Tag: AIC’s 43rd Annual Meeting

43rd Annual Meeting- Electronic Media Group Session, May 16, "The Fragile Surface: Preserving the CD-DA by John Passmore

John Passmore works as the archives manager at WNYC. They have audio recordings that go back to the earliest days of radio– about 100 years now. As a listener of WNYC it was very interesting to hear about how they are caring for their archives. WNYC does a lot more than just radio- like many media producers, they are a multi-platform production company with born-digital content. In the audio preservation lab they are able to digitize and preserve almost all media types, which is an anomaly in the public media world.
That being said- between 2000-2008 they created ~30,000 digital audio cds which were created and finalized by the engineers at the time of the broadcast. About 5 years ago they started to notice some problems with them being unplayable and hard to rip. It was possible to extract the .wav file, but it would sound terrible. Being worried about the health of these formats they created a workflow to migrate them in an efficient and responsible manner. Some have obvious manufacturing defects, but the scary thing is that usually you can’t see something visibly wrong. The most commonly believed reason that cds fail is due to degradation or failure of the dye layer. This is extremely small- at 0.5 micrometers this is about 1/100th of the width of a human hair!
To migrate their collection, they bought a machine that is used to put cds onto an ipod or other digital player- it is not preservation oriented, but can concatenate .wav files dump them onto the DAM and extract the metadata. If the cd fails then they use a separate testing system. Plexstore can be used to review the data. It is also possible to run the cd in real time in a cd player and extract the info that way, but this is obviously much more time consuming. There are problems with this system and John is not totally happy with it, but it is working for now.
Now for the alarming information- they ran a test of about 20% of 2,400 discs to determine how many errors and what kind there were- correctable or uncorrectable. None of the cds passed! So the whole collection is at great risk.
John’s list of takeaways:

  1. CDs don’t last very long, maybe even less than we though- their CDs are only 10 years old, not the 20-30 usually stated in accelerated aging tests
  2. It is hard to know why the CDs go bad, and finally
  3. They are looking at open source tools like QCTools. John ended with a great video using MakeAGIF.com showing the process of his machine in process.

43rd Annual Meeting- Workshop, May 13, "Using Wikis to Collaborate, Share, and Advance Conservation" with Rachael Perkins Arenstein, Michele Derrick, and Suzy Morgan

This year, the annual meeting wiki-a-thon turned into a daylong workshop in the hopes that we would have more time to add content to the site. Thanks again to NCPTT for helping to fund the day! Although we never seem to have enough time, the day was immensely helpful in getting beginners comfortable with adding content to the site and moving the more experienced users forward to another level with useful tips and problem solving for getting the wiki to do what we want.
After introductions, Rachael started with a useful overview of the wiki site and general goals. She also gave a brief talk put together by Leon Zaks (from the pestlist) about how to choose your online platform. Basically the wiki is a many to many platform- there are many contributors with loosely vetted content meant to reach a large audience.
Michelle presented on CAMEO, which is hosted by the MFA Boston. It has recently been moved to a wiki format so that it can be more easily updated- hopefully by more than just Michelle. Anyone interested is welcome to contact Michelle. CAMEO is a great resource and the wiki is not meant to duplicate it, but there is definitely room for increasing the connection between the two and improving the integration of the sites.
Unfortunately Nancie Ravenel was not able to make it, but we had Nora Lockshin available to step in and provide lots of great information about wikipedia in general, what are some of the ground rules and expected conduct on the site. If you didn’t know, there is a wikipedia teahouse made for newcomers- this is a great place to post questions and get answers about coding. Just beware- the AIC wiki does not have all of the extensions and add-ons, so something you can do on Wikipedia isn’t necessarily possible on the AIC Wiki. That being said, if there is anything you want to do and can’t let Rachael know and she can look into getting that functionality on the site.
Two other wiki sites, you should know about Preservapedia (also sponsored by NCPTT) and the SPNHC wiki which is just getting off the ground.
Other tidbits you should know that came out of the day:

  • Creative Commons is a way of licensing images to limit their use by others, or make them available to all
  • when searching through google images or flickr, you can filter those that have the CC license
  • there is a great slider tool to help you determine if something is still under copyright or in the public domain
  • The AIC has a policy and expects that if you post something, you have gotten the proper permissions and you have given AIC permission to publish and re-publish content in perpetuity, so that they can migrate to a new platform when needed in the future.
  • When adding images- be aware of their size. Please resize before uploading.
  • Zotero is a great open source citation tool- the exported citation format for the wiki is not exactly right, but could save you a ton of time when adding citations.
  • Check out the Categories page from Special pages- these can be used to “tag” pages in a way to help link them together.
  • For the non-beginner training session Suzy put all of her notes on the wiki under the news section, so you can find all of her great tips there.

