Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation (BROMEC 35) is now available

The trilingual site BROMEC is the online resource for research dissemination by conservators and scientists of metallic cultural heritage artifacts.
BROMEC 35, the Bulletin of Research on Metal Conservation is now available online at the following websites:

Ten research abstracts and 5 announcements are presented, together with the usual lists of related contacts and informative metal research/conservation websites and discussion groups.
You will find English, French and Spanish language versions for downloading as PDF documents.
To subscribe for email updates about BROMEC:
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/bromec-subscription
BROMEC Editorial Team
Anglophone Editor & Translator:

  • James Crawford

Francophone Coeditor:

  • Michel Bouchard

Hispanophone Coeditor:

  • Diana Lafuente

Francophone Translators:

  • Nathalie Richard
  • Elodie Guilminot
  • Julie Masson-MacLean

Hispanophone Translators:

  • Ana Crespo
  • Ana Pastor

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.

42nd Annual Meeting – Joint Session: Objects + Research & Technical Studies, May 30, “Coping with Arsenic-Based Pesticides on Textile Collections” by Jae Anderson and Martina Dawley

TitleSlidePresenters:
Jae Anderson – MS candidate, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, member of Navajo tribe.
Martina Dawley – PhD candidate, American Indian Studies, and Assistant Curator for American Indian Relations, Arizona State Museum, member Hualapai and Navajo tribes.
Nancy Odegaard – Conservator Professor, Arizona State Museum.
 
Nancy Odegaard began by introducing this project to develop guidelines for the removal of arsenic from textiles utilizing a portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer (pXRF). She explained that a number of different forms of arsenic have historically been used on the collection at the Arizona State Museum (ASM). For this project, the team chose to focus on Navajo textiles due to the consistency in their materials and construction. In addition, they were able to consult with local Navajo (or Diné) weavers. Martina Dawley and Jae Anderson, who both worked in the ASM conservation lab on the project, presented the remainder of the talk.
Martina described her role in carrying out a survey of the Navajo textile collection, which includes blankets, rugs, and looms. She researched provenance information, produced documentation, and performed XRF analysis on each piece. One of the questions raised during the project was whether the rolled textiles could be analyzed with the pXRF while on the roll or if they had to be unrolled flat first. Interestingly, Martina noticed that the first reading on an object was diagnostic of the remaining readings on that object overall. If the first reading for arsenic was below 100ppm, most of the other readings were also below this level, and the corresponding trend was true if the first reading was greater than 100ppm. Therefore, for textiles with a lower initial reading, analysis was continued on the roll, meanwhile textiles were unrolled for more thorough testing if a higher-level initial reading was found. In the end, 17% of the textiles she tested were found to have levels at or above 100ppm, and the majority of these pieces (69%) were from the 1800’s. Forty-seven percent had less than 100ppm of arsenic, and 36% were found to have no arsenic.
Jae explained the experimental portion of the project in which the pXRF was calibrated and textile-washing methods were tested. First he described two inorganic arsenic species – arsenite, As(III), and arsenate, As(V). Arsenite is more toxic and is commonly in the forms arsenic trioxide and sodium arsenite. It can convert to arsenate by oxidation in wet conditions. For calibration and experimental testing, Jae wetted cotton and wool fabric samples with arsenite solutions of varying concentrations. Another variable tested was application method; he applied the arsenic solutions by droplet, dipping, and spraying, of which the latter two are traditional arsenic-pesticide application methods. During this step, he noticed the wool curled because of its hydroscopic nature, so he altered the experiment to utilize Chimayo hand-woven wool. He also added a surfactant to help with wetting properties and food coloring as a visual cue to see that solutions were applied evenly. Each fabric sample was analyzed five times, both wet and dry, with the pXRF in order to create a calibration curve.
Next, the fabric samples were washed in deionized water, and various conditional effects were tested, including temperature, pH, time, and agitation. The samples were again analyzed with pXRF and the results compared. Increasing the temperature and altering the pH of the wash water were found to have no effect on arsenic removal. The greatest arsenic removal overall occurred within the first 10 minutes of washing, and agitation caused a substantial increase in the effectiveness within the first five minutes. Therefore, the preliminary guidelines were washing for 10 minutes, at a neutral pH, with agitation, at room temperature.
After washing the fabric test samples, the team attempted to analyze the post-wash water with a paper indicator, however this test was not sensitive enough, nor did it indicate concentration. Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) has the potential to quantify the levels of arsenic transferred to the wash water, and Jae noted that they are beginning to utilize this technique. Nevertheless, the post-wash water was found to contain less than 5 ppm arsenic, so it could be disposed of down the drain, according to municipal and federal regulations.
During the next phase of the experiment, three Navajo textiles were washed according to the preliminary guidelines. (Note that prior to washing, the textiles were documented, analyzed using pXRF, and their dyes tested for colorfastness.) After washing the first textile and finding the results did not correlate with their experimental data, the procedure was altered – the volume of wash water was calculated based on the experimental tests. The second textile washed was initially found to have high levels of arsenic (greater than 100ppm). Good results were achieved, with 96% of the arsenic removed and only minor dye bleeding. The third textile initially had low levels of arsenic (less than 100ppm) and less arsenic was removed during washing. Therefore, better results were achieved (i.e. greater arsenic removal was possible) when arsenic was initially present in higher quantities.
Overall the project surveyed 600 Navajo textiles and identified time-period and collector-dependent trends in arsenic concentrations. The team developed a cleaning protocol in which 95% of arsenic could be removed in high-arsenic contaminated textiles but with less effective results in lower arsenic containing textiles. The mass of the textile, the volume of wash water, as well as agitation and wash time (up to a point), were found to have an effect on results.
Several questions were posed in response to the presentation. One audience member wanted to know about the health and safety outcome of washing – could the textiles now be handled safely without gloves? Jae explained that the results would have to be evaluated by a medical toxicologist. Another attendee was interested to know if this technique could be used on a collection of fragile Egyptian textile fragments with a known history of pesticide treatment. Nancy replied that arsenic can be removed with washing, but the stability of the textile and its ability to withstand washing is a separate issue. Finally, someone asked if the arsenic species, arsenite vs. arsenate, could be identified on the textiles? Jae explained that the two forms are too similar to be distinguished here.
I look forward to hearing more results from this team as they continue exploring new experimental procedures and further developing arsenic removal techniques.  Learn more about the ASM’s Preservation Division here.

