In the abstract for their paper, Ariel O’Connor, Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM) objects conservator, and Dan Finn, SAAM media conservator, write that this presentation “aims to present a case study that is exemplary of the wide range of expertise that time-based media conservation can require, and the collaborative approach that it necessitates.” Their talk certainly demonstrates this, as it presents a myriad of challenges, from documentation tasks and working with living artists, to what to do when a massive cable failure occurs just minutes before the museum director is coming to see the work in action.
The paper discusses the kinetic sculpture titled “the willful marionette,” by Brooklyn-based artists Lilla LoCurto and Bill Outcault, and the piece incorporates sculpture (a 3-D printed, blue poly(lactic acid) biodegradable plastic marionette with strings made of fishing line), software (Puppet Master), and electronics. The custom software is designed to interact with its audience, responding in real time to recognizable human gestures with gestures of its own. Meet the artists and get a glimpse of the marionette, affectionately named Little Bill, in this short video.
O’Connor and Finn outline the documentation process they employ at SAAM, making us all realize how incredibly detail-oriented the documentation of time-based media works really needs to be. This includes a testing and acceptance report, an identity report, various iteration reports, documentation photographs, artist interviews, copious notes, and organization and storage of all files, such as the STL files that can be used to reprint the sculpture in the future, if need be.
The authors candidly recount stories about working with this exciting and challenging piece and getting it ready for the museum director to review. For instance, an issue with Little Bill not blinking properly was fixed by the good old “CTRL-ALT-DEL” method. But when the 80-lb. line that mainly held up the sculpture spontaneously snapped, they had to be resourceful and quick-on-their feet, looking to the facilities crew for the right tools needed to remedy the situation.
Future challenges for this work are similar to many time-based media works, including what will happen to the proprietary software that Little Bill is operated on, as well as storage considerations for the plastic sculpture itself.
My personal area of interest and intended future practice is in the conservation of historic interiors. Therefore, I am always keen on portability both in tools and materials as well as forms of analysis. The other advantage to the techniques presented in this workshop is that physical sampling is not required, which is always attractive and music to a curator’s ears.
The workshop met my personal expectations, but the title “Effectively Using…” could have suggested to some that this was going to be more of a “boot camp” for being able to implement these techniques back home. This style of workshop was more of an information/demonstration session and is great for anyone considering buying similar instrumentation and/or for gaining a better understanding of the general benefits and limitations of portable spectroscopy.
Given the short duration of this workshop, I was initially concerned that I might have signed up for a 2 ½ hour lecture without any hands-on component. Participants were encouraged to bring our own samples and indeed at least an hour was dedicated to looking at samples and exploring the instrumentation first-hand. Although we did run over the scheduled time, and were gently shuffled out of the room as hotel staff started to break down tables.
The workshop was led by Tom Tague, Ph.D. Applications Manager at Bruker, and Dr. Francesca Casadio, Director of the Conservation Science department at the Art Institute of Chicago. I really appreciated having these different perspectives. Tague did not assume the role of salesperson during the workshop, but as you would expect he was very positive in his description of the capabilities of the Bruker instrumentation. Casadio kept Tague grounded in the realities of our complex samples and what can be confidently identified using these techniques. At the same time, it was useful to have Tague there to speak to the specifics of the instrumentation and push Casadio a little bit to consider what some of the newer technology could offer. There was also a Bruker sales representative present to assist with running the instrumentation and software and offer information on pricing.
Overall the session was well organized. I know I was not the only attendee who was ecstatic that I got to take home a flash drive loaded with the presenters’ PowerPoint slides. The spectra from my samples that were analyzed were also loaded directly onto this flash drive before the end of the workshop.
The first part of the session did consist of pure lecture. Tague’s presentation focused on specifications of the Bruker portable instruments and descriptions of the techniques.
An interesting tip he offered was using sandpaper to take surface samples. He lightly abraded a painted surface and then placed the sandpaper in front of the portable FTIR (ALPHA)—no additional sample prep necessary.
Having just completed my Master’s degree in conservation I was able to follow the presentation fairly well, but I fear that it may have been overly technical and too fast for someone who does not work with these analytical techniques on a regular basis. Nonetheless, I anticipated this to be an intermediate-level workshop when I signed-up.
Tom Tague in front of demo table at the workshop. He has rotated the ALPHA in front of him so that the laser beam points downward and is working to raise the ALPHA up on some shims in order to fit the sample under the beam at the correct working distance.
As would be expected based on the organizers of the workshop, the instrumentation provided and discussed were all Bruker models. Two ALPHA portable FTIR spectrometers were present. The ALPHA is set up to receive different “snap-on” modules. The two modules available for demonstration were the “External Reflectance” module and the “Platinum ATR” module. The BRAVO Handheld Raman spectrometer was also available for interaction.
Here are some key facts about each instrument:
The base ALPHA starts around $14,000 and each module is on average $6,000 in addition.
ALPHA “External Reflectance”
Does not require direct contact with a sample/object
No size limitations as long as unit can be mounted/held in appropriate orientation to the sample
ALPHA “External Reflectance” being used to analyze paper currency. This example was given in Tom Tague’s presentation.
