You could hear the mental wheels turning in the room as conservators scribbled notes and thought: “Where is my nearest makerspace? How many custom mounts will I need for my next exhibit? And how nice would it be to not wrestle with an overflowing closet of book cradles?” This talk provided a futuristic vision of an endlessly sustainable cycle of 3-D printed exhibit mounts that are created on-demand with precision and recycled for the next show – an elegant, zero-waste utopia. Of course, reality isn’t quite there yet, but Fletcher Durant, Sara Gonzalez, and Lourdes Santamaria-Wheeler have been developing prototypes at the University of Florida and are moving us toward the future.
When discussing 3-D printing it’s good to have actual 3-D printed examples on hand. The audience was lucky enough to get a feel for the size, heft, color, and surface texture of the Florida prototype. Thanks to my hand model, Suzy Morgan!
Fletcher presented on behalf of the team, starting with an overview of the standard book cradle options for library and archives conservators and the advantages, drawbacks, and costs of each approach. The University of Florida library system has a robust exhibit schedule, mounting 15-20 exhibitions a year, requiring hundreds of book cradles. Storing these cradles is a challenge and logistics are complicated by the fact that the conservation lab is off-campus. Commercially produced Plexi cradles are expensive, take up lots of storage space, and are not always the appropriate size and fit for the books. Custom mounts made of mat board are more functional than the Plexis, but there are costs and waste associated with creating them, an off-campus lab means complicated construction and transport logistics, and as Fletcher noted, they’re not always the most attractive things to leave the lab. Custom mounts out of Vivak® (PETG) are also popular, aesthetically pleasing and can be constructed/modified in the gallery space, but they cost $10-15 each and still have to be stored after use.
Florida has three 3-D printers available for student and staff projects. The machine is a Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) system, which is an off-the-shelf widely used consumer product. Students are charged $0.15 per gram of filament used, and the average projects require 100g, or $15.00. One important limitation to note is the size of the printer; it can only accommodate approximately 14” x 14” x 12.6”, so average-sized book cradles are fine but anything larger would have to be assembled from multiple pieces.
I’ll leave most of the technical details to the authors in the postprints, but here’s a quick summary of the process: An STL (STeroLithography) file is necessary to produce a 3-D print. You can download existing files; thingiverse is one online source for sharing 3-D print files. Lucky for us, the authors have made their book cradle design available to us all here. You can also scan an existing object with a 3-D scanner to create a file. Or you can create your own original design: Fletcher recommended tinkercadas a good design tool for beginners.
Fletcher did note that, if you’re not already familiar with 3D design and printing, the initial learning curve can be steep and it’s worth it to work with someone more familiar with the process at first, but once your initial design in ready, minor modifications to the size, face angles, and spine opening can be done quickly.
Materials mater, of course, especially to conservators. There are many, many kinds of filaments available to use in FFF printers, but they all vary in terms of their environmental impact and their ability to pass the Oddy test or meet other standards of exhibit case appropriateness. At Florida, they use Nylon PLA, a plant-based product with no off-gassing. In theory, after the exhibit the book cradle should be able to be shredded, melted, re-formed into filament, and re-used. The authors are working on establishing an in-house recycling program at Florida, but Fletcher noted that realistically you can only get five uses out of the nylon filament. They’re also hoping to Oddy test more filament options.
A few other notes and observations:
Printing a complete cradle takes approximately 10 hours; this is hands-off time (they set the printers to run overnight) but it does mean they have to plan carefully about when to print – since students are also using the printers, they try to avoid scheduling large print jobs during finals week.
A modification of the design could include slots for book strapping.
The surface of the cradle is slightly rough; if desired, it can be smoothed with solvents or by sanding.
They have also created mounts for objects (pictured below), which Fletcher thinks might be a more realistic use for this technology in library exhibits. He’s also excited about the idea of using 3-D scanners and subtractive technologies to carve Ethafoam for custom housing inserts.
Whether or not the zero-waste book cradle utopia ever comes to fruition, understanding the process of 3-D printing and the materials involved is important, since we will begin seeing (if we haven’t already) 3-D printed objects entering our collections.
