Category: Topics

ECPN April Meeting Minutes

The April minutes were just approved today; this was our first meeting since the AIC annual meeting.  An overview of the ECPN Informational Meeting held in Albuquerque is also on the AIC blog here.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, April 16, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Amy Brost (Communications Coordinator)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Rebecca Rushfield (ETC)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Amber Harwood (CAC-ECC Liaison)

Genevieve Bieniosek (Student Liaison, ETC)

Robin O’Hern (CSCP)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

 

 

  1. Roll call — Molly took roll.
  2. Officer update – (Molly) Abby Aldrich decided that she will have to step down from her position as co-Professional Education and Training. Gwen will take over her responsibilities, and the committee is happy to welcome Gwen in her new role as co-Professional Education and Training.
  3. Minutes Approval (Molly) – March meeting minutes were approved.
  4. ANAGPIC (Molly, Megan) – Presentation and fliers were a great success.  Megan felt her presentation went well, and she was approached by a few people (including Jennifer Morton, and others) who wanted to become involved.  Joyce Hill-Stoner was interested in coordinating with the interview series to bring those interviews into the oral history project.  Amber will follow up with her.  Megan felt the presentation at ANAGPIC was a great way to share news of our initiatives (ECPN and ECC), which were well received and raised awareness.  Columbia, Penn, and UT-Austin were having architecture student events this month, and the ECPN flier was distributed.  Will follow up with Avigail to see how it was received.
  5. Network Guidelines (Molly) – CCN and ECPN are now designated networks, as opposed to specialty groups or committees.  New guidelines are being drafted by the Board to describe how the networks function.  As Stephanie indicated, it will not change how ECPN has operated.  ECPN was the first network, so when the Collections Care Network (CCN) approached the Board about becoming a network, the Board began to consider what makes the networks unique.  This is a positive development based on the success of ECPN.  Networks are wide-reaching groups meant to reach out to conservators in all specialties, and have a broader scope, and fewer limitations versus specialty groups and committees.  AIC is working to put in writing how the networks function, to formalize the category, and this is why the current operations of ECPN will not be affected by the guidelines.
  6. AIC Annual Meeting Poster (Megan, Carrie, Amy) – Megan is producing the actual poster layout and the latest round is looking very strong.  Carrie polled the group about how to handle the companion blog post.  Feature each interview as a post?  Or condense into a question with multiple answers?  Amy suggested an “overview” blog post with links to the individual interview blog posts.  Carrie added that there could also be links there to getting started with social media and other tools.  Thanks to those who solicited content for the poster.  Molly and Amy volunteered to help with copy-editing the individual blog posts.  Amy’s flier will have two parts: highlights of the poster sections, and notes on how to get started with outreach initiatives.  Amy will have the poster produced at FedEx Office in Albuquerque and pick it up.  She will pay personally and submit a reimbursement form to AIC.  Ryan will send her the reimbursement form.  For the Poster Session (4-4:30 Thursday) Megan and Eliza are free to pitch in as needed, and Amy and Carrie are free to be at the poster, or tag-team.
  7. Portfolio Session (Carrie) – Have the location, a list of presenters, and several established conservators participating also.  Took names last year as people arrived in the room, so they could be polled later.  That was very valuable.  There was a mix of conservators at all levels last year, so it was an educational and networking opportunity for all levels.  Carrie felt that there should be a notebook and someone standing with it, to encourage people to ‘sign-in.’  Gwen volunteered to do ‘check-in’ as well as sit with her portfolio.   Molly offered to support Gwen at check-in, or Gwen could be a back-up to Molly.  Ryan suggested checking off names on the printed Attendee List, which requires less information to be collected.  Email addresses can be married to the checked-off names later on. All agreed this was the best check-in approach.  Anisha will post the location to the Facebook event and send a reminder a week in advance.
  8. Informational Meeting (Molly) – Have a chance to introduce people, to put faces with names.  Have a sign-in sheet to collect information.  Provide an overview of activities going on at the meeting, and ongoing projects, and opening the floor for discussion/feedback.  Last year was run much like a monthly call – each officer spoke about their initiatives.  The Chair, Rose Cull, did an introduction.  Very popular session last year – ran out of chairs.  Provide copies of the ECPN flier as a handout?  Print an agenda?  Ryan remembered that there was no printed agenda last year.  It was thought it would be a committee business meeting, but the officers kept it more general when the large turnout was observed.  Eliza felt that feedback was critical and asked about last year’s session.  Amy recalled the post-meeting survey generated the most feedback, rather than the Q&A at the informational session.  Perhaps a written survey to have in the room?  Or break out into smaller groups?  It will help that the Happy Hour is right afterward.  Molly asked Anisha to update the Facebook event with room location and post a reminder a week in advance.  Ryan will email the room name to Anisha.
  9. Happy Hour (Megan, Anisha) – Will be held at Marble Brewery, a short distance from the Hyatt, from 6-10 pm, immediately following the informational meeting.  Have a reservation and the group is expected to be 20+ people.  Molly suggested a confirmation a week in advance.  Anisha will follow up with the restaurant. Molly asked Anisha to update the Facebook event with room location and post a reminder a week in advance.
  10. Angels Project (Molly) – Sandoval County Historical Society Angels Project is also on Tuesday (8:30 – 2 pm or 4 pm) with provided transportation.  There are still openings – contact Molly or visit the website to sign up.  Will not conflict with the informational meeting for ECPN, if anyone is interested in attending both.
  11. Liaison Updates
    1. There will be an upcoming article in AIC News on Sustainable Practices.
    2. Emergency Committee is sponsoring a workshop on Tuesday, 9 am to noon, and it will be a Disaster Response Workshop (CERT member – free; otherwise $79).  Experts from FEMA on hand, and others.  Posted on the website and circulated on the ECPN website.
    3. Objects Group will not be having a meeting with archaeological materials this year.
    4. CCN is still looking for volunteers for notetakers on May 9 ‘Outreach to Allies’ session.  Molly will pass along any volunteer names to Joelle Wickens, CCN Chair.
    5. WAG is adding a new advisory committee (if approved) and will include an emerging conservator, to broaden officer structure and provide a mentoring opportunity.  Focus on wooden artifacts preferred (panel paintings, furniture, etc. – as long as primary membership is in WAG).  To suggest someone, contact Molly.
  12. Forum Calls (Molly) – Updates to come.  Check Writeboards on Basecamp for more information on how topic selection and technology selection are developing.
  13. Mentoring Program (Eliza) – Finished reviewing applicants and matched 13 of 20 applicants.  Ryan will reach out to them this week.  Reached out to all specialty groups to ask for assistance to promote a call for mentors for the remaining 7 applicants.  The goal is to match all 20 applicants by the annual meeting, so they can connect with their new mentors at the meeting.  Mentoring program Toolkit is nearly complete, and a protocol based on the recent process will make the next cycle run smoothly.
  14. Student Research Platform (Carrie) – New term “platform” instead of “database.”  Will work with Eliza to look at the range of platforms that have been considered (AATA, AIC website, CoOL), and keep working on new, revised proposal.  Sections in development include description, target audiences, features (searchability, etc), maintenance needs, cost estimate, etc.  Carrie will work with all in the working group, and with Gwen, to develop the proposal.  No deadline for the proposal yet, from Eryl, but Molly suggested we set a date for sometime after the AIC annual meeting, perhaps the end of May.  Need to check in with Eryl to see if that is a good timeframe.  Want to keep the momentum going.
  15. PR Toolkit (Molly) – Working on the Wiki to develop content for the toolkit.  Some of the discussion section has working sections, which will be migrated to the main page before the annual meeting.  There will be a flier to announce the project in the conference bag (Ryan is working on this), and the project will be discussed with the membership at the annual meeting on Friday, from 4-5 pm, at the “Next steps” session, to describe the project and also to solicit content.
  16. ECC (Amber) – Thanks to everyone for collaborating on the flier and session at ANAGPIC.  ECC looks forward to future collaborations.  ECPN (Molly) extended our thanks to ECC for all their efforts as well.  CAC has a monthly conference call, but ECC does not.  Molly indicated that someone from ECPN could participate in ECC calls, when they begin.  More collaboration and cross-linking could be done via Facebook and the blogs.
  17. Next Call (Molly) – Molly suggested skipping the May call since the officers will meet at the Annual Meeting.  The next call would be June 18.

