rare events” by Irene Karsten and Stefan Michalski

In this talk, Irene Karsten presented a method that CCI has established to quantitatively evaluate risk assessment for an institution. CCI has been using this method, called the ABC method, to conduct risk assessment for heritage institutions. The probability of a certain incident is estimated by answering the following questions:

How often will the event occur?
How much value will be lost?
How much of the heritage asset will be affected?

A score of 5 points is generated for A, B, and C, for a total magnitude risk out of 15 points. A total of 5 points or lower is considered negligible risk and 15 points is catastrophic and unacceptable.

Score	Risk	Loss to collection
5 or lower	Negligible
9 or lower	Medium to negligible	Damage takes millennia. May agree that level of care is adequate and improvements possible but wait till higher risks are reduced.
10-11	Medium – high	Maybe negotiable. Standard of care may be okay but improvements highly recommended
12-13	High	Lost in 100 years, may be unacceptable
15	Catastrophic	Unacceptable. All value lost in decades. Such risks are rare.

In this talk, Karsten is paying particularly attention to level 10-13 risks. Also, this is a logarithmic scale, which allows the authors to graph a lot of risks on each graph and compare them easily. Karsten went through a number of examples, including two historic houses, art gallery, provincial archives, and science and technology museum, highlighting the various risks and how they were evaluated. For all five institutions, disaster risks in high or extreme categories were fire. CCI did not just assess the risks, but also looked at mitigation of risk. For fire, CCI recommends an automatic fire suppression system. This does not eliminate fire risk but substantially reduces the risk of spread. In terms of cost-effectiveness, options that reduce large risks tend to have a better cost-effectiveness, too. When assessing if your collection is at a serious risk of loss, it has to impact storage.

Karsten then went through five types of weather disasters and explained how an institution would be assessed to be at an extreme or high risk for that threat.
For a flood, an institution is at extreme risk if storage is below flood grade or even below grade near the old water main or faulty storm sewers. An institution is at high risk if it is on grade on a flood plain or below grade.
For a fire, an institution is at extreme or high risk if it is a combustible building structure, there is lack of compartmentation, the region is at risk of wild fire, or there is a lack of automatic fire suppression. 1 in 5 fires is expected to spread to the whole structure.
For an earthquake, an institution is at extreme risk if the building is lacking seismic protection and there is a risk of violent earthquakes (7 or higher on the Richter scale). An institution is at high risk if storage is lacking seismic protection and there is a risk of very strong to violent earthquakes (6.5 or higher on the Richter scale).
For a tornado, an extreme risk is EF4 or EF5 tornados in US and high risk of EF4-5 in Canada, depending on the frequency of tornados in the area.
For a hurricane, an extreme risk is if the building is in a region at risk of major hurricanes (category 3-5) and the building is not designed to resist high winds. In Canada, only category 2 hurricanes really occur, and the damage is rarely extensive to be high or extreme risk.

44th Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Group Session, May 15, "Matters in Media Art III: Sustaining Digital Video Art" by Martina Haidvogl and Peter Oleksik

This talk announced the completion of the latest phase of the Matters in Media Art project focusing on digital preservation and assessment of digital video, and marked the official re-launch of the project’s website, mattersinmediaart.org. The website is the product of a collaborative effort over many years by teams of staff members from Tate, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the New Art Trust. In this talk, Peter Oleksik and Martina Haidvogl, media conservators at MoMA and SFMOMA respectively, provided a background and history of the Matters in Media Art project and walked the audience through the new website.

The New Art Trust was founded in 1997 by Pamela and Richard Kramlich, pioneering collectors of media art. In 2003 they approached the three museums with some funds to gather the four institutions together to discuss emerging practices in the care of media art, and the “Matters in Media Art” project was born. The first phase focused on lending and was launched in 2005. The second phase launched in 2008 and focused on acquisitions, and the third phase began in 2011. The scope of the third phase was originally going to be sustaining digital art; however, this proved too broad, as it could have included all digital art (software-based art, web-based/net art, graphics, and more). The effort was instead fine-tuned to focus on digital preservation and assessment of digital video. The speakers explained that the length of the third phase exceeded the other two not only because the original scope was too broad, but because the field was evolving so rapidly that material they were creating ended up in a constant state of revision. To address this, the group made two decisions: first, to launch a new website encompassing all phases of the project at this AIC Annual Meeting (to provide a much-needed deadline), and second, to create a dynamic resource that could evolve with ongoing input from the wider conservation community. They felt that the project should be a resource for multiple audiences and provide a framework for ongoing collaboration, rather than represent a single perspective and a static endpoint.

