Topics – Page 13 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Congress Approves Update of Toxic Substances Control Act

Just when you thought the government was hopelessly deadlocked on pretty much everything, Congress has approved a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years!

H.R.2576 – Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Originally enacted in 1976, the TSCA governs how industrial chemicals are tested and regulated (including everything found in household items, industrial use and conservation labs).

H.R.2576 revises “the process and requirements for evaluating and determining whether regulatory control of a chemical is warranted” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It includes enforceable deadlines and schedules for both currently manufactured as well as new chemicals before they are allowed to enter the market. The law also contains provisions on animal testing and “cancer clusters,” describes funding and safety information that must be provided by manufacturers, and emphasizes investigation of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs).

Most importantly, the EPA can now take action on reviewing chemicals solely based on environmental and safety concerns. Chemical safety reviews will be more science-based (instead of current cost-benefit balances) and take into consideration populations that are disproportionately at risk, such as vulnerable groups (e.g., pregnant women, children, seniors) or those groups that have greater exposure to the chemical (i.e., chemical workers).

What does this mean for you? The new legislation gives the EPA the authority to investigate and regulate chemicals by removing many of the bureaucratic hurdles that previously made the process burdensome and restrictive, and had resulted in only a small number of chemicals having meaningful health and safety information. For example, have you ever come across phrases such as “not listed as a carcinogen” and “generally recognized as safe?” These statements do not necessarily indicate that a chemical is not toxic, but may mean that it has never been tested or has insufficient research.

The EPA must come up with a list of high-priority chemicals to undergo review on a specific schedule. If their current Work Plan for Chemical Assessments is any indication, we should hopefully see more significant health and safety information on commonly used conservation chemicals.

For more details, good summaries can be found in Science Magazine, American Chemical Society and the International Business Times.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the bill to overhaul the TSCA stating, “I’m absolutely confident that we can regulate toxic chemicals in a way that’s both good for our families and ultimately good for business and our economy. Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know that the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, the mattresses our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist Richard Denison said, “President Obama’s signature today launches a new law that will help to improve public health for years to come. While not perfect, the Lautenberg Act fixes the biggest problems with a badly broken law that has left our health at risk. Now the hard part must begin: tending to decades of neglect when it comes to unreviewed and unregulated chemicals.”

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-General Session: Emergency Preparedness, May 16th, "Through Hell or High Water: Disaster Recovery Three Years after Alberta's Floods," by Emily Turgeon-Brunet and Amanda Oliver

In June 2013 the province of Alberta in Canada experienced a flood that affected over 25% of its area. A state of emergency was declared and over 100,000 Albertans were evacuated. The flood caused around $6 million in damage to artifacts and buildings.
Talk presenters Emily Turgeon-Brunet and Amanda Oliver, were tasked with helping archival institutions throughout the province with recovery and future disaster planning and preparedness nearly two years after the flood occurred. There were many things to deal with including mud, water damage, mold, frozen items, and things that were improperly packed prior to freezing.
Funding from the Government of Alberta allowed the dynamic duo to assess damage and help institutions throughout Alberta with recovery from the flood and to prepare for future disasters. This included site assessments, education, writing disaster plans, performing conservation treatment, and purchasing supplies like water detection systems, frost free freezers, boxes, shelves, and disaster response supplies. Full reports were made with work plans so the institutions could meet their current and future needs and goals. They were able to hire contractors, conservators, and archivists to help with recovery and treatment.
Emily and Amanda were not only out in the field visiting institutions and helping any way they could in person, but they were also working on the home front on multiple forms of outreach. This team is currently developing a loan program where supplies like books, wet/dry HEPA vacuums, and digitization equipment will soon be made available for institutions to use on a temporary basis. They are developing an app to connect archivists across Alberta with emergency contacts and recovery specialists, as well as to put archivists in contact with one another to assist with disaster remediation.
They also have a strong presence on the web. Emily and Amanda developed and performed in a series of six how-to disaster recovery videos! They are very clear, informative, and fun! I highly recommend everyone check those out! The disaster recovery how-to videos can be found here: http://archivesalberta.org/programs-and-services/flood-assistance/how-to-videos/ After you watch the how-to videos there is a lot more to see on the Alberta Flood Advisory Programme website that they developed which can be found here: http://archivesalberta.org/programs-and-services/flood-assistance/