 

Next call: June 18, 2012 at 1pm ET

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Amy Brost

Priceless heritage at risk from extremists

Rebel group in control of Timbuktu desecrates venerated tomb and seeks to obliterate thousands of ancient manuscripts

By Emily Sharpe. Conservation, Issue 236, June 2012
Published online: 06 June 2012

Timbuktu is in the hands of religious extremists who have set fire to a 15th-century mausoleum

Concern for the cultural heritage of Mali is growing after militant Islamic fundamentalists desecrated a 15th-century tomb of a Muslim saint in Timbuktu in May, and threatened to destroy other tombs as well as anything else they perceive as being idolatrous or contrary to their version of Islam. The northern Malian city, a Unesco World Heritage Site, is home to several other such tombs and three historic mosques as well as many small museums. Timbuktu also has between 600,000 and one million ancient manuscripts housed in public and private collections that are vulnerable to acts of destruction from the occupying rebel forces as well as from those looking to profit from the political unrest.

Read the full story at the Art Newspaper >>

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting-May 11, 2012 Joint Session: Book and Paper Group/Research and Technical Studies, with the Archives Conservation Discussion Group and the Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group “Mass De-Acidification Today”

The session was a series of short presentations by the panelists followed by a question and answer session that was open to the floor as well as pre-submitted questions from the AIC membership.

The panelists were: James Burd, President and CEO of Preservation Technologies, LP; Michael Ramin, Project Manager Research/Analytics, Nitrochemie; Dick Smith, owner Wei T’o Associates; Fenella France, Chief, Preservation of Research and Testing Division, Library of Congress; Nora Lockshin, Smithsonian Institution Archive on behalf of Anna Friedman, Conservator, National Archives and Records Administration.

