Tag: AIC’s 45th Annual Meeting

45th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session, June 1, Panel Discussion on Wet Cleaning

The panel on wet cleaning was an extension of the three presentations that preceded it. The participants were Shirley Ellis, whose talk on the treatment of a Kainai fur-lined baby quilt included a discussion of aqueous immersion cleaning; Dana Goodin, who presented on her use of agarose gels to clean tapestries; and Gennifer Majors, who spoke about her experiments with application methods for cyclododecane.

The first part of the discussion focused largely on the use of cyclododecane. Though it has been used for some time by other specialties, its use in textile conservation is relatively novel. Several attendants described successes using the material to protect non-textile elements (such as buttons and buckles) during cleaning. It does, however, pose some practical problems, such as the difficulty of knowing for sure whether a cyclododecane barrier is sound, or when it has fully sublimed.

The focus then turned to the question of how wet cleaning practice had changed over time. While Orvus has long been used as a “go-to” detergent, some conservators are starting to experiment with other surfactants (e.g. Hostapon) and additives (e.g. chelators). Immersion cleaning, which was once a common treatment, may have become less common — at least in the US and Canada, if not the UK.

Gels offer an alternative to immersion cleaning. Dana explained that she had elected to use gels because immersion cleaning was not a possibility, due in one case to the fragility of the textile and in another to fugitive dyes. Shirley Ellis, however, suggested that gels might actually be less interventive than full immersion, and shouldn’t necessarily be considered only as a last resort. Clearly, this is an evolving issue, and one that will generate many more conversations.

45th Annual Meeting, Sustainability, May 31, “Fast, Cheap, and Sustainable: 3-D printing exhibition book cradles,” Fletcher Durant, Sara Gonzalez, Lourdes Santamaria-Wheeler

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 tinkercad as 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.

 

 

 

45th Annual Meeting – BPG, Art on Paper Discussion Group, June 1, “Multiple Perspectives on the Treatment of Multiples”

Multiple Perspectives on the Treatment of Multiples: Innovative thinking on the conservation of prints

Participants: Judy Walsh, Anisha Gupta, Sarah Bertalan, presenters; Rachel Freeman, Cyntia Karnes, Harriet Stratis, moderators.

This panel offered three presentations followed by a discussion that touched on how we define a group of multiples, how we determine treatment goals and exhibition parameters for the group (i.e. by looking at other examples of the same impressions or by broadening our research to include similar works), and whether or not we should strive to apply consistent treatment protocols to each object in the group.

Judy Walsh, former professor of paper conservation at Buffalo State, presented the complex and nuanced treatments of three fifteenth century copperplate engravings carried out at the National Gallery of Art. Though these works were not identical impressions, nor were they by the same artist, she identified them as belonging to the same “cohort,” meaning that they shared the characteristics of age, materials, process, and in this case, a long tradition of scholarly reference and interpretation. An impression of St. Michael Defeating the Devils from 1467 by the Master E.S. is one of only five known to exist and Man in a Fantastic Helmet c. 1470/80 is unique. The third print, The Virgin and Child by Mantegna c. 1470, was drawing particular attention due to recent revelations about its condition. Ms. Walsh outlined the restrictions placed on all three treatments by NGA curators who were concerned that the prints might deviate too much from their long-published, damaged appearances.

Though the curators at first sought minimal treatment with little to no cosmetic compensation, in each case Ms. Walsh described how she was able to present a logical argument for reducing distracting damages and finding reversible methods of completing each image based on her research into other works in the cohort. Ultimately, her creative solutions allowed the prints to retain their status as time-honored works that presented indelible marks of storied pasts, while at the same time, she was able to stabilize each work and align it more closely with the visual standard of other fifteenth century prints presented in the Gallery.

Sarah Bertalan, conservator in private practice, presented several interesting observations that she has made over the years regarding multiples printed on Van Gelder Zonen, Arches, Rives, Montval, and MBM papers. These papers all have unique characteristics and respond to treatment differently. For many nineteenth century artists in particular, Japanese papers, Arches papers, and aged papers were desirable for printing etchings and drypoints. Sometimes the publishers of artists’ editions selected papers, and some papers were marketed by their manufacturers for specific applications. Rives BFK was originally produced for photographic mounts, for example. Depending on their intended function, these papers could be bulked with fillers, additives, and/or colorants such as yellow ocher or titanium dioxide. Ms. Bertalan wanted to stress that we often don’t know what is in a paper and shouldn’t assume that we can tell by looking or testing in a discrete area only.

