Topics – Page 37 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

41st Annual Meeting- Closing Session, June 1, "The Great Debate: Topic #2 (Volunteers)"

The energy, audience participation, humor, and yes, snarkiness, at the second annual Great Debate at this year’s AIC Annual Meeting proved that this is an event that should definitely become a regular installment on the Annual Meeting schedule. After a rousing debate over Topic #1 (whether we should exhibit unstable objects as an act of preservation), the teams for Topic #2 took the stage to debate the statement:

“While volunteers used on preservation projects often allow us to accomplish more work, they undermine our capacity to regularly employ conservation and collections care professionals.”

Arguing for the affirmative were Dawn Wallus, Rose Cull, and Kelly Keegan. Their opponents for the negative position were Beverly Perkins, Will Hoffman, and Michele Marincola. Moderator Richard McCoy (who wore a very dapper bow tie in honor of the “modified Oxford style” of the debate) made it clear that the event was a purely intellectual exercise, and that the opinions expressed by the participants did not necessarily reflect their own or their institutions’ views. It was clear by the energy in the room, however, that this topic represents a significant concern for many in our profession.

First up for the negative team was Will Hoffman, who began his argument by pointing out that the statement in question requires clarification before it can be considered. Hoffman explained that, though many institutions do use the kinds of volunteers that most of us were probably thinking about, such as pre-program interns and good samaritans who help with large tasks such as rehousing projects,we should all expand our idea of the “volunteer.” The speaker then cited examples of experts in other fields who have volunteered their time and skills to help conservators with the things that we cannot do for ourselves, such as a hospital performing a CAT scan on a mummy. The opening statement also touched on the commonly held belief that many institutions simply would not be able to function without volunteers, and suggested that volunteer programs sometimes lead to employment for either the volunteers or for new staff members by demonstrating the need for personnel.

Next, Dawn Wallus stepped up to the podium to set up the argument for the affirmative team. She began by declaring that even though she could hear a “puppy dying” somewhere in the distance, she and her team were still prepared to make a case against the use of volunteers in institutions. Wallus commented that while there are many good volunteers, there are also those who, despite the best of intentions, end up undermining the professional nature of our work (cue Wallus’s teammates holding up masks bearing the image of the unfortunate Ecce Homo fresco that was botched by a volunteer conservator in Spain last fall). The speaker also noted emphatically that there are laws in place that stipulate that non profit organizations cannot use volunteers to further their own agenda, and that any volunteer interns must be present for their own educational benefit only, and not to provide work for the institution.
Next to the podium was Beverly Perkins for the negative team. She reiterated her team’s position that the presence of volunteers can lead to the creation of new staff positions- she even provided an example from her own institution. Kelly Keegan’s rebuttal for the affirmative team made use of the old adage, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Teammate Rose Cull followed up on her remarks by restating the argument about the legality of volunteer labor, adding that our use of volunteer pre-program interns creates a socio economic barrier to entry into our field.
When the time came for audience questions, it was clear that the audience had much to say about this topic. Several people wanted to know whether the affirmative team would outlaw volunteers, or, more simply, how they would address the problem. Among a variety of answers, Rose Cull’s response stood out when she stated that all we have to do is to simply follow the guidelines in our own Code of Ethics. Beverly Perkins delivered a rebuttal in the form of a poll, in which the majority of the room declared that they do indeed follow these guidelines, as their volunteer programs exist for the purpose of training people and not in order to get work done. Other audience questions addressed issues of unskilled vs. skilled volunteers (which instigated one of many subsequent reappearances of the Ecce Homo masks), how to get into formal training programs without volunteering, whether data exists on the actual effect of volunteer programs on employment, and other issues. There was so much interest in the topic that the moderator eventually had to cut off the questions in order to allow time for closing arguments.
After both teams had reiterated their points in closing arguments, the room was polled to determine the winner. Both teams appear to have been equally persuasive, and the debate ended in a tie. The end of the formal debate signaled the end of the conference, but it was clear from the conversations heard in the halls on the way out that it will not be the end of this very important discussion. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments, but please remember to uphold the good-spirited nature of the Great Debate!

AIC 41st Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, "The Role of Polyester Film Encapsulation – With and Without Prior Deacidification – On Paper Degradation by William Minter and John W. Baty"