Camera integrated in unit to help orient, find appropriate working distance/focus, and document sample location
Collects reflectance spectrum NOT absorbance
Can collect specular and diffuse reflection; reflective and non-reflective materials can be analyzed
Footprint of instrument is about 8” X 11”
Weighs about 13lbs.
Can be tethered to a laptop
About 6mm sampling area
Approximately 4cm-1 spectral resolution
ALPHA “Platinum ATR”
There is pressure/direct contact with the sample
The IR beam does penetrate into the sample
BRAVO Handheld Raman
$45,000-$55,000
Slightly narrower than 8” X 11” (looks like an oversized ELSEC environmental data monitor; less heavy than the Alpha)
Class I safe laser
2mm sampling spot size
No camera or viewing capability to help align collection area
Object needs to be in contact, but no pressure required
Approximately 8cm-1 spectral resolution
Fluorescence mitigation built into software/data collection
Dual lasers built in and used/activated simultaneously
Optimal wavelength and reduced risk of damaging sample
Touch screen allows for control and data collection without tethering to laptop
Tethering also capable via WiFi to laptop
Example from Tom Tague’s presentation of the BRAVO being used to analyze medieval manuscripts at the Morgan Library and Museum.
In terms of the ALPHA “External Reflectance” one of the big selling points is that there is no size restriction or need to balance the object on a stage. The trade-off in allowing data collection without physical sampling is that the spectra generated are in % reflectance. The majority of reference spectra available for free and through the Infrared and Raman Users Group (IRUG) are % absorbance or % transmittance (its inverse). The Bruker software does offer the capability to convert the data using the Kramers-Kronig Transformation. Francesca Casadio seemed to prefer to analyze data from its original state in reflectance. Characteristic peaks for bonds are slightly shifted from their location in transmittance spectra, but at Casadio’s level of experience she is able to take these nuances into account with some ease. She was honest with the attendees summarizing that this form of IR spectroscopy is “not like portable XRF; one needs to have experience and repetition for familiarity with interpreting spectra.”
For those interested in more on interpreting reflectance spectra of art objects Casadio recommended the following publications from a research group in Perugia Italy:
“Reflection infrared spectroscopy for the non-invasive in situ study of artists’ pigments.” C. Miliani, F. Rosi, A. Daveri & B. Brunetti, Appl. Phys. Mater. Sci. Process. 106, 295–307 (2012) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00339-011-6708-2)
“In Situ Noninvasive Study of Artworks: The MOLAB Multitechnique Approach.” C. Miliani, F. Rosi, B.G. Brunetti & A. Sgamellotti, Acc. Chem. Res. 43, 728–738 (2010) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ar100010t)
“Non-invasive identification of metal-oxalate complexes on polychrome artwork surfaces by reflection mid-infrared spectroscopy.” L. Monico, F. Rosi, C. Miliani, A. Daveri & B.G. Brunetti, Spectrochim. Acta Part -Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 116, 270–280 (2013)
“In-situ identification of copper-based green pigments on paintings and manuscripts by reflection FTIR.” D. Buti, F. Rosi, B.G. Brunetti & C. Miliani, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405, 2699–2711 (2013)
It is important to keep in mind the basis of data collection to understand the limitations of what can be analyzed with the ALPHA “External Reflectance” on a given object. For example, with a varnished painting the spectral reflectance of the varnish will typically only allow the varnish itself to be detected (with some exceptions depending on thickness of the varnish and underlying pigment composition). Similar reflective material properties make plastics easily detectable with this technique. Matte objects are still good candidates for analysis with the ALPHA, but the data will be collected via diffuse reflection. The ALPHA does not seem like an appropriate technique for discerning between individual layers within a given structure unless coupled with other techniques.
One of the ALPHA’s at the workshop was supplied by Casadio from the Art Institute’s lab, and she has extensive experience using the ALPHA. Her presentation was more about working knowledge of the instrumentation. She polled the attendees and focused on case studies mainly of pigment analysis and identification of plastics. Casadio emphasized the benefit of the ALPHA as a mapping tool that does not require sampling. Perhaps one or two samples could be taken from a work of art and more confidently characterized with bench top FTIR and/or GC-MS and then the use of specific materials could be mapped without additional sampling using the ALPHA. Casadio’s case studies often combined multiple analytical techniques. She finds the ALPHA to be a nice compliment to XRF. Overall, Casadio has found the ALPHA to be very useful in characterizing different plastics and also good at detecting deterioration surface products (e.g. zinc soaps) especially with modern and contemporary collections. Casadio noted that the ALPHA detects very strong signal and peaks for waxes and PVA coatings. Casadio has been able to use the ALPHA for collaborations with other institutions and collections, which is another boon of its portability.
I was disappointed that Casadio had not had previous experience with the BRAVO Handheld Raman. At the Art Institute she has a bench top Raman unit. She seemed skeptical about the BRAVO’s capabilities and some of the claims that Tague was making that it could “see” indigo and other organic pigments without surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS). Casadio stated that in her personal opinion with Raman it is better to bring the art to the unit than the other way around. By the end of the workshop she did seem impressed with the quality of spectra the BRAVO was generating, but there was not enough time to have further discussion and to tease out Casadio’s candid opinion on the instrument.