42nd Annual Meeting – Joint Architecture and Objects Session, May 29, "The Cultural Production of Tourism at Lake Tahoe: Exploring How Cultural Heritage Preservation Is Impacted By Tourism," by Catherine Magee

This paper was a departure for a specialty group presentation in that it focused not on the conservation or technical study of material culture, but on the creation and consumption of cultural narratives and landscapes. Magee noted that conservation work informs and perpetuates stories about people, places, and things, and made the point that conservators are generally comfortable thinking about our work in the context of education, science, and academic scholarship. But she proposed the idea that we must also consider our role in the broader context of tourism, since the primary products of our work – conserved objects and sites – are most often intended for consumption by the general public, also known as tourists.
Her paper included a brief overview of tourism studies, examining the impact of tourism on different kinds of sustainability: economic, ecological, and cultural. The bulk of the paper was spent illustrating the latter point, looking at the ways tourism influences our perception of history and heritage by creating hybrid tourist/cultural heritage landscapes and influencing cultural memory.
Magee used two examples from her doctoral research, which focuses on the landscapes and material culture of the Washoe people in the Lake Tahoe area. The first example was Cave Rock, a pilgrimage site of major spiritual significance for the Washoe. The site was progressively destroyed by tourism, evolving from a culturally significant tourism site, to a pathway for a road, to a mecca for rock climbers. The second example focused on an iconic Washoe basket form, the degikup, and its most famous creator, Dat-So-La-lee. Magee examined the shared mythos of Dat-So-La-Lee and the degikup in detail, revealing the stories, and the basket form itself, to be products created for tourism.
The role of the conservator in shaping the destiny of a site like Cave Rock or the narrative surrounding iconic artifacts and artists like the degikup and Dat-So-La-Lee was not explicitly discussed. It’s not difficult, however, to imagine the complexity inherent in conservation decision-making for the kinds of tourist-hybridized sites, objects, and narratives explored in this paper. Magee argued that we conservators will discharge our responsibilities best if we develop a better awareness of our role in the cultural production of tourism. With that awareness, we can improve our agency in the process and generate better outcomes for sites, objects, and the communities we serve.