William Minter and John Baty presented the results of this aging study of particular relevance to those of us working with archives and library materials. The hypothesis: “Encapsulated acidic sheets will degrade faster than unencapsulated sheets”. The question driving the testing was whether deterioration products from the paper can become trapped in the encapsulation, thereby accelerating further damage. In essence, do encapsulated papers “stew in their own juices”? I, for one, certainly would have assumed the answer to be “yes”. But the use of encapsulation as a means of support for brittle and fragile documents beats lamination with cellulose acetate, as would have been the practice decades ago. What else is a paper conservator to do?
Here is how this study proceeded: Minter and Baty acquired different naturally aged papers for use in this study of the effect of sealing papers between film. The papers were typical of those in archives, including bond paper, ledger paper and “onion skin”. All were acidic prior to oven aging. To more accurately mimic natural aging, the temperature used during aging was 45°C instead of the more commonly used 60°C and papers were heated for a longer period of time than normal. The aging “oven” was a sealed glass box with a circulating fan, heating element (pad?), and saturated salt solution that maintained a moderate relative humidity. If you have never been in the market for an official accelerated aging oven, you may be surprised to learn that they cost a pretty penny; we’re talking 10k! Fortunately, this alternative oven was significantly cheaper, and performed very well, consistently maintaining both temperature and RH.
The primary method of checking the papers’ deterioration was by measuring degree of polymerization with size exclusion chromatography. Shorter hemicellulose chains in paper samples after aging equate to loss of strength and flexibility in the paper, properties that were also measured and evaluated with fold endurance and surface pH. Results showed that the encapsulated samples DID NOT age faster than the unencapsulated samples, contrary to the hypothesis! (Maybe some of you will sleep better at night having learned this fact?) I believe this test concluded after 33 weeks. If appropriate, It would be interesting to learn if an even longer aging period would yield the same result.
A second set of aging tests with the same papers revealed that either washing in magnesium carbonate or using a non-aqueous spray deacidification product prior to encapsulation would be equally protective of some papers. It is not known how long this protection would last, however.
This was a very relevant study, the importance of which can be well appreciated by many in the field of archives and paper conservation. A repeat study of a broader range of papers, (maybe photographic?) could also yield very interesting results. For me, this is an essential paper to file under “must read, and read again”.

41st Annual Meeting – Research & Technical Studies, June 1, “Contemporary Conservation for Contemporary Materials” by Yvonne Shashoua

Attending a lecture by Yvonne Shashoua, Senior Researcher in the Department of Conservation at the National Museum of Denmark, was such a treat, since she is so well-known in the field of plastics conservation, and her session did not disappoint. Her calm, precise, and very approachable speaking style was impressive as she covered a scientific discussion on her current research into cellulose acetate degradation and its interaction with gas absorbents. Since she will be presenting her findings in upcoming journals, I will only briefly go over what I learned and what you missed at this Research & Technical Studies AIC session.
Shashoua began by reminding us that plastics comprise an increasing proportion of museum collections. Since it is difficult to detect plastic degradation until it reaches an advanced stage, a preventative approach, by either removing the factors causing or accelerating degradation, is usually taken. Gas absorbents (silica gel, activated charcoal, Zeolite 4A, and Corrosion Intercept) are frequently used in museum storage and display situations to create a microclimate by removing specific gases. She discussed how these materials are used and how they absorb pollutants, which I found very interesting.
Focusing on cellulose acetate, Shashoua discussed the mechanism of degradation (and the breakdown by-product acetic acid) and how additives (plasticizers and fire retardants, which are weakly bonded within the matrix) migrate out ultimately ending in shrinkage. She was curious why the degradation process even begins in a museum environment, which began her in-depth research project. Cellulose acetate, has been used since 1910, but by the 1960s could be found in many objects: imitation mother of pearl, cigarette filters, early Lego bricks, movie film bases and rayon. By conducting a systematic study on the adsorbents’ interaction with cellulose acetate, she has found some startling results. The adsorbents in some cases did slow down the onset of autocatalysis, however some also adsorbed the plasticizer and/or flame inhibitor, resulting in damage. Her results suggest that commonly used absorbents in museums are non-specific and ineffective for cellulose acetate and, by extrapolation, other plastics. She did rate the adsorbents on a sliding scale; so reading her more in-depth post-prints will be a good lesson and/or review for all of us. All this is startling news! An archival acid-free box might simply be the best defense. Wow. I cannot wait to read her in-depth post-prints and journal articles concerning this fascinating subject.

41st Annual Meeting – ECPN Happy Hour sponsored by Tru Vue, May 29

This year, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network’s (ECPN) Happy Hour was sponsored by Tru Vue, who generously provided food and drink tickets. It was a great success, with at least 100 attendees. Since the Happy Hour was on Wednesday, it was a great opportunity to mingle and relax before launching into the busy conference. It also directly followed ECPN’s Portfolio Seminar, which provided a nice segue and allowed participants to continue their conversation over food and drinks. We hope you’ll join us at next year’s Happy Hour in San Francisco!