Common problems that she has noticed include the development of white spots, generally referred to as “reverse foxing” when Van Gelder Zonen papers are subjected to aqueous treatment, certain Somerset papers preferred by artists like Hockney and Freud turn yellow when they are placed in contact with alkaline material, and some Arches sheets, initially white or off-white, can turn a buff/yellow color over time. This she suspects is due to the presence of titanium dioxide, which is a photocatalyst.

Ms. Bertalan suggested that we don’t necessarily know how or have the means to detect all of the components of any given paper, and that typical treatments may not really be addressing the root of their problems. This lack of understanding can result in reversion or reappearance of stains post-treatment.

Anisha Gupta, Mellon Fellow at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco gave the final presentation of the panel in which she presented a case study of her treatment of 24 Ben Shahn lithographs that had all received extensive, but differential light exposure over the course of 23 years. All were printed on Arches ‘cover’ paper that was specifically manufactured for printing. In this case, all of the works in the group were going to be shown together and moreover, the meaning of each print was directly influenced by those on either side.

Working with a curator, Ms. Gupta determined that light bleaching would be the best course of treatment and what the optimal paper tone would be. She used a spectrophotometer to establish baseline L* values for each of the 24 works, but she said that ultimately as treatment progressed, a sense of unity was more easily achieved visually than numerically. The treatment involved bathing and light bleaching in increments of 3 hours. Though she did note that spectrophotometer readings taken of each work after treatment confirmed that the prints’ L* values had converged.

Following the three presentations, the moderators solicited questions from the audience and initiated a conversation.

Peggy Ellis, Professor of Paper Conservation at NYU, asked Ms. Gupta how she and the curator arrived at the “right color” for the paper tone of the Shahn prints and if she could remember some of the terminology that the curator had used to describe that paper tone. Ms. Gupta replied that the curator had repeatedly referred to the lightstruck prints as ‘dingy,’ and that she would like them to look “more alive.” The optimal paper tone was based on the maximum lightness that could be achieved by light bleaching the darkest paper for a set amount of time. Ms. Gupta mentioned that she thought that at some point, the treatment had hit a plateau and that had further lightening been desirable, she may have explored chemical bleaches, pH changes, or exposing the versos of the prints.

With the general topic of the risk of over-bleaching circulating, Judy Walsh speculated that many 15th century prints that look so bright white today may have been treated to a different standard (what we might now consider over-treating) in the past. She then raised the question of how to integrate current treatment standards and ethics when the challenge is to visually unify works that belong to a cohort.

Sylvia Albro, Paper Conservator at the Library of Congress, brought up the fact that many 15th century prints that have not been removed from bindings are quite white, and that contemporary books in good condition might be useful standards of reference when trying to determine “original” paper tones.

Ms. Walsh also stressed that when trying to determine how prints should look, our own experiences and visual memories are our best assets as conservators. For that reason we should be making more efforts to talk to colleagues in the field, especially those in private practice and at regional centers because they have seen and treated a volume and variety of objects that a museum conservator does not typically experience.

Antoinette Owen, Head of Paper Conservation at the Art Institute of Chicago, offered her personal experience with Van Gelder Zonen papers, saying that there is definitely “something in them” that cannot be identified with XRF, and that whatever it is causes white spots to develop when they are exposed to moisture. Ms Bertalan said that it is unlikely that you would find a measurable difference because the staining is not necessarily related to a higher concentration of iron. She put forth one theory, that perhaps during long print runs paper may have been left to soak for days prior to printing. This situation could lead to fungal growth or other latent changes. Joan Weir, Paper Conservator at the Art Gallery of Ontario, chimed in to say that as a printmaker, she had witnessed some colleagues adding formaldehyde or other biocides to their baths to prevent mold.