The first presentation by James Burd “Bookkeeper Deacidification: The Chemistry Behind the Process” began with a review of Preservation Technologies’ twenty years in business, including an overview of their products and services as well as the scope of their operations.  Mr. Burd spent the most time describing the Bookkeeper process, that it is a non-toxic, non-flammable, non-VOC, odorless process that does not use solvents or produce effluents.  The alkaline agent is magnesium oxide (MgO) and in the mass-process it is delivered in an inert suspension liquid in which the books are immersed, relying on an electrostatic attraction to cellulose to deposit the MgO in the paper.  Mr. Burd referenced recent research at the Canadian Conservation Institute and assorted technical studies at the Library of Congress in support of the effectiveness of the Bookkeeper process and reminded the audience that whatever the challenges presented by brittle collections, the greatest risk is doing nothing.

Michael Ramin followed with his talk “Durability, Quality Control, and Ink Corrosion Treatment with the Papersave Swiss Mass De-Acidification Process”.  Papersave is a solvent based process using hexamethylene disiloxane (HMDO) as the solvent and magnesium as the alkaline agent.  For treatment, the books are placed in metal baskets, which are then placed in a chamber for pre-drying, treatment, post drying and re-conditioning.  Papers, books and drawings can be treated by this process.  The items are treated in a vacuum chamber which ensures saturation by the treatment solution followed by the reconditioning process which allows moisture back into the chamber and the moisture in the air activates the deposited alkaline reserve.  The company performs regular quality control in line with the German Institute for Standardization (DIN) and has retained 12 years’ worth of data including surface pH and XRF measurements to determine distribution of alkaline reserve.  Papersave also has sample sets for real time ageing at five and ten year intervals.  According to Mr. Ramin, the Papersave process is alos safe for paper that has iron gall ink corrosion since “through the treatment the acid is neutralized without removal or migration of the ions, on the contrary some of the iron is bound and neutralized.”

Dick Smith’s talk “Wei T’o Paperguard: Comprehensively De-acidifying, Stabilizing and Strengthening Paper” was third in the line-up although all the presenters acknowledged Mr. Smith as a foundation researcher and advocate for the mass de-acidification of paper.  The original Wei T’o product was one of the first on the market for the treatment of acidic paper and Mr. Smith spent a portion of his talk describing how he became interested in the science of paper de-acidification, explaining that even though a piece of paper is thin, penetrating the surface with an even distribution of an alkaline agent is not an easy task to accomplish, especially 30-40 years ago when the technology was not very advanced.  Mr. Smith then went on to profile a new Wei T’o product, still in the development phase, called Paperguard which not only de-acidifies, but also protects paper from fungal growth and pests.  It is a zinc-based process that is environmentally sustainable since the by-products of the process are recoverable.

The fourth presentation was by Fenella France “Taking the Measure: Treatment and Testing in Mass Deacidification” and started with a review of the Library of Congress’ research into the mass de-acidification process which began in the 1970’s and expanded in the 1990’s.  While the Library of Congress has vast historical collections, they are also still taking in acidic collections from all over the world and their current mass de-acidification treats more late 20th and early 21st century books from India, Spain, USA, etc. than 19th century material.  The initial goal for the Library’s research was to establish a process that would deposit an alkaline reserve that tripled the longevity of an item, Bookkeeper was selected and a treatment facility was installed on-site at the Madison building.  Testing and quality control is ongoing, but Ms. France sees a real need for the library research community to do more independent testing and not rely on vendor sources since there is too much variation in test methods to allow for meaningful comparison of data.  A single measure that could be applied across the different mass de-acidification processes would enhance the assessment process and allow for agreement on the definition of progress.

The final presentation was Nora Lockshin on behalf of Anna Friedman “Evaluating De-Acidification After 20 Years of Natural Aging”.  Ms. Friedman’s research focused on a treatment group from a 1989-1991 project at the Smithsonian Institution Archives where over 500 architectural drawings out of a record group of over 2,000 were sent out for de-acidification with Wei T’o Soft Spray or an aqueous bath with Magnesium Bicarbonate.  Ms. Friedman used surface pH testing and colorimetric measurements at 5 points across the front of a drawing to evaluate the long term effectiveness of the de-acidification treatments.  The colorimetric evaluation did not show any trends, but the surface pH showed that the application of Wei T’o was very uneven across the surface of the document.  This would make sense given the application process of Soft Spray.  However, comparison with a control group showed that documents that had been treated for mass de-acidification did have a higher pH after 20 years of natural aging.

The open discussion that followed began with a submitted question

SubQ: Is spraying of individual items as effective?

A: Papersave and Paperguard cannot be applied singly- mass only

Q: (Emily Rainwater) As a user of post-Bookkeeper treated items, she finds a lot of residue from handling the books, e.g. turning pages.

A: (Burd)- The particulates should go away as the treated book ages. (France)- Early in the development of the Bookkeeper process the particles were fairly large; they’re smaller now, so the white powder problem should go away.

Q: (Eric Hansen)- Italian conservators and others have complained that Bookkeeper changes the feel of the paper.  Will Bookkeper address this question in a direct way so that this issue can be settled?

