Category: Topics

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 9 – Collections Managers and Other Collections Staff

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 project 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 the 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 9. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

 Table Nine: Collections Managers are not bountifully represented at AIC – we are in the minority. However, in my role as Collections Manager for the Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, my responsibility is to put conservation theory into practice. I work closely with our departmental conservators. The Collection Care Network encourages all staff vested in collection care to get involved, so it was important that one of our discussion groups talked about working with allied collections professionals.

The video: The video presenter was Derya Golpinar, Assistant Registrar for Collections at the Rubin Museum in New York. In the video, Derya described her daily responsibilities, including maintaining proper environment, security, identifying potential condition issues with the collections, and identifying appropriate conservators and other experts to consult on overall preservation issues impacting the collections. It is a role that Derya described as liaising with all departments of the museum to create a coordinated preservation effort.

In her former position as Collections Manager at the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, many of Derya’s responsibilities were the same, even though her title was different. This underlines the occasional lack of clarity of roles among collections staff. From this discussion of her role, the following questions were posed to meeting attendees:

  • Collections Managers and Registrars apply much of the conservation ideals the field establishes. How can we support them as a professional in reaching these goals?
  • How can titles affect professional standing for this group? Is there a benefit to having more standardized titles?
  • In some cases conservators are the employers of collections managers, and in others, collections managers are the employers of conservators. What are the skill sets that we share? What information do museums need from us when establishing preservation staff roles?
  • Much of what collections managers do is implement the ideals of preventive conservation, but they themselves do not have a professional organization, or clear pathways to entry level or mid-career training. What programs do you feel to be the best? What training would you identify for a collection manager at mid-career? In what areas should conservators and collection managers train together?
  • How do we increase visibility, and therefore better support collection care?

The discussion:  The topic – discussing collection staff – came as a surprise to Table 9’s participants. Interestingly, most of the participants at Table 9 were not institution-based conservators, but instead worked in private practice. They also usually were contracted to perform treatments, rather than examine and establish collection care policy and procedures. It was evident that traditional conservation training often does not address how conservators will work with others in preserving collections – one participant noted that she didn’t learn about collection managers until she was interning with a paper conservator. Another point made by Table 9 participants was that they often want to address collection care policy that may have led to damage they are contracted to repair, but that museums may not be receptive to this approach.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

  • Mid-career training for collection staff is often difficult to identify. Available training has often targeted conservators or is more entry level in nature. Needed training that would be useful to both conservators and collection mangers included mentorship opportunities, self-assessment, benchmarking, and fundraising.
  • Create tools to assist the private practice conservator address collection care when creating a contract with an institution.
  • All collection activities and staff need more visibility to generate support for collection care. Some ideas included public interaction when some collection care activities are taking place and web features that highlight behind the scenes work.
  • Increased communication and visibility of collection staff and their work can also assist conservators in furthering a preservation message.
  • AIC collaborations with organizations such as ICON, Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, Association of Registrars and Collection Specialists, the Society of Historical Archaeology, regional organizations, and others can only help us to better understand each other’s goals and develop methods to work together.

The contributors:Moderator – Becky Fifield; Note Taker – Christian Hernandez; Table Participants – Molly Gleeson, Amy Brost, Kathryn Oat Grey, Nicholas Dorman, Melanie Brussat, Felicity Devlin, Ann Shaftel

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 6 – Day Lighting

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 6. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table Six: I was particularly pleased to be able to moderate the discussion at table six as day lighting is an environmental element I welcome and loathe all at the same time. Henry Francis DuPont’s house here at Winterthur has over 400 windows which allow day light to stream into the interior and allow visitors inside to see out the magnificent gardens. Without these windows the house would be a cave rather than a house. But without these windows we would also be able to drastically reduce the visible light and UV exposure our collection receives. I imagined moderating a discussion on day lighting would offer the opportunity to throw around problems, ideas and solutions with other equally interested colleagues.

The video: The video presenter was Matthew Tanteri, a lighting designer from New York City. Matthew owns Tanteri and Associates and is also an assistant professor at Parsons School of Design. At the start of his video he asks himself the question, ‘What do I want from a conservator?’ He then goes on to answer his own question with more questions:

  • What’s the duration of time I can have daylight on an artwork?
  • What wavelengths can I use?
  • What intensity can I use?