Happy wiki-editing!
 

43rd Annual Meeting – The Year of Light session – May 15, 2015 – "Mark Rothko's Harvard Murals: An Image for a Public Space" by Narayan Khandekar

As a big fan of Mark Rothko, I was particularly jazzed to hear this talk. The idea of “restoring” faded works by Rothko is particularly intriguing to me, since color and light are of utmost importance with his work: atmosphere matters most.
Mr. Khandekar, who gave the talk, stated that he was only the spokesperson for the team. This was clearly a collaborative effort with many different people including those familiar with Rothko.  With all of these people working on this project, it helped create an all-around vision, Khandekar said.
For those unfamiliar with Mark Rothko, he was an artist in the Abstract Expressionist movement. He wanted people to be immersed in his paintings. He believed his paintings formed an environment around the viewers, which is how these mural works came to be. Rothko said, “I have been preoccupied for a number of years with the idea of translating my pictorial concepts into murals, which would serves as an image for a public space.”
Khandekar mentioned similar mural projects, such as the Seagram Murals, which I saw at the Tate Modern back in 2010. I completely understand what Rothko was trying to project onto the viewer: the murals creates an immersive atmosphere that made me never want to leave the room. Seriously, I sat in that gallery space for a long while, feeling as if I would lose something if I left the room. It was one of the most profound experiences I had with an artwork installation. I found out at this talk that the pieces were brought together in real life only as a temporary real life installation (they were commissioned for the Four Seasons restaurant in NYC and apparently were never installed) and is together only online. So I was one of the fortunate few who got to see this installation in its entirety live and in person!
ANYWAY, back to our regularly scheduled program. The Harvard Rothko Murals were installed in the Holyoke Center at Harvard in 1963. The Holyoke Center is a Brutalist building designed by architect Josep Sert. The installation room was originally intended to be a Harvard fellows’ meeting room, but instead was used as a high-level (read: important people only) dining room, but had also been used for other special events, including a disco party! Viva La Saturday Night Fever!
There were 5 pieces in total as part of the installation that were all butted up against each other: three pieces fit into a niche in the room, creating a triptych, and the other two were displayed on other walls. This room had floor-to-ceiling windows so the paintings received A WHOLE LOT of light. Rothko asked the folks at Harvard to keep the blinds drawn as much as possible, but sadly the blinds often remained open. As a result, the paintings faded and were removed from display in 1979.
So now we come to the 21st century in search of a solution: we want to show these murals again. How can we treat these so display would be possible? In order to investigate the possibilities, the team broke the art viewing experience down into three aspects: the painting, the viewer and the light.
The paintings themselves have a surface texture to them: the media is egg tempera and distemper (also a favorite medium of another favorite of mine, Edouard Vuillard); and there were glossy versus matte areas. Any type of wholesale restoration would have hidden these aspects of the work, so physical intervention was not pursued.
The viewer experience had evolved over the years. Now we have visual digital enhancement tools like Google Glass, HoloLens, and Oculus Rift. These will serve a purpose for museum visitors, but that didn’t seem to be the solution for this project either.
What did seem like a possibility was the use of light. It affects how the viewer would see the work without changing the surface characteristics of the work. So, compensating using light seemed like the best option.
They used color slides that were taken back in 1964 (Ektachrome), but of course those slides faded as well. In order to determine the original colors, they utilized one of the panels that had not been on display – Panel 6 – to get the faded colors in the slides right. They worked with a media lab in Basel, Switzerland in order to get the faded slides back into balance using Panel 6 as the color reference, which was applied to all of the paintings.
Now here’s where it got complicated and you might wait for the post-prints: somehow folks at MIT (I think it was MIT) took that color reference rendering from Panel 6, and applied it universally to the slides to create digital images of the original murals. Using a camera-projector system, a compensation image was formed and then aligned on the original panels. Then BAM! Rothko’s mural paintings are back without any alteration of the original. We’re talking AMAZING resolution here, folks: over 2 million pixels!! Freaking. Genius.
So the really awesome part was the diversity of reactions to this “restoration.” I tried to capture their original quotes, but I imagine I am paraphrasing or only got a portion of the quote.
• Terry Winters, artist: “Drama of turning off the projectors is like the move from comedy to tragedy unexpectedly!” (I kind of love that, but that is the actor in me, I’m sure.)
• Christiane Paul: “We have two versions: the historic and the restored.”
• Jeffrey Weiss Guggenheim: “The light within the painting is lost… Deceptive illusions is unnerving…”
• Brad Epley Menil: “Restored is a digital remaster and the unrestored version is like a vinyl LP. Which is the most authentic version? At what point do we accept change?”
• Kate Rothko Prizel: “The setting is not a problem. You experience the room. The space felt right. It feels like Rothko luminosity.”
• Christopher Rothko: “It feels right because my father’s brush strokes are still there.”
The display is up until July 26: I’m totally going because in order to really experience Rothko, you have to be in the room with the paintings, as the artist intended.