I was most excited for the practical demonstration with the instruments especially because I had come armed with over 10 samples. I was anticipating that I may not even get to analyze one sample, but was very pleased that I was able to look at 7 samples with the BRAVO portable Raman. This much time with the instrument was due in part to many participants not bringing samples.
If a similar workshop is organized in the future, it might be good to have participants sign up ahead of time for slots with the instrument if they are interested in analyzing a specific sample. It was a fairly large group – about 18 participants. Attendees that did not bring samples were still interested in watching the process of collecting data and interpreting the spectra. This was challenging; even with three instruments there tended to be 5-7 people crowding around a laptop screen. Dividing us into smaller groups, having the laptops hooked up to a projection screen, or further limiting the number of participants may be additional considerations for future workshops.
It seemed like the majority of participants were conservators rather than conservation scientists. I personally do not work with spectroscopic techniques on a regular enough basis to be able to confidently interpret spectra on the fly. Francesca Casadio was able to offer her expertise and interpretation while working with samples from the participants, but neither Tom Tague nor his Bruker colleague could offer specialized interpretation. Some of the participants seemed frustrated that the instruments were not connected to an art materials database for instant gratification and matching.
Both Tague and Casadio strongly emphasized the importance of each institution building its own reference database specific to the collection. The IRUG database was promoted, but as a supplement to an institution’s own reference database. Neither of the instructors felt that the database that comes with the Bruker software was appropriate for art materials.
My personal goal during the workshop was to pit these portable instruments against their stationary counterparts and to pit the two complimentary techniques against each other. Therefore, I brought known samples from my institution’s reference collection of traditional paints. All the paints were oil-based and mixed with some degree of lead white. The reference pigments I chose were mostly organics (indigo, madder, cochineal). Colonial Williamsburg has had the opportunity to partner with the College of William and Mary in order to perform SERS on objects in the paintings collection. My colleagues and I were curious to see how this portable unit compared to spectra produced with SERS. With the minimal time, I chose to focus on the BRAVO because our institution already has a bench top FTIR.
Tom Tague was set-up at the BRAVO “station” during the practical session, and as I stated previously he was not comfortable offering any interpretation of the data. I was excited to review the spectra we collected back at my home institution (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation/CWF) alongside Kirsten Travers Moffitt, the conservator in charge of our materials analysis lab. Moffitt performs a lot of FTIR analysis on our collection, but has less experience with Raman.
All the organic paint spectra from the BRAVO were certainly “neater” than what I am used to seeing in terms of raw data from a bench top Raman with oil paint samples. I personally would attribute the quality of the spectra to the dual laser capability. I’m not sure how much impact the fluorescence mitigation had because the spectra were still pretty noisy and it was challenging even for Moffitt to distinguish significant peaks. It appears that the fluorescence of an oil binder is still problematic with the BRAVO. In Tague’s presentation he showed an example of indigo detection with the BRAVO, but this was on an illuminated manuscript, where fluorescence of the binding media would be less of an issue.
At CWF we only have a reference database for IR spectra, but looking at possible peaks in the indigo/lead white sample spectrum, the characteristic peaks for indigo that Tague mentioned (545, 1463, 1578) do not appear to be present. It seems that the lead white is dominant, with a strong peak around 1050. In conclusion, Tague is partially right that the BRAVO can detect some organic pigments, but likely only if they are present in high enough concentrations (not mixed) and are not in highly fluorescent binding media (like oil).
Spectra (representing a shorter and longer collection time) from the BRAVO of the CWF reference of indigo and lead white in oil.tic peaks for indigo that Tague mentioned (545, 1463, 1578) do not appear to be present. It seems that the lead white is dominant, with a strong peak around 1050. In conclusion, Tague is partially right that the BRAVO can detect some organic pigments, but likely only if they are present in high enough concentrations (not mixed) and are not in highly fluorescent binding media (like oil).
The other samples I looked at were reproduction wallpaper samples from Adelphi. I was curious to see if we could detect anything useful about the pigments on an object that would normally be challenging to sample and could not be brought to the lab if it were installed in a historic interior.
The resulting spectra were less noisy than those of the oil paint reference samples, again likely due to the non-oil binding medium on the wallpaper.
Spectra collected from two different greens on a wallpaper reproduction from Adelphi using the Bruker BRAVO. Peaks are labeled, but a match has not been identified.
Despite the better quality of the spectra, we still did not have the resources (i.e. a good reference database for Raman and experience working with Raman spectra) to confidently characterize the pigments present. I am sharing this to illustrate Casadio’s point that the ALPHA and BRAVO require a certain level of expertise and do not provide instant answers.
One of the other participants, Ann Getts, a textile conservator at the De Young Museum in San Francisco, brought various sequins from a costume in storage with a suspicious vinegar odor. Getts had time to look at one of the sequins with both ALPHA modules, and her case study demonstrates some of the trade-offs with the non-contact “External Reflectance” module.