He closes the video by suggesting the Collection Care Network develop a database of daylighting solutions and knowledge.

The discussion: The discussion around table six started quickly with no need for prompting. It eventually focused around three different themes. First, finding ways to unite the language of conservators with that of lighting designers. Second, a general discussion of just how challenging it is to use daylight in museums. Third, the practicalities of developing a database of daylighting solutions that would be divided by geographic regions.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

  • Establish definitions and a common language for lighting and include a lighting designer in the project team.
  • Develop a list of questions that collection care professionals need to have answered before consulting with a designer – answers we need in order to be able to answer the designer’s questions.
  • Develop a database that would be divided by geographic regions and include daylighting solutions but also all design solutions that focus on sustainability.

The contributors: Moderator – Joelle Wickens; Note Taker – Julie Heath; Table participants – Seth Irwin, John Baty, Carmen Li, Katie Sanderson, Robert Koestler, Michael C Henry

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Outreach to Allies Session, May 9, Collection Care Network Brainstorming Session: Table 5 – Alexander Architectural Archive Archivists

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 5. Look for the other 8 posts if you would like to review all the discussions.

Table Five: Working with archivists is very close to my heart, so I was very happy to moderate table 5.  Archivists must deal with masses of materials and a collections approach is the only thing that normally makes any sense for them.  As such, I see archivists as a perfect community to work with the collections conservation network.

The video: This video has three speakers, Nancy Sparrow, Curatorial Assistant for Public Service, Beth Dodd, Curator, and Donna Coates, Technical Services and Collections Manager for the Alexander Architectural Archive at the University of Texas at Austin.   Like many archives, they are never likely to have a full-time conservator on staff and they seek avenues to communicate with the conservation community.  Some of the specific issues they have right now are:

  • How much light exposure can be allowed for architectural linens?  They need more specific information than is given in the current NISO standards.
  • They need to display fragile, oversize materials periodically.  One iconic drawing on tracing paper is about 4′ x 8′, and needs to be displayed several times each year.  They  would like ideas or guidelines for handling the materials safely.
  • Can they, or the student workers who work with them, perform minor treatments, such as small mends and simple mold removal, in-house?  Can conservators provide guidelines for what can, and cannot be done in-house without a conservator on staff?

Each of the archivists in the video has great respect for conservators and would like a closer relationship with that community.

The discussion: The video prompted a lively discussion about the need to make straightforward, accessible information about conservation and preservation readily available to the public.  An interesting idea to come out of this session is working toward manning a “hot line” staffed by conservators.  The public could call in and get advice, and pay a fee when possible. In some cases, rather than being billed they might be sent a receipt for an in-kind donation that might be used toward a grant or another effort.  This might give the public access to conservation information and let them understand the cost associated with the information.

The ideas for Collection Care Network projects:

  • Use social networking tools to make information available.
  • Publish guidelines for care, display and handling.
  • Collections Link in the UK might provide some models for us to consider.

The contributors: Moderator – Karen Pavelka; Note Taker – Amanda Holden; Table participants -Kristen Adsit, Jane Hinger , Rustin Levenson, Josefina Lopez, Caroline Peach, David West

ECPN Webinar on Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research: Funding opportunities, resources, and tips

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) continues to be very excited about its first webinar this Thursday, July 26, from 1-2pm EST, featuring presenter, Debra Hess Norris, who will be speaking about Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research. In addition to Norris’ remarks, tailored to recent graduates on subjects including navigating the field post-graduation, funding opportunities for independent scholars, and tips for self-advocacy, the webinar will include a moderated discussion and Q&A session. During the call, a variety of research funding opportunities, resources, and tips will be discussed, some of which are shared here:

Research funding opportunities, resources, and tips

For more information on ECPN’s new webinar series, Thursday’s webinar (including registration information, which is required), and presenter Debra Hess Norris, please visit:

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/

Have any other tips or opportunities to share? Please post them below!