Shifting topics slightly, Harriet Stratis, Senior Research Conservator at the Art Institute of Chicago asked for peoples’ approaches to showing (or not showing) individual prints that are part of a series. She wanted to know how other people managed opportunities for differential exposure. Victoria Binder, Associate Conservator at the Fine Art Museums of San Francisco, replied that her institution had recently required half of an Andy Warhol edition requested for exhibition to be swapped with its counterpart halfway through the show so that all prints in the series received equal exposure. This seemed to be a common practice.

Ultimately, the consensus in the room seemed to be that a centralized library of treatment protocols and results would be invaluable. At this, an impassioned plea went up to submit text and images to the Book and Paper Wiki. To contribute to the wiki, contact BPG Wiki Coordinators, Katherine Kelly and Denise Stockman.

 

 

 

45th Annual Meeting, Book and Paper, June 1, “Unexpectedly expert: Diversifying your skills to cover all the bases,” Moderated by Angela Andres, Sonya Barron, and Anahit Campbell

The end-of-conference BPG discussion groups are often the highlight of the week, and this year was no exception. The Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group (LCCDG) hosted a jam-packed session with seven presentations about how library conservators, who are often the only conservator at their institution and/or find themselves responsible for far more than just books and paper, become experts in all sorts of unexpected ways.

Sonya Barron, Conservator of Special Collections at Iowa State University Library, began the afternoon discussing approaches to accommodating 3D objects in the archives. Specifically, edible objects. First up was an ear of prize-winning corn. As Sonya emphasized to a chuckling audience, “Corn is very important in Iowa, that’s no joke!” The important corn was removed from its original display case, put through a few freeze/thaw cycles to kill off any pests, encapsulated in polyester film, and stored lovingly in a new archival box. A similar process was used for a small chunk of the Guinness World Record-holding largest Rice Krispies® treat (you can read more about that ISU invention at the Parks Library blog ). Sonya noted that though there may only be a few unusual objects tucked into your more traditional library and archival collections, 3D objects are often the ones that curators and professors want to show to classes and tours, so they need to be able to withstand frequent handling. 

Prize-winning corn in the Iowa State archives.

 

Deborah Howe, Collections Conservator at Dartmouth College, spoke next about being a conservator in the wilds of New Hampshire and the importance of reaching out to colleagues near and far. She emphasized the importance of networking with local experts – taking advantage of proximity to theatre, arts, engineering, and science resources on a college campus –  and not being afraid to cold call fellow conservators across the country for advice. She maximizes funding and other resources by bringing in experts to host workshops for conservators in the region (which helps her fill her own training gaps as well). And after a productive visit from University of Iowa conservator Giselle Simón, who assisted with moving and initial examination of a large, heavy antiphonal in need of treatment, Deborah suggested that a conservator exchange program could be a good idea (personally, I think it’s a terrific idea).  

Elizabeth Stone, Assistant Conservator at the University of Iowa Libraries, and Janet Lee, Conservation Assistant at the New-York Historical Society, talked about their long-distance collaboration to develop housing solutions for a small collection of Chinese dolls, shoes, and stuffed animals in the Iowa Women’s Archive.  Using video calls, text messaging, and shared folders for images and documentation, they were able to design safe storage solutions as well as investigate the history and background of these objects. This presentation did a good job of highlighting the advantage of technology to facilitate collaboration quickly across many miles, and also that collaboration across disciplines leads to more research and understanding of ephemeral objects in archival collections. 

Janet Lee discovered that the shoes would have been made by mothers for their children (the animals depicted can help date the shoes) and the dolls, which depict fashion trends fairly reliably, were made by girls living in missionaries.

 

Ashleigh Schieszer, Conservator at The Preservation Lab, a collaborative lab between the University of Cincinnati and the Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County, spoke about her experiences as an emerging professional in a managerial position. She offered suggestions for developing leadership skills, like looking for leadership and management training within your institution, utilizing professional organizations, and seeking mentorship. Ashleigh emphasized the importance of transparency, clear communication, and a “let’s try this” attitude. She noted that institutional and cultural knowledge are often more important and impactful than conservation skills and that team learning activities within the lab have built cohesiveness.

