Topics – Page 44 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

NEH grants for preserving collections in sustainable ways

Guidelines have been posted for the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections grants. U.S. nonprofit museums, libraries, archives, and educational institutions can apply for grants to plan and implement preservation strategies that pragmatically balance effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact. Projects should be designed to be as cost effective, energy efficient, and environmentally sensitive as possible, and they should aim to mitigate the greatest risks to collections rather than to meet prescriptive targets.

Apply for planning grants of up to $40,000 (with an option of up to $50,000) to bring together interdisciplinary teams that might reevaluate environmental parameters for collections and examine passive (nonmechanical) and low-energy alternatives to conventional energy sources and energy-intensive mechanized systems for managing collection environments. Testing, modeling, or project-specific research may help applicants better understand collection environments and formulate sustainable preservation strategies; therefore, with planning grants you might measure energy consumption; use blower door tests to identify air leaks in buildings; create mock-ups of lighting options; test natural ventilation methods; conduct thermal imaging of buildings; test the effect of buffered storage enclosures on moderating fluctuating environmental conditions; re-commission small-scale climate control systems; or adjust the operating protocols for climate control systems.

Apply for implementation grants of up to $350,000 to manage interior relative humidity and temperature by passive methods; install heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; install storage systems and rehouse collections; improve security and the protection of collections from fire, flood, and other disasters; and upgrade lighting systems and controls to achieve levels suitable for collections that are energy efficient. Projects that seek to implement preventive conservation measures in sustainable ways are especially encouraged.

Deadline: December 4, 2012

Guidelines: www.neh.gov/grant s/guidelines/SCHC.html

FAQs: www.neh.gov/files/grants/sustaining-cultural-heritage-faqs_2012.pdf

Program officers are available to discuss project ideas and read draft proposals. Please contact the division for more information by emailing preservation [at] neh__gov or calling 202-606-8570.

Laura Word
Senior Program Officer
Division of Preservation and Access
National Endowment for the Humanities

US Blue Shield Statement on Syrian Heritage

AIC supports the USCBS position outlined in the press release below.

PRESS RELEASE

Recent media reports, as well as first-hand reports from Syria posted to social media and other Internet sources, recount the killing and wounding of innocent civilians and the alarming destruction and looting of cultural heritage sites during the current civil war in Syria. Some of these sites are designated World Heritage Sites of outstanding universal significance under the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Other sites appear to be at imminent risk.

While admonishing all parties to the current Syrian conflict to respect cultural sites and prevent further damage, the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield seeks to remind the Syrian government of its obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, to which Syria is a State Party. These obligations include avoiding the targeting of cultural sites, unless excused by military necessity, and, more important, avoiding the use of cultural sites in such a way as to expose them to harm during armed conflict. It appears that these obligations have been violated through the use of cultural and historical sites, such as the Roman city of Apamea, the Crusader fortress at Crac des Chevaliers, and the archaeological site of Palmyra, as bases for military activities. This makes them a target for military attack and exposes them to significant danger. Inexcusable use of cultural sites could be the basis for war crimes violations and charges, as was seen in the criminal tribunals and convictions of former Yugoslav military leaders after the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

Also alarming are reports of large-scale thefts of cultural objects from archaeological and historic sites and museums and the reported sale of these objects on the international market. Those who would deal in such objects should be aware that existing legislation and legal mechanisms prohibit the trade in looted and stolen cultural objects. For example, legislation in two of the largest market nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, provide for criminal punishment of those who knowingly deal in such objects and for forfeiture of the objects themselves. These include the United Kingdom’s Dealing in Cultural Objects Offences Act and the United States’ National Stolen Property Act. In addition, U.S. sanctions put into effect against Syria state that “All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, … of the Government of Syria are blocked and may not be transferred, … or otherwise dealt in.” OFAC regulation EO 13582 of August 17, 2011, Section 1(a), http://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/sanctions/Programs/Documents/syria_eo_08182011.pdf.

The cultural heritage of Syria is among the most valuable in the world, spanning from the beginnings of civilization through the Roman, Crusader, Medieval Islamic and Ottoman periods. It is the duty of all nations and all people to protect and preserve this heritage for future generations. It is particularly the responsibility of both the Syrian regime and the rebel forces to honor international law and the interests of the Syrian people in preserving their shared cultural heritage.