41st Annual Meeting – Contemporary Art Session, May 31, “Automating Classification of Historic Photographic Paper from Surface Texture Images,” by Paul Messier

For over ten years, Photograph Conservator Paul Messier has been researching the physical properties of historic photographic papers—fibers, thickness, optical brighteners, and manufacturer markings. Most recently, Messier and co-authors* have been working to objectively characterize the surface texture of papers as a means to classify individual photographs as well as collections.
Using his personal collection of over 5,000 historic paper samples along with photographs from the Thomas Walther collection at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, photomicrographs of each surface were captured using a “texture-scope” available only at the Library of Congress and the National Gallery of Art. The images were then processed to abstract the features of the paper and allow for easier measurement of the distance between each vector height (i.e. texture peak). The data were sent out to various engineering teams with the goal of creating affinity diagrams that reveal patterns of paper matches. Although each team came up with a different methodology for matching samples, they all achieved results very similar to human detection showing a spectrum of matches from the same sheet of paper, same package, or same manufacturer.
With these successful results, Messier hopes to continue collecting images to be stored on an open-access database. Eventually, institutions and collectors should be able to upload their own photomicrographs and search within the system to discover affinities across a collection. This information about the paper’s manufacture can then be applied to connoisseurship and conservation purposes.
*This project was a collaboration between Paul Messier, Richard Johnson, James Coddington, Patrice Abry, Philip Klausmeyer, Andrew G. Klein, Eric Postma, William A. Sethares, Sally L. Wood, and Lee Ann Daffner. To read more, please see the studies listed on the Paul Messier website.

41st Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Business Meeting and Luncheon, May 30, “Conservators as Diplomats,” by Mary-Jo Adams

The PMG luncheon was business as usual, with an approval of the minutes and budget, and a welcoming of the new committee, but we also had the privilege of hearing from Mary-Jo Adams, Executive Director of the Finca Vigía Foundation.
Founded in 2003, the Finca Vigía Foundation is an American organization developed to preserve Ernest Hemingway’s house and property in San Francisco de Paula, Cuba, about 12 miles outside of Havana. Hemingway lived in the house from 1939-1960 and it was opened to the public by the Cuban government after Hemingway’s death. In 2005, Finca Vigía (“Lookout Farm”) was deemed one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 11 Most Endangered Places, and in 2006 it was added to the World Monument Fund’s 100 Most Endangered Sites. The house itself is still filled with original furniture, artwork, and other objects, including Hemingway’s car and personal library. During Adams’s talk, she detailed the work that has been done up to this point to restore the site to its original appearance.
The majority of funding for the Foundation’s preservation efforts comes from corporations, as donations to Cuba can be a bit tricky for the private sector. With that money, Adams and her team have been able to bring in specialists in architecture, engineering, and conservation to begin the process of repairing the estate and the collection. NEDCC has partnered with the foundation to consult on the conservation of archival materials, and photograph conservator Monique Fischer traveled to Cuba in 2012 to contribute to the efforts. All of the necessary materials were brought from the U.S. to treat, digitize, and re-house the books, papers, and photographs in the library collection.
Another part of the initiative includes the training of Cuban volunteers on site and in preservation classes and workshops held in Havana. As Adams described, the greatest challenge has been to collaborate with the Cuban people through their many cultural and language differences. For instance, the Spanish word for “endangered” roughly translates to “neglected,” so it is Adams’s job to explain the ongoing risks to the estate and best practices for its preservation. The title to the talk, “Conservators as Diplomats” refers to the need for cultural heritage professionals to work at gaining the trust of their foreign colleagues before trying to force help upon them…It also doesn’t hurt to have the assistance of international celebrities like Cuban-American home improvement guru Bob Villa, who not only advised on areas of the building repair, but has advocated for site’s preservation.
Adams expects that active restoration efforts of Finca Vigía should be complete by 2017. For more information, please visit the Foundation’s website.

41st Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 31, "Beyond the Visible: Macro and Micro Analytical Forensic Imaging for the Documentation and Investigation of Archaeological Objects,” by Alexis North and Dr. Ioanna Kakoulli

There are two things you should know up front before you read this post. 1) This talk was fascinating. 2) I am not going to do it justice. I couldn’t take notes quickly enough and it didn’t help that I was frequently mesmerized by the beautifully colored images.
This paper briefly reviewed current methods for digital analytical imaging using visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light, but its true focus was on exploring and adapting technology from crime scene investigation for use in object examination. Specifically, the authors looked at the use of an alternative light source (ALS) combined with a different filters on a modified digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR – modified by removing the UV/IR blocking filters). The ALS allows the user to choose specific wavelengths of light for illumination and, by using filters on the DSLR, reflectance/fluorescence can then be captured between 350nm and 1000nm. In this case, a Mini-CrimeScope 400 ALS was used along with a modified Nikon D90.
Multiple projects were featured to show the capabilities and limitations of the technique, all focusing on the investigation of archaeological ceramics. The authors began by creating reference panels of expected ancient pigments and binders, as well as of potential modern materials including adhesives. They then experimented to find successful combinations of excitation and emission. For one of the projects used as an example, an ancient Greek incense burner with a figure of Nike, this method of investigation was able to identify Egyptian blue and madder lake pigments. In this example, illumination was in the green spectrum and capture was in the red and vice-versa (if I’m remembering correctly). On a Roman figurine, the technique identified madder lake, but also pointed to the need for further testing of a green pigment which did not fluoresce (it turned out to be green earth). Additional examples included a Pre-Columbian ceramic and two Italian ceramics.
In summary, this paper demonstrated that forensic photography with a broadband light source can successfully be used for qualitative identification of a variety of ancient and modern materials. What’s exciting about this (at least for me) is its potential application to archaeological field settings. After all, crime scene investigation happens entirely “in the field” and this technique is completely portable. It also promises to be relatively simple once successful combinations are worked out for different materials. The ALS price tag is not exactly cheap, and the cost is likely to vary a bit depending on who’s buying (police department, university, etc.), but at roughly 15K it is in a more affordable category than, say, portable X-ray fluorescence. Plus, you end up with visually appealing and instructive images, which would frankly be great in both scholarly publications and museum didactics.
This paper also highlighted (for me) the debt we owe to graduate students like Alexis North (currently at the UCLA/Getty Program in the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials) and faculty like Ioanna Kakoulli (also at UCLA in the Materials Science and Engineering Department and Chair of the Conservation Program). Where would we be without graduate student research? Many of my archaeology colleagues will be delighted to know about this non-destructive possibility for investigating objects in the museum and in the field.

