Electronic Media Conservation – Page 3 – AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse

Call for Papers: Collaboration with Artists in the Preservation of Artistic Heritage: Theory and Practice

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) and Objects Specialty Group (OSG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) join with the International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art –North America (INCCA-NA) to call for papers for a special joint session on the topic of collaboration with artists at the upcoming AIC Annual Meeting in Miami, FL, May 13-16, 2015.
Recognizing that artists have a stake in the legacy of their work has shifted conservation practice in recent decades. Moreover, it is possible to maintain a critical art historical discourse while also integrating the voices and opinions of the artists within preservation strategies for their artworks. The mission of organizations like INCCA-NA has been guided by the possibilities of this shift. Increasingly, these practices are flourishing at major museums across the country.
Many conservators are actively seizing opportunities to interview and otherwise interact with artists. This session seeks to provide a venue for novice and experienced practitioners alike, from conservation and allied preservation-related fields, to share their outlook on and practice of collaboration with artists and their associates.
Topics to address may include but are not limited to:

The AIC Annual Meeting theme of “Practical Philosophy or Making Conservation Work” What are the practical considerations in collaborating with artists? How does theory translate into practice and how does practice inform theory?
What is the value in collaborating with artists? How has practice supported this?
Interview tips and techniques.
Collaboration with artists beyond the interview.
Case studies.
Collaboration with artists in the preservation of ephemeral materials, obsolete media, and installation art.
Finding time and resources for an artist interview program.

How to Submit an Abstract

Email your abstract in Microsoft Word (NOT as a pdf) to Ruth Seyler, AIC Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org.
Please send an abstract of 500 words maximum, along with a bio of 300 words maximum per author to Ruth by Wednesday, September 10, 2014. In the case of multiple authors, please list all authors and include an email address for each author. If you have questions or would like to discuss an idea for a session, please contact Ruth Seyler.
You may also submit your abstract for consideration for other sessions at the AIC Annual Meeting, as detailed below.
Please indicate your first choice session for your submission as “EMG/OSG/INCCA-NA Joint Session”.

Session Types
Abstracts will be considered for the following session types.
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. Recent efforts to provide a variety of session formats will continue and authors accepted for general session presentations may receive requests to participate in lightning rounds or concurrent general sessions.

Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty. Specialty sessions will include: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collection Care, Electronic Media, Health & Safety, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Sustainability, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.

Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines

You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Objects Session, and 3rd Choice: Wooden Artifacts Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Poster Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: Photographic Materials Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Session
- 1st Choice: Book and Paper Session, 2nd Choice: Book and Paper Session, 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session
When listing your three session choices, please remember that if you are interested in a joint session you only need to list that as a single option. For example: if you want your second choice to be the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session, don’t list it as either Book and Paper Session or Photographic Materials Session but list it as the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session.

Electronic Materials Group: Call for Papers for 2015 AIC Annual Meeting

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 13-16 2015 in Miami, FL.

For information about EMG, please see- http://www.conservation-us.org/specialty-groups/electronic-media#.U8x2h6g2ndQ
The theme of the meeting is “Practical Philosophy or Making Conservation Work.” (For details, please see: http://www.conservation-us.org/annual-meeting/submit-an-abstract#.U8x2oag2ndQ ) Submissions are particularly encouraged that address practical considerations in the preservation of electronic media and considerations of how theory translates into practice and how practice informs theory. However, all topics of interest to the Electronic Media Group will be considered.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships. – http://www.conservation-us.org/grants-scholarships#.U8x3cag2ndQ
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Wednesday, September 10, 2014.

How to Submit an Abstract

Email your abstract in Microsoft Word (NOT as a pdf) to Ruth Seyler, AIC Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org.
Please send an abstract of 500 words maximum, along with a bio of 300 words maximum per author to Ruth by Wednesday, September 10, 2014. In the case of multiple authors, please list all authors and include an email address for each author. If you have questions or would like to discuss an idea for a session, please contact Ruth Seyler.
You may also submit your abstract for consideration for other sessions at the AIC Annual Meeting, as detailed below.
If the EMG Session is your first choice as a venue for your paper, please be sure to indicate this within your submission.

Session Types
Abstracts will be considered for the following session types.
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. Recent efforts to provide a variety of session formats will continue and authors accepted for general session presentations may receive requests to participate in lightning rounds or concurrent general sessions.

Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty. Specialty sessions will include: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collection Care, Electronic Media, Health & Safety, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Sustainability, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.

Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines

You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Objects Session, and 3rd Choice: Wooden Artifacts Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Poster Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: Photographic Materials Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Session
- 1st Choice: Book and Paper Session, 2nd Choice: Book and Paper Session, 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Session
- 1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session
When listing your three session choices, please remember that if you are interested in a joint session you only need to list that as a single option. For example: if you want your second choice to be the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session, don’t list it as either Book and Paper Session or Photographic Materials Session but list it as the Book and Paper and Photographic Materials Joint Session.

42nd Annual Meeting- Electronic Media Session, May 31, 2014, "The California Audiovisual Preservation Project: A Statewide Collaborative Model to Preserve the State’s Documentary Heritage by Pamela Jean Vadakan"

The California Light and Sound Collection is the product of a collaboration between 75 partner institutions with original recordings of audiovisual content in California. Following a 2007 statewide collection survey that used the University of California’s CALIPR sampling tool, it was discovered that over 1 million recordings were in need of preservation. In 2010, the California Audiovisual Preservation Project (CAVPP) was founded. Recipients of a National Leadership Grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the CAVPP uploaded its first video in 2011.
Like previous statewide initiatives within the California Preservation Program, the project is based at the University of California at Berkeley, where Barclay Ogden provides leadership for the project. By repurposing existing staff and existing tools, the project is able to realize a high level of efficiency. Each partner institution is responsible for surveying its own collection with CALIPR, adding its own records to CONTENTdm, and sending its own recordings with metadata to CAVPP. It is anticipated that open-source tool OMEKA will replace CONTENTdm, because the project partners should not be dependent upon costly proprietary software site licenses.
CAVPP adds administrative metadata, confirms the descriptive metadata, and sends content to the vendors. The vendors include MediaPreserve, Scenesavers, and Bay Area Video Coalition. The vendors produce a preservation file, a mezzanine file, and an access file for each item. Moving forward the project will discontinue creating the mezzanine file, because the preservation file is more useful. Two copies of each file are saved to Linear-tape-open (LTO) and one on the Internet Archive’s servers. Storage costs are about five dollars per recording. CAVPP is also responsible for running checksums and checking video quality. Problems have included out of sync audio, shifts in hue or saturation (chrominance), and shifts in value (luminance). The AV Artifact Atlas has proven essential to the quality control process.
It is crucial for a project this large to have a clear scope in terms of both content and format. The criteria for selection include statewide or local significance, unpublished or original source material, and public domain content. The project also encompasses content for which rights have already been acquired. In some cases, “unknown” has been used a placeholder for missing copyright information. The materials are also subject to triage in terms of the original physical format and condition (preservation need). The project is limited to digital conversion. Film-to-film conversion is outside the scope of the project, but it is hoped that project partners can leverage this project to facilitate projects for high-definition video and film-to-film conversion.
The project has already exceeded its original goals. In the first year, CAVPP uploaded 50 recordings. Now the project has grown to 75 institutions and over 1,400 recordings. It is anticipated that there will be over 3,000 recordings by the end of 2014. Future steps include an assessment of who is using the collection and how they are using it. The project also includes outreach workshops scheduled for project partners in 2014 and 2015.

42nd Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Group Luncheon, May 30, “Sustainably Designing the First Digital Repository for Museum Collections”