A: (Burd)- People really shouldn’t be able to tell, he has spray with him and offered to let people spray samples of paper and feel for themselves.  The particle size is small and the quality control protocol of mass de-acidification is rigorous.  (Smith)- Is particle size really the issue? Are we measuring what we think we’re measuring in terms of quality control? The TAPPI tests that we generally use are a standard, but are not precise to our need.

Q: (John Batty)- What does Mr. Burd mean by “pure” alkaline reserve?

A: (Burd)The magnesium that Bookkeeper uses is of high purity, but also there is no residue of other treatment fluids after the process is completed since the Bookkeeper process is full recovery.

Q: (John Batty)- To Mr. Smith: are you planning to treat artist’s materials to a specific pH?

A:(Smith) Not just to a specific pH, but also using zinc to ensure fungal and pest prevention.

Q: (Johanna P) To M. Burd, how is the benefit to ink measured, given that iron gal ink is supposed to stay acidic? Also, what about the color change or yellowing of treated items?

A: (Burd) If you have an ink you want to stay acidic, don’t treat it with a de-acidification process.  If you want to stabilize iron gall ink and protect the substrate as well, then the Bookkeper process can be directed toward strengthening of paper.

A: (Ramin)- Non aqueous is better treatment since the paper is not as stressed.

A: (Smith): Commenting on paper yellowing after treatment by Wei T’o; he took yellowing as a sign of effectiveness since it demonstrated penetration of spray (this was in the early days) but don’t give up on de-acidification, work on delivery of the alkaline reserve.

A: (Burd)- Commenting on yellowing- Since the Bookkeeper process doesn’t use a solvent, there shouldn’t be any yellowing.  Some researchers have spotted yellowing due to aging of magnesium, but Burd thinks the books would probably have yellowed anyway, so the magnesium application just changes the characteristics of the yellowing. Burd went on to comment that yellowing is only present in artificially aged paper samples, and that 20 years is not long enough for real time aging to be conclusive.

A: (Ramin) Papersave tests show some yellowing in ground wood and to comment on mold remediation, the Papersave drying process kills mold, which is a side benefit.  Once treated, collections tend to have better storage conditions, so mold is less likely to grow again

A: (Smith)- Zinc has potential for mold and pest prevention in addition to mass de-acidification.

A: (Burd)- Alkalization does help with mold prevention

Q: (Ursula ?): Could there be more natural aging studies? To Ms. France, given ten years of using Bookkeeper, are you doing any studies? To Ms. Lockshin: were the treated papers stored differently?

A: (France)- Yes, the Library of Congress is initiating a long term study.

A: (Lockshin) all treated drawings were encapsulated and then opened for analysis but were otherwise stored together.

Q: (Cathleen Baker): the audience knows a lot about the complexity of paper, but the ads and trade lit is a little unsophisticated and implies that mass treatment should be readily applied, whereas selection is a more complex process.  What about the effect of mass de-acidification on lignin?

A: (Burd)- This has been reported in literature, but if you attack lignin you will make paper weaker, to prevent this effect, don’t select items that are brittle where the lignin or cellulose is already weak, they can’t be rebuilt by mass de-acidification.

A: (Lockshin) Commented that the Smithsonian receives many reference calls, people have seen an ad for a product and want information on its effectiveness.

Q: (Renate Mesmer) The Folger Library has just started a Bookkeeper project and wanted to comment that handling of books for the Bookkeeper process is extreme, given the fanning out and agitation.  They have also found very high amounts of white deposits, and given these high amounts of surface deposits, is anything going to the core of the paper?

A: (Burd)- Since we don’t use solvents we have to fan the books so that the alkaline particles can make their way into the paper.  If a book is too delicate for the mass process, then use the single item process. Distressed to hear that there are a lot of white deposits.  Porosity of the paper is the dependent factor on penetration, but acids migrate toward the alkaline particles so this shouldn’t ultimately be a problem.

Collections Matter – IMLS Blog post

The previous blog post  “Respond Now to IMLS Grant Guidelines” gives information on the AIC Board of Director’s response to IMLS’s proposed grant revisions and outlines ways in which you can, and should, make your voice heard.  For more information on the topic also read the June 1 post Collections Matter on IMLS’s blog from Connie Bodner, IMLS Senior Program Officer.  In her post she describes her experience at AIC’s recent annual meeting,  mentions the proposed changes to the grant guidelines and highlights some of the recent Conservation Project Support recipients.

If you have ever applied for an IMLS grant (or intent to in the future) don’t let the opportunity pass to provide informed feedback!

Respond Now to IMLS Museum Grant Guidelines!

If you have not yet done so, please respond now to the request from IMLS posted below.  The AIC Board of Directors agree that that the proposed new grant guidelines pose a real threat to conservation funding and the long-term care of collections.  It is imperative that IMLS hear from the conservation community—from individual conservation professionals as well as from AIC as a whole.   AIC is submitting a response on behalf of the organization.  Some points taken from it include:

  • By merging Museums for America (MFA) and Conservation Project Support (CPS), there will no longer be a funding source dedicated to conservation.
  • Although multiple applications will be permitted by IMLS, multiple submissions from institutions will ultimately compete against each other.  Exhibition or education proposals, for instance, would be pitted against conservation proposals.
  • If museums focus their grant writing efforts on the support of exhibitions, education, and community outreach, the grants will provide important support for annual programming budgets, yet these funds will do little to support museum missions to preserve and make their permanent collections accessible in a more lasting way.
  • One January 15 deadline for all proposals puts a great burden on museum staff members, particularly for those working in smaller institutions.