The new Matters in Media Art website is hosted on Github, situating the content in an open-source environment where anyone can make suggestions for revisions and additions. The group felt that moving away from closed platforms and static white papers would enable these resources to stay current despite the dynamic pace of change in the field generally. The text of the website was written by teams at the partner institutions and collaboratively edited during bi-weekly virtual meetings. The design team created mock-ups and design tests, coordinated user trials, and solicited and consolidated pre-launch feedback from users within and outside the conservation community. All the work on the third phase was done as a volunteer staff effort with no grant or other project-specific funding.

The speakers then walked the audience through the site in real time. They explained that materials from the first two phases required only minimal updates. The teams worked to ensure there is no outdated information from the first two phases on the site. The new “Documentation” section includes cataloging, condition reports, and assessing digital video. The new section on “Sustaining Digital Art” describes how to store digital works successfully. This section is framed by a survey as a first step that guides the reader through the rest of the section, enabling the reader to develop a plan specific to their needs.

The new material speaks to all audiences: individual, collector, and institution. Some in the audience remarked that this made the recommendations less focused and the site text-heavy. The speakers agreed that it was ambitious and emphasized that the teams want, invite, and need feedback to make refinements and speak to multiple audiences even more effectively.

Contribution guidelines were recently finalized on the website and include ways for users to provide feedback via Github or in a simple online survey. The speakers urged the audience to visit the site and provide their opinions. The project was also announced with a flyer provided to all conference attendees, to encourage anyone dealing with media conservation at their institution to consult this valuable new resource.

44th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session, May 16, "A Material Disaster: Preservation of the Muppets,” by Sunae Park Evans

Dear Children of the ‘80s and ‘90s,
Fear not, our childhood has been well preserved. You may have been concerned to hear our Muppet friends were suffering from the ill effects of aging and, I’ll be honest, the diagnosis (and the pictures!) seemed grim. Internal decay, failing support structures, foam hemorrhages, and alopecia were just some of the concerns. Fortunately Sunae Park Evans, Senior Costume Conservator at the National Museum of American History, was up to the challenge.

From both clinical and personal standpoints, the scope of the treatment was fascinating and produced some strangely existential questions. What makes a Muppet a Muppet? Where do you draw the line between replaceable miscellany and canonical Muppet accoutrements? And then, once you determine what is essential to Jim Henson’s original creations, how do you fit conservation techniques geared towards human costumes to a creation where the only human shape is Jim Henson’s arms and hands? With close consultation with original member of the Muppet design team Bonnie Erickson, Ms. Evans was able to navigate these questions while maintaining the integrity of the Jim Henson Legacy.

It may surprise you that puppets so seemingly innocent could have so many inherent vices. First there is the issue of the primary material, Scott Foam, which is a staple in puppeteering for its flexibility. However, the answer to the question of, “What is Scott Foam made of?” was repeatedly, “Scott Foam.” After speaking with several employees of the manufacturer, Ms. Evans was able to confirm that it was a low-density polyurethane which explained the large-scale deterioration and degradation of the Muppet’s internal structure, leading to the loss and collapse of other features. Polyurethane wasn’t the only material at issue as the Muppets were designed more for budget than longevity and featured attachments such as soup spoons and ping pong balls for eyes and leather shoe soles for the mouth. It was determined that much of the foam would have to be removed, leaving only the heads still intact, but the fabrics, facial features, and other appendages would be maintained as much as possible.

Next is the matter of how to classify and treat a movable, usable object used by humans that are not human but emote like a human. Is it a stationary object, costume, installation, or kinetic sculpture? Ms. Evans stated that she struggled greatly with the question and it seems the answer lies somewhere in the middle of all of them. She was able to use standard costume conservation materials and techniques to create the very non-standard forms shown below. By using the jointed base structure she was able to allow for the potential of movement and by padding them out with Ethafoam she was able to customize each form as one would for a costume. Once each Muppet was mounted on its new support and positioned in keeping with its unique personality, Ms. Evans and Ms. Erickson reviewed the new display but something was still off. It turns out that because the Muppets were made to be viewed on screen, they must also be considered as a 2D image. Many of our enigmatic friends were only made to be viewed from a specific camera angle. The Swedish Chef, for example, was always filmed at a downward angle so when he was positioned to be viewed straight-on, the resulting image did not match that from our childhood memories.

