Topics – Page 9 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Tips for Writing FAIC Grant Proposals: ECPN Interviews ETC

Recent recipients of the George Stout Memorial Fund Scholarship, a grant administered by FAIC that provides funding for emerging conservators to attend AIC’s Annual Meeting.

Introduction

Between 2011 and 2015, the Foundation for the American Institute for Conservation (FAIC) awarded $2,064,962 through 462 grants and scholarships. $428,601 of this was given out in 2015 to 91 grant and scholarship recipients. While these numbers include larger grants such as Samuel H. Kress Conservation Fellowships and publication grants, an important part of FAIC’s grant program is to provide professional development support for individuals to attend conferences and workshops and to pursue research projects. A full list of grants and scholarships is available here.

Emerging conservators are eligible for a number of these grants, including the FAIC / Tru Vue® International Professional Development Scholarships and George Stout Memorial Fund Scholarships – the latter of which is reserved for pre-program individuals, graduate students, and recent graduates to attend professional conferences. Each grant has specific deadlines, eligibility, and application requirements – all of which are listed online. FAIC recently moved the grant application process online to make the process easier for the applicants and the reviewers.

This brings us to the subject of this post: how to improve your applications for FAIC grants! Reviewing and awarding these grants is an important but time-consuming task, so FAIC relies on AIC’s Education & Training Committee (ETC) for assistance. Conservators from different career stages and specialties volunteer to serve on ETC, which is responsible for advancing AIC members’ knowledge of conservation practices by supporting continuing education and professional development endeavors. ETC also promotes educational issues within the field.

As many emerging conservators may be new to writing grant applications, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) interviewed some members of ETC to ask a few questions about the application and review process. Here’s what we learned:

ECPN’s Interview with ETC

Review Process: What happens with an application once it is submitted? Who reviews it, and who makes the final decision?

For each application cycle, the Institutional Advancement Director for FAIC calls for volunteers from ETC to review applications, specifying the deadline and how many volunteers are needed. The reviewers are usually different people based on who can commit time to the process during the application review period. Three reviewers are assigned to read each application, and reviews are conducted anonymously. The reviewers receive instructions and reminders for the unique criteria for each grant.

Taking into consideration the specific grant criteria and the benefit of the project to the applicant (among other things), the reviewer assigns points for each of the selection criteria categories and provides comments to help clarify the ratings provided. ETC members’ ratings and review of the applications ensures a thorough and fair review process.

Next, the AIC Board Director for Professional Education works closely with the Institutional Advancement Director to tally the scores and review comments by ETC and submits the recommended awards for final approval by the Executive Director of FAIC and AIC and the FAIC Treasurer. The goal is always to administer as many awards as the budget allows to support the professional growth of AIC members.

Audience: Who should the application be directed to? That is, who are you writing for (e.g. general audience, fellow conservators)?

Direct the application to your fellow conservators. ETC is made up of your peers — but it is important to keep in mind that ETC members come from a range of specialties. The reviewer may not know the significance of a particular project unless it is clearly defined and expressed. It is important to give details that explain the “why” —that is, why your project is relevant, timely, or important — so the reviewer can understand your thought process.

Because our field is small, there is a good chance that reviewers know some of the applicants. ETC members must also recuse themselves from a particular review if there is any conflict of interest (e.g., that member applied for a grant, or wrote a letter of support for an applicant).

ETC considers the applications based on the merit of a particular application, not with regard to whether you are a junior or well-seasoned conservator, or whether the reviewer is familiar with your work.

Content: What are the major points in the application text to pay attention to? What level of detail is desirable when discussing your project?

Address the grant review criteria directly and pay attention to the parts that are unique to you and your application. Set up the relevance of the project first by describing it; the project description should be brief and straightforward. Then discuss how the project benefits you professionally. This is section with the most freedom: explain how the project is appropriate to furthering your professional development. It is more important to state effectively how you will benefit from your involvement–this is the part that really distinguishes the applications from each other.