42nd Annual Meeting- OSG + RATS Session, May 30, “Blue, Red, and Wound All Over: Evaluating Condition Changes and Cleaning of Glass Disease on Beads” by Robin O’Hern and Kelly McHugh

Glass disease, weeping glass, glass deterioration, funky glass* (*author’s description)–just a few of the many names used to describe the degradation of glass beads that museums have observed as a white precipitate/cloudy appearance and/or cracking and splitting.  If you’ve observed this in your collection, take notice- Mellon Fellow in Objects Conservation, Robin O’Hern, is on the case.
O’Hern has taken advantage of the history of glass disease detection at the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) and begun evaluating how the different cleaning methods have fared over the years.  In 1999, Kelly McHugh (research supervisor and co-author) and Scott Carrlee performed a condition survey of the NMAI collection.  The collection was moved into a state-of-the-art storage facility after the survey, where the RH has remained constant, but at a higher level than recommended for glass pieces.  (The beads are present on composite pieces with hide, bone, shell, feather, hair, etc. and therefore the environmental controls must address as many materials as possible, not just glass.)  Some of the pieces were treated at that time, and others have been treated in the interim years.  Using the museum database, O’Hern found that 25% of the condition records that list glass beads as a material also list glass disease.  O’Hern has performed another survey, this time seeking to observe condition changes over the past 15 years in a selection of objects from the 1999 survey, to assess treatment technique (ie, which solvents worked best to reduce glass disease), and to discover susceptibility trends (which beads are the worst culprits).
To understand the beads, O’Hern provided background on history of use and manufacture.

  • Glass beads arrived after contact with Europeans in 1492
  • Pony beads were introduced after 1675
  • Wound beads were introduced after the late 17th century
  • Seed beads were introduced 1710-1840
  • Red beads were colored from copper in the 17th century, ruby red in the early 18th century, and selenium in the 1890’s
  • Blue beads were colored from copper or cobalt, but from 1640-1700, they were tin-rich
  • Beads can be made by pulling the heated glass, called “drawn,” or by winding heated glass around a rod, called “wound”
  • Glass is made from silica, alkali (to lower the melting point, but also makes it water soluble), and calcium carbonate (that turns to lime- it’s added to help stabilize the glass after the alkali)