41st Annual Meeting, CIPP Seminar, Wednesday, May 29th presented by Alexandra Darraby

The CIPP strikes again with a well-attended and informative seminar to assist all of us in Private Practice. This year the topics covered business structures, service agreements aka the contract and insurance with an overarching theme of Risk Management. We then had an interactive roll-play so we could see an example of how the pieces all work together.
Business structures are one component for risk management and are determined by state law. The details of a Sole-Proprietor, Limited Liability Company and Corporation were covered (I’ll add to the wiki soon). The main differences: Sole-proprietor can have their personal assets attached by a creditor. An LLC (not no liability, just limited) has the pass-through taxation benefits of a sole-proprietor, but is made up of members, who can be individuals, corporations or other LLCs. Corporations have shareholders with stock holdings as well as Officers, Directors, Committees and annual meetings. So while thinking about what structure is best for your business, one needs to consider all the intricacies that go with each structure, as well as your tolerance for risk and tolerance for paperwork. Check out the business links on the CIPP web-page: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/cipp/blinks.html.
Taxes play a part in your business structure –Sole-proprietors are pass-through, so they go with your personal tax return. Corporations do it a little differently and so the IRS has come up with some options: S-corp and C-corp. And then there is an LLC, which can file using most of the tax options. I would recommend consulting with an accountant.

Conservators In Private Practice seminar at the 41st Annual Meeting

Ms. Darraby, in conjunction with CIPP and the AIC Board, produced a Professional Services Agreement in 2009 and it can be ordered from AIC: http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=store.&prod_cat_ID=17. It is free to CIPP members and comes with guidelines for use. The template was reviewed by lawyers and insurers and uses language that will hold up in court. Because each state has its own special idiosyncrasies, it is important to adjust the template for your business and the state it is in. And here is where I would recommend consulting with an attorney, especially if a client asks to make changes in your service agreement. A balance is needed to make sure your business is protected and you are upholding best practices for the client and their art. Sometimes one must ‘just say no’, although I know that can be extremely difficult.
Next we had a panel discussion regarding insurance with representatives from DeWitt Stern and Claire Marmion, an adjuster from Haven Art Group. Insurance can be the survival of your business because it protects you and your assets. But, you must read all the fine print and consult with your broker to make sure you have the coverage you need.
A few key points:
-Superstorm Sandy has led to some changes, such as restricting water coverage and likely higher premiums going forward.
-Your homeowner’s policy probably does not cover your home business.
-General Liability insurance follows you as business owner – so you may have coverage while working on-site.

As an adjuster, Claire outlined some key things an insurance company would want from us if we come in as the conservator assessing a piece post-event:

the treatment proposal needs to state categorically if the damage is reversible or not, i.e. will the client be pleased post-treatment.
Include as much exact detail about the treatment steps as possible
Be upfront about your fee to assess
Commit to a cost – a range is ok
Give a timeline for finishing the work; if you can expedite the treatment for an additional fee, add that in too.

If the insurance company is being too slow and you know leaving the piece in its’ current condition will be problematic the longer it goes untreated, be sure to have the client push the broker to push the claim through.
We had a few paintings conservators who had done assessments that took a very long time to go through the insurance process and the wait made the treatment more difficult and time-consuming.
The interactive element was fun. We were given a scenario and paired up to discuss what the different people should/could do. We then had four intrepid volunteers (Sue Blakney, Yuri Yanchyshyn, Gordon Lewis and Claire Marmion) enact the meeting between the parties to see what the solution might end up being and then discuss the outcome. Ms Darraby noted that the volunteers were just too nice!
Please add comments, especially if you feel I left out something!