While AIC applauds IMLS for considering changes to improve its grant services, combining the CPS and MFA programs and instituting a single application deadline will have unintended consequences that will result in museums placing less emphasis on conservation of collections.  AIC urges IMLS to consider leaving CPS as a separate program or combining it with collections stewardship.

How have the collections for which you are responsible benefited from IMLS conservation support in the past?  What impact on collections care do you envision with the implementation of the draft guidelines being presented by IMLS?

Speak up!  Now!

Thank you,

Meg Craft, AIC Board President

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2012

IMLS Press Contacts
202-653-4632
Kevin O’Connell, koconnell@imls.gov
Mamie Bittner, mbittner@imls.gov

Draft Museum Grant Guidelines Available for Public Comment

Washington, DC—The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is seeking public comments on the draft guidelines for the FY 2013 Museums for America and National Leadership Grants for Museums programs. The guidelines for these programs have been revised to align with the IMLS Strategic Plan.  We are seeking comments to assess how well these guidelines accomplish the following goals:

To see the guidelines use these links:
Museums for America
National Leadership Grants for Museums

The comment period will end on Friday, July 6, 2012.  Please send comments to comments@imls.gov. Final guidelines will be posted no later than October 15, 2012.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – ECPN Informational Meeting, May 8

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) Informational Meeting provided both a great introduction to ECPN and updates on the group’s activities.  Attendees broke out into small discussion groups for second half of the meeting, with ECPN officers facilitating discussions on current initiatives and encouraging feedback and ideas.

At the start of the meeting, the officers whose terms ended over the past year were recognized (Rose Cull, Heather Brown, Amber Kerr-Allison, and Amy Brost).  Two new officers were announced – Gwen Manthey, new Professional Education and Training co-officer and Angela Curmi, new Communications Coordinator.  There are also liaisons in ECPN that work with other AIC committees, geographical regions, and with Canadian emerging conservators (CAC-ECC), and they were introduced.  The officers then gave an update on the key initiatives underway in ECPN: the Mentoring Program, student research platform, outreach through the blog, Facebook, and proposed Forum Calls, and the new PR Toolkit on the AIC wiki.

Then, the attendees broke out into small groups to discuss their thoughts about ECPN’s current programs, and what topics and initiatives are of greatest interest to them.  Here are a few ideas that had broad support at the meeting:

  • Create a quarterly email newsletter (most said that email was the best way to reach them, rather than the blog or Facebook page)
  • Make it clearer how to sign up to be on the ECPN email list
  • Provide more opportunities for ECPN to work on the wiki, perhaps by helping to make content more media-rich (add images, etc)
  • Make the AIC website more user-friendly, and send ideas to the AIC website task force
  • Broad support for the student research platform, and interest in contributing content.  Everyone really liked the idea of a student research platform which could function as a central location for finding all student research. Many were comfortable with the idea of submitting and seeking out either abstracts or full-length papers. If abstract form was selected, including the author’s contact information so the researcher could potentially ask them for more information was preferred.
  • Would like to see ECPN help with centralizing conservation education programs, employment opportunities, internship and fellowship announcements, and help with identifying potential funding sources for post-graduate internships
  • Help identifying possible internship and fellowship opportunities in private practices
  • Increase professional development opportunities, ie, distance (web-based) learning, short-term internships, etc.
  • Consider the needs of international pre-program interns and students, perhaps with online resources for them
  • Interest in a LinkedIn group for ECPN
  • Enthusiastic about the new Forum Calls to begin in 2012

The next regular ECPN meeting will take place via conference call on Monday, June 18 at 1 pm ET.  For more information, visit the ECPN page on the AIC website.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Frederick Hammersley: An Artist’s Documentation of His Painting Practice” by Alan Phenix

Pacific Standard Time is not just a time zone.  It is also the title of a Getty-funded initiative, jointly launched by the Getty Foundation and Getty Research Institute, that enabled more than sixty cultural institutions across Southern California to tell the story of the art scene in Los Angeles, California.  The initiative focuses on archives, research, exhibitions, publications, and other programs to record the region’s artistic history.  A substantial part of the project is dedicated to Los Angeles art from post-World War II through the 1970s.  In 2011/2012 The Getty Center held an exhibition entitled Crosscurrents in L.A. Painting and Sculpture, 1950-1970.  One of the artists in the show was the painter Frederick Hammersley, who died in 2009.  After Hammersley’s death a artist-endowed Foundation was established to preserve and maintain his artistic legacy.  Getty researchers first encountered the extensive archive of materials held by the Hammersley Foundation during preparations for the Crosscurrents show.  Alan Phenix presented to the Paintings Specialty Group some introductory observations on the wealth of that information.