ECPN June Meeting Minutes Posted

The June minutes were approved today.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, June 18, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Angela Curmi (Communications Coordinator)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Avigail Charnov (Architectural Specialty Group Liaison)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff Liaison)

Amanda Holden (Textile Specialty Group Secretary)

Robin O’Hern (Committee on Sustainable Conservation Practice)

Priscilla Anderson (Book and Paper Specialty Group Chair)

Kristen Adsit (Indianapolis Museum of Art)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG Liaison)

Richard McCoy (International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art-North America)

Eric Pourchot (AIC Director of Institutional Advancement)

 

1. Roll call – each attendee announced her/his name and title

2. Officer update – welcome to new Communications Coordinator, Angela Curmi

3. Minutes Approval – April meeting minutes were approved

4. 1st Forum Call/ Webinar with Debbie Hess Norris (Molly) – to be discussed later when Eric Pourchot joins the call

5. Annual Meeting Follow-up (Molly) – Molly had previously drafted survey questions, which everyone had reviewed. No additional suggestions were offered during the conference call. Molly will email the final list of questions to Ryan, and Ryan will assemble this into a survey monkey survey. There was also mention of including a link to this survey in the newsletter. Molly indicated that she would like to get the survey out by the end of the month.

6. 2012-2013 Ongoing Project Goals

  • Mentoring Program (Eliza) – The program had made good progress in cleaning up old business and, going forward this year, Eliza would like to create a clear framework and advertise the program more. She found at the Annual Meeting that many people did not actually know about the program. Carrie mentioned that she had referred someone to the mentoring program information on the AIC website; however, there had been some confusion over the deadline. Carrie asked if there is a way to let people know that the program is still open, in case they received a message saying it is closed. Eliza agreed, and Molly suggested including it in the 1st newsletter, also asking about other ways to advertise it. Ryan suggested including it in an e-blast and posting it on facebook.
  • Student Research Platform (Carrie) – They are currently in the process of revising their proposal into a more simplified version, which can be found on basecamp. The goal is to have it ready for presentation to the board by August. Carrie said, however, that some points may not be complete by then.
  • Regional Liaisons (Anisha) – The regional liaisons held a conference call a couple of weeks ago and found that there was a lot of interest in the program. Anisha said that they now have liaisons in most of the big cities and some smaller cities. Events (including lab tours, museum lectures, dinners and happy hours) were going well and attendance was high. The liaisons also have good ideas for other events. The main concern among the liaisons is communication, getting the word out outside of facebook, which only reaches a narrow audience. Anisha asked if there are other avenues they can be using. Another concern is finding venues for events. Museums and other institutions have been suggested, but these depend on the location where the liaisons are based. Anisha and Megan will be writing a blog post soon. And they intend to collaborate with the Emerging Museum Professionals Network, which is an extensive group. Molly asked about soliciting blog posts from the regional liaisons, and Anisha said they would invite specific individuals to write blog posts.
  • Liaisons with other AIC Committees – goals for continuing collaboration
    • o Publications Committee (Angela) – Angela talked about her conversation with Nancie Ravenel on current topics being discussed in the publications committee, including discussions on postprints and online publishing. Nancie had expressed an interest in the perspectives of students and recent graduates as the committee considers advances in publications technology and had suggested the possibility of a poll to see where students are accessing literature online and whether they are using any reference management software. Angela will follow up with Nancie regarding the poll. Nancie also mentioned getting students involved in publication reviews and will let Angela know if her committee decides to pursue this. Molly suggested that there may be some overlap here with the student research group.
    • o Conservators in Private Practice (Gwen) – Gwen sent out a letter to George Schwartz and he was not very receptive to her mentor request, though she had tried to emphasize that mentors do not necessarily have to dedicate a lot of time to the program. George gave good resources for better business practices for recent grads, and promoted the discounted ($5) membership. Gwen also discussed with George the possibility of creating ECPN-CIPP liaisons and is waiting to hear back from him. She asked if she should draft a letter to ECPN about the resources George gave and the member discount. Molly agreed that she should and this should be sent out in an e-blast. Gwen asked if she should approach individuals she knows personally who could potentially serve as ECPN-CIPP liaisons and Molly agreed that she should. George’s only stipulation was that they be members of CIPP. In response to the discussion on requests for mentors, Avigail brought up that there had been some confusion in the Architectural Specialty Group over the requirements for mentorship. Some ASG members did not apply because of confusion over who can be a mentor and Avigail asked if this could be explained more clearly. Eliza appreciated this feedback, as she had thought it was explained clearly on the AIC website, but was just not advertised enough. Avigail responded that many had not learned about the program from the website but through word-of-mouth and had felt that they did not qualify to be mentors.