43rd Annual Meeting – Textile Specialty Group Session, May 15, “Tip Session on Mount Making: Materials and Methods for Exhibition and Display by Robin Hanson, Shelly Uhlir, Laura Mina, Denise Krieger Migdail, and Joy Gardiner”

The Tip Session was the final presentation of the Textile Specialty Group. If you missed this session, you missed scads, mountains, and heaps of useful mounting information from six knowledgeable presenters. They shared techniques, and sources for materials and mounting supplies. The presentations were so rich with information, I could not hope to scratch the surface in this post.
The first presenter was Robin Hanson, Associate Conservator of Textiles, with the Cleveland Museum of Art. Her presentation was titled “Modular Mount for pre-Columbian Tunics.” The subject was a display method she developed along with mount makers Carlo Maggiora and Philip Brutz. This tube mount for support and display of multiple pre-Columbian tunics, for a traveling exhibition, had custom fabricated end caps of cylindrical aluminum rod, and custom padded inserts made for each tunic. It is versatile. Variations of the mount were made for inclined wall mounts and for display in the round. The mount reduces handling of the fragile tunics, and can remain in the garment for shipping and in storage. We are in luck, because her poster of the technique will be posted.
Shelly Uhlir is an Exhibits Specialist and Mount Maker at the National Museum of the American Indian. Her presentation, “Joints and Connections: Attempts at Locking Motion,” was divided into three categories for the creation of arm to torso connections: pinned, keyed, and magnetic. Shelly wanted us to keep in mind that shoulder joints are best when they are easy to find and release. Shelly proposed the idea of a collaborative arm connection / mannequin joint wiki-page. I hope that her clever solutions will be posted soon.
Laura Mina, Associate Conservator from the Costume Institute of The Metropolitan Museum of Art presented “Hats for Egg Heads.”  Laura shared how to support and secure hats while they are perched on highly polished, featureless egg-shaped mounts. She used felt, and double stick tape as well as small constructed forms of Volara, polyester batting, twill tape, and silk. They were a clean and simple solution for display.
Susan Heald, Textile Conservator at the National Museum of the American Indian, presented “Adjustable Angle, reusable slant boards for mounting hides and textiles with magnets.” Susan explained the evolution of the slant boards for hides and textiles used at NMAI. She described how they went from being custom cut to the shape of a hide, to light weight reusable aluminum honeycomb boards with larger handling margins. She shared their construction, materials used, types and size of magnet, sleeve options for the back of textiles, and her choice of sueded polyester to cover magnets used to secure hides to the slant boards.
Denise Krieger Migdail, Textile Conservator at the Asian Art Museum presented  “A new 3M: Minimal Magnet Mounts.”  Denise pointed out that magnetic mounts can be beautiful, functional, and of infinite variety. Her talk was packed with information about the ways she has used magnets for mounts. She had two categories: strip fasteners with magnets embedded into various types of board to spread the pressure evenly along the length of an object; and as point fasteners when magnets are used singly. She shared storage and separation techniques, such as keeping the magnets interleaved with twill tape, and using a stronger magnet as an aid for separation.
Our last speaker was Joy Gardiner, Assistant Director of Conservation, at the Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library. Her presentation was titled “To Avoid Further Piercings: The Mounting of a 1795 Sampler with Original Paper Backing via a Paper Conservation Hinging Method.”  The technique that Joy adapted to keep the backing intact was found in the realm of paper conservation in the article by Hugh Phibbs, “Recent Developments in Works on Paper” published in The Book and Paper Group Annual, Volume 24, 2005. Japanese tissue paper hinges were attached to the sampler backing. The hinges were then passed through slits in a four-ply board, and then adhered to the back of that board without disturbing (or piercing) the sampler or the backing.
The session finished with Q & A followed by time with the speakers, and their examples and handouts.