There are several explanations for the cause of glass disease.  Too little or too much of the lime (part of the bead’s composition) may cause water to leach out of the glass matrix as ions that then form salt on the surface of the bead.  The environmental conditions, such as fluctuations in RH, or materials in proximity, such as semi-tanned hide, may accelerate glass disease.  As seen from the list above, the beads were manufactured over a range of time, in different ways, and in different places.
As you can tell, there are many factors to research when evaluating glass disease.  O’Hern addressed as many as possible while still managing the scope of the project.
Survey Results
Condition Change: By comparing condition of the beads today to past condition/treatment reports, 16% of the beads have more deterioration now than in 1999.  Measuring pH was used in addition to visual examination to determine condition.  Some beads that did not look bad had a higher pH (above 7), signaling glass disease.  Some beads that looked hazy did not have a higher pH, meaning no glass disease (perhaps hazy from manufacture).
Differing Manufacturing Techniques:  Wound beads have it worse than drawn beads–95% of wound beads have glass disease.  This could be because they have a compositional percentage of lime that is less stable.
Differing Colors: Black, red, and blue are the most disease-ridden.  O’Hern looked through the museum database and found that the entries with the most “glass disease” indicated had blue beads.  Blue beads are very clearly the “winner” of the glass disease competition, followed by red and black.
Treatment Techniques:  Here’s where it gets even more interesting.  The conservation literature and posts on the Objects Specialty Group list serve debate the use of three solvents to remove the salts on glass disease: water alone, ethanol alone, and a 1:1 water:ethanol mix.  By comparing the 1999 survey to her own results, O’Hern capitalized on real-time aging to observe how each solvent mixture fares over time.  Water-cleaned beads had a 50% rate of glass disease return; water:ethanol-cleaned had a slightly higher than 50% rate of return; ethanol-cleaned had the least amount of return at just under 50%.  However, when looking at the beads cleaned with ethanol over the same time period as those cleaned with 1:1 water:ethanol (removing the very oldest treatments), the rate of return for glass disease falls to 40%.
(Note: Acetone has also been listed as a solvent for cleaning glass beads, but since the NMAI doesn’t use acetone, it was not included in this research.)
Other Observations:
1. Measuring pH is essential because beads may look like they don’t have glass disease, but are actually more alkaline.  Measuring pH is also quick and easy- cut your pH strip to a small piece, slightly dampen it in deionized water, press it onto the bead for 3 seconds, and then determine any color change in the strip.
2. The most affected beads were those sewn onto hide, but the disease was present when beads were in contact with many other materials as well.
3. Although cleaning with ethanol is a better choice for long-term disease prevention, the solvent chosen should still depend on the substrate around the bead.
Advice from O’Hern:
1. Record treatment materials when removing glass disease.
2. Take BT and AT details of beads so you can easily compare for condition changes in the future.
3. Measure the pH of the beads… and RECORD THE RESULTS.
4. Have consistent monitoring of glass disease.
As an audience member, it’s always exciting to see a project that has results, especially on a topic that is not studied as extensively as it persists. This is definitely a postprint worth visiting for more details and results.
For other examples (and some “good” photographic examples), visit Ellen Carrlee’s project “What’s that White Stuff?” that she and (then WUDPAC graduate intern) Christa Pack reported on in Ellen’s blog: http://alaskawhitestuffid.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/glass/

42nd Annual Meeting – Architecture and Objects Specialty Groups Joint Session, May 29, "Luxor Temple Fragment Conservation Project: Case Study" by Hiroko Kariya