Suzy Morgan, Conservator at Arizona State University Library, implored everyone in the audience to make more conservation instructional videos after a few of her recent experiences illustrated the value in them. When confronted with a large dress in need of housing, Suzy found plenty of written and photographic instruction on how to properly pack it for storage, but it wasn’t until she came across a video produced by the Minnesota Historical Society demonstrating exactly how to pack such a dress that she felt confident enough to move forward. Suzy also found value in creating videos of her own; when the attendance at a training she was scheduled to do in Myanmar tripled, the solution was to have some students in an adjacent room watching training videos while others participated in hands-on activities. She found that tracking down existing videos was a challenge; while there are good ones out there, certain topics are covered frequently while others get no air time. So, leveraging local resources, she used digital video equipment at the campus makerspace and made her own videos. She’s hoping to do another edit on these and shorten them in order to make them available to wider conservation audience.

Justin Johnson, Senior Conservator at the University of Washington Libraries, talked about his experience of working on a new lab construction project and the need for conservators to learn the language of architects and contractors. He emphasized that terminology is important  – “design” doesn’t necessarily describe what we think it does, and calling your space a “lab” vs a “center” vs a “studio” can have unforeseen consequences in the architectural plans and execution. The need for clear, precise communication is critical, and Justin noted that misrepresenting priorities can be an expensive mistake. He cited the example that his team had designated a space as a meeting room, but were anticipating also using that space to construct boxes. They hadn’t conveyed this dual-purpose to the architects, though, and ended up with a lighting scheme appropriate to a meeting room but not sufficient for boxmaking.  

Susan Russick, Special Collections Conservator at Northwestern University Library, wrapped up the session with a summary of the many non-book and paper objects she’s treated, or chosen not to treat, over the past few years and some of the risk management decisions and ethical conundrums posed by these objects. She reminded us that while the details may differ, the basic tenets of conservation are the same no matter what you’re working with. She frequently refers back to the AIC core document Defining the Conservator: Essential Competencies (and encouraged the audience to the same). A few other guiding principles Susan shared about how she approaches objects in the collection included: talking to the curator and *listening* to the curator, keeping in mind that she doesn’t always know what she doesn’t know when it comes to objects, trusting that if she finds consistency of information across a range of trustworthy sources then she can feel confident to move forward, and that for some objects, bringing in experts for training and/or treatment is the best option, while sometimes no treatment at all is the appropriate choice.

Susan Russick uses funori to consolidate chalk on the chalkboard of a Nobel Laureate.

 

After the talks, the floor was opened for discussion. The audience was especially keen to discuss working with architects and contractors for new labs, lab management strategies, and instructional videos.

 

45th Annual Meeting -Treatment: Don’t Go It Alone, May 31st, “A Pole with a Story: Innovation Conservation and Documentation of an American Indian Story Pole” by Lesley Day

The narrative of this talk focused on a 12-foot story pole carved by William Shelton (Coast Salish), in 1930, specifically the treatment of a 6-foot section of it that is within the collection of the Hilbulb Cultural Center in Tulalip, Washington. Shelton has an interesting backstory- unlike most Northwest coast Indians during the turn of the century, he avoided boarding school was raised in traditional Indian ways only to leave home later to learn English and the white man’s ways. His position in both worlds allowed him to bridge divides and achieve some cultural allowances during a time of intense restriction and suppression. This included permission to carve the monumental pole which would capture many important stories of his people that he feared were at risk. Totem poles are a well-established material tradition for Northwest coast groups but the invention of story pole is credited with Shelton.

This pole was cut into sections and separated at some point in the past. A section was brought into the collection by the community. When the conservators, Lesley Day, Ellen Pearlstein, and Claire Dean, first encountered the pole section, it was in poor condition, covered with debris with large areas of wood loss and flaking paint. Lesley showed a series of time-lapse videos of the cleaning, which effectively demonstrated how this technological format can not only be an excellent tool for outreach but for the Native community also provides access and transparency. This was not the only time-lapse video in the conference; one was also included Lauren Horelick’s talk on the Flak-Bait in the General Session. Aside from cleaning, significant instabilities caused by insect damage and biological growth needed to be addressed. The wood matrix was punky and splintering, thus the surface needed consolidation. The conservators selected Butvar B98 in ethanol, a popular resin at this year’s annual meeting; it was also chosen as a consolidant for plaster in a treatment presented by Hugh Shockey’s in the Objects Session. In addition to wood consolidation, lifting and flaking paint was stabilized using cast Paraloid B72 film that was inserted behind the lifting flakes and heat set with a tacking iron.