We would like to share the following message from the AIC Board of Directors:
“The American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works decries recent actions that impede the preservation of cultural heritage. The deliberate placement, on two separate occasions, of a noxious symbol of intolerance – a noose – in the galleries of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture and on the property of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden interferes with their mission to celebrate and preserve cultural collections. These repugnant acts denigrate the work of our valued conservation colleagues, disrupt the visitor experience, and intimidate potentially new and broader audiences. We believe that the creative achievements and histories of all peoples must be acknowledged and honored through access, interpretation, and preservation. We urge everyone who cares for our cultural heritage to actively support the Smithsonian’s exhibitions and programs.”
To learn more about the events of last week, you can find an article from Smithsonian Magazine here.
If you would like to share this statement, you can also find it here in PDF format.
Attention Emerging Conservation Professionals, the FAIC Oral History Project needs your help! Participation in the Oral History Project is an excellent way to connect with seasoned conservators and make a contribution to our field’s legacy. Interviewers are needed especially in the following areas:
Indianapolis, Indiana
Shepherdstown, West Virginia
Hendersonville, North Carolina
IIC 2018 Congress
Preventive Conservation: The State of the Art, Turin, 10 – 14 September 2018 Simultaneous call for papers and posters
Closing date extended to June 5, 2017
Preventive conservation is a vital and ever-developing field at the centre of museum, site and heritage management, contributing to the sustainability of organisations as well as to the care of their collections. An IIC Congress last addressed issues in preventive conservation in Ottawa in 1994 and much has changed since then: new methods of investigation and analysis; a greater understanding of materials and how they may change or decay with time; developments in conservation practice. For conservators, conservation scientists and all those concerned with preventive conservation there are still as many questions as answers, still matters of concern to be discussed; many of you working in the field have something to say and exciting research to bring to us. To enable you to do this, we have extended the closing date for the call for papers and posters to 5 June 2017!
It will be 24 years since an IIC Congress last specifically addressed issues in preventive conservation, in Ottawa in 1994. The field has developed enormously since 1994: preventive conservation has a central position in museum, site, and heritage management. In addition to capturing developments and changes in scientific understanding and practice, this congress will focus on current issues that exercise our field and will look to the future. It will build on some recent IIC initiatives, including the 2008 Congress on Conservation and Access and the IIC/ICOM-CC environmental guidelines developed at the 2014 Hong Kong Congress.
The location for the 2018 Congress is Turin, a city with a varied cultural history, a strong international profile and innovative industrial centre and, at the same time, a comfortable, relaxed ambience. We are delighted that our partners in the 2018 Congress are the City of Turin, the Italian Regional Group of IIC (IGIIC), Turismo Torino e Provincia and the Centro per la Conservazione ed il Restauro “La Venaria Reale”, which, most appropriately, is housed in one of the Savoy palaces, La Venaria Reale.
Please don’t delay! We now invite paper and poster proposals that address the issues defining the state of the art in preventive conservation and latest practice. A full list of suggested topics and themes and full details for submission can be found at the main IIC Congress web-site page here: www.iiconservation.org/congress
Please note that this is a simultaneous call for paper and poster proposals: there will be no later separate call for posters. IIC invites you to submit your proposal for a paper or poster in English in about 500 words (3500 characters) via the website here: www.iiconservation.org/congress. If you have an IIC account, please log in first; if not, please register on the front page of the site for an IIC account before submitting a proposal. Please do not include any illustrations with your proposal submission and please indicate if your proposal is for a paper or for a poster. The deadline for the receipt of proposals has been extended from May 8 to June 5, 2017.
In anticipation of the 45th Annual Meeting in Chicago later this month, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network has updated our “Tips for Conference Attendance.”
Access a PDF version of this Tips Sheet, which includes hyperlinks, by clicking here. We look forward to seeing you in Chicago!
To promote awareness and a clearer understanding of different pathways into specializations that require particular training, the Emerging Conservation Professional Network (ECPN) is conducting a series of interviews with conservators in these specialties. We’ve asked our interviewees to share some thoughts about their career paths, which we hope will inspire new conservators and provide valuable insight into these areas of our professional field. This post is continuing our series on East Asian Art Conservation, where we have posts from Sara Ribbans and Yi-Hsia Hsiao.