    • o Architectural Specialty Group (Avigail) – The ASG had been grateful that ECPN presented to them and students from the architectural conservation programs had expressed an interest in getting more involved. Avigail indicated that she would like to offer ways for them to get involved as soon as possible to maintain their interest before they graduate. Molly asked about sending out an email on creating student liaisons from each program. Carrie felt it would be a good idea to encourage collaborations with these programs and their directors and to engender relationships early on. Amanda enthusiastically agreed. Molly suggested charging student liaisons with specific tasks, such as distributing the newsletter and other promotional materials among their programs. She also felt this discussion should be continued on basecamp. Avigail responded that students had already approached her asking if they could be liaisons, and Molly stated that Debbie Hess Norris had been encouraging student participation as well. Molly asked if an email should be drafted on how to reach out to students, and Eliza responded that Megan might have some ideas, as she is currently enrolled. Molly explained that some direction would need to be provided on how we want students to get involved, and she asked when students should be approached. Carrie suggested coordinating with the programs’ start-up in the fall, and Molly agreed that this would be organized towards the end of the summer.
7. Communications (Molly)
  • Newsletter – Based on feedback from the annual meeting, Molly found that a lot of people are not aware of the e-blast sign-up and that not everyone uses facebook. Thus, she brought up the idea of sending out a regular newsletter, which could be sent out via e-blast and posted on the blog. ECPN will write them and will need Ryan’s help sending them out. Ryan confirmed that this is a feasible idea, and Ruth agreed but indicated that they did not want to overwhelm members with too much information and sometimes have to combine e-blasts. Molly asked about the possible frequency of the newsletter and suggested sending it out 3 times a year, which Eliza and others agreed was the best option. Molly said we would begin working on the 1st newsletter and set a tentative schedule for when it would go out (with Ryan’s input on when would be the best time to send it out). The newsletter would be a good alternative to members checking the blog or facebook. Molly also suggested possible topics for the 1st newsletter, including the annual meeting survey list, list of officers, mentoring program advertisement, and member discount to CIPP.
  • General Communications/ Outreach via Email – Molly asked about other thoughts on communications and Priscilla responded that it would be useful if there was a way for members to manage everything they subscribe to and only receive emails from groups they subscribe to. Ruth indicated that this might be possible with the new website and they are hoping to achieve this. Molly also asked about communication with specialty groups and Priscilla mentioned that her group’s board had been discussing how to use their email list, which she feels is currently under-used, though they want to avoid over-using the list. She said that it would be reasonable to have other groups submit email posts to their list but would need a more explicit policy, which will require further discussion with her board-we should expect to hear more from her on this soon. Anisha pointed out that regional liaisons are concerned about outreach within their own areas and she asked if there was a way to store emails by location or if separate regional liaison email lists based on location should be created. She also brought up the use of twitter, but Molly felt that twitter was not the best method. Molly suggested a general message be sent out indicating that if one is in a certain region, one may contact his/her specific regional liaison, and then the liaisons can maintain their own lists and reach out however they prefer. Richard suggested the regional liaisons partner with regional conservation guilds, as the guilds maintain good email lists. Molly agreed this is a good idea and felt some guidance should be provided to the regional liaisons on how to approach the regional guilds. She asked Anisha to work on providing tips to the liaisons on contacting and partnering with the guilds. Richard asked if AIC has a list of all active regional guilds, and if there was still an organized annual meeting of the guilds in coordination with the AIC annual meeting. Ruth responded that AIC does have a list of the guilds, and that there used to be an annual meeting of the guilds but this was organized by them without AIC’s involvement for the most part. Ruth said that we should discuss this idea further. Molly suggested brainstorming before we approach the board more formally with this idea.