Hiroko Kariya, in her role as conservator for the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago (Chicago House), discussed the site preservation and management of the Luxor Temple in Egypt, a site built mostly between the 14th and 13th centuries, BCE. In only 25 minutes, Hiroko discussed the nearly two decades of treatment, site preservation, the opening of an open-air museum, emergency planning, and changing roles of management with Egypt’s unstable political climate. A big task.
Her talk began with a brief background history of Luxor Temple and the Chicago House excavation of the site in the 1950s and 1960s, which included uncovering over 40,000 inscribed sandstone fragments. From antiquity to modern times, stones from the temple had been cut down and reused in other buildings. About 2000 of these fragments were surveyed in the 1970s and 80s, and on-site treatment and site preservation were at last begun in 1995. The impetus to treat the fragments came when archaeologists discovered that many stones, which had been placed directly on soil in the back of the temple, were essentially turning back into sand due to contact with soluble salts.
The sandstone suffered from granular deterioration, which was essentially the disintegration of the stones. It was difficult to take samples out of the country to be analyzed and for treatment experimentation, but eventually the team came up with a tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) as the best consolidant. One reason this was chosen was because it was locally available – a serious consideration given the number of stones requiring treatment, as well as the difficulty in bringing supplies over from the U.S.. TEOS requires certain parameters to be effective, however, such as the need to be applied withing certain temperature and RH ranges. To achieve this, the conservators set up canvas “cases” around the stones, making microclimates to more effectively meet the parameters of the consolidant. They used the consolidant only on those fragments that would be reconstructed, and fragments were monitored annually on their database. The downside to TEOS was that its working time was slow and often multiple applications were necessary. Still, annual inspections have proven the treatment to be successful.
A larger scale treatment involved reinforcing walls on the temple site. One of the walls near the Ahmenhotep III colonnade was unstable. To stabilize the wall of 48 sandstone fragments, brick and mortar were chosen. These materials helped to lighten the weight of the original fragments, and were also able to be used by the local staff who helped in the reconstruction/stabilization project. All work was completed manually so as not to risk damage to the site and neighboring stones from heavy machinery.
In addition, a period of construction near the site revealed thousands of additional fragments. This discovery led to another phase of Luxor Temple site preservation and management: the creation of an open-air museum on the temple site. Chicago House field staff consulted other conservators, structural engineers, local residents, curators and others to create this new exhibit space. In the new setting, about 300 fragments that could not be matched elsewhere in the temple, were displayed chronologically outdoors in about 200 meters of paths. These paths helped guide visitors around the site and, importantly, created better flow in and around the temple, reducing overcrowding. The fragments were also illuminated at night. Whenever possible, they used local materials and trained the locals about the museum, fragments and history of the pieces. The fragments, as a result, became better valued once on display. This created the potential for increased looting, however, and many fragments are now displayed with metal bands around them.
An interesting factor in the new museum was the discussion of creating an audio-guide. Staff had thought to create them for self-guided tours, but many locals protested, saying that they’d lose money if not allowed to lead tours. Chicago House ultimately did not follow through with the plan, and instead provided more thorough training for the locals to provide the tours. This is definitely something often not taken into consideration in the U.S, and was, to me, an interesting insight into site management.
During the protests of 2011, the staff, who were in Egypt for their working season, initially had no idea what was going on in Cairo. In Luxor, the time was mostly peaceful, and many Chicago House staff chose to remain at Luxor. Ultimately, though, the political upheaval had a direct impact on Luxor Temple: decreased site security, delayed funding for projects, difficulty planning, and lack of general resources. Visitation decreased from 14 million in 2011 to 9.4 million in 2013; tourism dollars decreased from 18 billion to 5.9 billion (in Egypt overall). Hiroko showed many images from other ancient sites in Egypt showing the damage and looting – many we have seen before, but were nonetheless astonishing.
In reaction to the unstable political climate in Egypt, the biggest development in management policy, perhaps, is that Chicago House is creating plans for the site to be maintained without US staff. They keep suggestion boxes and have checklists in English and Arabic so that locals can keep up with inventory, tasks, and other maintenance functions. They’ve increased training in the locals in how to care for the site, and are actively working on this aspect of site management as we speak. Future years will determine the success of these plans, so we’ll have to wait until another talk from Hiroko to find out.
Because there was so much to cover in a relatively short time, I would have loved to hear more details about the discussions leading up to their decisions to build the wall the way they did, how they managed local staff and volunteers, more detail about the museum, and , finally, what hinted at a very interesting conversation about the political instability in Egypt and how that affects site management. Hiroko did a fabulous job summarizing Chicago House’s efforts – and now I want to know more.

42nd Annual Meeting, Objects Session, May 30, "Managing Construction-Induced Vibration in the Museum Environment," by Anna Serotta and Andrew Smyth