Frederick Hammersley was a leading abstract painter in Southern California in the postwar period.  He first gained widespread notoriety in 1956 when he was included with artists Karl Benjamin, Lorser Feitelson, and John McLaughlin in an exhibition entitled Four Abstract Classicists.  The show led to the coining of the painting movement known as “West Coast Hard-Edge”.  Hammersley was born in 1919 and studied art in the 1940s at the Chouinard and Jepson Art Institutes in Los Angeles.  He stayed on at the Jepson Institute in a teaching capacity after he finished his studies.  He also held subsequent teaching positions at Pomona College (1953-62), Pasadena Art Museum (1956-61), and Chouinard (1964-68).  In 1968 he took a teaching position at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, which he kept until 1971 when he stopped teaching to concentrate on his painting.  He continued to work at his home studio until six months before his death and his space remained essentially untouched after his death, serving as final documentation of his life and work.  Hammersley had also fastidiously documented his artistic process in series of notebooks for a period of more than 50 years with few interruptions.  Among the most notable of these were four “Painting Books” that consist of cumulative and descriptive chronological lists of works completed.  The project being undertaken by the Getty Conservation Institute aims to examine and interpret that archive of materials for what it may reveal about Hammersley’s process, materials and techniques, and what it might mean for the preservation and conservation of his work.

Hammersley’s painting had a strong psychological element, which is illustrated in the evolution of his work.  From 1954 to 1959 he worked on a series he called “Hunch” paintings, which developed without preparation as the artist relied on “hunches” coming from reflection and intuition to guide his work.  In 1963 until 1965 he worked on series defined as “Organics” and “Cut Ups” that expanded upon his intuitive painting with more organic processes.  In several periods throughout his career he also worked on more hard-edged geometric paintings.  An early instance of his documentation and creative evolution was found in a set of notes on labels on the back of a 1956 “Hunch” painting entitled In Front Of, in which he recorded dates for the addition of specific shapes in the composition.

The artist began keeping his “Painting Books” in 1959, wherein he kept lists of his work, information about his process, when and to whom each work was sold, and other related information.  The details of his records continued to increase and by 1966 he’d expanded his notes to include additional items, such as information on specific paints.

It was interesting to hear that Hammersley’s documentation was not limited to formal records and itemized lists; his notebooks were also works of art in their own way.  Some of his books contained visual composition ideas in thumbnail sketches.  When he liked a composition he would execute it in a slightly larger (ca. 3″ x 3″) format.  Eventually he began including sequential breakdowns of the development of particular artworks.  On occasion he would revisit past artworks and those changes were also documented in his notebooks.  The artistic process was not limited to the works themselves.  Hammersley kept a “Titles” folder that contained lists of words written by free association.  When he came across words he liked he would underline them and then retrofit them to create titles for particular works.

This presentation just scratched the surface of the available information in Hammersley’s personal documentation.  The goal of the Getty Conservation Institute’s work is to make the mass of information of Hammersley’s archive available to a wider audience, including conservators who may have cause to work on his paintings in the future.  A searchable database is envisaged once the material is transcribed, collated, and interpreted.

This year’s annual meeting was focused on connecting to conservation through outreach and advocacy.  A searchable database of artists’ materials and techniques certainly has potential to assist with that effort.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Relating Artist Technique and Materials to Condition in Richard Diebenkorn’s ‘Ocean Park’ Series” by Ana Alba

When Ana Alba was working at the Hirshhorn Museum she undertook a research project on four paintings from Richard Diebenkorn’s “Ocean Park” series.  Her study compared the materials used in each of the paintings and assessed how that tied in to their current condition.  She presented her findings at the 2010 annual meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Two of the paintings had severe cracking while the other two were in good condition; the paintings with the cracking had an acrylic preparatory layer.  At this year’s annual meeting she presented research conducted at the National Gallery of Art that expanded upon her intial study.

Ana’s current research involved the examination of more than 45 paintings and samples for analysis were collected from approximately 15 paintings.  All of the information gathered was compiled into an extensive chronological database.  An additional list of travel histories with photographic references was completed.  The results of this study showed changes in the artists materials both between paintings and within individual works.

Diebenkorn worked for weeks to years on some of his paintings.  He painted consistently on unsized cotton duck but his choice of preparatory materials fluctuated over time.  Between 1968 and 1973 he used white acrylic gesso and toned it with diluted acrylic.  In some cases he added alkyd.  From 1973 to 1978 he transitioned from white to clear preparatory layers, presumably in order to maintain the raw canvas color and achieve transparencies in his paint layers.  Scientific analysis suggested the clear material was synthetic and consistent with Rhoplex AC-33.  This was more or less confirmed by photographic evidence of showing large jugs labeled as Rhoplex located in the artist’s studio.  By 1979 Diebenkorn had returned to using acrylic gesso almost exclusively.

Diebenkorn primarily painted with acrylics and alkyds.  He added oils sparingly and extended his paints as far as possible.  He also used charcoal, graphite, and colored pencil to define his images.  Infrared reflectography of his paintings show numerous alterations in his compositions, which is unsurprising given his appreciation of layering and the amount of time he spent working on each piece.  Once a painting was finished he applied matte fixative to the surface.  In his early works he applied this in 6 or 8 consecutive layers that left a glassy, heavy surface.  Eventually he shifted his process and masked out the painting to limit application to the charcoal areas.