She began with the “External Reflectance” module and the first hurdle was getting the instrument positioned at the appropriate working distance from the sample. Without an adjustable stand, we had to use trial and error to shim up the ALPHA so that the camera could focus on the sequin. The resulting spectrum suggested cellulose acetate (as suspected by Getts initially), but even Casadio still felt insecure about drawing any concrete conclusions based on this spectrum. Then the sequin was analyzed with the “Platinum ATR” module and right away Casadio concluded that indeed it was cellulose acetate.
Each of these instruments has their advantages and disadvantages. Overall the ALPHA seems like a good bang for your buck given the duality of the modules. The price point is pretty reasonable also considering the portability.
The BRAVO is fairly new technology and the dual lasers seem promising, but at this point it does not seem like a must have for the average institution. I would encourage anyone thinking about purchasing any of these instruments to consult with both of the workshop leaders.
Francesca Casadio using the ALPHA to analyze a Roy Lichtenstein painting installed on the wall.
In general I would specifically recommend the ALPHA to:
Institutions that have a lot of sampling restrictions
Institutions with a lot of oversized works
Institutions that focus on modern and contemporary art (especially with plastics and large Color Field paintings)
Institutions with a conservation scientist on staff
In general I would specifically recommend the BRAVO to:
Institutions that have a lot of sampling restrictions
Institutions wanting to focus on analysis of paper-based art
Institutions with a lot of oversized works
Institutions that already have staff with Raman expertise
Institutions looking to purchase a Raman instrument
This blog represents my personal conclusions and understanding of the workshop. I would encourage any of the other participants and the instructors to post in the comments if they have differing opinions or think that I have misunderstood any of the technical aspects of the instrumentation.
Photograph conservator Diana Diaz introduced her presentation as a study case which deals with “overwhelming protection” of photographic materials.
The project started in 2006 when the Harry Ransom Center acquired the photographer Arnold Newman’s archives, including various photographic and other materials, such as photographic albums, sketch books, documentation of many projects… and color transparencies.
More precisely, a corpus of 35 mm Kodak Kodachrome color slides in plastic mounts was found. The slides were wrapped together with sealing tapes, forming in 16 sets. The tapes displayed, on the edge of each pack, handwritten inscriptions indicating the dates and subjects of the photographs. The dates inscribed on the tape enabled to date each project, the whole collection ranging from 1954 to 1972. Diana Diaz showed several examples of the images, like one taken for a project shot in Spain in 1970 for Holiday Magazine.
These slides series are of interest as they inform on the photographer’s working methods. For instance, they showed different cropping, compositions, and exposures experimented within each series. One can see how Newman would play with lights and colors and produce variations of the same images, among which he would then make his final selection for the publication. Diaz then listed all the assignments projects covered in the slides, shot in various places (Spain, Canada, California…) for different magazines, such as Harper’s Bazaar or Life.
However, when the slides were found, the images were still inaccessible since after the removal of the tape applied on one edge displaying the inscriptions, another white tape underneath maintained the stacks of slides together. Three types of tape were identified among the 16 sets:
a masking tape;
a discolored white tape;
a white tape still tacky.
The conservation treatment needed then was difficult to engage because the tapes were in contact, not only with the slides mounts, but also with the films themselves – on both the image and support sides.
Therefore, to remove the tape carrier, Diaz logically proceeded by types of tape.
The white tape still tacky was removed mechanically with a spatula, without any adhesive residue left at the end of the treatment.
The masking tape was strongly adhered and did require a heated spatula combined with the use of solvents.
The discolored white tape was removed with the help of water vapor.
After all the carriers were removed, Diaz evaluated the materials and condition of the residual adhesives in order to determine which solvent to use. She referred to Smith et. al.’s paper1, which not only presents the history of pressure sensitive tape and their ageing properties, but also appropriate solvents and suitable methods of application for their removal. Thus, Diaz used naphtha (a mix of hydrocarbons) to successfully remove the rubber-based adhesive, and ethanol for the oily adhesives. The solvents were applied gently with a cotton swab in a circulation motion and in one direction to minimize the scratches and increase the efficiency.
The photographic documentation under Ultra-Violet illumination allowed to assess the removal of all the adhesives. Finally, the slides were individually rehoused in conservation materials.
Although this treatment was successful, several questions are being raised: Are there remaining solvents residues in the photographic materials at the end of the treatment? Has the surface been scratched? Indeed, the topic of the effect of solvents on color transparencies, in particular regarding the innocuousness for the photographic materials, would require further research to help photograph conservator to choose a suitable treatment.
1 Bibliographic reference: Merrily A. Smith, Norvell M. M. Jones, Susan L. Page, & Marian Peck Dirda. “Pressure-Sensitive Tape and Techniques for its Removal From Paper”
JAIC 1984, Volume 23, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 101 to 113 http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/jaic/articles/jaic23-02-003.html
The NanoRestArt project is a multinational network of conservators, scientists, and industry partners working to develop and test novel nanotechnology-based materials intended for the conservation and preservation of modern and contemporary cultural heritage. Funded by an EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 grant, the project consists of 27 partners, most of which reside in the European Union. The research and development process for these tools is divided into four major categories: gels and nanostructured fluids for cleaning, nanocontainers and nanoparticles for surface protection and strengthening, sensors for molecular detection, and environmental impact of the new materials. As a partner in NanoRestArt, the Tate is investigating the development and evaluation of cleaning systems in collaboration with the Research Center for Colloids and Nanoscience (CSGI), who developed the nano-structured cleaning agents.