44th Annual Meeting – General Session: Lead by Example, Models to Follow, Track E, May 16, “PRICE: Preparedness and Response in Collections Emergencies,” by Sarah Stauderman

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC has long dealt with collection emergencies. One of the first major disasters in their history was a construction fire that broke out on January 24, 1865 in the Smithsonian Institution Building, lovingly known as the Castle. This fire started between the ceiling and the roof of the main hall when workmen accidentally inserted a stove pipe into the brick lining of the building, instead of into a flue. In another unfortunate twist of fate, Secretary Joseph Henry (1797-1878) had established a winter-time fuel conservation program throughout the building, causing the water-filled fire buckets located in the hallways to freeze in the frigid temperatures. The library and many early collections, including the papers of James Smithson, were largely destroyed.

Fire in Smithsonian Institution Building, by Gardner, Alexander 1821-1882, January 24, 1865, Smithsonian Archives – History Div, 37082 or MAH-37082.

Now, one hundred and fifty years later, colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution have come together to discuss the roles they play in the prevention, preparation, and response to collections-related emergencies. While the Smithsonian currently maintains a robust disaster management program, it focuses primarily on human safety, which no one would argue comes first in any emergency. However, recognizing the need for planning for collections, staff has recently developed a concept for the Institution called PRICE, or Preparation and Response In Collections Emergencies.
The Smithsonian Institution policy on emergencies is encoded in Directives. Two directives that pertain to stewardship for collections in emergencies are: Smithsonian Directive (SD) 109 and SD 600. SD 109 sets requirements at both an institutional- and unit-level for emergency management pans. SD 600 establishes policies and standards for all aspects of collections management, which includes emergency management.
Two recent and notable emergencies sparked this reevaluation of collections emergency preparedness – the collapse of the Garber Facility in 2010 due to the weight of snow on the roof, and an earthquake in the DC region in 2011. Several areas for improvement were identified from these events:

Training for all staff. There is a need to effectively inform staff about proper lifesaving responses to specific emergencies (such as earthquakes), the Incident Command System, and procedures for access to affected facilities.

Training for collection emergency response staff. There is a need for training on safety, related to collection-based hazards, post-damage assessment methods, and salvage techniques for specific media types.

Quality control during installation and inspection of storage furniture.

Design of storage housing and exhibit mounts to minimize damage in the event of a future seismic event.

Collections spaces to tolerate risks, such as and earthquake or flood.

In the context of these recent emergencies, the Smithsonian has been approaching preventive conservation initiatives pan-institutionally. For example:

“Strengthening collections” is listed as part of the Institution’s strategic plan, as is broadening access

Through the National Collections Program (NCP), there are four leadership groups currently addressing collections stewardship: Collections Advisory Committee, Collections Space Committee, Digitization Program Office (DPO), and several media-specific initiatives.

The Collections Emergency Working Group, which formulated the PRICE initiative, brought together collections managers, conservators, physical security specialists, NCP staff, and facilities professionals.

The Collections Emergency Working Group recommended that in the event an emergency involves collections, the Emergency Operation Center and National Collections Program will have the PRICE team of collections responders to assist and activate response and recovery. Since the Smithsonian uses the Incident Command System (ICS) for emergencies, the PRICE team would fit seamlessly into its structure as one of the reporting groups to the incident commander. For more information about ICS in libraries, archives, and museums, check out David Carmichael’s book on the topic.
The PRICE committee structure will be that of six members and a chair. (Samantha Snell joined the NCP in March 2016 as the PRICE chair.) The team will follow the emergency life-cycle of preparedness, response, and recovery, and consists of three concentrations that must be addressed throughout an emergency – policy and procedures, training, and logistics.