U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield
24 August 2012

Contact: Corine Wegener, cwegener@uscbs.org, 612-870-3293 or 612-839-7654

“Designing Presentations” Online Meeting Series

Sarah Lowengard is pleased to announce the next offering of the “Designing Presentations” online meeting series, scheduled in time to assist conservators meet the deadline for AIC2013 abstract and proposal submission. Participation is not limited to those who plan to do so, however.

The meetings are:

A. Writing an Abstract or Other Short Proposal

Thursday 30 August 2012
12:00-1:30pm US Eastern Time
This 90-minute session will show you how to describe your workshop, presentation or talk clearly and succinctly. Use what you learn to improve your conference proposals or your presentations to current and
prospective clients. Will talk about what you do and don’t need to include, how to format your proposal to improve reader comprehension, and more.
Download a 1-page information sheet at http://bit.ly/DP-A-2

B. Designing a Hands-On Workshop

Thursday 6 September 2012
12:00-2:00pm US Eastern Time
A 2-hour session that leads you through planning, design and organization of a presentation that includes audience participation. If you’ve been thinking about teaching your clients, your boss, your board of directors, or others just what it is you //really// do, Designing a Hands-on Workshop will give you the start you need.
Download a 1-page information sheet at http://bit.ly/DP-B-2

The fee for the 2-meeting series is $70, $40 to attend a single meeting. (I offer discounts to affiliates and groups of five or more.)

As with all Research and Writing workshops and meetings, there will be time (and special after-meeting opportunities) for continued interaction and personalized assistance.

For more information, and to register please go to http://bit.ly/DP-2-2012

Or contact me:

Sarah Lowengard
Research and Writing
sarah@researchandwriting.net

ECPN July Meeting Minutes

The July minutes have been approved.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, July 16, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Angela Curmi (Communications Coordinator)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

1. Roll call – Eliza took roll

2. Minutes Approval – June meeting minutes were approved

3. Update from Regional Liaisons

Gwen has been in touch with Emily Gardner Phillips about being a CIPP liaison and she is interested. She will connect George and Emily Gardner Phillips.
LeeAnn commented that nothing has happened with the wiki this month and she has not been able to get in touch with Rachael.
Anisha has solicited blog posts from the regional liaisons, has given August 3^rd as a deadline for their posts, and will put these on basecamp for review. She asked how often these should be posted, whether they should be a weekly series. Eliza and Carrie agreed that one post a week was best.
Anisha also started a writeboard about post-grad career paths and has asked that everyone review this, offer suggestions and recommend people.

4. July 26^th webinar

Eliza discussed the July 10^th practice run, which was a good opportunity to get acquainted with the technology and figure out how the conversation will go. One question that came up was how to make the webinar as interactive as possible. Debbie will have a powerpoint presentation, but we should also insert more interactive aspects – possibly including the polling function (once or twice in the webinar) – and integrate questions throughout. Only certain people will be able to speak; the audience will be muted. But there is a chat box – can audience members share questions that way?
Carrie pointed out that there is a “raise your hand” function and asked if we want the questions to be given beforehand or during the webinar. Eliza said we should have some questions prepared before and some throughout. Carrie responded that she had trouble getting her questions to be visible. Eliza announced that we will have a second practice session on Tuesday, July 24^th at noon and encouraged everyone to join for audience practice. Ryan confirmed that he can attend this session. Eliza said that we should let her or Molly know in advance if we can participate so that they can send a link to join the session.
She asked for opinions on the polling question and Gwen thought it was a good idea, as it’s a way to interact anonymously. Angela asked if the poll questions/results would inform Debbie’s presentation and Eliza responded that we will have to test the poll to see how quickly results can be compiled. We will also need to decide what kind of questions we would want to ask, preferably nothing too involved.
Molly and Eliza need everyone’s help with the questions for Debbie and have to send these by July 23^rd to Eric. Thus far, there are only two questions on the blog. Some think that more people would pose questions if they could remain anonymous. Angela asked if we could make an announcement giving people the option to email Eliza or someone else from ECPN directly with their questions and she can post it on the blog. Eliza will look into this.
Eliza asked if everyone reviewed the schedule for that week and everyone agreed on it. The document is on basecamp. She asked Ryan if there is a cut-off time for when people can get the invite to join the call. Ryan thinks it’s the day of. Eliza will ask Eric when he gets back and Ryan will see if he can find the answer on the website. Eliza encouraged everyone to get the word out on the webinar as much as possible. We will start getting more updates soon on how many have signed up for the webinar.