Dr. Angelova’s discussion of her work with the Tate and the NanoRestArt project focused on testing nano-structured cleaning systems, investigating their effects on Michael Dillon’s Op Structure sculptures and on mock-ups intended to replicate the properties of the artwork. Chemical analysis of one Op Structure sculpture revealed that it is made entirely of poly(methyl methacrylate), or PMMA, and adhered with PMMA cement. It is an excellent candidate for the NanoRestArt evaluation process because it is composed of a synthetic polymer material which cannot be easily treated with conventional conservation techniques and can benefit from wet surface cleaning. The plastic structure is in very good condition but does show evidence of dust accumulation and surface soiling from handling as well as adhesive labels in need of removal.
Op Structure by Michael Dillon. Image courtesy of http://www.tate.org.uk
The mock-up samples were created by treating a series of semi-opaque acrylic polymer sheets with a variety of soiling materials to mimic finger grease, dirt, and adhesive labels, also including some un-soiled control surfaces. In addition, a range of materials were used to clean the samples including the novel NanoRestArt gels created by CSGI as well as typical cleaning agents used by conservators. PMMA is a highly glossy material which is easily scratched by surface wiping and dissolved by many common solvents. The NanoRestArt gels were therefore chosen as appropriate cleaning materials to avoid such issues during cleaning, and can be loaded with a variety of fluids for cleaning purposes.
The evaluation process involved treating each soiled and control mock-up sample surface in triplicate using each cleaning method, and evaluating the results using a Hirox microscope, gloss meter, colorimeter, and infrared spectrometer. Conservators rated each cleaning agent based on its ease of use, health and safety characteristics, control, soil removal effectiveness, tendency to leave residues, and gloss change using a number system. After treating the mock-up samples, the Tate research team found that to the naked eye, simple cleaning solutions (such as saliva or deionized water) worked well to remove the soil, but left scratches and streaks when viewed under the microscope. Additionally, soiled surfaces cleaned with gels showed evidence of gel residues and microdroplets as the sample surfaces are non-absorbant. The best cleaning results derived from a microcloth moistened with a combination of a surfactant and a chelator known as triammonium citrate. For the adhesive labels, some microemulsion cleaning agents were successful in removing them from mock-up samples. Dr. Angelova mentioned that they were not able to load the microemulsions into the NanoRestArt gels, but this would probably be an ideal cleaning solution.
Mock-up samples used to test cleaning procedures. Image courtesy of http://www.tate.org.uk
When working with the actual Op Structure sculptures, conservators chose to clean a small, inconspicuous soiled area, beginning with water and working up to the surfactant and chelator solution – a process which effectively removed dirt without scratching the surface. Based on the mock-up tests, conservators were able to successfully remove adhesive labels from the artwork using a solution of water and isopropyl alcohol.
APOYOnline (Association for Heritage Preservation of the Americas) is a non-profit organization that facilitates communication and exchange among heritage preservation professionals throughout Latin America and the Caribbean region. Beginning August 30 and extending until September 2, 2016, APOYOnline hosted its first regional conference and workshop in Medellin, Colombia. Attended by 73 participants from 15 countries, the theme of the conference was “exchanges and practical tips”. While presentations focused on a range of cultural materials, the primary emphasis of the conference was on preservation of photographic heritage due the importance of photograph collections in Latin America and the immediacy of addressing these collections. Based on the presentation given at the Annual AIC Meeting, the APOYOnline conference appeared informative, fun, well-planned, well-received, and resulted in successfully engendering international collaborations.
Image courtesy of the APOYOnline Facebook page
Colombia was chosen as the conference host country because of its central location within Latin America, and Medellin as the host city to promote the revitalized city. Logistical planning for the conference required coordinating team meetings across four different time zones, taking full advantage of communication technology such as WhatsApp and Skype. In addition, there was an incredible amount of fundraising to support the conference and its participants. Major initial backing came from Tru Vue, Banco de la República, and the University of Delaware, which then attracted more supporters, resulting in a total of 21 financial donors. Through this campaign, APOYOnline was able to provide scholarship to all 73 participants – 60% partial grants and 40% full grants for conference attendance.
The program was divided into two major sections: paper presentations in the mornings and workshops in the afternoons. In total, the conference had 14 papers and 24 poster presentations. Paper topics focused on a wide range of preservation and risk management projects, including education, storage, collections care, impact of microbiological research, emergency response, treatment of ceramic murals, and more. In addition, posters discussed glass plate negative collection preservation, conservation of audio visual materials, and paper conservation in tropical climates among other topics. All sessions were recorded and made available on the APOYOnline webpage for free. The workshop on conservation of photographs involved lectures, discussions, and hands-on demonstrations about identification and preservation of photographic materials and were translated into three languages for all participants. Originally intended for 25 people, the conference organizers were eventually able to open the workshop to all attendees. Some of the most important issues for photograph collections in Latin America include immediate inventory, cleaning, storage, and preventive preservation. The workshop therefore provided participants with a better awareness of the needs for their collections and information that they could then bring back to their institutions.