43rd Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 15, "Heat-Set Tissue: Finding a Practical Solution of Adhesives by Lauren Varga and Jennifer K. Herrmann"

The National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) has been making heat-set mending tissue in house for many years.  Recent digitization initiatives have increased the need for efficient stabilization mending.  NARA prefers heat-set tissue for this type of mending for many reasons.  The tissue is flexible and easily reversible.  It requires no moisture for application and is easy to use.  The transparency of the tissue, which they can control by making the tissue in house, does not interfere with the digitization of text. To make the heat-set tissue, NARA starts with an appropriate weight of Japanese tissue, which is toned (if necessary) before application of the adhesive.  The tissue is wetted and smoothed out against silicone Mylar to remove bubbles.  A batch of the acrylic emulsion polymers Rhoplex AC 234 + AC 73 were mixed and applied through a screen onto the wet tissue.  The tissue was then allowed to dry on the Mylar until ready for use. Unfortunately, the Rhoplex adhesives they had been using for many years have been discontinued, and they had to search out a new blend of adhesives to continue making the tissue.  NARA tried two different blends of adhesives:  Avanse MV-100 + Plextol B500 and Avanse MV-100 + Rhoplex M200.  NARA settled on a 4 : 1 : 1 ratio of water : Avanse MV-100 : Plextol B500 for their new mix. PROS:

  • FTIR analysis showed that the adhesive, when applied through a screen, does not sink through the Japanese tissue.
  • Blocking tests also showed the tissue safe to use on multiple layers of documents.
  • The mixture passed the PAT test for use on photographs.

CONS:

  • Avanse MV-100 has optical brighteners in it, which is something of a concern.  Advanced aging test showed that the optical brighteners did not migrate into the documents which had been mended, however, so it was deemed acceptable for use.
  • The tissue also has a high sheen from the silicone Mylar that can be objectionable to some clients.  It isn’t bad enough to cause problems for digitization, however, and it can be removed with a swab of alcohol if necessary.

43rd Annual Meeting – Textiles Specialty Group, May 14th, “Lights, Camera, Archaeology: Documenting Archaeological Textile Impressions with Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI)” by Emily Frank