41st Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, “Testing the Waters: Applying New Techniques to the Cleaning of Acrylic Paint Film by Amy Hughes and Daria Keynan”

New York-based paper conservator Daria Keynan and Amy Hughes, third-year graduate student at NYU Institute of Fine Arts, shared exciting new contemporary cleaning techniques that have the potential for more effective and efficient treatment of paper-based objects by custom-matching the pH and conductivity modular stock solutions to the original object. This presentation was a wonderful and inspiring cross-specialty exploration of how paintings conservation techniques can be applied to paper conservation – and who doesn’t want more tricks up their sleeve?
Keynan was first introduced to the concept at the 2011 CAPS (Cleaning of Acrylic Painted Surfaces) workshop at the Museum of Modern Art. (I am now kicking myself for thinking that these workshops wouldn’t necessarily apply to my work as a book and paper conservator, so jealous!) To date there have been four innovative series of CAPS workshops supported by the Getty Conservation Institute to further the dialogue between theory and practice among conservation scientists and conservators as well as to introduce the concept of modular cleaning systems. Struck by her experience at the 2011 CAPS workshop and impressed by their use for treating acrylic paint films on art on paper, Keynan has further explored the use of pH and conductivity customization for other areas of paper conservation.
The CAPS workshop introduced several different cleaning techniques to minimize removal of surfactants when cleaning acrylic film surfaces. Acrylic paint and modern materials are scary (my word, not theirs.) Emulsions are often complex with many proprietary and artist-introduced ingredients. Colors react differently after drying, in treatment, and as they age. Some colors may be more sensitive to chemical and mechanical cleaning than others. Surfactants and other soft solids may never solidify, creating a tacky surface that can attract dust and grime. Conservation treatment, particularly aqueous treatment or mechanical cleaning with damp cotton swabs, can introduce immediate disfiguration like abrasion or swelling. Readily soluble surfactants can leach to the paint film surface or verso of the paper substrate. Treatment can also jumpstart deterioration that is not apparent until the future due to unknown chemical and mechanical consequences.
Of the many cleaning techniques available within contemporary conservation, Hughes and Keynan limited their presentation to the customization of pH and conductivity as a more finely-tuned and safer aqueous cleaning technique. They shared their methods by highlighting the treatment of works of art on paper brought to the Daria Keynan Paper Conservation in Manhattan for treatment where adjusted water – tweaking the pH and conductivity of the deionized water – was a key factor of success.

In the Garden (1986) by Paula Rego was surface cleaned to reduce dust and embedded grime altering the surface sheen. After dry cleaning with cosmetic sponges, Hughes tested various acrylic paint colors for pH and conductivity testing. Cylindrical pellets of cast agarose gel (recipe and supply information to be published in their BPG Annual post-print) were uniformly shaped with a medical-grade biopsy punch. (Heed Hughes’ warning, online image searches for “biopsy punch” are not for the weak-stomached!) The agarose pellet, acting like a poultice, was placed in contact with the acrylic paint film for 45 seconds to absorb the surface pH and conductivity. Agarose was selected because it imbibes the surface readings without visibly swelling the paint with excess moisture as in more aggressive techniques like local, direct application of deionized water. Keynan explained that the contact time of the agarose pellet can be matched to the estimated treatment time so that testing parameters can meet real-world treatment situations, increasing the predictability and reproducibility of testing results.
The pellet was transferred from the paper surface to the well of a pocket-sized, hand-held pH meter (Horiba Laqua pH Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the pH of the paint surface. A droplet of deionized water was then placed on the pellet and transferred to another pocket-sized, hand-held conductivity meter (Horiba B-171 Twin Conductivity/Salinity Pocket Tester from Cole-Parmer) to record the conductivity of the paint surface. (As someone who absolutely dreads calibrating our cumbersome pH meter I was overjoyed to hear how easy these were to use – my purchase order request is already submitted.)
The conservators used the recorded pH and conductivity for a given area of the painted surface to identify the optimal working solution for cleaning. They selected from among a variety of premixed stock solutions that were created according to the CAPS workshop directions using deionized water, glacial acetic acid, and ammonium hydroxide in a range of ph 5-8 and conductivity 1000-6000 µS (micro Siemens.) Once mixed, the stock solutions can be stored in the refrigerator for up to several months. Keynan also reported that they often add several drops of an antimicrobial preservative for a longer shelf life.