This post is continuing our series on East Asian Art Conservation with Hsin-Chen Tsai, an Associate Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in the Asian Conservation Studio. In 2008, she graduated from National Tainan University of Arts in Taiwan, where she specialized in Asian paintings conservation. She received a BFA degree in Art Education with a thesis in Art Education from the Department of Art at the National Changhua University of Education.
This blog post series will look at United States citizens who trained abroad and are currently practicing conservation in the US. The goal of these interviews is twofold: to provide pre-program students with a starting point for understanding international training through a range of student perspectives and to bring awareness of overseas conservation training programs to conservators practicing in the United States. It is the hope that the discussion of international training will answer questions and start an open dialog of the challenges and benefits of training abroad.
This blog series takes the form of interviews with established and emerging conservators who have trained abroad. Each interviewee offers their personal and professional perspective. So, while themes are apparent throughout these interviews, no single interview can summarize all the challenges and rewards of international training.
These interviews do not reflect the opinions of AIC or the training programs being discussed. The series has been created to reflect a range of experiences, and the personal accounts will not reflect the views of all students from any specific program.
Our first interviewee is Emma Schmitt, a 2014 graduate of The University of Glasgow, Centre for Textile Conservation and Technical Art History.
What is Your Name, Specialty and Current position?
Emma Schmitt, Textiles, Mellon Fellow at Denver Museum of Art
Why did you pick your specialty?
I chose textiles because I come from a family of fiber crafters. My mother taught me embroidery when I was eight, starting a life-long passion for what could be done with needle and thread. I did everything from making clothes to quilts, and dabbled in tatting and knitting. In college, I made costumes for theatre productions and was recruited to work for a resident opera company, where I eventually managed the costume shop for a summer. Fibers and textiles are part of who I am; I cannot imagine working in any other specialty.
The University of Glasgow, main building
Can you describe your training pathway?
In 2006, I began working at the Buffalo Museum of Science in Buffalo, New York where I assisted with inventory, collections management, integrated pest management, and exhibit installation. I helped to install objects treated by the Buffalo State conservation students and learned about the field of conservation. That fall I began my undergraduate degree in Archaeology and continued to work at the Buffalo Museum of Science.. In additional to completing more coursework to prepare for graduate school, I worked at ICA-Art Conservation (5 months) and the Museum of Fine Arts Boston (11 months) before I began my training in Glasgow at the Centre for Textile Conservation and Technical Art History.
My decision to go to Glasgow was not an easy one. I admit that I am first a Buffalo Girl, and while there is an art conservation program in my hometown, I found the idea of training there limiting. The Centre for Textile Conservation and Technical Art History opened in Glasgow in 2010, the year I graduated from college. It caught my attention when I was researching conservation training programs for textiles.
I applied to the graduate programs at Buffalo, WUDPAC, and Glasgow. I was accepted to the program in Glasgow, but was rejected from both American programs. This forced me to decide between going abroad for a specialty I knew I wanted or wait another year and continue pre-program training. The conservators I worked with and who I looked up to advised American training which followed their own experience. I eventually chose to attend the Glasgow program because it was well-respected within the specialty and I wanted to begin school, to reduce the financial burden of volunteering, and advance my career. While I felt I would need to work hard to maintain my contacts in the US, I hoped I had a strong enough network from my pre-program work to help with reintegration after my graduate training.
The Duke of Wellington, with a cheeky Glaswegian addition
To ensure I had a strong base to return to the US, I worked on projects in graduate school that were multi-media in nature which helped to enhance my skills in research and networking with the international conservation community. My major summer placement was at Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum where I worked with organic and ethnographic collections. As my primary placement, it lasted 8 weeks and took place in the summer between my first and second year. I also made sure to maintain contact with American conservators. A supplementary placement that same summer at the Cleveland Museum of Art allowed me to go to the 2013 AIC annual conference to strengthen my network of American colleagues
I was incredibly lucky to have met a private conservator before my departure to the UK who was thrilled by my choice to train across the pond, as she had. She encouraged me to contact her when I finished school. This relationship, which I fostered throughout my training via email and updates, led to me coming back to the US with a job. After graduation, I spent nine months working under her, which was invaluable for my transition into the American conservation community by working with a European-trained American practitioner. Before the end of my first year back in the US, I moved Denver to take my current position as the Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Textile Conservation at the Denver Art Museum.