Documenting textile impressions or pseudomorphs on archaeological objects is very challenging. In my own experience, I’ve found trying to photograph textile pseudomorphs, especially when they are poorly preserved, very difficult and involves taking multiple shots with varying light angles, which still often results in poor quality images. This is why Emily Frank‘s paper was of particular interest to me because it provided an alternative to digital photography that would be feasible and more effective in documenting textile impressions: Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI).
RTI is a computational documentation method that allows for multiple images of an object to be merged into one and viewed interactively to allow the direction of light to be changed so that surface features are enhanced. The process involves changing the direction of the light when each photo is taken. Using open source software, a single image is rendered using various algorithms that allows the viewer to move a dial and change the direction/angle of light the image can be viewed at. Additional components in the software allow for the images to be viewed using different filters or light effects that make visualization of surface features easier. RTI is gaining in popularity as a documentation tool in conservation due to its low cost and feasibility and several papers presented at this year’s conference touched on the use of this technique (including this paper I also blogged about).
There are two general light sources used for RTI. One uses a dome outfitted with many LED lights that will turn off and on as photographs are taken. An RTI light dome is pictured on Cultural Heritage Imaging’s website that was used at the Worcester Art Museum (CHI is a non-profit organization that provides training and tools for this technique). However, most conservators use a lower tech method where a light source (a camera flash or lamp for example) is held at a fixed distance from the artifact and manually moved around at different angles when each photo is taken. You can see an example of this method used in the field in this blog post from UCLA/Getty Conservation Program student Heather White.
In her paper, Emily focused on documenting textile or basketry impressions on ceramics and more ephemeral impressions, such as those left in the soil by deteriorated textiles or baskets, using RTI. By using the various tools offered by the RTI software (changing light angle, using diffuse light or changing it so that concave surfaces of impressions look convex), she was able to see fine features not clearly visible with standard digital photography, such as the angle of fibers, striations on the surface of plant material or the weave structure. For impressions of textiles left in soil (these were mock-ups she made in potting soil) she noted that digital photography was not very effective in recording these because there was no contrast and the impressions were so fragile that they could not be lifted or moved for better examination or imaging. However using RTI she was able to clearly see that the textiles were crocheted.
In describing her set up and work flow, Emily took photos of the impressions indoors, as well as outdoors (for the soil impressions). She was able to take good images outdoors, but it was better to do RTI at dusk with lower light. She took a minimum of 12 shots per impression at 3 different angles. For her light source she used a flash. In all, she said it took her about 10 minutes to shoot each impression.
When compared to digital photography, RTI is a useful and feasible technique for the documentation of impressions, and worked well for most of the impressions Emily tried to record. It seems that RTI worked well as the stand alone documentation method for impressions in about 40% of the images she took, but is more effective as an examination and documentation tool in combination with standard digital photography. RTI is on its way to becoming a more standardized documentation method in conservation. It appears to be effective for recording low contrast, low relief surfaces, such as textile impressions, and may be the best method to record ephemeral or extremely fragile surfaces that are not possible to preserve. I’m excited about the potential of RTI for impressions and look forward to trying it out the next time I have to record textile impressions or organic pseudomorphs on an archaeological object.

43rd Annual Meeting – OSG Tips Session, May 16, "Plaster Cleaning Tests" by Kathryn Brugioni

In this tip presented during the OSG Tips session luncheon, Kathryn Brugioni discussed the use of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) for evaluating whether certain dry cleaning methods for plaster abraded or damaged the surface of the object.
Dry methods are preferred over wet methods for cleaning plaster because of the risk of solubilizing the substrate during treatment. When Kathryn was presented with a heavily soiled plaster bust that required cleaning, she turned to the use of vinyl erasers as a cleaning method. Using previously published information that evaluated various types of erasers (Williams and Lauffenburger 1995; Pearlstein, et al. 1982) she decided to test two different PVC-based erasers made by Staedtler: the 526 50 Mars plastic eraser and the 527 05 Mars eraser strip refills, to evaluate not only how well they cleaned soiled plaster, but whether they abraded the surface.
Once she chose what dry cleaning method/materials to test, Kathryn was left with the question of how to evaluate surfaces after cleaning to determine the level of abrasion or scratches resulting from the treatment.  Examination using SEM imaging has been used (Wharton, et al. 1990) , but it is a technique that may not be available to all conservators.  So she looked to a method that could be more accessible: RTI.
RTI, or polynomial texture mapping, is an imaging technique that allows for an interactive display of an image under different lighting conditions.  Multiple images are taken of an object where the object is kept in a fixed position, but the light source moves.  The images are processed using using freely available software which combines all the images taken into a single image presented in an interface that allows for the direction of light to be moved across the image at different angles highlighting surface features. (The non-profit organization Cultural Heritage Imaging (CHI) is one of the leaders in this type of imaging for cultural heritage and has lots of information on its website about this technique, steps on how to do it and the software needed to process the images).  The software  also allows for different types of light or shadow effects to be rendered which may improve or further highlight surface examination.  All you need for RTI is a camera, moveable light source and some metal spheres (ball bearings) as markers that help the software determine the direction/angle of the light.  These are all things that conservators have on hand or can readily purchase (like the ball bearings) making this type of surface examination/imaging more accessible and much cheaper than an SEM.
Kathryn cleaned the surfaces of plaster test coupons using the erasers and imaged them with RTI before and after cleaning.  She soon saw that it was possible to see scratches on the surface using this technique.  However, she wanted a way to quantify the scratches and determine what the limit was in terms of scratch size observable using RTI.  She abraded plaster coupons with a range of grades of micromesh, from 400-1800, and then examined the surfaces using RTI.  She noted that you could detect scratches made with up to 800 grit micromesh, but higher grits, like 1800, created more subtle scratches that were not as easily discernable.
Comparing the scratches made by the two erasers on the plaster coupons to those of different micromesh grades, the scratches made by the Mars plastic eraser were similar to those made by 1200 grit micromesh (measured to be about 34μm size scratches) and the eraser strips made scratches similar to 466 grit micromesh (measured to be about 60μm sized scratches).  So the eraser strips are much more abrasive to plaster surfaces than the plastic eraser.
Based on Kathryn’s findings, it looks like RTI can be used to evaluate any surface scratches or changes caused through the abrasive action of erasers used for dry cleaning plaster. Though there are limitations to the use of this technique, and fine scratches may not be readily visible, RTI is a useful, and accessible, examination tool and can provide important information on surface changes caused by certain cleaning methods.
 