So instead of listing your accomplishments, explain what you will accomplish — either by attending the conference, presenting your work, or pursuing your research. And be clear about your level of participation and whether you are attending a workshop or conference, or presenting. While your financial need is implied—you are applying for a grant, after all—you should still mention it. It is helpful for your case if the reviewer knows that your institution does not provide professional development funding, or has not provided it for a number of years.

Describing how you plan to disseminate what you’ve gained from the project is also an important factor. This doesn’t have to mean that you’ll write a book on the subject, but FAIC is interested in the most bang for the buck: how far will the benefits go if this person is selected for funding?

Budget: What are the important considerations when reviewing a proposed budget? What costs should and should not be included? What is the best way to explain how you arrived at your cost estimates? What should you do if your estimated costs exceed the amount that can be awarded?

The budget needs to be complete and reasonable. Being stingy with yourself will not necessarily score you points, but you should not price out a luxury hotel and first-class flights. The Federal Government Service Administration (GSA) provides numbers that can be a great guide for drafting a budget. The online application form prompts you to consider expenses related mostly to travel and lodging, and additional explanation of expenses beyond this form is usually not necessary. While the grants don’t cover food, there is a place to fill out your estimated meal costs to show what you will be covering yourself.

Do not request for more than the maximum award; it may appear as though you didn’t read the grant description. If your projected costs exceed the maximum award, fully outline those costs and request up to the award limit. Outlining all of your costs—regardless of whether they are covered by the grant or exceed the award limit—provides valuable data for FAIC. This information can be used if grants are ever re-evaluated, and FAIC can use the budget information to advocate for higher award limits.

Having an expensive project doesn’t put you at a disadvantage. In fact, it engenders sympathy and understanding that you will have to seek additional funding or otherwise provide funds out of pocket. The better the reviewers understand the total costs, the better the committee can try to support you. The number of grants given out each cycle varies, and the goal is to provide enough support to allow the awardees to fulfill their projects.

Recommendation Letters: How should you select recommenders? How can you help prepare them to know what points to speak to? Do your recommenders have to be AIC members? Should they have status within AIC (PA, Fellow)?

The letters should come from someone with whom you have a professional relationship, and who will write a positive recommendation that specifically discusses how the project will benefit you. If you are unsure whether a recommender’s letter will be positive, you can ask them or ask someone else to write for you. The perceived status of your recommender is not so significant; someone who seems important in AIC does not necessarily write a better letter. The requirements for recommenders’ status within AIC vary from grant to grant, so be sure to read the application procedures section very carefully.

Providing a recommender with your current CV and a draft of your application can help them to tailor the recommendation letter to your application. Also, let your recommenders know they can fill out the Letter of Support Form [insert link] provided by FAIC, rather than writing a traditional letter. All of these materials can be submitted electronically by the recommender, so the recommendation remains confidential. The deadlines are firm, so make sure to ask for recommendations well in advance and indicate the application deadlines in your request.

For more on this topic, look at the guides ETC has developed for requesting and writing letters of recommendation.

General: Are there any easily fixable but common mistakes you see in applications? If your application is not accepted, what steps can you take to improve your chances next time? What are some general tips you would provide to first time grant applicants?

Do not overthink it. Your essay need not be lengthy; completeness and accuracy are what counts, so answer the questions and speak to the grant criteria directly. Be concise in making your case, and keep in mind that reviewers may read dozens of applications at a time.

Almost all of the projects and applicants seem worthy in each cycle, so it may come down to minor errors or omissions that result in an incomplete application. It does not reflect poorly on you for future applications if you not receive funding for your first application, so please don’t get discouraged.

For some common reasons why applications do not receive funding, see the great list below, provided to ECPN by Eric Pourchot, Institutional Advancement Director for FAIC.

Some Final Thoughts

In 2015, about half of FAIC grant and scholarship applications were funded, and the total funding awarded was 34% of the total amount requested. And—as we mentioned in our last post on the structure of FAIC and AIC—FAIC must raise the funds to support these grants and scholarships. A good portion of this comes from the Specialty Groups, AIC members, and individual donors! In 2015, $49,000 was raised through individual donations to support FAIC grants and other programs. So, if you are ever the recipient of one of these scholarships and grants, in the future consider “paying it forward” if you can by making a donation to FAIC!