The embedded material and dust on In the Garden released easily with 3-4 passes of lightly damp, pre-blotted cotton swab rolled over the surface. Hughes warned that since acrylic film is susceptible to abrasion it is important to monitor the paint surface during treatment. Cotton might not be appropriate for all acrylic surfaces so additional experiments with different swab materials may be useful. Similar success was seen in the mold removal and stain reduction of Maquette for Smoking Cigarette Relief (1983) by Tom Wesselmann.
Since Superstorm Sandy hit New York City in October 2012, Keynan’s studio has seen many complex treatments because of the unusual and unknown composition of the storm water which was often contaminated by sewage (uh, gross.) Many of the paper-based objects were stained with tidelines that were difficult to remove and fluoresced brightly under UV. Standard paper conservation techniques often visibly removed the tidelines but were deemed unsuccessful since under UV they shifted along the paper fibers or sank but were not completely removed from the paper support. She related that altering the pH and conductivity of her treatment water dramatically improved treatment results. Removal of the fluorescing blue tidelines (both external and internal) was achieved by local application of the adjusted water and using fumed silica poultices to block the formation of new tidelines.
The last example Keynan shared was a sample of naturally aged 2-ply paper board. (This was exciting, anyone else ever stare blankly at a nasty tideline on an illustration board and just sigh?) Traditional and adjusted treatment waters were applied with cotton swabs in several passes to clean the surface with varying results. Traditional deionized water cleaned less and was uneven, leaving a soft and vulnerable surface. The solution set at pH 6.6 and 6,000 µS glided more easily and had more even results. It also felt more controllable when working. The third sample solution set to pH 5.5 and 14,000 µS gave the most effective cleaning but in real life would probably not need three passes. After drying, the surface readings for all three areas had almost identical conductivity and pH readings.
Keynan concluded that by matching a pH- and conductivity-adjusted solution to the surface of the object it is possible to create a near chemical equilibrium at the surface to eliminate leaching from or depositing into the paint film. In treatment, using adjusted solution equals maximized cleaning efficiency with less wetting out of substrates, less pigment transfer, less repeated action, less loss of surface texture, and reduced distortion of the working area. Conservators have always adjusted pH for various uses, but by measuring the conductivity we can tailor our treatments to the physical needs of the object material with more refinement and subject it to less invasive treatment. Adjusted waters are an incredibly useful tool for improving and refining treatments in our conservation practice.
Hughes and Keynan’s presentation was an approachable and exciting take on the contemporary research going on in the field of conservation science and paintings conservation, especially as led by Chris Stavroudis (freelance paintings conservator in Los Angeles) and Richard Wolbers (Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation) in, well, all things related to cleaning painted surfaces and the Modular Cleaning Program.
Other presentations at the AIC meeting in Indianapolis such as “Mass Spectrometric Imaging of Acrylic Emulsion Paint Films: Engineering a Microemulsion-Based Cleaning Approach” (Paintings + Research and Technical Studies Thursday, May 30) show that the MCP and CAPS research continues. During the question-and-answer period Dr. Anthony Lagalante (Villanova University) shared that he and Stavroudis had recently recorded a video about using and calibrating the meters – it was on the cutting room floor, but will be posted to the CAPS website soon. Lagalante also sent me a link to their illuminating Studies in Conservation article that is currently available as a pre-print:

C.E. Dillon, A.F. Lagalante and R.C. Wolbers “ Aqueous cleaning of acrylic emulsion paint films. The effect of solution pH, conductivity and ionic strength on film swelling and surfactant removal” Studies in Conservation 57(1), (2014). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/sic/pre-prints/2047058412Y.0000000076

The concept presented by Hughes and Keynan in “Testing the Waters” has the potential for wide application for all book and paper conservators. Working with stock solutions is a fast and economical lab practice. Customizing treatment solutions increases the workability and effectiveness of the treatment. Many of us in the room instantly coveted the easy-to-use digital meters as we thought of the hassle of calibrating traditional models. I’m intrigued by how this research can be applied to aqueous treatments meant to introduce alkaline reserves to acidic paper.
This was a welcome multi-disciplinary presentation that encouraged conservators from other specialty groups like PSG and RATS to attend the BPG program. I am not alone in hoping for more presentations like it at future meetings so we can all benefit from the exciting things happening in all areas of our conservation community.

41st Annual Meeting, Discussion Session, June 1st, 2013: Engaging with Allied Fields: Teaching Conservation in Allied Academic Departments and Degree Programs