The condition assessment of this larger group of paintings seem to support the findings of Ana’s initial study.  Paintings executed between 1960 and 1973 vary and some show some cracking.  The cracks follow drawn lines, compositional changes, and are greatest on the paintings with heavy layers.  Paintings completed after 1973 and before 1980 have heavier, more pronounced cracking with broad and isolated areas of cupping.  These paintings follow the same trend as the earlier works with the greatest cracking located in the layered areas.  Diebenkorn’s paintings after 1980 are in much more pristine condition with less cracks.  The trend of this condition timeline show that the paintings in the poorest condition are located in the middle of the Ocean Park series.  This supports previous findings by showing that paintings with Rhoplex and acrylic exhibit the worst cracking, especially when they are painted thickly with numerous layers.

This study highlights concerns regarding some of Diebenkorn’s selection of materials.  Alkyds are brittle so putting them over flexible preparatory films and unsized canvas makes them susceptible to cracking from impacts and physical movement of the substrate.  Fortunately, they do not seem prone to delamination so the cracking does not lead to significant paint loss.  In addition, when Diebenkorn diluted his materials he reduced their strength.  That left them with a greater chance of deformation in response to physical and environmental factors.

Ana pointed out that there are some limiting and extenuating factors to consider in this research.  The are as follows:

  • No samples were taken from privately owned paintings.
  • His assistants did not see him working so they could not provide information about his process
  • Diebenkorn did not keep detailed records of his work or do preparatory drawings.
  • The study compares paintings in good and poor condition only.
  • The artist destroyed some works, painted over others, and skipped #5 when creating the series.
  • One large painting from Brooklyn was an outlier in the study; it was completed prior to 1973 but it shows significant cracking across large ares of the surface.
During the question and answer session following the presentation it was also noted that areas with Rhoplex on raw canvas showed discoloration.
I have a personal appreciation for Diebenkorn’s work and have enjoyed following the progression of Ana’s research project.  By coincidence, I had the opportunity to realize that interest in person this week when the exhibition, Richard Diebenkorn:  The Ocean Park Series, was deinstalled at the Orange County Museum of Art in California.  I conducted outgoing condition assessments of some of the paintings and was able to see exactly what Ana had discussed in her presentation.  The exhibition will open at its final destination, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, on June 30th.  I encourage all of you to check out the show if possible to see the subjects of Ana’s research side by side for the first time on such a large scale.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting, Objects and Research and Technical Studies Joint Session, May 9, “The Qero Project: Conservation and Science Collaboration over Time,” by Emily Kaplan et al.

Emily Kaplan (Presenter), Objects Conservator, Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian; email: kaplane@si.edu

Ellen Howe, Conservator, Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation, Metropolitan Museum of Art; email: ellen.howe@metmuseum.org

Ellen Pearlstein, Associate Professor, Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials, UCLA; email: epearl@ucla.edu

Judith Levinson, Director of Conservation, Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History; email: levinson@amnh.org

The qero research project is a seventeen-year-long collaboration among object conservators at four museums with qeros in their collections: the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Brooklyn Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA), and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian (SI, NMAI). Emily Kaplan (SI, NMAI) presented an update of the research to date on behalf of her co-investigators, Ellen Howe (MMA), Ellen Pearlstein (formerly Brooklyn Museum, now GCI-UCLA), and Judith Levinson (AMNH). The project is an in-depth technical study of materials and techniques of fabrication of a corpus of qeros, polychrome wood drinking vessels fabricated around the time of the Spanish conquest of Peru in 1532; the qeros in these four collections date from the Inca period (13th-15th c.), through the Colonial period (16th-19th c).  Consequently, the qeros offer material culture insights produced over a span of centuries and reflect the influences of both indigenous cultures and Spanish colonizers.  Principal goals of the project involved: understanding techniques of fabrication, the analytical identification of materials, and the correlation of the technical data with the stylistic data proposed by others (i.e. curators, art historians).

The qero project was an apt presentation for the joint OSG-RATS  session. Kaplan articulately presented the cultural history of the vessels, as well as the technical research undertaken by numerous conservation scientists, principally at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Indeed, both cultural and scientific research were presented in nearly equal measure, which underscored the efforts of the primary researchers to cover both aspects in depth.  Efforts at replication of techniques of manufacture, cultural exchanges with colleagues and artisans in Peru, and the application of the full arsenal of analytical  methods employed (including FTIR, GC-MS, PLM, XRD, and XRF) were discussed.  Kaplan noted that YouTube videos exist showing contemporary Columbian artisans in Pasto working with the sheets of resin.  The presentation was accompanied by quite beautifully photographed images of the vessels themselves, comprised of tropical woods with polychrome resinous inlays, which illustrate geometric (Inca) and figural (Colonial) design registers of increasing complexity.