We’d like to thank Nina Owczarek and Susan Russick from ETC and Eric Pourchot (Institutional Advancement Director for FAIC) for answering our questions, and Stephanie Lussier (AIC Board Director, Professional Education) and Heather Galloway (Chair, ETC) for their help reviewing this post.

If you have further questions about applying for grants, you can email: faicgrants@conservation-us.org.

— Jessica Walthew (Education & Training Officer) and Rebecca Gridley (Vice Chair) on behalf of ECPN

————————————

Bonus Tips!

ECPN asked Eric Pourchot, Institutional Advancement Director for FAIC, for some common reasons applications are not funded. Keep these in mind when drafting your application!

The proposal did not meet the eligibility requirements or did not address the purpose of the grant or scholarship. For example, a professional development proposal might address the institution’s need for the proposed training, but not the benefit for the individual, which is the purpose of the grant. Read the guidelines carefully and think like a reviewer as you write the proposal.
The proposal is incomplete. Be sure to double-check attachments, any required letters of support, etc.
The project’s cost is out of proportion to the scale of the grant or scholarship. For example, a proposal might show $20,000-$30,000 in expenses, with no firm source of funding. If the grant limit is $1,000, reviewers may ask how likely it is that the project will be completed.
The proposal has errors or inconsistencies. These sometimes can be overlooked, but when competition is stiff, a proposal that doesn’t appear to be well thought-out will often be rated lower than more polished proposals.
The budget is inflated, has errors, or isn’t justified. This is not always a fatal flaw, but often puts a proposal at a disadvantage. If airfare or hotel prices are listed as much higher than what can be found online, for example, reviewers may question the overall proposal. Conversely (but more rarely), a budget that doesn’t appear to reflect the real costs of a project may be seen as not feasible. If there is a factor that distorts the budget, that should be indicated and justified in the narrative. For example, scheduling might not allow the applicant to travel over a weekend, raising the cost of a round trip flight, or the applicant may be staying with friends and not require a hotel.

Recent recipients of the George Stout grant presenting at AIC’s Annual Meeting.

ECPN Blogpost Series: Getting to Know AIC and FAIC

Have you ever wondered where AIC (the association) and FAIC (the foundation) overlap, and where they diverge? Or who works for AIC and FAIC, and how they got involved?

This blogpost series takes a closer look at the structure and mission of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) and the Foundation for AIC (FAIC) to introduce newcomers to the field —or even those who are not so new— to what AIC is and what it does. To get a more personalized and in-depth view, ECPN interviewed staff and board members for AIC and FAIC. In our follow-up blogposts, you will hear directly from those involved about these organizations and the work they do. But first… let’s get back to basics!

First and foremost, AIC is a membership organization for conservation professionals. To this end, the AIC staff works to support AIC members, and the AIC board serves to support the members and address their concerns. AIC members themselves make up much of the organization’s structure: members are elected to serve on the AIC board and in specialty group leadership, or are appointed to committees and networks (such as ECPN). These different groups work together to support the field of conservation through their combined action. Which brings us to AIC’s mission statement:

“The American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is the national membership organization supporting conservation professionals in preserving cultural heritage by establishing and upholding professional standards, promoting research and publications, providing educational opportunities, and fostering the exchange of knowledge among conservators, allied professionals, and the public.”

This is a tall order. How does AIC accomplish this? The AIC staff recently revamped portions of the website to detail the initiatives that fulfill each component of this mission. Some of these initiatives –such as organizing the Annual Meeting and managing communication between members (your specialty group listservs)– are probably already familiar to you. We’ll learn more about these important programs and projects in forthcoming posts in this series.