What won’t come as a surprise is that Miss Piggy remained a diva. The structure of the current Miss Piggy was still several decades old and the screws holding her together had rusted closed. Only the careful and intuitive navigation of Ms. Erickson, Miss Piggy’s original creator, were the conservators able to cut the joints without disrupting the remaining support and recreate the body with archival materials.

One of my favorite parts of any project is getting to know the object being treated and I was happy to know that Ms. Evans not only spent countless, tireless hours watching The Muppet Show, but also that she remained in constant communication with the Muppets, themselves, during the treatment. With creatures so full of life it’s not hard to imagine they’d have much to say.

*All images are of the PowerPoint slideshow presented by Sunae Park Evans.

44th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 16, “Understanding Temperature and Moisture Equilibration: A Path towards Sustainable Strategies for Museum, Library and Archives Collections,” by Jean-Louis Bigourdan

Preventive conservation is becoming an increasingly important part of our work as conservators, but it often seems that many important questions about environmental control have yet to be answered. Questions such as to what degree are fluctuations of temperature and RH humidity damaging to collections, and are they more or less damaging than strictly maintained but not ideal conditions?
Jean-Louis Bigourdan addressed some of these uncertainties in his talk on temperature and moisture equilibration in storage spaces containing significant quantities of hygroscopic materials. He focused on reconciling the need for climate-controlled storage with the quest for sustainability and the pressure of budgetary limitations. His introduction was reassuring: the current thinking on storage climate is that relatively stable low temperatures are desirable (“cool storage”), but there is little benefit to maintaining a perfectly stable climate (i.e. without fluctuations). Rather, a certain degree of cycling is acceptable, so long as the shifts are not extreme.
Following from this fact, Jean-Louis presented the concept of “dynamic management” of HVAC systems. Dynamic management entails shutting down the HVAC for short periods, such as overnight, and adjusting climate set points seasonally. This would save on energy, and thus reduce the environmental impact and cost of operating such systems. Of course, we as conservators are immediately concerned with the effect on collections materials during such shutdowns: How extreme are the fluctuations in temperature and RH resulting from periodic shutdowns of the HVAC?
This is the questions Jean-Louis attempted to answer through two phases of testing. He was particularly focused on the possibility that collections containing large quantities of cellulosic and/or hygroscopic materials might buffer against large or sudden shifts in temperature and RH. Jean-Louis undertook two phases of testing to understand the extent of the self-buffering capabilities of such materials. The first round of testing was conducted in the laboratory, and the second in library and archive collections storage rooms.
In his laboratory tests he exposed different types of materials to large fluctuations in temperature and RH. The materials included things like closed books, matted photographs and drawings in stacks, and stacks of unmatted photographs. He also tested the effects on these materials when they were placed inside cellulosic microenvironments, such as archive storage boxes, measuring the temperature and RH at the surface of objects, and at their cores. His results indicated that the RH at the core of books or stacks of cellulosic material does not change as rapidly as the exterior environment. Temperature equilibration occurred over a period of hours, and moisture equilibration occurred over the course of weeks or even months. Microenvironments increased the time to equilibration, mostly by controlling diffusion of air.
Another useful result of this laboratory experimentation was that it demonstrated that the moisture content of paper-based and film collections was more affected by environmental temperature than by environmental RH. In other words, at the same exterior RH, the moisture content of the collections object was lower at higher exterior temperatures. The laboratory testing therefore suggested that storage spaces with significant quantitates of hygroscopic materials will be buffered against large changes in RH and temperature due to moisture exchange with the collections materials.
Jean-Louis found that field testing in collections storage spaces returned many of the same results as his laboratory tests. 6-8 hour shutdowns of HVAC systems had little impact on environmental RH, and many of the systems they examined were already following seasonal climate cycles without causing dramatic shifts in the temperature or RH of storage environments. He encouraged conservators to take their collections materials into account when evaluating the buffering capacity of their storage environments.
I was very encouraged by these findings, although I have some remaining questions about the potential effects on collections materials. How much moisture is being exchanged with collections items in such a scenario? Is it enough to cause dimensional change in hygroscopic materials, especially on exterior surfaces, and will that contribute to more rapid deterioration in the long term? Regardless, I was happy to be prompted to remember that collections materials are an active part of the storage environment, not an unreactive occupant of it.
The talk wrapped up with Jean-Louis raising a few areas of further research. He hypothesized that changes in storage climate which are achieved through a series of small but sharp changes would result in slower moisture equilibration between environment and collections than would a change made on a continuous gradient. He also raised the possibility of predicting the internal moisture fluctuations of collections materials using their known hygroscopic half-lives. Both of these areas of research could be extremely helpful to conservators attempting any dynamic management of their climate control systems.
A particularly thoughtful question by an audience member provided the opportunity for more climate control wisdom. A Boston-area conservator of library and archive collections wondered whether it made sense to use dew point as the set point on HVAC systems in the winter to save money on heating costs, but during the summer to use RH as the set point to insure against mold growth. Jean-Louis felt this would be an unnecessarily complicated method of control, but offered a general rule for the storage of hygroscopic collections. He suggested thinking of lower temperatures as the primary goal, and of RH as important to maintain within a broader range. Lower temperature slow degradation reactions inherent to such materials, and so generally lower is better. However, RH need only be high enough so as not to embrittle material, but low enough to prevent mold growth. Essentially he suggested that if your RH and temperature are too high, you are better off reducing temperature slightly, which will slow degradation reactions, and as a side-effect your collections may absorb a small amount of moisture, thereby lowering the RH in the building environment.
Jean-Louis’s talk left me intrigued and excited about the possibility of taking advantage of hygroscopic collections materials to provide a more stable and sustainable storage environment.