After consolidation of the surface, major structural losses, which left undercut and unsupported areas, were stabilized. The conservators wanted to avoid impregnating the structure with epoxy resins, an undeniably irreversible intervention. Therefore they developed a removable system using a flexible epoxy Conserve W200 that was built up in several layers to avoid being locked in place by undercuts. These elements were then adhered into place with Butvar bulked with phenolic microspheres. Conserve W200 was selected for the reason that its flexibility would be compatible with dimensional changes in the wood.

Due to the scale of the pole and lack of access to fume extraction, the treatment was undertaken outside under a carport tent instead of in the restricted-access conservations labs, which is more often the norm. Along with the time-lapse video, the outdoor context allowed further community outreach which benefited the project significantly. During the visit of a community member, it was discovered through memory that the top section of the pole existed and was within the museum’s collections storage. It had been feet away the entire time but unassociated.

There are future plans to reunite the pole sections. A contemporary carver in the community was consulted and has proposed carving a strong back that would unite the two pole sections. Though it could not have been easy to work outdoors and under the eyes of the community, the invaluable connections made through these interactions proves once again that these actions are critical for best practice in the field.

45th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, ” Early Intervention for At-Risk 21st Century Fugitive Media” by Fenella France

Dr. Fenella France touched on many questions near and dear to any conservation scientist’s heart, including my own, during her talk at the Research and Technical Studies session on Thursday morning. 1) How can effectively controlling environmental parameters reduce the need for invasive intervention? 2) What is the nature and impact of the interaction between media and substrate and 3) How can our findings, as scientists, impact the production of artists’ materials? Continue reading “45th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, June 1, ” Early Intervention for At-Risk 21st Century Fugitive Media” by Fenella France”

45th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, June 1, “A Colonial Portrait and a Mystery,” by Rustin Levinson.

Rusty Levinson’s talk was perfectly fitting as the final Paintings Specialty Group presentation. The talk was informative and had some levity and humor to boot.

The portrait (see an auction photo before treatment at left), treated and researched by ArtCare Miami with technical analysis by Emily MacDonald Korth, has been believed to depict Button Gwinnett, one of the three Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence. This identification was not certain, and the inscription on the reverse identifying the artist and sitter, was suspect. Moreover, it appeared to be written in two different hands. The inscription is visible through a cut-out window in the lining fabric left by an old restorer. Gwinnett had a short-lived political career before dying in a duel the year after signing the momentous document. Recently, a signature of his came to auction and fetched over $700,000 in its sale, reaching an all-time high price for a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. This event brought this historic figure some current-day notoriety, captured by Stephen Colbert on the Late Show last year, which coincidentally appeared during the treatment and research of the portrait. Colbert and Hamilton creator and star Lin-Manuel Miranda performed “Button!” on the Late Show after an interview with Miranda. The “Button!” rap-style performance in costume is a spoof off Hamilton, and it is hilarious. You can view it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFeQSBZUSk. It is definitely worth a watch! I have never experienced such a hearty laugh during an AIC presentation.

 One of the goals in the analysis, research, and treatment of this portrait was to help determine whether the picture likely did in fact depict Mr. Gwinnett. The painting was covered in old varnish and different campaigns of overpaint, making it difficult to compare the likeness with a known, earlier portrait of Gwinnett by British artist Nathaniel Hone (see image at left). The painting in ArtCare’s studio was attributed to Jeremiah Theus, a Swiss-born portrait painter who

worked primarily in and around Charleston, SC. Charleston was known as Charles Town until 1783. This fact creates one of the problems with the inscription, which identifies the city as Charleston, postdating the date of the portrait, which would have been before Theus’ death in 1774. Another issue with the inscription(s) was the presence of modern pigments, identified through analysis, that were part of a red layer on the canvas reverse that lies beneath the inscription(s). Zinc was identified in that layer, thus discrediting the coating as well as the overlying inscription as original to the piece. It is possible that the two inscriptions were written at some point(s) in the past, perhaps early in the life of the painting, but were later reinforced by a restorer.