8. Forum Call/ Webinar (Molly, Eric) – (It was decided that this would henceforth be referred to as a “webinar” rather than “forum call”). The 1st webinar is confirmed for July 26th. Debbie Hess Norris will be talking about self-advocacy and fund-raising for independent research for recent grads. (Debbie had stated that 55% of grads go into private practice and she would like to discuss ways for them to network and continue their research outside of institutional support.) Molly sent out a document with talking points for Debbie and asked if anyone had additional suggestions on topics to be addressed. Molly asked if the list of questions should be posted to the blog, and the group agreed that it would be a good place for others to contribute their own questions. Molly also indicated that the announcement should be discussed in the next week, as Debbie wants the questions ahead of time. Angela will post a follow-up blog after the webinar and people can add additional questions to this. This will be a moderated talk and Eric suggested that the moderators and speakers be on a formal conference line, with other participants using voice-over IP so that they can be muted by the moderator. Molly and Eliza will discuss this further. Molly also asked if this is going to be advertised to all AIC members and Ruth responded that this would be a member benefit-so for AIC members only. Molly asked Eric if people would need to RSVP to join the call and Eric responded that an invite would be sent out with a link to register and receive log-in information for the webinar. Molly indicated that they would continue planning this and formalizing the announcement, as well as having Debbie approve everything, in follow-up calls or emails. Eric said that a time should be set up with Debbie for a dry-run. Molly responded that this could be done a week ahead of time and she will send out an email.

9. Announcement from International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art-North America (Richard) – Richard made an announcement on the INCCA-NA summer project in collaboration with the Tony Smith estate, which involves finding and documenting all 120 Tony Smith sculptures, and conducting research to be turned into Wikipedia articles. They would like to partner with ECPN on this project. Molly responded that ECPN would promote the project and find interested participants.

10. Next Call (Molly) – The next call will be on July 16th at 1pm and Eliza will lead this call.

11. AIC Wiki Event Announcement (LeeAnn) – LeeAnn announced that another AIC wiki edit-a-thon event will take place in July and she would like to encourage everyone to get involved. Molly responded that we will promote this event.

 

Next call: July 16, 2012 at 1pm EST

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Angela Curmi

Seeking contributions for AIC’s new Public Relations and Outreach Toolkit

At AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting in Albuquerque, the development of a new Public Relations (PR) and Outreach Toolkit was announced. The purpose of this toolkit is to provide tangible resources for AIC members to use when speaking about and promoting conservation. These tools will offer information about direct communication with the public and the press, using both traditional and social media outlets. It is anticipated that these resources will assist AIC members working in institutions of all sizes and scope as well as those working in private practice in advocating for conservation and in raising awareness of our field.

The PR and Outreach Toolkit is being developed on the AIC Wiki. Fllow this link to visit the page. This is a collaborative project and the final product will greatly benefit from your participation. We are looking for contributions and feedback, and particularly in the following areas:

  • Getting Started: PR and Outreach: identifying and listing more “Examples in Conservation”
  • Media Relations & Press Releases: developing more tips and templates
  • Events: providing more specific ideas for events and event planning
  • Speaking and Writing about Conservation and AIC: developing more suggestions and adding links
  • Etiquette, Legalities and Ethics: providing more information and tips for “best practices”
If you have AIC Wiki editing privileges, you can also leave comments in our Suggestion Box, found under the “Discussion” tab on the page.

To contribute or to share ideas, please contact Molly Gleeson, ECPN Chair at mollygleeson [at] gmail [dot] com

Seinajoki University of Applied Sciences Building Conservation Program Faces Closure

The building conservation-program at Seinajoki University of Applied Sciences in Finland is threatened to be terminated. The program is the only one of its kind in Finland.  Please sign a petition in which the Finnish section of the Nordic Association of Conservators pleads the decision-makers at Seinajoki University of Applied Sciences for reconsidering closure of the study program.

Read more: http://www.petitions24.com/vetoomus_suomalaisen_rakennuskulttuuriperinnon_puolesta

A good example of public outreach

Since 1942, University College London (UCL) has hosted forty minute long lunchtime lectures for the general public at which UCL academics present their research. For the past few years, the lectures have been broadcast live online and can be viewed on YouTube after the event.