What were the advantages of your program of choice: Personal/Professional
I am a proud alumna of the University of Glasgow Centre for Textile Conservation and Technical Art History. My time abroad gave me incredible opportunities and helped me to grow both personally and professionally in ways that would have not been possible had I stayed within the US.
Professionally, the training program’s committed focus in textile conservation means students have the opportunity to work with a number of different objects within the medium. The textile specialty is surprisingly all encompassing since metal, paper, and plastics are often incorporated. While Glasgow only taught textiles, there were times when materials showed up that forced me to consult outside the Centre and do expansive research into materials. The interdisciplinary nature of the objects encouraged networking, discussion, and research to ensure a treatment was safe and effective. It has made me much more self-driven to find answers as they were never right down the hall.
Wet cleaning practical at the Centre
My time in Glasgow gave me the opportunity to meet colleagues from Japan, Australia, Poland, and around the UK. We approached things differently, whether that came from experiences, culture, or past training. Seeing how other people react to the same object makes you think a bit more broadly and helps keep an open mind. These subtle cultural differences don’t always make a conference paper; they are softer aspects of approach that enhance my thought process and evolve my practice. Despite international distances, we still remain in contact, and they help keep my mind open to different approaches and traditions.
Personally, studying abroad was one very effective way to take this small-town girl out of her comfort zone. As a rather extreme introvert, this move was double the challenge: it took away my ability to drive home every day or on a long weekend, and it stripped away my support system completely. I now know that embracing the challenge to move and meet new people can form wonderful relationships. At the same time, I also know what I can do alone, and that is incredibly empowering.
Being abroad has advantages. I travelled in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and throughout the UK. Seeing the world is a wonderful thing, and I learned so much from spending time in other countries, struggling with language barriers, seeing art I’d only seen in books, and . I have become more aware of this upon my return to the US and working with European curators and colleagues. I was surrounded by the British ways of speaking and writing and absorbed them into my own approach. I am aware of how sometimes a desire or goal can be stated in a very indirect way. It is an incredibly subtle shift that, until you are immersed in it, is rather difficult to comprehend or even recognize until you are placed back into the blunt American world. Knowing this and learning how to temper
The Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford UK
yourself and gauge the world that you are in is an invaluable skill.
I lived my first year in the dorms in Glasgow, which was a strangely brilliant decision that has led to wonderful friendships with English and Business students from India and Pakistan. These women opened my eyes and challenged my thinking, which truly broke me out of my American bubble. It also helps to have someone look at you as if you were crazy and laugh hysterically when you explain that you just spent the day washing Baron Lister’s underpants. It was a good reminder that 100% conservation focus is not 100% healthy.
What were the disadvantages of your program of choice: Personal/Professional
The US and the UK training programs are different; this is a fact and should not be overlooked. In overly general terms when American schools are discussed, Winterthur is seen as more scientific, Buffalo excels at bonding students to objects, and NYU teaches the conservator as an Art Historian. In Glasgow, I was bound to textiles and that tradition from day one. Old repairs and work on these objects was often undertaken because they were utilitarian, or the ‘skill’ needed to make the repair was something most women had. While this aspect permeates other specialties, in textiles it is the norm. They require extensive knowledge and skill in that base craft to conserve. A single specialty program, though it produced a conservator with a narrow focus, crafted the defined skill set that is needed for the work
The greatest challenge professionally is coming back to the US with a limited network. I cannot tell you how many times I have picked up my phone and wished I could call on a classmate for their opinion or to draw from a shared experience. The other disadvantage is that Glasgow’s program is two years, which really cannot be compared to American training programs. I did not have the generalized first year nor the final-year internship. I have been told I was not looked at as a candidate until after I was in the US for a year, which was considered the equivalent of filling out my training. This was my experience and not everyone’s, so there are cases where that lack of internship is a non-issue.