Funding from the MMA and NMAI allowed Kaplan and Howe to travel to Peru to meet Andean artists and scholars; to collect raw materials; and to visit private and public collections.  Eventually botanical samples of the plant elaeagia were correlated via FTIR and GC-MS to the mopa-mopa resin noted in early literature and the samples from qeros.  Interestingly, the palette was identified as largely unchanged from the pre-Colonial period.  Colorants identified include cinnabar red, orpiment yellow, cochineal red and pink, indigo blue, copper-based greens, carbon black, lead white and titanium white.  A notable, recent reassessment is the meaning of the analytical identification of titanium white (cristobalite anatase in mineral form) on some vessels.  Early in the project, the noted presence of titanium white—a  pigment that found wide usage only in the 20th century—was  thought to indicate areas of restoration.  Further study focusing on the presence of elaeagia in the media, led the conservators to believe it to be a pre-Colonial pigment.  A known Andean ore does exist.

Current research questions involve study of the ore source(s) of the cristobalite anatase and pigment comparisons to Colonial Andean paintings.  Further, the research and data collection evolved with technological advances and the collaborators are now considering ways to aggregate and share the data on-line.

This research project can be seen as a model for other conservation projects involving multiple institutions.  The sustained curiosity about these objects inspired a prolonged inter-museum collaborative effort , involving international allied professionals.  I’ve followed the progress of the qero project over the years, attending presentations and watching the list of publications in the US and South America grow longer and longer, as new findings emerged.  Near the beginning of the project (which started in 1995), while a graduate conservation student at New York University, I participated for two years as a research assistant on the project.  The concerted efforts to study both historical techniques of fabrication and the scientific results of analytical testing represent for me why the qero project ideally embodies the captivating interdisciplinary aspects of the conservation profession.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting- “Assessing Risks to Your Collections” Workshop with Robert Waller, May 8th, 2012

I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in a workshop at the beginning of the 2012 AIC Conference with Robert Waller entitled, “Assessing Risks to Your Collections”. I decided to attend this particular course because many museums struggle with creating preservation priorities for their collections and this task is daunting to both small and large museums. Risk assessment tools can assist in identifying priorities for collections care and a museum can in turn invest strategically in projects to protect collections from hazards both in the present and future. I hoped to gain an understanding of risk management tools to better assist future preservation planning in my own museum and to relate the information I gained to the members of the Museum Association of Arizona, a museum organization that helped support my registration.

The workshop began at 9am and, in regular workshop fashion, participants began to introduce themselves to the group.  This, of course, enabled participants to get comfortable with one another in order to start the business of learning about risk assessment. There was a large constituency of Latin American Scholars present at the workshop, as well as other international attendees from places like Haiti and Korea. Attendees were also diverse in specialties which included photographs, objects, paintings, textiles, as well as different levels of education including some pre-program students, but all of course had an interest in the preservation of cultural heritage.  I was fortunate to have been in a group of both intelligent and friendly people that were willing to discuss and work together on all of the exercises.

Robert Waller introduced the overall objective and methods he would be using in order for participants to quickly learn the materials in this intense one day workshop. He was patient in describing each step, but also moved the workshop along to get in as much information as possible in such a short amount of time.  The main goal of the workshop was to demonstrate the Cultural Property Risk Analysis Model. By identifying risks to collections using this tool, museums can target resources more efficiently through strategic planning.  More specifically, the workshop enabled participants to:

  • Identify risks – by ”agent of deterioration” and “type of risk”.
  • Define risks clearly.
  • Assess the magnitude of defined risks.
  • Evaluate data and present information to stakeholders.

Systematically plan risk mitigation strategies by:

  • Identifying means of control – methods and levels.
  • Evaluating costs/risks/benefits of mitigation strategies.

The workshop was extremely interactive(not for the shy)and participants learned through a variety of means including lectures, demonstrations, brainstorming in small groups, group presentations, exercises, practice, and discussions. Small prizes were utilized to further motivate the groups (my group got chocolate!!). A well composed manual with a shiny protective cover was given to all participants. The manual consisted of all the course content exercises, references and a glossary of terms which I know will be a good resource and was much appreciated.

One of my favorite exercises was estimating the magnitude of risk to the display cases at the Albuquerque convention center. Each group was assigned their own case which encompassed a variety of materials and preservation issues. The groups worked together to calculate the magnitude of risk by using all of the steps worked out in class. We had to define the specific risks in our case, determine the fraction of susceptibility, the loss in value, the probability of occurrence, and the extent to which the susceptible is affected. This exercise really helped me put together all of the components discussed in the workshop lectures. Working with the other participants was also very valuable as they had differing opinions and it was necessary to work together to come to a consensus, much like in a real life scenario working with other museum colleagues. This gave participants a realistic view of what is involved in performing a risk assessment and gave a level of comfort in using what was learned.

In the end, I feel like I have a much better grasp of assessing risks to collections and will be able to more effectively communicate these risks in a way that will be useful to facilitate strategic preservation planning. This model of comprehensive analysis of risks can provide a guide for appropriate actions in order to effectively mitigate the rate of loss to a collection. All of the information provided during the workshop will be very useful to me and I hope to use these strategies in the near future and share them with my colleagues.