Scientific analysis was conducted using a variety of techniques including cross-sectional analysis, XRF, PLM or polarized light microscopy, and optical microscopy. The results revealed typical pigments used by mid-18th c. American painters along with modern pigments appearing in overpaint and coatings. Elemental analysis helped identify the pigments vermilion, a lead-based pigment, a chromium-based pigment, and zinc white on the painting, while on the verso, the presence of lead, calcium, and copper were detected, and vermilion and zinc white were identified. Part of the historical research involved looking at archival information about the Theus portrait. One such document was created when Sheldon Keck was asked to examine the portrait in the 1950s. At this time, Keck declared the portrait a “genuine eighteenth century painting.”

Once cleaned the painting was compared with the Hone portrait of Gwinnett and similarities in facial features were noted. Levinson toyed with an online program to attempt to visually age the face in the Hone picture. This rudimentary program, while somewhat amusing, was not revealing. A chance connection with someone from the Georgia Bureau of investigation led to a visual comparison by the Bureau whereby they did a much higher tech, digital rendering of the earlier Hone portrait to artifically age the figure’s face, and they made a comparison with the treated picture. They determined it was plausible that the sitters were the same man.

I wish there had been a bit more discussion on the artist attribution question. Even though the focus was not on the artist, I had hoped for a bit more information on the portrait’s attribution to Jeremiah Theus, particularly since I encounter Jeremiah Theus portraits in my private practice. I would have liked to know more about the connoisseurship used in the attribution, whether/which art historians may have looked at the portrait, and/or whether any of the technical analysis was compared to that of other known Theus portraits. Finally, I also would have enjoyed more discussion of the treatment, as it was somewhat glossed over. A few before and after shots side by side, including details of areas of heavy overpaint before and after with a little more discussion of the overpaint removal, would have been welcome additions to this presentation.

45th Annual Meeting – Book & Paper Session, May 30, “Line up, Back to Back: Restoration of Korean Buddhist Sutra in accordion book format” by Hsin-Chen Tsai and Tanya Uyeda

This dynamic and thorough talk focused on the Dirghagama Sutra, a ten-leaf accordion format Korean Buddhist sutra dating from the 14th century, treated by the authors in the Asian Conservation Lab at the MFA Boston. Often produced by the ruling classes as a form of prayer for family members, a sutra typically consists of front and back covers decorated with lotus flowers and other Buddhist symbols, a frontispiece, a main body of text, and a dedication specifying the purpose, donor, and date of the sutra. The support is usually brush- or vat-dyed indigo paper, and the media gold and/or silver pigment. Today many sutra covers have lost their silver pigment and retain only the gold. The sutra’s accordion consists of lined sheets of paper joined together at the folds, with joins typically present at approximately every fifth leaf.

To better understand the history and manufacture of the sutra, the authors examined four other Buddhist sutras from the same time period and consulted with a modern-day sutra artist about his extensive experience studying and copying sutras. They learned that the paper is sized with animal glue, then burnished until it is shiny, smooth, and slightly water-resistant; sheets of paper are then layered and joined together to create the accordion. After the pigment is applied with animal glue, the surface is burnished with a bone folder. To achieve the desired results, climate in the studio must be carefully monitored and controlled.

Upon receipt, the Dirghagama Sutra had many condition issues. The surface was abraded, and showed yellow and white accretions. Portions of the paper layers were lifting and misaligned, and there were losses and previous tape repairs. The structure of the Dirghagama Sutra appeared different from the others the authors had examined, as it did not have readily visible seams in the accordion. After very close examination, they discovered two main segments of different lengths, each constructed of several layers of paper overlapping at the seventh leaf. Before beginning treatment, they diagrammed this structure and drew a condition map documenting the sutra’s many condition issues.

To begin treatment, they surface cleaned the paper with a brush, a vacuum, and erasers. Preliminary stabilization was performed on the tears with 1% methylcellulose gel. The front and back covers were released from the text mechanically with a bamboo spatula. The tape carrier was removed with a heated spatula, and the adhesive reduced with a crepe square and a kneaded eraser. To further reduce the tacky adhesive, which analysis showed was rubber-based, the authors experimented with low-polarity solvents. Though toluene was the most effective, they opted to mix it with acetone to give themselves more control while working and ultimately settled on a 1:2 toluene:acetone solution applied over a suction platen.