The hardest aspect of coming back to the US is the reproach I have felt for my choice to train abroad. I have been questioned as to why I chose Glasgow and not a US program. It can be incredibly shocking when someone questions your training choice, and I have often taken this personally, for good or for bad. As I said earlier, I stand behind my training decision: it fit me and my background and challenged me in areas that I see as my most obvious weaknesses. I find explaining that to someone is difficult, and it’s often hard to avoid appearing defensive.
Personally, I found the disadvantages came in the form of the time difference and distance. Being abroad for two years meant that I did not go home often. I was in the US for 6 weeks one summer, and I spent 48 hours with my family during those six weeks. I missed my family, I lost contact with friends, I missed a number of major life events. While we live in a global environment today, knowing what’s happening in your home country is different than living in your home country.
Financially, the decision to go abroad was not easy. Admittedly I had a lot of help from my family, which is not something everyone has. European programs are not funded in the same way as most American training programs and a $30,000 – $50,000 debt is not something that should be taken on lightly. I was able to get assistance through the University and the Centre’s Foundation, which paid for about half of my tuition. As an American, I was not eligible for many of the funds that my classmates were, which made it harder for me to find outside sources of funding. However, I did not exhaust all avenues in that search because I had support. I know there are financial opportunities out there, but the deadlines are easily missed, and many just did not apply to foreign students.
What advice do you have for pre-programmers considering a similar path?
My choice to study abroad was a deeply personal one. It was not undertaken lightly or without knowing the challenges that could arise. I strongly believe that this choice should not be judged or considered as a way to get out of the requirements of the American programs, and it should not be thought of as an easy way into the field. I feel my choice to attend a foreign program in conservation is a testament to my strength, perseverance, and knowledge of myself and my goals.
My advice is simple: Know what you want and be confident in your choice. Self-doubt is inevitable in this field as we struggle to find jobs or make ends meet, so don’t add your own distrust of your training. You need to know or expect the cost—monetary and personal—and be sure you are set to carry that weight. Don’t rush, it will feel like the end goal is grad school, but enjoy your pre-program experiences. Explore things; don’t block yourself off out of fear or lack of knowledge. Be your best advocate; form relationships and maintain them. You will struggle, no matter the choice, because graduate school is meant to be challenging and the first few years working in the field offer their own trials. However, if this is your passion, if you wake up and cannot imagine yourself doing anything else, then those challenges and struggles are completely worth it.
“Please describe a conservation-related mistake or setback you have experienced, and how you responded to, managed, and ultimately resolved this issue.”
“What did you learn from this experience?”
“How have you taken precautions to avoid the reoccurrence of this mistake?”
Sincere thanks to the individuals who participated in this survey! Twelve responses were received, with the majority of respondents choosing to remain anonymous. These answers contained some incredibly valuable pieces of advice and words of wisdom. If we look at these submissions through the lens of different categories of error, as webinar presenter Michele Marincola discussed, one response fit into the category of rule-or knowledge-based error, an “error of ignorance”; two responses fit into the category of “setback”; and nine responses fit into the category of “errors of execution – errors of planning or performance.”
An “error of ignorance” is a type of mistake that involves the lack of knowledge or skill required to complete a task, often complicated by a bias towards what has worked in the past. The case recorded in the survey described inappropriately transferring a treatment procedure learned from textile dry-cleaning methods to a birchbark basket. The author noted that this incident occurred approximately thirty years ago and pointed to the danger of becoming over-confident in one’s knowledge. As Michele mentioned during the webinar, this is precisely the sort of mistake that tends to happen more commonly in the early stages of one’s career, but the rapidly expanding knowledge base in conservation can make us all susceptible to this type of error.
For the two setbacks, the first response described multiple attempts applying to conservation graduate schools, and the second addressed difficulty with managing client expectations. Both of these examples stress the importance of communication, having a realistic perspective, and staying mentally flexible.