5. Discussion about approaching specialty groups about considering student representation on their boards

Carrie has been in touch with BPG and is awaiting a formal response. Gwen is working on CIPP. Gwen and Carrie have offered to approach each group with a letter about student representation. Eliza asked if these would be student members or emerging conservators. Carrie said probably students. Stephanie is more interested in student members on committees, since emerging conservators are already leaders in SGs and this would just prolong their time in what is a student position, not a professional position. This should be more of a training position than a junior position. Stephanie said this is also a good way to keep communication flowing with grad programs.
Eliza asked if there is a schedule planned for reaching out to the other groups. Carrie said they will use the BPG letter as a template and she and Gwen will split up and send it to the groups at the same time. She asked if there is a deadline for sending the letter out. Stephanie pointed out that transitions in officer positions are usually at the annual meeting and that groups will have to change their bylaws if formal positions are created, so we should not give the groups deadlines for creating these positions. Gwen and Carrie suggested sending the letters in September when the school year starts and acknowledging the efforts of groups that already have student representation. They will follow up with BPG.

6. Discussion about approaching specialty groups supporting emerging conservators at the AIC annual meeting

Gwen said that the paintings group has had sponsorships for the past several years for the reception, but asked if we are referring to sponsoring for the entire meeting. Eliza responded that it’s just for specific events. LeeAnn said that the objects group had considered using surplus funding for this, but it was never a priority. Eliza questioned whether it is important and how to pursue it. Gwen said she is happy to discuss this with Laura Rivers. Eliza thought it was a good idea to gather info.
Stephanie commented that when she was a student, people were given the option of sponsoring a student at dinners. Instead of asking SGs for funding, members could be given the option when they register for the annual meeting to sponsor a student. This is also a good networking opportunity. Eliza agreed this was a nice approach. Gwen said that Laura made sure the students were aware of who their sponsors were so that they could thank them. Eliza asked if we would need to propose this to the board and Stephanie responded that we shouldn’t have to; it is up to the SGs. Ryan agreed that this does not need board approval and liked the idea of calling these “donations.” With the paintings group, tracking registrations in the database became complicated. It would be good to know beforehand so that he can create something in the registration.
LeeAnn suggested the ECPN liaisons contact SGs and encourage them to create a donation fund. Gwen said we can draft something as a group and distribute it to the liaisons. Ryan commented that asking them for a reduced rate for students is different from asking them for donations (the former creates budget issues). Carrie responded that sponsoring someone also sounds more personal.
LeeAnn questioned how to decide who goes if there aren’t enough donations. Eliza suggested we first gauge how the SGs feel about it. LeeAnn is willing to contact the objects group. Addressing LeeAnn’s question, Eliza suggested a first-come first-serve basis or a random selection. It was also suggested that priority be given to students presenting papers or who are committee members. In response to a question about emerging professionals, Ryan explained that there is no assignment for “emerging conservators” in the database, so we should stick to “students” and “post-grad year”. Eliza concluded that we should continue thinking about this.

7. Student research resource

Carrie is in the process of submitting a revised proposal for their project based on feedback from the grad programs. They will submit this to the board for the August meeting. She also had a discussion about CoOL with Eryl Wentworth. And during the last call the group had a discussion on funding. In addition to CoOL, other platforms are being considered, including AATA on the Getty server (Amber Kerr-Allison had previously discussed this with the Getty) – but should student work be hosted on a platform with peer-reviewed works? Support for this student resource is strong, but the question is where to put it. Carrie, Gwen, and Rebecca are contacting AATA and in August will start approaching SGs for ideas about putting their work online. Eliza commented that Eryl said to gather as many possibilities as we can. Carrie said they may not have everything prepared for August but are working on it.

8. PR Toolkit

Molly asked Eliza to report that she had submitted the blog post. Angela is getting in touch with the SG chairs this week. Molly will also be submitting questions to the board.