If you missed this engaging session, you probably have no idea that it included 11 different talks, presented “lightning-round” style, and 2 lively discussion sessions (in fact, the session was so engaging that I neglected to take photos, which I had very good intentions of doing!).
Organized by Suzanne Davis and Emily Williams, the idea for this session came through their discussions with colleagues and their realization that those engaged in teaching conservation to non-conservation students in academic settings are not currently sharing resources, goals and feelings about this work. Their goal was to begin a dialogue about these topics between those involved with and interested in this topic. To provide a foundation for their session, they recently conducted an online survey entitled “Teaching Conservation in Allied Degree Programs”. To read more about this and to access the initial survey report, follow this link to Suzanne’s blogpost.
The first round of speakers included Gregory Dale Smith, Renee Stein, Cathleen Baker, Heather Galloway, and Emily Williams. I’m including a brief summary of each of their talks, with links as possible, below. Each of the talks was 5 minutes, and both the speakers and the organizers did a terrific job keeping their talks within this brief time frame!
Gregory Dale Smith is the Otto N. Frenzel III Senior Conservation Scientist at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. He unfortunately could not attend the session, so Suzanne presented his slides on his behalf. His presentation focused on a project for a course for graduate students in Indiana University-Purdue University (IUPUI)’s Chemistry and Biological Chemistry Department and the Forensic and Investigative Sciences program entitled “CSI: Conservation Science Indianapolis.” In this course, he had students carry out a technical examination of a purported 1874 Alfred Sisley painting. The museum had suspicions about its authenticity, so the project benefitted not only the students but also the museum. The project included provenance research, analysis, imaging, and a final report, and there are blogposts on the topic on the IMA website. Through this course, Greg hoped to transmit to students the interplay of connoisseurship, conservation and science. While they did not come to a definite conclusion in the end, the students were particularly engaged due to the fact that it was a real object and a real issue for the museum.
Renee Stein is the Chief Conservator at the Michael C. Carlos Museum and is also Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Art History at Emory University. Conservators at the Carlos have always been involved in teaching, and the course that Renee is teaching is now an issue-based and topical seminar. The course attracts mostly art history majors, and the goal of the course is to introduce them to issues in conservation-to the why, not the how. Renee also mentioned that the Carlos Museum is also exploring how the museum can help to teach science, and they are now doing this through a course focusing on the analysis of ancient art course, which is very forensic and analytical, and geared toward undergrad chemistry majors. Two other courses that are being taught on conservation include an imaging course and a freshman seminar on art and nature. A list of these courses and other conservation opportunities for students at Emory are listed here. Also of note are the podcasts that have been developed by the Carlos and are available on their website by following this link.
Cathleen Baker is a Conservation Librarian and Exhibits Conservator at the University of Michigan Library and Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Information. Cathleen discussed one course that she taught with the goal of to introducing students to the concepts of conservation. She achieves this through lectures and supplements them with hands-on activities with books, and instructs students on the uses of adhesives, cleaning and repairs. She expressed that she has been surprised and encouraged that her students are fascinated by materials and objects in today’s very digital/virtual world.
Heather Galloway is a Conservator at the Intermuseum Conservation Association (ICA). She is currently preparing to teach a course in the joint PhD program between Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Museum of Art. She has taught several other courses, and she described one which was geared toward upper level students and taught completely based in the museum galleries. This was not a practical course, and all of the written work required of the students was based on observations and research. She wanted them to focus on what they might learn if they had the opportunity to examine an object firsthand. In this course Heather also removed paintings from the gallery walls and had students examine them out of their frames and under different light sources. The ultimate goal of this course was to introduce students to the complexity of judgments and collaboration necessary for conservators to make decisions, and to build a more sympathetic audience among our future allied professionals.
Emily Williams is the Conservator of Archaeological Materials at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and she discussed a course she has been teaching at the University of Mary Washington, entitled “Introduction to Conservation.” Because of Emily’s specialty, she imparts a heavy emphasis on archaeological materials but also tries to incorporate information about other materials as possible. Her goal in this course is to lay the foundation for future collaborations rather than train conservators. Due to Emily’s experience that many archaeologists in the Mid-Atlantic region think of conservation as all hands-on and something that they can do with just a little bit of training, she discussed the challenge that she sees in teaching this course, between balancing hands-on, practical work with other activities. She explained that her students always want to do more practical work, and this may be because she teaches this course as a 3-hour class. In addition to including hands-on activities, Emily incorporates debates and discussions into her classes. At the end of her presentation, she posed the question that she is pondering herself-through this course, is she achieving her goal of creating well-informed future collaborators or is she reinforcing the notion that the best and most important parts of conservation are hands-on?
Following this round of talks, Suzanne and Emily posed 2 sets of 2 questions or ideas each to the audience. Some of these were created from comments pulled directly from the survey recently conducted. We were seated in groups at round tables, each assigned with a letter A or B-the letters designated which questions we were to discuss. I’ll write more about this, and the second discussion session, after summarizing the second round of speakers.
The second round of speakers included Richard McCoy, Erich Uffelman, Ian McClure, Sanchita Balachandran, Karen Pavelka, and Suzanne Davis.