Joint 44th AIC Annual Meeting & 42nd CAC-ACCR Annual Conference, General Session, May 16, “Clandon Park – rising from the ashes,” by Christine Leback Sitwell

In the spring of 2012, as a conservation student at UCL, I had the privilege to visit Clandon Park during a field trip. When I heard of the fire that occurred almost three years after my visit, I was shocked and devastated. My attendance to this talk was driven by a personal resonation with Clandon as well as the curiosity and fascination to see an emergency plan in use, despite the circumstances.

A personal photo of a classmate in the marble hall, 2012 and the marble hall post fire, 2015

Christine Sitwell, the Paintings Conservation Advisor for the National Trust in the UK, discussed the emergency response plan in regards to the fire at Clandon Park. The fire started quite small in a basement office on the right side of the building in the late afternoon of April 29, 2015. The fire then rose through the empty elevator shaft, enabling it to reach the lead covered roof and travel across to the left side of the building. Because of this, items and rooms on the left side, albeit still damaged, were not as badly damaged as the right side of the building. It was estimated that the amount damaged and/or completely lost totaled ninety-five percent.
Clandon Park, being under the auspices of the National Trust, has an emergency plan in place. Ironically, five weeks prior, a training procedure involving the fire brigade occurred at Clandon. Christine briefly went over the basics of the plan, including their incident reporting system. The system involves a phone tree, salvage areas to move objects, security, and something called star item sheets. These star item sheets were developed by property staff that prioritize objects as great significance to the property or of great art historical value. They are clear, simple, and to be used by the fire brigade when salvaging items. They are laminated and have two copies, one on the property as well as one in the regional office. Below are the two example slides she provided.

Once these objects have been removed from the property, they are moved to designated salvage areas, inventoried, and finally moved to more secure locations. Three of the items salvaged included three paintings that, fortunately or unfortunately, had to be cut from their frames as the paintings in their frames were much too heavy and risky to be removed together. Positively, the frames were saved as well. Clandon has bottom hanging frames just for this reason, the frames hang at the bottom for ease of removal.
Once the bulk of the items are salvaged things are not over. In addition to inventory and conservation, the next issue is security. Christine mentioned that the ease of information through the internet, smart phones, and the press increased risk of theft of items and perhaps more subsequent damage to the building. The emergency plan for Clandon Park includes a communication officer. Their duty is to be the point of up to date information regarding any changes, and updates during and immediately following an emergency. They are the point of contact with the press and the public.
Christine then shared a video diary she recorded during the aftermath of the fire. It included a school that was shut down for two days to help store some of the objects. The video diary is below.
Rescued from the ruins – a video diary of the salvage operation at Clandon Park
More issues occurred because of the many different salvage sites. A collections management system was created in a spreadsheet manner in order to determine the different levels of damage to each object within each salvage site. The building construction was damaged but intact, leaving a shell of a building. The damage was assessed with a 3D laser and the building’s structural stability was able to be evaluated. There were various other methods of surveying the damage, including a drone.
There were also the health hazards associated with the burning lead roof. The burning created about six feet of lead oxide dust and debris inside. The possible risk of mercury and asbestos poisoning was also present. Therefore, admittance had to be regulated and personnel properly outfitted in order to excavate the burnt layers to retrieve small finds.
The final part of the talk was in regards to the future of Clandon Park. It was stated that the General Director of the National Trust will rebuild Clandon Park, but to what degree. There have been instances with other National Trust properties on how they have handled such a large devastation. The options with how to handle Clandon park were to: demolish, maintain as a ruin, restore completely, reinvent for another purpose, or a use blended approach. The latter seems the most likely to occur.
To end her talk, Christine shared another video about the future of Clandon Park. The video can be seen below.
Clandon Park: The Future
Overall, it was intriguing and somber to see an emergency plan being utilized during such a destructive event. I enjoyed the fact that it was not a talk on the development of a plan in case of emergency, but rather the practice of it in the moment. Not only was this a learning experience for the National Trust and everyone involved in the process, I’m sure it meant a great deal to everyone who was present at Christine’s talk. If anyone else had the chance to visit Clandon before the fire, then you are aware of how such a startling loss this has been, not only for the local community, but for admirers around the world. I am hopeful for Clandon Park’s future.