The Foundation for AIC also supports conservation education, research, and outreach activities, but is separate from AIC. As Eryl Wentworth, Executive Director for both organizations, explains: “AIC and FAIC have a symbiotic relationship. They are separate legal entities with different missions, working both in tandem and independently to advance the field.” FAIC’s goals of advancing the profession, providing information resources, strengthening the professional education program, and expanding outreach, all benefit AIC members in critical ways.

There are important distinctions between AIC and FAIC in how they are funded, classified, and organized. AIC is a 501(c)6 nonprofit, and your AIC membership dues support the resources and staff devoted to AIC initiatives, such as the Annual Meeting, online tools and resources, and publications to disseminate conservation research (AIC News and the Journal of AIC (JAIC)). The Foundation (FAIC) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, and in contrast, is responsible for raising funds to support its own management and initiatives. Funds raised from grants and individual donations (including from AIC members) support the programs administered by FAIC, which include Connecting to Collections Care (C2CC), Angels projects, the Collections Assessment for Preservation program (CAP), and the Oral History Project, to name only a few.

AIC and the FAIC are each managed by a board of directors. The AIC board is made up of conservation professionals nominated by the Nominating Committee and elected by the broader AIC membership. There are four administrative leadership positions (President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer) and four additional board directors that oversee different aspects of the organization, such as Professional Education, Communications, Specialty Groups, and Committees and Networks. These positions are all voluntary, and AIC relies heavily on its members to participate in the leadership of the organization. The FAIC Board includes leadership from the AIC Board (including the Executive Director of AIC and FAIC), plus professionals in allied fields and in such areas as marketing, publishing, insurance, and law. These board members provide additional voices that help to broaden the reach of the organization in related areas of arts and culture, as well as expertise we otherwise lack.

Both organizations are based in a Washington D.C. office staffed by 13 professionals in nonprofit management. Some of the staff work for both organizations, while others’ responsibilities are directly tied to either AIC or FAIC. The AIC/FAIC staff are deeply invested in helping our profession grow and to educating the public about what we do. You may have met some of the AIC staff at the Annual Meeting, or have been in touch with them to update your membership information. Their work extends beyond this, and includes crucial advocacy for the field in the broader context.

Stay tuned for our next posts, which will offer further insight into these organizations and the people who keep them running!

Thanks AIC and FAIC!

— Jessica Walthew (Education & Training Officer) and Rebecca Gridley (Vice Chair) on behalf of ECPN

Belgian Committee of the Blue Shield Seeks Support to Fight Art Trafficking

AIC would like to share the following statement from the Belgian Committee of the Blue Shield:

“After the attacks of 22 March 2016, the Federal Government asserted its determination to combat terrorism in our country.

However, by royal decree of 27 October 2015 establishing the repartition of the personnel of the Federal Police (Belgian Monitor of 30 October 2015) it decided to abolish the ‘Art & Antiques’ section of the Federal Judicial Police, which endeavours to fight the illicit trafficking of works of art.

It is nevertheless well known that the illicit traffic in works of art is one of the sources of finance for international terrorism. In his discourse of 17 November 2015 at UNESCO, President Holland of France made the fight against the illicit traffic in works of art a priority for action:

‘The first of these priorities is the fight against the illicit trafficking in cultural property. It is important to know that at this moment, the terrorist organisation IS delivers archaeological permits and raises taxes on the works that will then supply the international black market, passing through French ports, havens for the handling and money-laundering, including in Europe.’

At the present time, several western countries are dedicating more staff and resources to combat the illicit trafficking of works of art. This is the case in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain (24 staff versus 8 beforehand), the United States of America (16 staff versus 6 before) and above all France, which has a specialised unit of 25 people. Other countries are taking similar measures. Belgium is therefore resolutely marching against the tides of history.

In international colloquiums, Belgium was clearly identified as a main hub of the illicit trafficking of works of art. In abolishing – particularly now – the ‘Art and Antiquities’ unit of the Federal Judicial Police, our country does not give the right signals.