Image courtesy of the APOYOnline Facebook page
During the conference, there was a meeting with the participants entitled “Vision 2020” in which the future of APOYOnline was discussed. Suggestions from the session included hosting more events, dissemination of activities, and research. APOYOnline is therefore working to strengthen networks with universities, provide more professional training, and act as an international bridge by bringing people to Latin America and vice versa. The organizing team for the conference received a large amount of thank you notes from attendees on how the meeting impacted their work and collections. The next APOYOnline conference will take place in Antigua, Guatemala to advocate more for countries in Central America and the Caribbean region.
Further information about APOYOnline can be found at www.apoyonline.org as well as through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
This talk was a good example of collaborative art historical and material science research. Two of the three authors, Kaslyne O’Connor and Ariel Pate, discussed a study that revolved around two gum-platinum prints by Edward Steichen from his 1904 “Moonrise” series in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago that had titles and dates under question. Each print had been referred to by different names (“Midnight Lake George” and “Moonlight Lake George“), and varied in tonality and surface sheen (you will notice that the prints have the same titles and dates on the Art Institute of Chicago website). Furthermore, the image in one of the prints is flipped horizontally.
A letter from Steichen to Stieglitz talks about “Midnight Lake George” being a platinum print followed by blue print, then greenish gum varnish. This letter is a valuable piece of information, along with X-Ray Fluorescence and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy that gave characteristic signals for Prussian blue, platinum (“Midnight…” had more), palladium, mercury (traces in “Midnight…” only), chromium, iron (“Moonlight…” had more), and lead for both prints. Still to be determined is the distribution of Prussian blue throughout the print, which would suggest the cyanotype process vs. a Prussian blue watercolor wash over the entire surface of the print. Clip marks at the print edges did displace the gum layer, thus revealing a blue layer below, which could be a hint that the cyanotype process was used. Examination of “Midnight…” under ultraviolet light exhibited a green fluorescents characteristic of linseed oil.
A Camera Works supplement from 1906 refers to “Moonlight…”. A 1910 Albright Art Gallery catalog for the “International Exhibition of Pictorial Photography” refers to “Moonlight…” having been made using a platinum gum process “peculiarly [Steichen’s] own”. Ultimately, a timeline was proposed by the authors using the information gathered from this research, which supports the 1904 (“Midnight…”) and 1909 (“Moonlight…”) printing dates for each. More apt titles were also proposed–”Road to the Valley, Moonrise” for “Midnight…” and “Road to the Valley, Moonrise Lake George” for “Moonlight”. Something that was noted that I found to be particularly interesting was that Steichen became less “poetic” in his later years, and retitled many of his prints.
Also to note, this project was born out of a previous project to create the website The Alfred Stieglitz Collection, a rich resource recommended to visit.
Nathália Vieira Serrano’s talk focussed on the “incorporation” and “disincorporation” (accessioning/deaccessioning) of archival documents in the Department of Archives and Documentation at Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, in Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, in Rio de Janeiro. She discussed the overarching framework that was developed to help guide decisions of accessioning and deaccessioning collection materials, and then as a case study, the application of this framework to a specific collection–a collection of history of science of public health. This collection consists of glass plate negatives, roll and sheet film, all by various photographers and on different themes including, history, health education, scientific divulgation, and life sciences. A survey determined that the images were still in good shape, as were their supports.
The talk was a nice example of the challenges staff in the world of preservation face when needing to determine what can stay and what needs to go, the many factors to consider, and the criteria and prioritization to establish when making such important decisions. Serrano mentioned the mission of Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, the difference between multidisciplinary vs transdisciplinary, and the different stakeholders (researchers, collection managers, and potential current and future interested parties) that are taken into account. She also referred to Salvador Muñoz Viñas writings on contemporary theory of conservation and his statement that conservation is not a neutral act.
I appreciate how it is difficult to convey fully in a 20-25 minute talk the complexity of these types of projects. There are so many interesting points to think about, large and small, and people from different points of interest that are part of the decision making process. If there is one area I would have been interested in learning more about, it was some similarities and differences in their approach when compared to other national and international institutions. The presentation also gave insight to a large collection in Rio de Janeiro, how it is stored, and the building and environment that surrounds it.
Two questions that were asked after the talk were:
Is cost considered when deciding whether or not to deaccession? Answer: The survey is still underway, but cost will likely be considered.
What is the size of the collection? Answer: Still to be determined. (But an image was shown of the storage area the collection takes up)
Despite describing himself throughout his presentation as a 20th century dinosaur, Jonathan Ashley-Smith gave a very humorous and thought-provoking presentation on a topic that is very relevant to conservators of this and any other century. It overlapped and contrasted in a very interesting way with Elena Torok and Meg Loew Craft’s paper, presented shortly afterwards, “In Support of the Bigger Picture: Preventive Conservation as a Recognized Specialty”.