The rest of the responses dealt specifically with mistakes made during treatment. “Errors of execution” is a category that indicates a situation where the conservation professional knew how to execute a treatment step, but failed to do so for whatever reason. Of these types of responses, two involved instances of misplaced tacks damaging paintings, and two involved damage to artwork due to impact from nearby equipment (a microscope in one case, and a camera setup in the other). Another involved failing to properly secure the artwork itself. These are not uncommon errors and could all be considered errors of planning, in which proper precautions would have mitigated the risk of damage occurring. Isabelle Brajer states in her article “Taking the Wrong Path,” that “collective errors often have more impact on our profession, largely because of increased exposure.”[1] It is acknowledging the prevalence of this sort of mistake that allows us to develop preventive rules of thumb: for example, collecting tacks in a jar, or always tying paintings to an easel. Some of the other mistakes took the form of errors of execution: a chisel slipping when removing plaster from a stone relief; unintentionally dissolving part of a paper artifact weakened by mold; or grabbing the wrong bottle when preparing an epoxy.
One respondent mentioned feeling stressed at the time of the error and subsequently developed strategies for slowing down, focusing, and mentally preparing to approach a treatment. Individuals generally described themselves as “devastated” or “horrified” when these instances occurred, but it was acknowledged that the mistakes were valuable learning experiences.
Other thought-provoking and impactful excerpts from the responses are listed below:
“You may think you won’t drop that tool, spill a solvent, or lose track of your tacks. I believe it’s safer to assume you will do all of those things and more. Anything that can go wrong probably has gone wrong for someone and it could easily go wrong for you. It’s not defeatist to acknowledge the commonality of human error and take appropriate preventive measures.”
“Sadly, one remembers one’s mistakes more vividly than one’s successes.”
“I think many of us have a strong inner voice we hear or a feeling that we have right before something goes wrong. This incident made me learn to listen to that voice, and know that when I ‘hear’ it, I need to put down my tool and stop for a moment.”
“We put so much effort into avoiding mistakes that sometimes we forget to acknowledge they exist. I think that can lead to an unfortunate dichotomy between the theory and reality of how we will react to those situations.”
“I spent many, many years focusing on my treatment work, and neglected to get out there and meet colleagues, write, speak, share. I regret that for many reasons. So I would say that an important part of your professional life is to reach out, in whatever way feels right for you. Mentoring, outreach, committee involvement. There may be periods in your life when you are sidelined from treatment work, and you will be glad for the other avenues.”
As Tony Sigel, another of the webinar presenters, mentioned in his response to a question about reluctance to discuss mistakes, both individuals and the profession must be willing to change for this attitude to shift. Redefining the culture in conservation to enable free discussion of mistakes and setbacks can only happen one conservation professional at a time, and I would like to commend these individuals who were willing to share their experiences!
Please visit ECPN’s post on Conservators Converse following up on the webinar for Q&A and Further Resources.
ECPN’s webinar “Picking Up the Pieces: Accepting, Preventing, and Learning from Mistakes as an Emerging Conservation Professional” took place on April 7, 2017 and featured presentations by Ayesha Fuentes, Geneva Griswold, Michele Marincola, and Tony Sigel. Please see the previous blog post announcing the webinar for more extensive biographies of our speakers, and visit AIC’s YouTube Channel for the full recording of the webinar. Many thanks to the speakers, my fellow ECPN officers, and the AIC board and staff who made this program possible!
Several questions from viewers could not be addressed during the webinar due to time constraints; however, the panelists have generously answered them here. This post also includes an extended bibliography and further resources. A supplemental blog post will discuss the responses to the survey ECPN disseminated requesting stories of mistakes and setbacks.
Q&A
How would you suggest opening a dialogue with your supervisor about mistake-making at the outset of a pre-program or graduate internship? How can you initiate a discussion about how to respond and what sort of institutional protocol to follow in the case of an accident?
Michele Marincola: Since this can be an unfamiliar or even awkward topic to broach, I suggest mentioning/describing the webinar and how it prompted you to think about mistake-making in an internship. Then ask if the company or institution has a preferred protocol to follow in the event an accident with an artwork occurs. Most museums have an Accident Report form that the security department initiates – this form may or may not be sufficient. In addition, not all mistakes cause visible damage, and the ideal protocol to follow might be a discussion rather than a form to fill out. Your question could be a great way to open the dialogue and effect positive change!