9. Mentoring Program

Eliza explained that the next match cycle has started and that they went back through old applicants as well. They have 34 mentee applications and 18 mentor applications and are working to make those matches. They will have a call this week or next to create the matches.
Eliza is also thinking of putting out a call for mentors on the SG listserv, and if there are still unmatched mentees, contacting colleagues directly. The description of the program on the website and the application process are also being updated.

10. Eliza and Molly will be in touch soon about the webinar.

Next call: Monday, August 20, 2012 at 1pm EST

Respectfully submitted,

Angela Curmi

IRUG Raman Spectroscopy Two-day Workshop

The Infrared and Raman Users Group (IRUG) is pleased to announce a two-day Raman Spectroscopy Workshop to be held at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) on September 27-28, 2012. The workshop is the first of its kind to be offered by IRUG (www.irug.org) and will feature lectures on practical issues and strategies in the Raman analysis of cultural heritage artifacts and materials, as well as an introduction to the IRUG Raman spectral database. Topics covered will be: the history of the use of Raman spectroscopy in the museum field; theory and instrumentation; SERS; and analysis of minerals, pigments, dyes, gems, glass, plastics, paintings, photographs, works of art on paper, and cross-sections. All are invited to attend although space is limited. Workshop registration fee is $75 for professionals and $35 for students. The registration deadline is August 31, 2012. For more information, please contact IRUG at . The Workshop is being sponsored by the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT) and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Register >>

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 3 – Traveling exhibits & collection care training

The last presentation of the Outreach to Allies Session at the AIC Annual Meeting 2012 was an interactive session organized by the Collection Care Network. The leadership team of the network designed it as a way to identify priorities and projects for the network. Imagine nine groups of 7 to 9 people sitting around tables discussing the content of nine different short videos. Each video presented a collection care challenge or question. The discussion aimed to suggest projects the Collection Care Network could develop that would provide tools to overcome the challenge or answer the question. Now imagine people engaged in conversation. This post covers some of the conversation at Table 3. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table Three: The discussion at the table focused on how to provide more access to collection care information delivered in an efficient and effective way. As a professional beginning in the field I was interested in learning about the many resources and approaches that already exist and what my colleagues found best suited to the needs of the audience.

The video: Emma Westling, Touring Exhibits Coordinator for the Museum of Science, Boston outlined her duties at the Museum and her work touring exhibits to various venues. She wished to have access to previously developed training materials to educate and provide professional development for institutions that may not have dedicated collections professionals. She pointed out that staff could improve collection care for their own collections as well as for loaned objects in their care.

The discussion: Although we began by considering loan shows to institutions with staff that may have a limited knowledge about a particular type of object or material, the discussions moved to discussing the intended audience. From diverse backgrounds, they bring a range of expertise to preservation. They meet the daily challenges of finding sufficient time, money, and staff hours to carry out their work. In time are conversation transitioned into what were some of the best ways to engage and to meet the needs of this audience. We talked about how training for its own sake was a worthy goal, but when faced with the numerous demands competing for time and resources, a more strategic approach is required. Those who had developed on-line resources and presented programs and seminars found that successful programming hinges on delivering information at the moment individuals are looking for it. The challenge is using methods that get the right information to the intended audience at the right time.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

Create a free and searchable on-line resource that organizes the collection care information and training available to the preservation community.
Develop a knowledge base on specialized topics with content provided by experts in that area.
Build a forum to foster interactivity.

The contributors: Moderator – Gretchen Guidess; Note Taker: Patti Dambaugh; Table participants: Kathy Francis, Kristen Laise, Chris McAfee, Kay Söderlund, Sarah Stauderman

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 8 – Natural History Collections

The last presentation of the Outreach to Allies Session at the AIC Annual Meeting 2012 was an interactive session organized by the Collection Care Network. The leadership team of the network designed it as a way to identify priorities and projects for the network. Imagine nine groups of 7 to 9 people sitting around tables discussing the content of a nine different short videos. Each video presented a collection care challenge or question. The discussion aimed to suggest projects the Collection Care Network could develop that would provide tools to overcome the challenge or answer the question. Now imagine people engaged in conversation. So engaged they didn’t get up for food when asked to do so! So engaged they had to be asked a second time!! Now you have a very small idea of what the session was like. This particular post gives you more details about the discussion at Table 8. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table eight: I was particularly pleased to be able to moderate the discussion at table eight as natural history collections have been a focus of my conservation career. While the materials that make up these collections are familiar to all conservators, the approach to their care and management varies from that for art, humanities, and technology collections. Archaeological collections are the only ones that rival those in natural sciences in terms of size. Holdings in a mid-sized natural history museum often number in the millions, if not tens of millions of specimens, plus their associated documentation, ranging from books and manuscripts to all types of photographic formats and digital media.