There was a lot of depth to the presentation – too much to be clearly conveyed in this post – and I hope that a paper is published so that I and others can take the time to digest and debate the issues raised. To cut to the chase, Ashley-Smith’s presentation lamented the loss of in-depth treatment knowledge and well-developed hand skills in the ‘modern’ conservator. He attributed this partly to the increase in preventive conservation activities in institutions, partly to the shift away from a craftsman model towards a more intellectual or scientific focus, and partly to a decline in the teaching and maintenance (including professional development) of interventive treatment skills.
In presenting this thesis, Ashley-Smith did not deny the need for preventive conservation. He sees the increase in preventive activities as a response to budgetary pressures, where arguments of economies of scale and the risks associated with interventive treatment are encouraging institutions to favour “doing nothing”. He does remind us, however, that preventive conservation does not do nothing – you can alter the dimensions or rate of degradation of artifacts through altering their storage climate – with obvious potential benefit as well as risk. Furthermore, objects are not held in suspended animation in storage, they are just in a waiting room until they are “displayed, mended, rehoused, thrown out, studied or mauled”. In storage risk can be controlled but not eliminated.
With regards to his second point, Ashley-Smith argues that the decline in practical skills has occurred due to an increased focus on the intellectual, brains over hands. He cites the example of a skilled conservator with 40 years experience who was asked to leave his university teaching position because he did not have a doctorate. This is causing a decline in standards where conservators no longer have the required knowledge and hand skills to undertake complex treatments. In such a case it is unethical to undertake treatments where you do not have the required skills and experience, but it is not because the treatment in itself is unethical.
In addition, Ashley-Smith contends that there has also been a move by professional conservation associations to reduce risk, which is being achieved through increasingly narrow interpretations of what constitutes ethical treatment. In their turn, codes of ethics reference greater enforcement of ethical standards, with associated exclusion of those who do not meet the standards. This can be exacerbated by
social media where conservators can be shamed away from actions that others believe are wrong, and leads both to conformity and hiding skills, also preventing the development and celebration of treatment skills.
As a solution to these issues, Ashley-Smith has several propositions for conservation professional associations: to embrace diversity and inclusion, and reject conformity, through stimulating consistent reasoning and active discussion, and encouraging individual accountability; and to create more fellowships and internships for further study and practice of interventive treatment in individual conservation specialisations. If institutions are unable to accommodate this then it could be achieved by supporting the private conservation sector to offer training in hands on skills.
In finishing with a quote from Joni Mitchell, “that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone”, Ashley-Smith left the audience to think about and debate this important topic.
As a library conservator, I enjoy breaking out of my niche by attending art-related talks, because it gets me back in touch with my roots as an artist once upon a time. I knew Samantha’s talk was not to be missed. She has shown through previous research that the conservation of modern and contemporary art on paper is exciting, as you often have a more direct link to the artists when treating their work. While the Hungarian-born artist Sari Dienes (1898-1992) is no longer living, I was confident Samantha would still get to know the intricacies of this unique artist thoroughly. There has never been a better, more urgent time to focus on the influence and mastery of women artists as it is now, in our current political climate, where suppression of the female voice rises as a concern once again. Samantha’s timely and engaging talk grabbed my attention not only for its focus on an unsung 20th century female artist but for the way Samantha, paper conservator at the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA), throws herself into her projects wholeheartedly.
By now many colleagues have heard about Samantha’s research and treatment of original artwork by the tattoo artist “Sailor Jerry” during her time as paper conservator at CCAHA. I admired how much her work on this project became a part of her, literally and professionally. The tattoos she took away as a permanent “souvenir” of this work, on her own skin, really left an impact on me. Having overlapped with her in grad school at Buffalo, I remember how much Samantha loves her work and shows a special curiosity. Samantha’s project on Sari Dienes’ large-scale rubbings was no exception.
While Dienes worked in many mediums and styles throughout her lifetime, Samantha presented Dienes’ rubbings of manhole covers, which she created using brayer-applied ink on Webril – a material used in the medical field as padding between skin and cast. While Webril today is commonly 100% cotton, it was not in the past, and the fiber composition of the Webril Dienes used was not recorded. True to her immersive spirit, Samantha travelled to the Sari Dienes Foundation in Pomona, NY, where she was able to collect historic samples of materials from the artist’s collection to use for testing and analysis. She explained that identification is not resolved as she seeks colleagues with fiber samples she might use for comparison, since her reference library did not provide a match to her FTIR analysis.
Samantha Sheesley creates a rubbing of a manhole cover in the style of Dienes
In her presentation, Samantha led the audience on a manhole scavenger hunt through the streets of NYC, where she traced Dienes’ steps at the artist’s preferred working time, Sundays at 5am. Samantha wondered how Dienes navigated the city streets with all her required bulky supplies, and explained that Jasper Johns sometimes served as her assistant. Dienes would talk to people passing by on the street as she worked, which is inevitable in the extroverted city of New York. To get a sense of the physical work required, Samantha produced rubbings in the same manner as the artist.