Richard McCoy is former Conservator at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and he has taught at IUPUI and recently was asked to create a course for Johns Hopkins online. Richard’s first course at IUPUI was project-based, focused on collections care and on documenting all of the public artworks on the university campus. To do this, he co-founded the WikiProject Public Art for his students to document the sculptures, and used Flickr for the photo management. He found that using Wikipedia and Flickr also worked as an advocacy tool for the artwork. In a second course, Richard had his students document all of the public art in the Indiana State House. In his last course, he focused on survey and research, and had his students research the historic Madame Walker Theater, create an excel database of their survey, and reorganized the theater’s museum. Richard is now creating a course for Johns Hopkins online in museum studies. This course will be entitled “Core aspects of conservation- a 21st century approach” and will have a goal of teaching students how to look at art, and also have students gather more resources for sharing with others on this topic.
Erich Uffelman is faculty at Washington and Lee University in the Department of Chemistry. Erich presented a record number of slides in 5 minutes, illustrating his course “Science In Art: Technical Analysis of 17th Century Dutch Paintings.” This is a 2-part course that is conducted over a year, ending with a trip to the Netherlands. This course covers both the art historical aspects as well as the scientific and analytical work that is involved in conservation. Erich has been publishing about this course since 2007, and his publications include resources as well as the strengths and limitations of the approaches used in teaching this course. Erich ended his presentation by mentioning the Chemistry in Art workshops offered through the National Science Foundation, taught by Dr. Pat Hill. These workshops are geared toward university faculty and other educators and focus on how to integrate chemistry and art into a curriculum.
Ian McClure is the Director of the Center for Conservation and Preservation, Yale West Campus and Susan Morse Hilles Chief Conservator at the Yale University Art Gallery. He discussed several ways in which his department is involved in teaching, including an undergraduate course focused on the technical examination of art. The goal of this course is to teach students about various methods of investigation and to help them understand how to interpret their observations. In addition to this course, they also work with postdoctoral students in computer science. One of their recent initiatives is teaching teachers in the Summer Teachers Institute in Technical Art History (STITAH). This project is supported by the Kress Foundation.
Sanchita Balachandran is a Conservator and Curator at the Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum and is a Lecturer in Near Eastern Studies at the university. Sanchita explained that the museum is used frequently for teaching, and a majority of her time is devoted this work, as she teaches one course per semester. She is teaching a seminar “Examining Archaeological Objects”more regularly, and she also teaches in other departments. Sanchita shared some of her main goals in her courses, which include: sharing excitement about objects with students, teaching students how to look at objects and make original observations, and instilling a sense of wonder in her students. Sanchita mentioned that one of the challenges that she has faced in teaching in this capacity is that not having a PhD is difficult in an academic environment, and makes it more difficult to apply for research funding. She ended her presentation with the idea of the “conservator identity crisis”. She explained that now that only 10% of her time is dedicated to treatment, she thinks a lot about what defines a conservator–someone who does treatment regularly and thus practices what he/she teaches, or someone who is able to teach about these issues but in some ways is far removed from the hands on aspect?
Karen Pavelka is a Conservator and Lecturer in the School of Information at UT Austin. As a full-time faculty member, she teaches 2 courses per semester. Courses that she teaches integrate conservation into the I-school curriculum, and include a paper lab course and classes that focus on disaster salvage, risk management, and preservation management. Karen pointed out that her classes are popular (they fill up within the first minute of being offered!) and often have waiting lists. Her courses are mainly geared to grad students focusing on library and museum studies. Karen stated that her goal in these courses is to integrate conservation into these students’ worlds, and impart the idea that everyone is responsible for preservation, but also to help them understand when to call a conservator-essentially, to help educate these students so that they become valuable and well-informed colleagues. Karen described one project that she has created for her students called the “annoying object exercise”. She created fragile, oddly shaped objects and then asks students to design and build a support for these objects which can be produced quickly, cheaply, and easily.
Suzanne Davis is Head Conservator at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan. Suzanne gave an abbreviated version of her presentation so that the rest of the session could be used for discussion. Just briefly, Suzanne discussed that she teaches a conservation unit in a theory-based, graduate-level museum studies course at the university. She posed the question, WTH (what the heck) should she be doing with these students? Should she be teaching them to think about conservation in a critical way, which is what she has been doing, or should she be giving them practical advice/tips so that they can make more informed decisions about using conservation services and resources in their future careers?
On that note, Suzanne and Emily moved everyone into the second period of discussion, again with 2 sets of questions for the audience to ponder.
Discussions topics included (but were not limited to):
–       What are the costs and benefits of adjunct teaching?
–       How do you see the role of conservation and conservation science in education for allied professionals? Do you see it as providing enrichment and/or as an aid in developing critical thinking skills? Do you want to produce more educated consumers of conservation resources and services? What are your personal end-result goals for the classes you teach?
–       Salvador Munos-Vinas and other scholars have argued the need for more theory in conservation and conservation education. What is your opinion? Does a lack of theory in conservation affect conservators’ ability to engage with education in theory-rich fields such as archaeology, art history, and museum studies?
After discussions amongst our groups, Emily and Suzanne opened the session up for some quick discussion at the end.
Some of the points that came out of this discussion included:
–       there is a need for conservation specific teaching resources
–       those who are teaching would find it helpful to look at other syllabi
–       in general the audience was interested in more teaching instruction and strategies in the form of a webinar or workshop – the workshop idea was more popular
–       there are a lot of guest lecturers not full time teaching – people would like more information about how to convey a single talk or 2 in a larger course
–       resources that do exist include:

an email listserv for conservation educators, which has been fairly dormant but you can contact Rachael Arenstein or Emily Williams if you’d like to join – the pre-requisite for joining is that you must be teaching in an academic setting
AIC’s YouTube channel-this is also a place for those making videos to share them
AIC’s Facebook page and AIC wiki
Coursera, Khan academy, Stanford Teaching Commons

Suzanne and Emily promised that they will eventually publish the discussion from this session, so stay tuned for that!