PRICE Structure, Powerpoint, S. Stauderman.

Just remember that the PRICE initiative does NOT replace or duplicate emergency command centers (ECCs) or replace unit plans. However, it DOES enable ECCs, synthesize planning efforts, develop capacity, foster Smithsonian sharing, and take as models, the Alliance for Response and Cultural Recovery Center.
This concept is now in its initial implementation phase at the Smithsonian, so stay tuned for more exciting news about this initiative!

44th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies, May 17, "Out of the rain: Uncovering artistic process in Gustave Caillebotte’s 'Paris Street; Rainy Day'"

From 2013 to 2014, Kelly Keegan, John Delaney, and Pablo Garcia from the Art Institute of Chicago closely examined Gustave Caillebotte’s 1877 painting, Paris Street; Rainy Day along with multiple preparatory drawings also in the institute’s collection. Kelly Keegan, the assistant paintings conservator at the Art Institute presented their findings Tuesday at AIC’s annual meeting.
The first important revelation came when x-ray and infrared images revealed that the under-drawing outlining the perspective done by Caillebotte extends passed the tacking margins with no interference from the stretcher bars. This led conservators to believe that Caillebotte originally painted Paris Street; Rainy Day un-stretched and tacked to a wall. Okay, so the painting started off its stretcher, but how exactly was the under-drawing constructed?

Study for “Paris Street; Rainy Day” 1877 — Study for “Paris Street; Rainy Day”
1877

Caillebotte’s preparatory drawing, Study for “Paris Street; Rainy Day” proved to be an invaluable resource for understanding how the final painting was made. Most viewers of 19th century paintings are aware of the connection between impressionism and photography. It was a widely held belief that many painters traced from photographs, but conservators at the Art Institute were skeptical that Paris Street; Rainy Day was based on a photograph. Photography would have caused lens distortion that should have been visible around the perimeter of the drawing but wasn’t. In addition, the paper was very thick which would have made tracing nearly impossible.
Could Caillebotte have projected the city scene onto his paper to create the drawing? A camera obscura is the projection device most well known to art historians and conservators, but this too would have caused lens distortions and bowing edges. Conservators did some digging and eventually discovered the camera lucida. At this point in the lecture, Kelly Keegan played us a video of Pable Garcia, the Assistant Professor of Contemporary Practices at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The video showed Garcia in Paris standing in the exact intersection Paris Street; Rainy Day was based on. He explained that a camera lucida is made of a small prism connected to a rod that was most likely attached to a portable table. When someone looks through the prism, a ghost image of the scene in front of the view is projected onto the page. Garcia used his own camera lucida to reconstruct Caillebotte’s drawing exactly.

NeoLucida - modern version of a camera lucida — NeoLucida – modern version of a camera lucida

Garcia brought his version back to the lab where he worked with the research team to figure out the next steps in reconstructing this 9-foot wide masterpiece. The painting was about seven times the scale of Caillebotte’s original drawing. Conservators noticed small indentations on the horizon where the vanishing points would be, and pinholes were visible in the infared image denoting where he could have placed tacks. They guessed that Caillebotte probably used calipers or a proportional compass to scale up his drawing. Garcia and the team tacked a large, primed canvas to the wall, and got to work reconstructing Paris Street; Rainy Day from his own drawing.
Kelly Keegan gave a great talk presenting how the team uncovered secrets of impressionist painters and reconstructed Caillebotte’s painting accurately. A much more detailed account of the analysis can be found on the art institute’s website. I also highly recommend checking out Garcia’s website where him and a other professors sell a contemporary version of the cameral lucida which I plan on getting as soon as I submit this blog post.