It’s impressive how well-connected Dienes was to artists of the time, but because she was a woman, she was not well-liked or accepted by the many of her male contemporaries. Jackson Pollock spoke poorly of her, but she collaborated with Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg for an exhibit in the Bonwit Teller department store in 1955. The VMFA acquired two of the manhole rubbings that were at Bonwit Teller, which were in poor condition. One of the pieces Samantha focused on is titled “Marcy.” It was stapled to an acidic cardboard backing, which subsequently discolored the Webril, along with displaying many other condition problems.
Samantha Sheesley treats “Marcy” at the VMFA
The goal was to repair Dienes’ work in order to restore her legacy and display all the manhole rubbings together again. After much testing on samples, Samantha decided to wash the delicate Webril supports using wet Tech Wipe, and created over 70 inserts using acrylic-toned Hanji adhered with methyl cellulose. Pastel pencils were used for visual integration. The work was logistically challenging and time consuming, to say the least, but the audience was able to see clearly how much care was taken with excellent results depicted in Samantha’s treatment photos.
I was thrilled to be exposed to an artist I never heard of, but who was in fact so very influential. Samantha explained that Dienes’ work not only influenced Rauschenberg and Johns, but was associated with Fluxus artists such as a personal favorite, Naim June Paik. Dienes believed any material could be used to create a work of art and to end her presentation, Samantha shared an inspiring Dienes quote that deserves to be passed along: “Spirit lives in everything. It has no age, no color, no sex.” Samantha should feel proud of sharing the life and work of a woman who influenced many, while standing in the shadows of history. One of our greatest responsibilities and joys as conservators is to repair artifacts so that silenced voices can be heard once again. Samantha continues this charge with admirable determination.
Having a new conservation space built is the greatest hope and fear of many conservators – such an opportunity to take advantage of, and also to potentially go wrong! Justin Johnson’s presentation about their experiences at the University of Washington Libraries in Seattle, WA was a great insight into the process, and, given they seem to largely be pleased with the outcome, demonstrates that you sometimes can get what you want, as well as what you need.
The previous conservation space was located in a basement, cramped at only 2000 sq ft, and had last been updated in 1963. A new conservation position, partly funded by the Andrew W. Mellon foundation, was the impetus to create a new conservation space with more up-to-date equipment and space for the now four full time conservators, plus up to three part-time students and interns.
One of the early things the conservation team did was to create future goals for their space. Some of these included:
increasing the ability to undertake major treatments on collection items, while maintaining general collection work
incorporate book, paper and photograph treatments in the same space
have the ability to teach and train student conservators and interns
have a flexible and open space that could be used for workshops and research as well as treatment
The team also consulted widely with conservation scientists and treatment conservators of many disciplines.
A new space on the rooftop was identified, double the size of the previous space at 4000 sq ft, with natural light from five skylights. However, there were limitations on HVAC and ducting placement for a fume hood. Services with restrictions were placed in the design first, with other equipment fitted in around them. The fume hood location was determined first, followed by the rest of the wet lab: sinks, exhaust trunks, microscopy, suction and humidification, light bleaching and materials storage.
A multi-purpose documentation room was designed, where curtains could screen off an area to allow for photography or artefact examination and low-tech analysis, but still allow the space to be open to the rest of the lab area.
At one end of the main space a storage, office and reception area was located, with the rest of the space being fitted out for the main treatment work, including space for 10 work benches and more storage. This space had an open focus to encourage communication and collaboration as well as reconfiguration, when required.
While an architectural team was engaged to create the space, the conservation team were heavily involved, thinking through the design of furniture (especially for storage purposes) and thoroughly investigating the departmental work flows and how they would work in the space.
The conservation team drew their workflow movements on paper and overlaid them on the design drawings and also used computer tools, such as Live Home 3D Pro, to visualise the space and move furniture around to try out new orientations. This software was very useful to ‘walk through’ the space, make adjustments to the design and then send them via pdf to the architects. It also facilitated communication between the conservators and architects and saved a lot of money in lengthy redesigns which would have occurred in a later phase of the project.
15 months after the initial bid phase, the team moved into their new space in February 2016.
Questions:
Q1) What is the climate and do you know the air exchange rate? A1) Aiming for 70F/50% but are still in the process of balancing the AHUs. They are finding that the fume hood competes with the HVAC.
Q2) Who did the lighting design? A2) It was done by a UWA group at the end of the project; the Live Home 3D Pro software has a large database of furniture and lighting which can be added to the design.
Q3) What was the total budget? A3) Got support from the Mellon grant, UWA donors and campus funding. A lot of money was saved in design fees by the proactive work of the conservation team.
Q4) What was the size of the benches and the area around them? A4) The benches both fixed and moveable are all the same height and measure 60” x 38” with 3.5’ between benches.
Q5) Detail on the skylights: specification and R values? A5) The lighting system has an automated system to take the daylight into account; the lights reduce on a bright day (which is rare in Seattle!).
The team also consulted widely with conservation scientists and treatment conservators of many disciplines.