The video: The video presenter was Dr. Christopher Norris, Senior Collections Manager for Vertebrate Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Natural History. Chris is also the President of the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). In his presentation, Chris noted that for natural history curators and collection managers, the biggest challenge is the size of the collections. “We have so many specimens, so many objects to deal with, that it’s very hard for us to make decisions about conserving those objects on the basis of individual object-based treatments; we have to focus in on preventive conservation. This, I think, is a very good area where SPNHC can work with the Collections Care Network at AIC to come up with some really creative solutions to our problems.” He suggested that this could be a two-way process in which SPNHC members, who have a great deal of experience in working with large collections, could tap into the conservation expertise of AIC and those in AIC that have had more experience in object-based treatments can begin to learn about and understand some of the conservation challenges that we face in natural history collections. He closed the video by commenting that he viewed this as a great opportunity for the two groups to work together and that SPNHC looks forward to working with the Collection Care Network.

The discussion: The discussion around table eight started with the ways all the recognized agents of deterioration impact natural history collections and how the impacts can vary among these collections. A number of questions were asked about the overall goals for collaboration—solutions to specific problems or simply greater understanding between the groups. This led to brainstorming about available resources and mechanisms to deliver these to a relatively new audience.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

Given the range of materials in these collections, all expertise has applications. Would conservators answer questions in an open forum? The answer was decided positive, even though it was recognized that there were limits to the kind of information that can be shared effectively in this manner. A forum could foster a discussion model for information exchange.
Would be good to compile a list of resources that are currently available. There are many useful sites and freely available publications, but not all can be found easily. Possible topics include funding opportunities and risk assessment methodologies.
Use websites to help disseminate information. The planned AIC Storage of Technology, Arts, Science, and Humanities (STASH) project, which is based on a book published by SPNHC, will be a web-based resource with broad applicability and will involve a variety of organizations.
Might be able to use the Wiki format as a way to link to other sites and other information resources. Could post case studies or link to case studies, using a formats employed by other organizations (e.g., the Getty Conservation Institute), although it requires a great deal of work to create and maintain this type of site. AIC is a good group to tackle this and already has experience in creating Wikis.
In engaging other organizations, appreciate their standards and the ways they approach and use their collections. People enjoy talking about their collections and this can be an opening for dialog.
Conduct surveys to find out what people in various fields want/need to know.
View this as an opportunity to promote networking among mid-career professionals, pre-program interns, and museum studies students.
Create opportunities for conservators, collections managers, and curators to meet to exchange ideas. This might be done through joint meetings with representatives from other organizations, or possibly have special one-day joint sessions affiliated with annual meetings of both AIC and other organizations. Could begin with a half-day session with representatives from various groups as part of an upcoming AIC meeting. AIC could follow-up with sessions at the meetings of other organizations.
Highlight the Collection Care Network whenever AIC has a booth at another organization’s meetings.
Some of the richest and most useful sessions now held at AIC meetings are those in which an array of different perspectives are presented, including perspectives from outside conservation. We could use this format to encourage dialog across numerous fields. This would aid in introducing all of us to each other, bringing a range of organizations to the attention of the natural history field and simultaneously allowing conservator, mountmakers, registrars, etc. to share expertise among themselves as well as among colleagues in natural science disciplines.