References
 

Pearlstein, E., D. Cabelli, A. King, and N. Indictor. 1982.The Effect of Eraser Treatment on Paper. JAIC 22(1): 1–12.
 
Wharton, G., S. Lansing Maish, W.S. Ginell. 1990. A Comparative Study of Silver Cleaning Abrasives. JAIC. 29(1): 13-31.
 
Williams, J. and J. Lauffenburger. 1995. Testing Erasers used to Clean Marble Surfaces. Objects Specialty Group Postprints, Vol. 3: 118-124.
 

43rd Annual Meeting, Electronic Media and Objects Joint Session, Co-Organized by Voices in Contemporary Art (VoCA), May 14, “Beyond the Interview: Working with Artists in Time-based Media Conservation,” Kate Lewis

Kate Lewis, Media Conservator at the Museum of Modern Art, spoke about communicating with artists, a daily practice for time-based media conservators. Time-based media art is inherently dynamic and its conservation requires ongoing collaboration throughout the life-cycle of a piece. Gathering information from an artist is a cumulative process, with opportunities for both formal and informal conversations at multiple stages, from acquisition to condition checking to installation.
The first opportunity for conservators to communicate with the artist is at the point of acquisition. This is a chance to gather information about the media production history and specifications for the technology needed to show the piece. Initial contact generally happens via email; for efficiency and consistency, Lewis has a standard set of questions that she sends to artists.
The next point at which communication with artists happens is during the condition checking phase. This is when all of the media in the piece are examined to ensure that the necessary files and equipment are present and working properly. Gathering information at this point can be a challenge; artists are often busy and may feel rushed, especially if they don’t fully understand the more technical concerns.
It is often at the installation stage that museum staff conducts a formal artist interview. Installation is the first time the staff has a chance to experience the art, and it’s at this point when final tweaking of volume settings and other technical details happens. There are so many people involved and there are many conversations happening between museum staff and the artist, that capturing important snippets of information can be tricky. Lewis likes to audio record whenever possible, in addition to taking notes, and then follows up with more formal questions later on. Post-installation is often the ideal moment for more in-depth conversations with the artist.
Lewis spoke to the importance of revisiting questions with the artist multiple times. A cumulative approach is inevitable, given time-constraints and the nature of these interactions, but it also affords an important opportunity to develop trust and empathy for the artist and the piece. It can take a while to get the artists away from their canned “spiel.” It can also take time for conservators and other museum staff to understand and appreciate, even if they don’t agree with, an artist’s point of view.
Some artists are elusive but exert a lot of influence over their work. Lewis talked about a few artists she’s worked with whose pieces have very specific technological requirements that will face obsolescence in the not-too-distant future, and an unwillingness (at least at this point) on the part of the artists to discuss hardware, software, or format alternatives. Lewis and others in the room speculated that artists don’t always want to talk about how components of their work might change; they might be resistant so that things won’t be changed too soon, forcing conservators to work a little harder to keep as faithful to the original for as long as possible.
Lewis made the interesting point that time-based media art is so new and dynamic that we’re still determining what counts as “patina” for these works; ongoing conversations with artists help us figure out what elements may be altered or replaced and what must be saved in order to retain the authenticity and integrity of the piece.