Several national and international organisations, namely INTERPOL and the UN, complained to the Federal Government about this measure, pointing out that Belgium is no longer able to fulfill its international obligations. Furthermore, the abolition of the judiciary unit ‘Art & Antiquities’ risks damaging the reputation of Belgium, already tarnished by criticism after the Paris attacks for the way in which our country handles the fight against terrorism.

In abolishing the ‘Art & Antiquities’ unit, a specialised contact group disappears. It will no longer be possible to reply to specific questions from Interpol, foreign customs services and other authorities and international organisations. Even worse, the database that is managed by this judicial section will no longer be updated. Belgium will become the weak link in the battle against the financing of terrorism and the illicit trafficking of works of art. It will be very difficult to repair the damage which will result and considerable financial means will be needed.

More alarmingly, Paris Match revealed recently that ‘one of the perpetrators of the deadly attacks at Zaventem airport and Maelbeek metro station in March of this year actively participated in the trafficking of works of art in Belgium, and relatively recently. Around him were other characters, apparently linked to Salah Abdeslam.’ Without being able to confirm that there could be a link between the attacks in Brussels and the illicit trafficking of works of art, this information should underline that the negligence of the Federal Government could cost us all dearly.

Sign the Petition (Site in French)

Minister of the Interior,
Minister of Justice,

In abolishing the ‘Art & Antiquities’ unit of the Federal Judicial Police, you are putting Belgian citizens, as well as the citizens of other countries, in danger.

The fight against terrorism, and therefore its financing, must be one of your priorities.

We ask you to reverse your decision to abolish the ‘Art & Antiquities’ unit of the Federal Judicial Police, and to work towards strengthening it. We want see the restoration of Belgium’s image abroad through the respect of its international obligations and by lending support to the efforts to prevent new innocent victims.

The authors of the petition :

Myriam Serck-Dewaide
Gustaaf Janssens

The Belgian committee of the Blue Shield asbl, is a coordinating body bringing together representatives of Belgian authorities, both federal and federated, and international organisations, including experts in the protection and management of cultural heritage. It works towards the enforcement of compliance with The Hague Convention of 1954 and its Protocols in relation to the protection of cultural property in the case of armed conflict. http://www.blueshieldbelgium.be/francais/frfindex.htm”

You can sign the petition here.

Call for Papers – Cultural Heritage Management Sessions (ASOR 2017)

Session Chairs: Glenn Corbett, American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), and Suzanne Davis, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan

We are seeking abstract submissions for the Cultural Heritage Management session(s) of the American Schools of Oriental Research annual meeting, which will be held in Boston, MA, November 15-18, 2017. This session welcomes papers concerning archaeological conservation and heritage management in terms of methods, practices, and case studies in areas throughout the Near East. For the 2017 meeting, we are especially interested in presentations focusing on:

· site conservation and preservation activities

· site management planning

· engagement and education of local communities

Interested speakers should submit a title and abstract (max. 250 words) by February 15, 2017. Please see ASOR’s call for papers and instructions for submission here: http://www.asor.org/am/2017/papers.html. Note that professional membership ($130) and registration for the Annual Meeting (~$175) are required at the time of abstract submission. Student rates are discounted.

Please send inquiries or questions to Glenn Corbett (joeycorbett@yahoo.com) and Suzanne Davis (davissL@umich.edu).

Improved Respirator Fit Testing at the AIC Annual Meeting

The Health & Safety Committee is happy to announce NEW and IMPROVED respirator fit testing for the Annual Meeting in Chicago! We have listened to your feedback and have modified the process to make fit testing more accessible. The new program includes:

An online lecture–no more conflicts with Annual Meeting programming!
More options for medical evaluations. Medical evaluations will be provided through AIC (and are included in the price of the fit test) OR you can still see your own doctor.
CIPP members get a discount! FREE Fit Test if you sign up for the CIPP Seminar.

Appointments are limited, so register now!

Why Get a Respirator Fit Test?

The AIC Fit Test Program is specifically designed for conservators, particularly those who are self-employed or who do not have a respiratory protection program provided through their employer.