The contributors: Moderator – Catharine Hawks; Note Taker – Ellen Promise; Table participants – Catherine Badot-Costello, Lisa Goldberg, Leslie Goldman, Kazuko Hioki, Andrea Knowlton, Katie Mullen, Betty Seifert, Bill Wei, Emily Williams.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 7 – an architect’s view

The last presentation of the Outreach to Allies Session at the AIC Annual Meeting 2012 was an interactive session organized by the Collection Care Network. The leadership team of the network designed it as a way to identify priorities and projects for the network. Imagine nine groups of 7 to 9 people sitting around tables discussing the content of a nine different short videos. Each video presented a collection care challenge or question. The discussion aimed to suggest projects the Collection Care Network could develop that would provide tools to overcome the challenge or answer the question. Now imagine people engaged in conversation. So engaged they didn’t get up for food when asked to do so! So engaged they had to be asked a second time!! Now you have a very small idea of what the session was like. This particular post gives you more details about the discussion at Table 7. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table Seven: Building design is a topic near and dear to my heart as I am constantly reminded of its impact on collections care. Understanding the environment in which one’s collection is housed is critical to preventive conservation, and a well designed and built/remodeled structure can make all the difference. Most conservators and collections care professionals participate infrequently in building projects, so sharing information and experiences is key to successful outcomes. Until we demonstrate the value of collections care input in the planning process, specialists in this field will continue to be consulted too little and too late.

The video: The video presenter was Samuel Anderson, an architect based in New York City. Sam is the principal of Samuel Anderson Architects, and includes conservation facilities, museums, and collections storage amongst his specialties.

In his video, he requests collections care information that has been vetted by conservators, including recommended literature. Sam seeks positive, optimistic language to communicate the importance of collections care considerations in building design to “decision makers”.

The discussion: We discussed that it is expensive and really beyond our means to establish standards, but that we can participate in the mechanisms that are already in place for this activity. We need to make collections care specialists aware of standards and how they might apply to their situation. Additionally, gathering and sharing information that is already out there and making it pertinent in terms of how one applies it to their particular situation would be a big step in the right direction. We recognize that “boiler plate” information is desired, so sharing something about the nuances of our expertise is critical for proper decision making.

Information if this sort needs to be flexible and affordable (we liked what Sam said about flexibility). Small and micro-small institutions need recommendations that they can implement. For example, basic tenets of storage encourage consideration of people in the space (or not), disaster recovery, and pest prevention.

We discussed what resources would be the most useful for the one-pager on collections care? These ranged from SPNCH guides to ASHRAE chapters, which would be hard to combine and distill to one page.

Lots of ideas of about information sharing mechanisms came up: there is already a LinkdIn group for collections care, collaborative knowledge is created via QUORA. Folks asked: Do we want to have architects and engineers come and talk to us? Building projects are more of a one-off experience for most conservators, and the necessary expertise comes from experience.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects (in no particular order):

Ally with Smithsonian conference on cultural property protection as this annual meeting deals with risk assessment and risk management.
Ally with museum and other collections facilities’ engineers and mechanical specialists
Communicate info via wiki, website, workshop – to share resources.
Share information with students and others who want to work with collections – it would help to get this info in the hands of broadly educated people who participate in building design.
Assess and comment on existing standards and guidelines such as NFPA, ASHRAE, etc.
Teach and learn technical language of various professions (including ours)
Perhaps develop one-page info sheets on different topics – storage basics, exhibition galleries, lighting, environmental control.

The contributors: Moderator – Patty Silence; Note Taker -Jennifer Hain-Teper ; Table participants – Whitney Baker, Stephanie Gowler, Rick Kerschner, Richard McCoy, Susan Russick

ECPN Webinar with Debra Hess Norris on Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research

On July 26^th, ECPN held its first webinar, which featured Debra Hess Norris, Chair of the Art Conservation Department and Professor of Photograph Conservation at the University of Delaware. In a presentation and discussion on Self-advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research, Norris offered a wealth of advice valuable to both recent graduates and professionals new to the field, as well as experienced conservators.

Norris continually stressed the importance of networking, of keeping in touch with mentors and peers, and getting involved in AIC and other conservation groups. Interestingly, though, she also suggested looking for opportunities outside of conservation. Attending meetings of groups in related fields or speaking at their conferences, writing for publications outside of the conservation literature, and connecting with local universities for lectures or adjunct teaching positions are ways to not only gain experience and expand one’s network, but also to advocate for conservation and educate those outside of the field about the work of conservators. The interdisciplinary nature of conservation should be utilized to increase the visibility of the profession. She emphasized that we should think globally and explore opportunities offered by the US State Department or World Bank, become US correspondents for IIC or ICOM, apply for the ICCROM fellows program, or find sponsorship for the Fulbright program.