Panelists:
Jim Coddington, Chief Conservator, The Museum of Modern Art
Ben Fino-Radin, Digital Repository Manager, The Museum of Modern Art
Dan Gillean, AtoM Product Manager, Artefactual Systems
Kara Van Malssen, Adjunct Professor, NYU MIAP, Senior Consultant, AudioVisual Preservation Solutions (AVPreserve)
This informative and engaging panel session provided an overview of The Museum of Modern Art’s development of a digital repository for their museum collections (DRMC) and gave attendees a sneak peak at the beta version of the system. The project is nearing the end of the second phase of development and the DRMC will be released later this summer. The panelists did an excellent job outlining the successes and challenges of their process and offered practical suggestions for institutions considering a similar approach. They emphasized the importance of collaboration, communication, and flexibility at every stage of the process, and as Kara Van Malssen stated towards the end of the session, “there is no ‘done’ in digital preservation” — it requires an inherently sustainable approach to be successful.
This presentation was chock-full of good information and insight, most of which I’ve just barely touched on in this post (especially the more technical bits), so I encourage the panelists and my fellow luncheon attendees to contribute to the conversation with additions and corrections in the comments section.
Jim Coddington began with a brief origin story of the digital repository, citing MoMA’s involvement with the Matters in Media Art project and Glenn Wharton’s brainstorming sessions with the museum’s media working group. Kara, who began working with Glenn in 2010 on early prototyping of the repository, offered a more detailed history of the process and walked through considerations of some of the pre-software development steps of the process.
Develop your business case: In order to make the case for creating a digital repository, they calculated the total GB the museum was acquiring annually. With large and ever-growing quantities of data, it was necessary to design a system in which many of the processes – like ingest, fixity checks, migration, etc.- could be automated. They used the OAIS (open archival information system) reference model (ISO 14721:2012), adapting it for a fine art museum environment.
Involve all stakeholders: Team members had initial conversations with five museum departments: conservation, collections technologies, imaging, IT applications and infrastructure, and AV. Kara referenced the opening session talk on LEED certification, in which we were admonished from choosing an architect based on their reputation or how their other buildings look. The same goes for choosing software and/or a software developer for your repository project – what works for another museum won’t necessarily work for you, so it’s critical to articulate your institution’s specific needs and find or develop a system that will best serve those needs.
Determine system scope: Stakeholder conversations helped the MoMA DRMC team determine both the content scope – will the repository include just fine arts or also archival materials? – and the system scope – what should it do and how will it work with other systems already in place?
Define your requirements: Specifically, functional requirements. The DRMC team worked through scenarios representing a variety of different stages of the process in order to determine all of the functions the system is required to perform. A few of these functions include: staging, ingest, storage, description & access, conservation, and administration.
Articulate your use cases: Use cases describe interactions and help to outline the steps you might take in using a repository. The DRMC team worked through 22 different use cases, including search & browse, adding versions, and risk assessment. By defining their requirements and articulating use cases, the team was able to assess what systems they already had in place and what gaps would need to be filled with the new system.
At this point, Kara turned the mic over to Ben Fino-Radin, who was brought on as project manager for the development phase in mid-2012.
RFPs were issued for the project in April 2013; three drastically different vendors responded – the large vendor (LV), the small vendor (SV), and the very small vendor (VSV).
Vetting the vendors: The conversation about choosing the right vendor was, in this blogger’s opinion, one of the most important and interesting parts of the session. The LV, with an international team of thousands and extremely polished project management skills, was appealing in many ways. MoMA had worked with this particular vendor before, though not extensively on preservation or archives projects. The SV and VSV, on the other hand, did have preservation and archives domain expertise, which the DRMC team ultimately decided was one of the most important factors in choosing a vendor. So, in the end, MoMA, a very big institution, hired Artefactual Systems, the very small vendor. Ben acknowledged that this choice seemed risky at first, since the small, relatively new vendor was unproven in this particular kind of project, but the pitch meeting sold MoMA on the idea the Artefactual Systems would be a good fit. Reiterating Kara’s point from earlier, that you have to choose a software product/developer based on your own specific project needs, Ben pointed out that choosing a good software vendor wasn’t enough; choosing a vendor with domain expertise allowed for a shared vocabulary and more nimble process and design.
Dan Gillean spoke next, offering background on Artefactual Systems and their approach to developing the DRMC.
Know your vendor: Artefactual Systems, which was founded in 2001 and employs 17 staff members, has two core products: AtoM and Archivematica. In addition to domain expertise in preservation and archives, Artefactual is committed to standards-based solutions and open source development. Dan highlighted the team’s use of agile development methodology, which involves a series of short term goals and concrete deliverables; agile development requires constant assessment, allowing for ongoing change and improvement.
Expect to be involved: One of the advantages of an agile approach, with its constant testing, feedback, and evolution, is that there are daily discussions among developers as well as frequent check-ins with the user/client. This was the first truly agile project Artefactual has done, so the process has been beneficial to them as well as to MoMA. As development progressed, the team conducted usability testing and convened various advisory groups; in late 2013 and early 2014, members of cultural heritage institutions and digital preservation experts were brought in to test and provide feedback on the DRMC.
Prepare for challenges: One challenge the team faced was learning how to avoid “scope creep.” They spent a lot of time developing one of the central features of the site – the context browser – but recognized that not every feature could go through so many iterations before the final project deadline. They had to keep their focus on the big picture, developing the building blocks now and allowing refinement to happen later.
At this point in the luncheon, the DRMC had it’s first public demo. Ben walked us through the various widgets on the dashboard as well as the context browser feature, highlighting the variety and depth of information available and the user-friendly interface.
Know your standards: Kara wrapped up the panel with a discussion of ‘trustworthiness’ and noted some tools available for assessment and auditing digital repositories, including the NDSA Levels of Digital Preservation and the Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ISO 16263:2010). MoMA is using these assessment tools as planning tools for next the phases of the DRMC project, which may include more software development as well as policy development.
Development of the DRMC is scheduled to be complete in June of this year and an open source version of the code will be available after July.