This June, the UCL Lunch Hour Lectures went “on tour” to the British Museum where four lectures highlighting collaborative work between the two institutions were presented. Two of the lectures, “Discoveries and re-evaluations: painting practices under the microscope” (Libby Sheldon on her examination of English Renaissance paintings) and “A book by any other name would smell as sweet”(Dr Matija Strlic on how intensity of smell is used as a means of determining state of decay) were related to conservation and technical studies. As an average of 200 people view the lectures each week on YouTube (www.youtube.com/UCLLHL), this is the type of public outreach program that other institutions might wish to use as a model.

Learn more >>

ECPN Webinar on Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research featuring Debra Hess Norris on July 26th: Call for Questions

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) is pleased to announce the creation of a new webinar series. These webinars will be held periodically and will feature guest presenters who will speak about topics of interest to emerging conservators. The topics of these webinars are being developed based on feedback generated from a survey of ECPN members in February 2012.

Our first webinar will be held on Thursday, July 26, from 1-2pm EST. Please join us and our featured presenter, Debra Hess Norris, who will be speaking about Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research. In addition to Norris’ remarks, tailored to recent graduates on subjects including navigating the field post-graduation, funding opportunities for independent scholars, and tips for self-advocacy, the webinar will include a moderated discussion and Q&A session. Participants will also have the opportunity to ask questions before and after the webinar on the AIC blog.

Please submit your questions as comments to this post, or email them to ECPN Vice-Chair, Eliza Spaulding at: elizaspaulding[at]gmail[dot]com. Questions will be accepted until Thursday, July 26th at 12pm EST. During the webinar, your questions will be anonymously posed. There also will be the opportunity to anonymously ask questions during the webinar using a chat box. Depending on the volume of questions, all of them may not be able to be posed during the webinar, but we hope to follow up on any unanswered questions following the webinar on the blog.

Attendance is free and open to all AIC members. Registration is required and will be open until July 26th at 12pm EST. To register for the webinar, please visit: www.conservation-us.org/ecpnforum.

About the Speaker

Debra Hess Norris is Chair of the Art Conservation Department and Professor of Photograph Conservation at the University of Delaware. Since 1985, Norris has authored more than 30 articles and book chapters on care and treatment of photographic materials, emergency response, ethics, and conservation education; and taught more than 95 workshops and seminars for conservators and allied professionals. Norris has lectured and consulted on the preservation of photographic collections worldwide, including in Russia, India, Denmark, Mexico, Columbia, France, Finland, the Netherlands, Lebanon, Peru, Australia, and New Zealand. She greatly enjoys fund raising and has secured nearly $13.5 million in external grants for the Art Conservation Department at the University of Delaware.

Norris was the chair of Heritage Preservation (2003- 2008) and president of the American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (1993-97). From 1990-93 she chaired the AIC Ethics and Standards Committee that developed a revised Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. She has served as president of the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts Board (CCAHA), US commissioner to UNESCO, and project director of The Andrew W. Mellon Collaborative Workshops in Photograph Conservation. Norris has received the Rutherford John Gettens Merit Award for outstanding service to the American Institute for Conservation (1998), the Sheldon and Caroline Keck Award for excellence in the education and training of conservation professionals (2004), and the American Institute for Conservation University Products Award for distinguished achievement in the conservation of cultural property (2008). Recently, she has spoken at many of the IMLS Connecting to Collections national conferences on topics ranging from the preservation of photographic materials to fund raising for collections care.

The product of a successful conservation outreach partnership

Today, most conservators have come to the understanding that public outreach and communication are essential components of their work and vital for the well-being of the cultural heritage. If they are wondering how this might be accomplished they might look to “Virginia’s Top 10 Endangered Artifacts”, a joint project of the Virginia Association of Museums (VAM) and the marketing firm ToMarket which was recently honored by the Richmond Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. “Virginia’s Top 10 Endangered Artifacts” allows each museum and other collecting institution in the state to present an art work or artifact in great need of conservation. As almost 100,000 votes were cast in the 2011 campaign, the word is getting out to the public.