Whether you are using hazardous chemicals in your laboratory or working with mold-infested artifacts after a flood, you need to be sure you are protected with a properly fitting respirator. Do the elastic straps still pull tightly? Do you need a new type or size due to facial changes resulting from weight gain or loss or surgery? Are you using the right kind of protection for your hazard?

OSHA requires individuals be fit tested on an ANNUAL basis to assess the condition of both the respirator and the user. If you perform work that requires the use of a respirator your employer MUST provide the appropriate respiratory protection, medical evaluation, training, information and fit testing–even disposable dust masks are considered by OSHA to be respirators requiring proper fit testing.

It is important to be proactive in your own health and safety and to follow OSHA recommendations and protocols, even if you are your only employee.

What is Involved?

The AIC Respirator Fit Test Program consists of three parts in order to be compliant with the OSHA standard:

(1) An OSHA Respirator Medical Evaluation Questionnaire completed by the registrant and reviewed prior to the fit test either with the Chicago-based clinic contracted by AIC (included in the registration fee) or with their own healthcare professional (at their own expense).

(2) An informational lecture (~ 1 hour) and quiz, which can be completed online prior to the meeting.

(3) An individual fit test (about 15-20 minutes/person) at the Annual Meeting.

Fit test appointments will be available on Tuesday, May 30 (9am-5pm) and Wednesday, May 31 (8:30am-11:30am).

Both the lecture and fit test will be conducted by a qualified Occupational Safety Professional or Certified Industrial Hygienist.

Registrants can bring their own respirator if they already use one and/or try on a selection of sample respirators. They will be contacted directly by the Health & Safety Committee to provide the link to the online lecture, to discuss medical evaluation options and to schedule appointments.

How to Register:

Registration for a fit test can be completed through the AIC Annual Meeting online portal.

This year, the Conservators in Private Practice (CIPP) Specialty Group is generously funding fit testing for its membership. CIPP members who register for the CIPP seminar, Innovative ‘Tools’ to Enhance Your Business, can also sign up for a FREE fit test. Can’t attend the seminar? You are still eligible to sign up for a fit test for the reduced rate of $30 (a 50% discount from the regular registration fee). If you aren’t currently a member, add CIPP to your AIC Membership Renewal to receive this benefit ($25).

From the “Sessions” checkout screen, select the “Respirator Fit Test” option and the appropriate registration status (Regular, CIPP Member or CIPP Seminar Attendee) and proceed to checkout. AIC will confirm your status eligibility prior to contacting you about scheduling a specific appointment.

We look forward to seeing you in Chicago!

The Committee would like to thank all the members who completed our online survey! Fit Test organizers are making sure to address all the helpful comments, questions and concerns.

Holiday Gifts for Conservators

Need to subtly drop some hints for holiday gifts? ECPN has compiled a list of great gifts for conservators to make it easy for you. We posted our suggestions on our Facebook page last week and got some great additions from ECPN members, which we’ve added below.

1. Tiny brushes (Windsor-Newton series 7, which come in sizes 0 and 00)

2. Soft Japanese Dust brushes

3. Sharp scissors (Gingher Stork scissors)

4. Tweezers

5. Mini spatulas

6. Silicone tipped tools

7. Labelmaker!

Feeling a bit more generous?
8. Tool roll

9. Lab coat

10. Optivisor

From our Facebook friends:

— Books published by the Getty or National Gallery (tip: shop for them during the biannual sales)

— Septifile Nail buffers: a pack of nail file sandpaper in multiple grits with sticky backs (easy to stick to spatulas)

— Proscope microscope adapter for iPhone, magnifies up to 80X

Thanks for the contributions. Happy Holidays from ECPN!

CCN Seeking New Social Media Chair – Applications Due February 15th!