44th Annual Meeting—Gap Filling for Ceramics Workshop

The Gap Filling for Ceramics workshop brought together conservators from various backgrounds to experiment while learning practical tips from Rachael Perkins Arenstein, Conservator at the Bible Lands Museum, and Elisheva Kamaisky, Head Ceramics Conservator at the Israel Antiquities Authority in Jerusalem. The day passed quickly as the workshop was packed with PowerPoint presentations and hands-on activities with spackles, plaster, epoxy techniques suited to archaeological and fine arts contexts. Like many participants I took the class as an opportunity to learn from others and practice without the pressure of working on a museum object. Having focused on ceramics this year, I am familiar with the materials and techniques discussed, but I found it an opportune chance to break out of my familiar habits, review the properties and different reasons for choosing plaster versus bulked Paraloid B-72, for example, or ways of manipulating Milliput and refining plaster.

Elisheva Kamaisky demonstrating how she uses a balloon attached to the end of a plastic tube to create a backing inside a jug with a small neck and rim, which blocks easy access to the interior.

The program moved through the various stages of the filling process beginning with discussions of how to protect the surrounding surface from ghosting. For porous unglazed surfaces, common in archaeological contexts, Elisheva often uses masking tape or low-tack painter’s tape, pinching around the edges of fills to prevent the infiltration of plaster. Using tape is always evaluated on a case by case basis depending on the stability of the surface and its ability to withstand tape. Elisheva also showed different strategies she uses for backing of plaster fills, such as layering masking tape to conform to the shape of the ceramic, heated wax, and balloons.

My experimental flower pot generously broken and reassembled by Elisheva and Rachael. Here I have used masking tape to protect the edges and build a backing for fills.

Elisheva showing an example of a tinted plaster fill before drying

The class then discussed tips for mixing and refining plaster, such as how to use a rasp appropriately, when to begin shaving down a fill, and when to stop working it and allow it to dry for wiping down and sanding. Rachael talked about different uses for ready-made spackles and their different properties, pros and cons of using Modostuc, Flugger and PolyFilla. She also referred to different uses of Milliput and gave tips for how to refine it with water before it is dry. This I found particularly useful because refining as much as possible while it is still pliable saves an immense amount of time wasted with sanding or grinding excess material afterwards. I also found the discussion of problems related to B-72 fills helpful as Paraloid is not always easy to work with, and can be difficult to compact. At the end of the day I was very glad to have taken the workshop, and could tell that other participants felt the same as it was a great opportunity to discuss strategies, problems and challenges with conservators with a breadth of experience, and other conservators ranging from those in private practice, to museum conservators who brought expertise with other materials such as wood or stone. It was also a fun way to prepare for the conference, reminiscent of being in graduate school, and getting your hands dirty.

44th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 17, "Salvaging Memories: The Recovery of Fire-Damaged Photographs and Lessons Learned in Conservation and Kindness," by Debra Hess Norris

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but its worth is immeasurable when all other possessions are lost. The efforts of the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation can be described, therefore, as invaluable. For the past two academic years, Debra Hess Norris and the faculty, staff, and the graduate students of the WUDPAC program have undertaken recovery projects for photographs damaged by fires and floods. In addition to the rigorous course load of the Photographic Materials block at WUDPAC the classes of 2017 and 2018 have added examination, documentation, and treatment of between 240 and 260 photographs, or about 25-35 photographs per student. Their goal was to help people and families who have just survived heartrending disaster.
On Christmas Day in 2014, Ricky and Traci Harris lost their three sons and Ricky’s mother to a devastating house fire. Searching for any way to lessen their grief, friend and WUDPAC PhD candidate, Michael Emmons, sent this image to Ms. Norris via text message:

One of the firefighters had taken the time to collect the fire-damaged photographs and lay them out in the Harris’ garage. Mr. Emmons coordinated with Ms. Norris to have the 260 photographs brought to the Winterthur conservation labs where the first-year graduate students began examining them for treatment. Each individual photograph had a unique variety of damage. By working closely with Mr. Emmons as the Harris family liaison, the students were able to approach treatment with approval and context from the family. The emotional nature of the project was the biggest, but not only, struggle for those involved. Condition concerns ranged from minor planar distortions to an irreversible white haze to the bleeding of inks and dyes. After minimizing the smell of smoke by storing the photographs with zeolite and blotters, students focused on surface cleaning and flattening. The stabilized photographs were then housed in polyester sleeves with zeolite-containing papers to increase the ease of future scanning.
May 24th, 2015 a flash flood hit central Texas with waters reaching 33 feet high in a matter of hours. 30 lives were lost and over 1,000 homes were damaged. As with the Arno floods that formed the theme of AIC’s 2016 Annual Meeting, compassionate volunteers and first responders attempted to salvage photographs and other personal belongings. Local archivists were able to do much in the recovery of the photographs, but 240 of the most severely damaged were sent to Winterthur for their new graduate students. The types of photographs sent ranged from tintypes to digital prints, negatives to photo albums and all suffered severe damage ranging from flaking and delamination to inactive mold. Although there was a wider variation in materials than the fire-damaged photos from the previous year, the primary treatment concerns remained surface cleaning and flattening but also included consolidation, tear mending, and unblocking. Each student was also able to choose one photograph for loss compensation as both an educational exercise and an attempt to make the most severely damaged images more cohesive. In both projects, students progressed from dry to wet cleaning techniques as detailed below and routinely used microscopic examination to assess their progress and analyze different techniques.

Left: Dry Surface Cleaning Techniques, Right: Wet Surface Cleaning Techniques

Different approaches were also needed for fiber-based supports vs. resin-coated supports, again detailed below:

While the educational opportunities of these projects were immense, what I find truly remarkable is the way they inspired and reflected compassion and benevolence both inside and outside the field of conservation. The subject matter clearly resonates with many of us as there was not a dry eye by the end of Ms. Norris’ presentation and the Q&A section was filled with heartwarming remarks and suggestions for how to continue and spread these outreach efforts. Additionally, the public reactions to various press and social media resulted in an inundation of offers for volunteer work, especially for the Harris family. So I would like to end with Ms. Norris’ call to action, “As a profession we must seek ways to share our skills and knowledge broadly, to be a visible presence following unthinkable tragedy, and a known resource for families facing the potential loss of their treasured photographs.”

For details on D4 and its use in photograph conservation, Ms. Norris suggests Shannon Brogdon-Grantham’s abstract entitled “New Approaches to Cleaning Works on Paper and Photographic Materials” from the 2015 Biannual PMG Meeting.

44th Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Session, May 15, "Embers in the Ashes: Challenges Encountered During the Restoration of Fire-damaged Woodwork in a Historic House Museum by Amanda Salmon and Deborah Hudson”

Craigflower Manor National Historic Site (1853-6) in Victoria, BC is one of the oldest remaining farmhouse buildings in British Columbia and opened to the public in 1969. In January 2009, during an unusually cold winter, a fire started on the first floor. It was probably a “delayed ignition” (also called long term low temperature ignition) fire, caused by an electric heater warming and drying the area over time. There was no fire suppression in the house; fortunately, firefighters arrived in minutes, and extinguished the fire before it reached flashpoint.
Most of the damage was limited to the central staircase, adjacent to the ignition site. There was extensive charring of the structure and millwork, in some places total loss. There were also charred and blistered finishes and soot damage, but relatively little water damage. The restoration of Craigflower took four years, and along with cleaning included replacing wood elements (reusing the hardware as much as possible).
The worst damaged wood (judged as 50% or less of sound wood remaining) was removed. CO2 pellet blasting was used to remove char and soot from other areas, which worked well to quickly expose undamaged wood. Unfortunately, the plastic sheeting intended to contain all the material blasted off the surface was inadequate, and dust was deposited all throughout the house, requiring extensive cleanup in areas with no fire damage. While CO2 blasting companies will often claim that the process does not generate waste or leave behind residues, we should be aware that all the material blasted off during cleaning will go somewhere! Before using CO2 cleaning technique, test to determine how much dust will be generated, and make sure adequate extraction and abatement enclosures are in place before blasting. In the end, traditional mechanical removal of the char using chisels etc. may be more controllable and preferable.

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.