Doctors long ago instituted what are called M&Ms (Morbidity and Mortality reviews) after a patient in their care dies. They admit failure to their colleagues in order to teach and learn. Over the decades of my career conservators have shown consistent resistance to the discussion of treatment failures. I think there must be some powerful forces acting upon us that we haven’t discussed. What might they be? Could one possibility be that there is a kind of profession-wide fear of shaming that has prevented individual conservators from doing what this webinar attempted, to learn from failure?
Tony Sigel: I think “shaming” is both too harsh, and too simple a term to describe the issue. The reasons why conservators are reluctant to discuss and acknowledge mistakes are many, and start with simple human nature—when your job is to preserve and protect works of cultural property, it is very difficult to admit that you have caused harm. An unwillingness to confront and admit mistakes is true of most people–in all professions. Modern science and ethics-based art and artifact conservation is relatively young as a profession, and from birth has fought to create its own identity separate from the disdained practice of restoration, and the depredations of unlettered previous restorers.
The conservator is the standard bearer of a new profession, and the pressure is great to be an authority, translating modern “science-based” conservation to owners, curators, archaeologists, to be able to answer all questions and consistently carry out treatments, to create safe environments, and the myriad other duties that are involved. Add to that normal human ego, the fear of possibly losing one’s position and livelihood, and, within the profession, the lack of a culture and organized structures that allow examination and discussion of setbacks and errors, and you have a broader view of the situation.
Error is an unavoidable and normal consequence of human endeavor, but is essential to its development. To solve our particular problem, both individual conservators, and the profession must be willing to change our culture and restructure itself, perhaps by creating appropriate venues to acknowledge these valuable lessons, learn from them, and encourage discussion.
The examples of mistakes we’ve discussed have generally centered around treatment, but one of the mistakes/sestbacks submitted to ECPN dealt with not having adequately managed the expectations of the owner of a cultural heritage object. Another spoke about the regret of having focused disproportionately on treatment and neglecting to engage with writing, speaking, and meeting others in the field. Could you comment on what other sorts of non-treatment mistakes we tend to encounter as conservation professionals?
Ayesha Fuentes: I’m not sure these are mistakes so much as they are part of professional development. Communicating our decision-making processes and limitations should be part of our expertise. In both of these challenges, the conservators learned how to manage the expectations of both the clients and themselves. Our professional contribution is often our technical skills and knowledge, and that’s been the emphasis in education, but I think there is an increasing awareness of how conservation relies on a larger skill set that includes consultation, communication and project management.
Have you ever had to describe a mistake that you’ve made in an interview? If so, how did you broach the subject?
Geneva Griswold: I have been asked in several interviews to describe how I overcame a situation that did not go as planned. The topic has never been presented as a “mistake,” however the intention of the question is the same: to illustrate how you think and to assess your ability to adapt. I find that juxtaposing two situations can be helpful; the first defines the challenge, and the second shows how you applied lessons learned in the first. Being aware of your mistake, setback, or failure is the important part, as is thinking reflexively about how to improve. If you feel uncomfortable broaching a mistake made during treatment, instead consider setbacks that occur in communication between team members, poor time estimation, or failing to meet a deadline. There are many ways to illustrate your ability to think critically, so prepare your best response prior to the interview and be confident in broaching the subject when it arises.
Thank you once again to Michele, Tony, Ayesha, and Geneva! ECPN is grateful to the speakers for their participation in the webinar and for sharing their research and thoughts on this topic. If you have additional comments or questions on this subject, please email ECPN.aic.webinar@gmail.com.
Please see the following resources for more information on this subject.
Mancusi-Ungaro, Carol. 2003. Embracing Humility in the Shadow of the Artist. In Personal Viewpoints: Thoughts about Paintings Conservation, edited byMark Leonard. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Recent Setbacks in Conservation 1, 3, 4. 1985. Ottawa: International Institute for Conservation-Canadian Group, 1985.