Norris also encouraged the audience to volunteer and get involved in community-based projects. She suggested, for example, serving on committees, becoming CAP assessors, or visiting collections that lack conservators and offering to help with grant proposals.

Norris gave useful tips on the grant application process and highlighted funding sources that conservators do not always take into account. She recommended considering residencies at cultural institutions which conservators seldom apply for, identifying non-profit sponsors or partners, inquiring with undergraduate universities for legacy funding, and competing for Stout or other AIC specialty group funding, particularly if you are volunteering to help at the annual meeting. In response to an audience question, Norris also advised that if you do get a grant, you include it on your resume, as it demonstrates your abilities to successfully acquire funding sources, even if just for yourself.

In addition, she discussed building skills by taking workshops or seminars to strengthen your negotiating proficiency or taking business classes (especially if you intend to pursue a private practice), obtaining certificates in grant-writing or project management, or considering a doctoral degree in an allied field.

Finally, Norris once again encouraged the audience to be advocates for our field, to share our vision and enthusiasm, to communicate the ethics, philosophy, and interdisciplinary nature of conservation, and to always welcome opportunities to speak to the public.

For more information on this webinar, and to view audience questions with Norris’ responses, as well as research funding opportunities, resources, and tips, please visit the following blog posts:

http://www.conservators-converse.org/2012/06/ecpn-webinar-on-self-advocacy-and-fundraising-for-personal-research-featuring-debra-hess-norris-on-july-26th-call-for-questions/

http://www.conservators-converse.org/2012/07/ecpn-webinar-on-self-advocacy-and-fundraising-for-personal-research-funding-opportunities-resources-and-tips/

Have any ideas for future webinar topics? Please post them below.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 1 – Mountmaking

The last presentation of the Outreach to Allies Session at the AIC Annual Meeting 2012 was an interactive session organized by the Collection Care Network. The leadership team of the network designed it as a way to identify priorities and projects for the network. Imagine nine groups of 7 to 9 people sitting around tables discussing the content of a nine different short videos. Each video presented a collection care challenge or question. The discussion aimed to suggest projects the Collection Care Network could develop that would provide tools to overcome the challenge or answer the question. Now imagine people engaged in conversation. So engaged they didn’t get up for food when asked to do so! So engaged they had to be asked a second time!! Now you have a very small idea of what the session was like. This particular post gives you more details about the discussion at Table 1. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table One: I greatly appreciate the importance of good mounts both for visitor experience and for conservation so I was quick to volunteer to moderate the discussion at this table. Due to the diversity of issues raised in the video and of perspectives around the table our discussions quickly became wide ranging. Our table’s discussion dealt more with how we collaborate rather than what topics we deal with first.

The video: The video presenter was Shelley Uhlir, staff mount maker at the National Museum of the American Indian. Shelley loved the idea of bringing together different but complimentary disciplines, of mount making and conservation. She had seen the power of such collaboration in a mount-making forum held at the Smithsonian in 2010. In that venue a wonderful conversation and exchange of ideas between mount makers and conservators took place. Shelley hopes the CCN could make that sort of exchange available anywhere and anytime. She went on to suggest a wide range of issues to address and kinds of information to exchange.

The discussion: Probably because the video was so clear and comprehensive in describing topics for interaction between conservators and mount makers the group discussion quickly turned to issues of how to facilitate exchange of information, particularly over the internet. Concerns were raised about the person time required to maintain currency of information and several good suggestions were made. The idea of having a credible source for information on the internet was especially appreciated and the importance of maintaining credibility emphasized.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

Establish a Wiki or similar platform for sharing relevant information, especially providing links to the most reliable current information and not striving to reinvent the wheel.
Provide a venue for publishing reports on specific, small collection management and care related studies. Such reports might be too narrow and focused for traditional publications but be valuable to colleagues facing similar challenges.
Establish dates for themed discussions, for example, selection and use of materials for mounts.
Possibly in conjunction with themed discussions, have a small group work intensively for two days to bring together a news report like summary of best current methods and information on a specific topic.

The contributors: Moderator – Robert Waller; Note Taker – Rob Lewis; Table participants – Priscilla Anderson, Jody Breek, Jennifer le Cruise, James Gilbert, Pip Laurenson