CCN Seeking New Social Media Chair
Attention, Emerging Conservation Professionals! The Collections Care Network (CCN) is currently seeking a new Social Media Chair. This position would be an excellent opportunity for an ECP to put his or her social media skills to good use, become more involved within our organization, and take professional service to the next level!
The Social Media Chair is a new Officer position approved by the AIC Board this Fall. The applicant for this position should have extensive knowledge of the audience, purpose, and general outcomes for various social media platforms. Work would include developing content strategies and workflow for feeding content to CCN social media sites that adhere to AIC social media policy, contributing and manage contributions from others to CCN social media sites, and communicating social media outcomes to fellow CCN Officers that might lead to potential CCN projects.
The applicant should have a strong interest in furthering preventive conservation and collection care and excellent writing and organizational skills. The CCN Officers meet once a month via conference call, as well as at the Annual Meeting in May.
To apply, please send a letter of interest and C.V. to Becky Fifield at rebeccafifield@nypl.org by February 15. For further information or to discuss the position, you may call Becky at (617) 212-1468. CCN is an AIC board-appointed network. Leadership in a network is by application and selection with final approval by the AIC board. Every effort is made to ensure that the officers represent CCN’s intended demographic, wide geographic representation, and balanced representation from conservators and allied professionals.

Call for Submissions – Sustainability Committee Tips Session

Call for Submissions – Sustainability Committee Tips Session
45th Annual AIC Meeting May 28 – June 1, 2017 in Chicago, IL
The Sustainability Committee of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC) invites submissions for its sixth annual session at the 45th Annual Meeting, in Chicago from May 28 to June 1, 2017.
Do you choose solvents because they have minimal toxicological effects? Have you found ways to minimize solvent use? Can your mannequins be reused and retrofitted from one exhibition to another? When making a new frame for a painting, is it made from sustainably harvested wood? Do you reuse shipping crates? Do you recycle gloves or other lab supplies? Get creative!!
The Sustainability Session will use a Lightning-Round Tip format to explore this year’s theme, “Treatment 2017: Innovation in Conservation and Collection Care.”
We invite abstracts that explore sustainability within conservation specialties (archaeological, architecture, book and paper, electronic media, objects, paintings, photographic, textiles, wooden artifacts). We also invite abstracts that explore sustainability within collections care, health and safety, research and technical studies, as well as how you incorporate sustainability into your private practice.
Tips will be grouped into blocks with a Q&A component.
The deadline for submission of abstracts is Friday March 31, 2017.
Please submit abstracts via email to sustainability@conservation-us.org .
Abstracts are not to exceed 500 words, not including title or biographical information.
All abstracts should be submitted in English.

AIC Board of Directors Statement on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL)

We would like to share the following statement from the AIC Board of Directors:
The American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works strongly supports the Oceti Sakowin Oyate (the Great Sioux Nation) and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) across treaty land. As the national professional organization dedicated to the preservation of cultural heritage, we deplore the destruction or desecration of any historic or sacred site, and are deeply concerned by the current threat posed to such cultural heritage by the DAPL. We are committed to collaborating with native people and support the preservation and long-term stewardship of their culturally significant sites. For these reasons, we join with allied agencies, including the American Alliance of Museums, the American Anthropological Association, and the Society for American Archaeology, to condemn any negative impact of the DAPL on historic and sacred sites.

Approved by the AIC Board of Directors
December 1, 2016
To view and share the statement, click here.

THE RINCON CENTER HISTORIC MURALS: A Conservator's Notes on the Spirit and Significance of Public Art

As the conservator and ongoing custodian of the historic murals at Rincon Center, 55 Mission St. in San Francisco, I have often been asked to render my opinion on the significance of these important artworks. In September of 1986, The San Francisco Business Journal wrote that I

“withheld my personal opinion on the art and preferred to talk about the restoration process itself .”