Further information:
Clandon Park at the National Trust
Our Work at Clandon Park

44th Annual Meeting – Collections Care, May 15, "Comprehensive Collection Risk Assessment at Museum Victoria" by Maryanne McCubbin and Robert Waller

This presentation focused on using the Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model (CPRAM) at the Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia. If you scroll to the bottom of this web page you can obtain a free e-copy of CPRAM from Protect Heritage.
Museum Victoria, founded in 1854, specializes in a large range of materials and disciplinary types; natural sciences, indigenous cultures, history and technology. Less than 1% of collection is on exhibit at any given time. The museum complex has a wide range of facilities and each contain very different operational management and environments, and therefore different challenges:

Melbourne Museum – newest building – half of collections storage is in this space
Royal Exhibitions building – World Heritage listed building; paleontology and geology collection are stored in basement of this facility. They are being moved out of space currently because of the risks associated with storing them here (part of the CPRAM process)
Emigration museum – state registered building – just exhibits in this space
Off site collections storage – 50% spatially of our collections
Pumping stations – contains collection items
Science works – 3^rd of their exhibition facilities

Summary of Museum Victoria’s experience of working on the CPRAM:
There are a lot of different risks in Museum Victoria’s collections. Before doing the CPRAM, it is important to recognize boundaries between collections and divide collections into discrete units, with exhibits being its own discrete collections unit. In total, there were 38 collections assessment units, with the assessments about 2/3rds of the way completed; 1/4 was completed by September of 2014 (unsure about beginning date). The initiative utilize a lot of staff time, but the Museum considered it a “Redirection” of time spent by staff instead of an extraordinary demand. In other words, they made this work a priority.
Museum Victoria’s main interest in doing the CPRAM was to assess the loss in utility value of collections over time. Value of course is considered in the context of the Museum, including historical/technological; exhibition; scientific; and cultural values to the Museum.
The remaining information below is only somewhat valuable if you are not familiar with the CPRAM model. I recommend getting the CPRAM document from Protect Heritage to understand the context of some of the information below (I was typing information that was on the PowerPoint slides that Robert was showing, and I added some additional information):
Risk Model Enhancements Completed at Museum Victoria:

Comprehensiveness
- Source of risk + type of risk = generic risk – then broken down into specific risk – creating a quantitative sense of risk
Accountability
- Ratio of other elements – 0 – 1 scale
- Accountable for proving this is not the case?
Instrumental power
- 200 page emergency plan = symbolic of the amount of risk, but who is going to read a 200 page emergency plan? Especially in an emergency.
- Show risks that are within the control of the facility manager
- Customized information
Extensive external critical reviews
- Comprehensiveness
- Clarity
- Evidence
- Appropriate model
- Data sourcing
- Benchmarking
- Introduce to a range of benchmarks from other institutions
- Done own research
- External input is critical in adoption – to become self sufficient
Ongoing reporting
- Implementing and gaining support at an institution-wide level including the Board – this is the hardest part
- Reporting at all levels – templates that Robert provided
- Aggregate and detailed data
Integrated incident reports into museum facilities
- Redeveloped incident reporting
  - Online collection incident reporting
- We don’t report all incidents – not realistic
- Consistency of logic to encourage consistency of result, e.g. number scale, etc.
- Evidence of data – put effort toward that instead of assuming the problem