42nd Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session, May 31st, “Establishing Time Based Media Conservation at the National Galleries of Scotland; Creating More in Times of Less" presented by Kirsten Dunne, paper conservator at the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh, Scotland

I really enjoyed Kirsten’s Dunne’s talk because she addressed a challenge that all conservators face regardless of their specialty. That is developing economically viable and sustainable solutions for collections management which are flexible enough to anticipate and adapt to a future that includes an increasing amount of time-based media and other conceptual or intangible works of art. Ms. Dunne, a trained paper conservator, has nobly volunteered to take on this challenge in addition to her regular duties because, as in many institutions facing cuts and austerity measures, there is no budget for a full time, time-based media conservator at the GMA. So, how is she faring and what advice does she have for the rest of us?
The Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art currently has around 20 time-based media works. The first challenge that Ms. Dunne faced was to locate each one and manipulate Mimsey, the GMA’s CMS, to make sure that each was properly characterized and documented. She stressed the importance of an artist questionnaire or interview at the time that each piece is acquired. This is the best way to insure that the information gathered is accurate and also an appropriate time to make a record of any contemporary technology that may be required to display the work (such as a VHS or laser disk player, projectors, or sound equipment). This information is especially important if your institution has purchased a master copy for loan and repeat display, as opposed to an exhibition copy that must be disposed of after a single showing. The legal implications of this had never occurred to me, nor the fact that proper and complete erasure of an artwork can be an issue. This was part of the underlying theme of Ms. Dunne’s talk which cast the conservator as ethicist. It became her job to answer legal and moral questions about the work such as ‘How many copies can be displayed simultaneously?’ and “Who should have access to the digital files?” She said that she was compelled to question who she was as a professional and that the exercise ultimately reinforced her confidence in her own knowledge base and the ethical principles which she cultivated during her training.
Ms. Dunne went on to say that one excellent source of guidance was “Matters in Media Art,” a collaboration between MoMA, SFMoMA, the New Art Trust (NAT), and Tate, which has an established time-based media lab. The project, which can be found here, is “designed to provide guidelines for care of time-based media works of art.” The templates provided her with a list of questions which assissted her research and shaped her approach to documentation. Gradually, she said that she began to “close the knowledge gap,” and to implement some quick organizational strategies. These included:
1. Physically consolidating time-based media works in storage and documenting their new locations
2. Entering new information fields and consistent keywords in the museum’s CMS in order to describe and track pieces and
3. Drafting a preservation management plan for electronic and time-based media, which included an “Equipment Asset Register” to track on site audio visual equipment and which could be programed to send an alert when that equipment was in danger of expiring
Ms. Dunne offered some excellent advise for any conservator who is faced with unfamiliar materials and formats, namely:
1. Trust Your Instincts because the broader principles of conservation will hold true and
2. Embrace the Chaos! because the best way to learn is by doing.
She also talked about the value of involving your colleagues such as curators, registrars, and IT staff. Sometimes it can be a challenge just to get others to recognize that a conservator should be involved from the beginning regarding decisions about display and storage, even if there is nothing currently “wrong” with the piece. Often, a general lack of experience with new media pieces leads to fear, and consequently, neglect. She explained that she was able to barter her time and expertise with time-based media conservators at other institutions whose experience proved to be invaluable. In fact, interinstitutional sharing can extend to those ancillary components like betamax machines or tape decks, and she suggested partnering with other institutions to create a repository of such devices. This approach can cultivate good will and also form a visible, public partnership.
In summary, Ms. Dunne found that while establishing her museum’s nascent draft of core guidelines for conserving and exhibiting time-based media was challenging, it was a rewarding experience. She reported that she made allies in the field, added to personal and institutional knowledge of the collection, and came to regard herself as “a conservator” rather than “a paper conservator” who was prepared for the challenges posed by an evolving artistic landscape. Her concluding words to institutions were these: “ If there is someone on your staff who wants to take on a similar project or responsibility for your time-based media collection, give them that freedom! You will benefit tremendously.” And to educators and conservation professionals: “Continue to act as mentors. I’ve been lucky to have the support of those in the field.”