43rd Annual Meeting – Sustainability (Track B) General Session, May 15, "Sustaining Georgia's Historical Records: NEH Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections Implementation Grant at the Georgia Archives" by Kim Norman and Adam Parnell

Georgia Archives Conservator Kim Norman and Assistant Director of Operations Adam Parnell shared data from the Georgia Archives’ successful NEH Sustaining Cultural Heritage Collections Implementation Grant project in order to support and encourage other institutions seeking to justify implementing similar environmental strategies.  Kim Norman started off with a brief history of the Georgia Archives to set the context of the project.
In 2003, the Georgia Archives opened in its current facility, which was designed to meet the highest archival standards of the time, prioritizing security and environmental protection for the collections. The complex, multi-zoned mechanical system made it possible to monitor environmental conditions closely, but proved to be unwieldy and costly to operate. The NEH SCHC Implementation Grant project aimed to reduce energy consumption while simultaneously continuing to uphold best practices for the preservation of collection materials.
Refusing to let laryngitis derail his commitment to sharing this project, Adam Parnell whispered his way through the talk. The audience’s patience and encouragement served as testament to their interest in hearing what he had to say. The Georgia Archives essentially transitioned from a “run all the equipment all the time” model to a “run equipment only as needed” model. The original HVAC system was run 24/7 for 365 days a year, using up about 700kW/hour and incurring electricity costs of over $30,000 per month. Dehumidifiers were run constantly, even when the outside air was within an acceptable range. Heating and cooling units were also run constantly, at the same time, stressing the system, which needed constant monitoring and repair.
The new model relieved stress on the system and made use of passive environmental conditions whenever possible. The environmental standard was set to 55-60 degrees F with a 35-40% RH set point. The new system installed a “weather station” with “adaptation intelligence,” so, for example, when it’s raining, the draw of outside air reduces to a minimum to avoid increasing the indoor RH. The system can shut down cooling units when the outside air dips below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Likewise, the system turns off the dehumidifiers when outside RH is below 50%. The heating boilers are now run at 140 degrees F instead of the former 180 degrees, and they are turned off altogether when the outside air temperature spikes above 90 degrees.
Using the new model, kilowatt usage has dropped from 700 kW/hour to 365 kW/hour, decreasing the monthly electric bill by nearly 40% to about $18,000.  Increased savings are also expected in reduced gas consumption and plant water usage.
Resource Links:

43rd Annual Meeting, Private Practice + Health & Safety Luncheon, "Studio Design Challenges: Creating a Safe and Practical Space" by Jeff Hirsch, William Jarema, Dan Klein and Roger Rudy

Whether or not you were lucky enough to have attended the luncheon on create safe and practical conservation studios, you will be happy to know that the entire PowerPoint is available on the Health & Safety site (http://www.conservation-us.org/publications-resources/health-safety/other-resources#.VV9GjU_Byyo). The presenters are architects and engineers with EwingCole, and were extremely generous in sharing their expertise. Having conducted numerous interviews with conservators in private practice (mostly paintings and paper), and toured many studios and labs, the presenters were able to provide specific examples of both challenges and solutions. The luncheon was divided into 2 sections, each with round table presentations followed by time for questions.
During the first section, the discussion focused on ways to identify and understand risks (probability and severity). Practical tips were provided to ensure safe storage for chemicals both at the work space and in cabinets. A broad discussion about workplace design started with information about different types of buildings, concerns about adjacent spaces, and the importance of accounting for all people who might be in a studio space (including children and pets). Fire prevention, detection, and suppression were covered. The section on ergonomics included a tip that I particularly appreciated – a board for step aerobics can provide adjustable heights for conservators working at tall tables.

Example of one of the many height-adjustable boards for step aerobics.

The second section included information about air flow and exhaust. Since many conservators are concerned about the management of fumes, this generated a lively discussion with many questions. The PowerPoint includes a number of helpful charts, tables, and equations to help conservators determine the ventilation needs and capabilities of their spaces. Also included are case studies with practical solutions to ventilation needs, as well as links for helpful online resources.