To fully stabilize the sutra, it was necessary to disassemble the segments and to add new lining layers. Concerned about dimensional changes that might result from exposure to moisture and drying, the authors made templates to record the original sizes of the paper and used the templates along with controlled applications of moisture to manipulate the sizes of the various pieces and to ensure that the folds would align properly when the object was re-assembled. The templates were also useful in determining the size and placement of the fill for a large loss between the eighth and ninth leaves. Though the various pieces of the sutra reacted to moisture differently, they found that once an overall lining was applied rates of expansion and contraction became more uniform. This, along with the use of templates and the carefully controlled exposure to moisture, were the main factors to which the authors attribute the success of the treatment.

45th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session, May 31, “A Treatment Returns Undone” by Nancy Love

This talk told the true story of what seems like a nightmarish scenario: an object treated 15 years ago finds its way back to the conservator in as bad (or worse) condition than ever.  Nancy Love shared this stunning tale of object stewardship gone awry, which covered not only her approach(es) to treating a Native American feathered headdress treasured as a family heirloom, but also offered a chance to reflect on how the conservator and conservation has changed in the 15 years between the first and second treatments.

The first treatment (in 2001) was documented in black and white photos and color slides.  The headdress underwent cleaning, loose elements were stabilized, and it was delivered on a custom-made mount to both support and store the headdress.

The second treatment (in 2016) was documented in digital color photos, which witnessed the object’s return with only part of its storage mount, dirty again, and with many of the rawhide attachment points joining feathers to base broken and damaged.  For the second treatment, Love tried a different approach to attach the feathers to the headdress, but ultimately found that more closely following the original technique provided a better outcome.  In her discussion of the treatment and during the question and answer time afterwards, Love reflected on her willingness to attempt a slightly more interventive approach as an older and more experienced conservator and the importance of trusting an object to “tell” its caretakers what it needs.  It was encouraging to hear the second treatment had a considerably higher final pricetag (reflecting the increased prices conservators in private practice can command) and that the object was returned to owners with a renewed awareness of what it takes to care for cherished objects.

45th Annual Meeting – Textiles Session, May 31, “A Worthwhile Endeavor: The Conservation of a Woth and Bobergh Ensemble” by Johanna Tower

Johanna shared her experiences treating an ensemble labeled Worth & Bobergh at the Museum of Fine Art, Boston.  The ensemble includes a skirt, day bodice, and evening bodice of silk faille and dates to about 1870.  The petersham label inside the day bodice identifying it “Worth & Bobergh” means it dates from Worth’s early years when his investor (Bobergh) was included in his labels.  In spite of its unique history, the ensemble had been the victim of some “refashioning” to update it for later fashions or possibly to make it into “fancy dress.”  The alterations included sewing the evening bodice to the skirt, adding panels to the sides to extend the bodice, and stitching the skirt up so that it would no longer accommodate the crinoline and bustle combination of its original fashionable design.

Johanna’s complicated treatment called upon a mix of both skills and techniques that covered the gamut between precise and delicate to practical and bold (but well-researched and justified) choices.   While firmly rooted in “conservatorial” thinking and using some familiar techniques, the treatment ranged beyond the conventional to draw upon newer techniques such as digital printing of fabrics to recreate the patterned silk of the underskirt and Johanna’s knowledge of dress-making to prepare a half-size model of the to-be-reworked skirt and to recreate the waistband and original cartridge pleats.  Dyed-to-match fabrics were used not only for treatment of the solid purple, but also for the patterned fabric.  Johanna dyed the silk first, before delivering it the digital printer, who then only had to match the printed pattern, which avoided the “over crisp” and new look of some digitally-printed fabric infills.  The treatment ultimately represented a thoughtful and nuanced blending of old and new, dressmaker and conservator, that breathed new life into an object that Johanna described before treatment as “not the most beautiful” of the MFA Boston’s Worth examples, making the treatment “A Worthwhile Endeavor” indeed.