New Certificate in Digital Curation at Johns Hopkins University

Conservators today, like all museum professionals with responsibilities for collections care and management of cultural heritage, are worried about the ongoing maintenance and documentation of digital artifacts along with the conservation of physical objects in their collections. Johns Hopkins University’s MA in Museum Studies has announced a new certificate program in digital curation starting in January 2014 to address the need for formal education in this emerging field of stewardship.
The Certificate in Digital Curation is a specialized graduate program designed to prepare museum professionals to manage the growing volume and variety of digital assets of long-term value that museums are now routinely producing, acquiring, storing and sharing. Assets that need ongoing management include born-digital media art, research data, and documentation information stored in collections management systems about physical collection objects. And because most museums are now investing significant resources in digitizing collections—new acquisitions as well as for the purpose of loan, pre- and post-conservation treatment, and presentation online—they have a growing need to preserve their digitized assets.
Digital curation is defined as the management of digital assets over their lifetime. While the term is not synonymous with the modern understanding of the role of a museum curator, it does reflect the historical definition of curator as “keeper” of collections. It is also in alignment with the growing international digital curation community dedicated to maintaining access to digital data of long-term value.
The JHU digital curation certificate program consists of six courses, including five online and one on-site internship. Class size is limited to 15-17 students to allow for stimulating discussions with classmates and faculty. The curriculum includes the following 13-week courses:

Digital Preservation, which covers the principles of digital preservation and the basics of developing and assessing digital preservation plans;
Foundations of Digital Curation, which particularly addresses the beginning of the digital life cycle, including topics such as appraisal and selection, metadata standards, and intellectual property issues;
Managing Digital Information, which emphasizes the management of digital objects in museum environments, including format transformation, management of surrogates, and workflows;
Internship in a museum or related organization, including at least 120 hours on-site and completion of a project or paper;
An approved elective chosen from the MA in Museum Studies curriculum, OR a second internship; and
A supervised research project leading to a publishable or presentable paper that contributes to the new literature of the digital curation field.

Admission requirements for the digital curation certificate are:

A master’s degree in museum studies or other relevant field,
A bachelor’s degree and at least five years full-time experience working in a museum, library, archive, or related cultural heritage organization, or
Students enrolled in the JHU MA in Museum Studies program upon completion of 5 courses.

A grade point average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale is required for admission (work experience will also be considered). International students are welcome, but please note that TOEFL for students whose native language is not English or who have not graduated from an accredited college or university in the US is required.
The deadline for applications for the spring semester (classes beginning January 22) is December 16.
We are excited about this new program, and we encourage interested conservators and other museum professionals to contact one of us! Our contact information is provided below.
Phyllis Hecht, Program Director, MA in Museum Studies, phecht@jhu.edu
Joyce Ray, Program Coordinator and Lecturer, Digital Curation Certificate, jray16@jhu.edu
http://museum-studies.jhu.edu
http://advanced.jhu.edu/digitalcuration

Electronic Media Group Call for Papers, AIC 2014 Meeting

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 28-31st 2014 in San Francisco, California. http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=482&parentID=476
The theme of the meeting is Conscious Conservation: Sustainable Choices in Conservation Care. Topics could include sustainability of analogue media formats, migration and emulation strategies, approaches to digital asset management and preservation, care of electronic media collections, and case studies of particularly challenging artworks.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships. – http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=474
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Friday, September 13.
Abstracts will be considered for:
General Sessions – General Session papers must specifically address the meeting theme. General Session papers will be considered for one of three categories: all attendee sessions, concurrent sessions, and concurrent interactive/discussion sessions.
Specialty Sessions – Specialty Session papers are encouraged to address the meeting theme but may also explore other topics relevant to that specialty, including: Architecture, Book and Paper, Collections Care, Electronic Media, Objects, Photographic Materials, Paintings, Research and Technical Studies, Textiles, and Wooden Artifacts.
Poster Session – Posters may address the meeting theme, but presenters can also address their current research interests. Posters are presented in the Exhibit Hall.
Submission Guidelines
You may submit an abstract for a combination of the three session types: General Sessions, Specialty Sessions, or Poster Session. You may submit your presentation to only one or two sessions if you so choose.
If you are submitting a Discussion/Interactive Session, please submit only for that, since the format is not compatible with the other General Session choices
Please indicate on the abstract the session/sessions for which you want the paper to be considered.
Please limit your choices to three sessions and rank them in order of preference. For example, your preferences could be one of the following:

1st Choice: General Sessions, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, and 3rd Choice: Book and Paper Specialty Session
1st Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, 2nd Choice: Photographic Materials Specialty Session, and 3rd Choice: Research and Technical Studies Specialty Session
1st Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session, 2nd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Group Session, 3rd Choice: Electronic Media Specialty Session
1st Choice: General Sessions – Concurrent Interactive/Discussion Session

How to Submit an Abstract
Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words, along with a bio of no more than 300 words by Friday, September 13, 2013.
Email it to Ruth Seyler, Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org
In the case of multiple authors please list all authors and include an email address for each author.
For further information, please contact Rose Cull – EMG Program Chair – roseemilycull@gmail.com

Call for Papers for the Electronic Media Group at the 2014 AIC annual meeting

The Electronic Media Group (EMG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is calling for papers about the preservation and conservation of electronic media for the AIC annual meeting, May 28-31st 2014 in San Francisco, California.
The theme of the meeting is Conscious Conservation: Sustainable Choices in Conservation Care. Topics could include sustainability of analogue media formats, migration and emulation strategies, approaches to digital asset management and preservation, care of electronic media collections, and case studies of particularly challenging artworks.
With a great location like San Francisco, we would like to engage with the local electronic media community and encourage first-time submissions from professionals involved in the preservation of electronic materials.
If your paper is accepted, you are expected to secure funding for your registration and travel expenses to attend the conference. See the AIC webpage for more information about grants and scholarships.
Please join the conversation – Submit an abstract by Friday, September 13.
How to Submit an Abstract
Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words, along with a bio of no more than 300 words by Friday, September 13, 2013.
Email it to Ruth Seyler, Membership and Meetings Director, at rseyler@conservation-us.org

41st Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session – June 1st – “The Role of the Technical Narrative for Preserving New Media Art” by Mark Hellar

Mark Hellar used the example of the website artwork “Agent Ruby“, acquired by SFMoMA in 2008, and how the use of a technical narrative has helped with the continued preservation of this evolving work of art.
The “Agent Ruby” work was interactive, so it required many components that worked together. The technical narrative had 4 parts:
1. A high level functional description of the artwork
2. Modular examination of components and how they work as a system
3. Detailed description of the artwork as it exists on acquisition, and how the components serve the operation.
4. Analysis of current technology and longevity
“Agent Ruby” is an avatar made up of 22,000 entries that create Ruby’s personality. Visitors interact with Ruby online in a chat setting. The archive of the work from 2001-2009 of visitor interactions was an 80 GB text file. There were some non-essential components that were archived like the original interface and a 3-D model and Hellar discussed how these types of artworks have many components and how the obsolescence of one component (like Flash which is now unsupported on an iPhone) will require creative solutions to allow the work to continue to function.
A migration plan was discussed with the artist, and it was interesting to note that the artist did not want the AIML Interpreter to be updated, even though when Ruby is asked “Who is the President of the United States” she answers “George Bush” the artist said about this, “Ruby will learn”.

41st Annual Meeting – Electronic Media Session – June 1st – "A hands-off approach to controlling media-based artworks" by Brad Dilger and Richard McCoy

Brad Dilger showed how the IMA has transitioned from manually controlling all media-based artworks (meaning that someone had to physically turn on every artwork at the power source each day) to the current system that can be controlled remotely. He walked us through the process of choosing different systems, the museum began using a server which crashed when devices were added or taken away and a programmer had to redo the whole system each time which was expensive. The second version of the system was a stable integrated control system, they had 3 manufacturers to choose between: Cresteron, Exteron, and AMX. Exteron was the only system that had an open source, free configuration and wouldn’t require a certified technician for maintenance. The Exteron processor was made to function as a network or a stand alone device with serial communication and/or a remote power control unit (RPC) power strip.
The Exteron setup has a software configuration is straightforward to use, and the user can set up a schedule, and set notifications by e-mail, for example, for projectors it is possible to set up an e-mail notification when the lamp bulb nears 2,000 hours so the bulb can be changed. The system prevents circuits from overloading if the artwork requires a high draw (13 amps).
He showed 2 case studies: Julianne Swartz’s 2008 “Terrain” and Will Lamson’s 2010 “A line describing the sun” and how those two works functioned using the Exteron system. The presentation offered many solutions to the issues surrounding the display and maintenance of electronic artworks.