Due to the highly charged political content of these murals, I felt that it was not my position as a professional art conservator to render such an opinion. I have never experienced a need to comment on them from an artistic, historic or political vantage point until now in our current political climate.
These 27 panels represent the largest and most expensive single mural project ever awarded under the Depression era programs established to put artists to work. Many refer to these various projects as part the WPA program or Work Progress Administration. The Rincon Center murals specifically, were commissioned under a program directed by the U.S. Treasury Department, the last of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal art projects of the mid 20^th Century. More importantly, they represent a moment in American history when art and history itself were put on trial.
The Rincon Annex Post Office murals were painted by Russian born artist Anton Refrieger in the post-World War II era between 1946 and 1948. It was a time when tensions revolved around the cold war and suspected subversions on the Homefront. Conservative and patriotic values ran high in the U.S. and America stood at the forefront of a new world order.
Refregier’s preliminary designs were envisioned and drafted in the late 30’s and early 40’s near the end of the Great Depression. World War II interrupted the completion of the commission and work was resumed in 1946 at the end of the war. In contrast to the political landscape after World War II, the artist painted California’s history in a frank, honest and judgmental interpretation that was inspired by the hardships of an earlier and depressed era. He was not preoccupied with the aggrandizement of our state and nation’s past. For many, his works were perceived as dark passages from regional history that questioned the nobility and grandeur of early settlers. Many considered the character and themes of these paintings “un-American”.
Significant attempts were made by conservative political forces to remove these murals. The artist is said to have worried that conservative “thugs” would come along in the middle of the night to destroy his masterpiece. However, San Franciscans rallied and the murals were saved. But the controversies surrounding this now preserved landmark continue to be an indelible part of San Francisco’s famous and infamous history.
Politics have always played a major role in attempts to record or destroy history. Art and history have been repeatedly put on trial throughout the ages. It’s happened many times before the McCarthy era challenges to the Rincon murals and it has happened many times since. That’s the inherent nature of art, particularly as it exists in the public realm.
Long before the Rincon Murals were challenged, Hitler’s vigorous attempts to eradicate the art, the history and the memory of all that displeased him were among the many atrocities associated with Germany’s Third Reich. More recently, the world was shocked in 2001 when the Taliban destroyed important monuments in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan because they were inconsistent with the Taliban’s own religious views and ideology. And in even more recent times, the scourge of ISIS has devastated the art world. Historians, preservationists and the world public at large are equally appalled by the destruction of long treasured antiquities in the Palmyra Valley and elsewhere throughout the Middle East The impact is best described by William Webber of the UK based Art Loss Registry. “If you’re going to eradicate someone’s identity, the best way is to eradicate their art”
It’s been said that censoring history is an act of cowardice It can come from the left as well as the right. In 2014, a feminist group in France rallied to have the iconic VJ Day statue of “The Kiss” destroyed because they found it offensive to the feminist agenda. And there are many in this country that still rally to destroy any vestiges of what remain of the Judeo-Christian heritage that has played a significant role in the development of our nation, as we know it today.
Almost thirty years have past since I restored the murals at Rincon Center. Irrespective of my own political inclinations, I’ve come to further appreciate Refregier’s honest attempts at conveying the darker sides of history. I view such attempts as something requisite in the achievement of a more enlightened society. His work remains as yet one more reminder that, “those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”
In this understanding, I feel that the artist Anton Refregier and I are more alike than different, with a convergence of minds and ideologies from two polar ends of the political spectrum. As a politically conservative art conservator, I am as determined to honor and preserve the past as the socialist artist was to paint it. Any attempt to alter history is an affront on truth however it may be perceived and interpreted.
In the historic lobby of Rincon Center, stark and sometimes unpleasant truths associated with the American journey are displayed front and center. A corridor adjacent to the historic lobby leads to the newer atrium area where the more recent 1980’s paintings by artist Richard Hass adorn the walls. These newer additions to the old Rincon Annex Post Office were once referred to as “a monument to capitalism.” The Hass paintings depict the abundance and sense of well being often associated with the accomplishments of free enterprise and the American Dream. There are obvious contrasts and a distinct irony associated with the juxtaposition of these two very different works of art. But I believe that standing between them gives one a great sense of what it means to be uniquely American.
As conservators, historians and preservationists, we must adhere to our own distinct and unique version of the “Hippocratic” oath. Aside from our own personal and political proclivities, we are bound by obligation to honor the past and the truths associated with it. I would like to believe that Anton Refregier would agree.