In this presentation Anna Serotta and Andrew Smyth presented their efforts to assess and mitigate vibrations in the Metropolitan Museum’s Egyptian galleries during a large-scale renovation of the spaces directly below. Having worked in museums that remained open during renovations, and now at one that is about to expand, I was particularly interested in the subject of construction-induced vibration, and appreciated the experiences and tips shared in this case study.
At the end of the summer of 2011, staff at the Met began preparing for the renovation of their Costume Institute to commence in April 2012. Forming a project team of curators, conservators and collection managers, and partnering with a group from the Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at Columbia University, the museum aimed to safeguard 20,000 objects spread over 27 galleries. The project team would first assess risk posed by the construction and then implement preventive conservation to protect objects in adjacent galleries—while allowing as many objects as possible to remain on view. It didn’t help that many of these works were fragile, consisting of friable wood, brittle basketry, ancient restoration materials, etc.  Many had not been moved for 40 years.
As the title of the presentation makes clear, the main risk of construction in a museum is posed by its vibrations. A concise review in slides titled “Vibrations 101” explained that vibrations may cause stresses, fatigue and extant crack-growth in objects. Vibration affects any object with mass and flexibility—pretty much anything. Published vibration threshold standards were designed to assess risk to buildings and therefore could not be applied to fragile museum objects.  The Met decided to take an empirical approach: piggybacking on the tests performed by the construction contractors, the project team placed accelerometers on pedestals and shelves while various demolition tools were tested below. The tests showed that machinery that was less user-dependent caused less vibration, i.e. high speed coring drill was preferred over sledgehammers. Testing also confirmed that certain mounting systems, such as cantilevered shelves, magnified vibration.
Several preventive conservation approaches to mitigate the vibrations – within the extant display strategies – were shared. Sorbethane – “a highly damped, visco-elastic polymeric solid that flows like a liquid under load” – was placed under pedestals and other mounting systems to absorb vibrations. Cantilevered shelves were stiffened by putting Sorbethane-capped posts below the shelves. Large masses placed on isolation springs were added (discreetly under benches) to the floor so that they would both absorb and dampen the floor’s vibration. Lighter objects were placed on trays with ethafoam tri-rod to keep them from shifting off the shelves.  To keep track of changes in condition, fragile objects were photodocumented in raking light, and white paper was placed under objects to make any flakes or particles that detached more visible. Lastly, some objects that could not be adequately protected under these circumstances were deinstalled and placed in closed galleries that were not affected by the construction. All in all, some 14,000 objects were isolated, padded or relocated.
Sensors were placed on pedestals and shelves and connected to a wireless network on a central server. Emails and texts would be sent to involved parties when vibrations exceeded established thresholds. Hands-on monitoring by conservators was necessary to monitor objects beyond the sensors’ range.
I was grateful to learn of the unforeseen challenges and minor damages that occurred during construction. When it came to museum objects, some friable wood and gesso powdered; an old join in a wooden figure failed, causing a piece to detach; and small objects migrated on their trays (but didn’t fall off due to preventive foam linings). Sorbethane also posed challenges: it would shift out of place if there wasn’t sufficient pressure holding it in place. Likewise, it could be crushed and lose its absorbent properties if the pressure was too great. In one alarming case, a liquid – likely plasticizer – oozed out of a piece of Sorbethane. All in all, vibrations were greater than expected and hard to predict. Sometimes they were localized and evaded the sensors, which made the additional hands-on monitoring so crucial.
At the conclusion of the talk, the presenters stressed the value of communication and ingratiation with contractors and project team members. Collection tours were arranged and chocolate chip cookies were baked for the contractors. When the vulnerability of the collections was made clear, they agreed to work in one place at a time and only during working museum hours, which in turn facilitated monitoring and shortened response time. Getting involved early (a recurring theme at this year’s meeting!) and playing nice will get you a long way in safeguarding objects as walls crumble around – or below – them.

42nd Annual Meeting, Objects Session, May 30, "Collaborative study and preservation of coastal Alaskan Native material culture with university students, museum staff, Alutiiq scholars and artists, and the visiting public"

T. Rose Holdcraft presented a decade-long collaborative project between Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA) and the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository (Kodiak, AK).  The joint initiative, funded by a IMLS Save America’s Treasures grant in 2011, sought to conserve and enhance access to an at-risk Alaska Native collection in the Peabody Museum. 
The collection includes four Alutiiq kayaks and over 100 associated objects, including harpoons, kayak models, and skin-constructed parkas, pouches, boots, among others.  Items of particular import include a rare warrior’s kayak identified as Alutiiq by its bifurcated bow, as well as the only known example of a full-sized double bladed paddle*. Many of the collection items were acquired from a US Army surveyor working in Alaska circa 1867. At that time, ocean going watercraft remained the primary means of transportation. Alutiiq kayaks are thus culturally and historically significant, yet knowledge of their manufacture method had nearly been lost because their use was formerly preserved largely through oral history.
Alutiiq consultants included Sven Haakanson, former director of the Alutiiq Museum, Alutiiq elder Ronnie Lind, Alutiiq skin-sewer Susan Malutin, and traditionally-trained Kodiak Alutiiq kayak-maker Alfred Naumoff.  Workshops taught at the Peabody included skin sewing techniques by Susan Malutin, and kayak model building by Alfred Naumoff.  In addition to two site visits, video conferencing and camera scopes enabled communication with consultants so that sampling requests, treatment, and housing decisions could collaboratively advance from afar.
A publicly accessible work space was created in the Peabody galleries, in which the treatment of the kayaks and other objects was undertaken.  Conservators were available to answer questions from museum visitors three afternoons per week. Meanwhile, a dedicated Facebook page provided project updates and highlights.  Related educational programs included an object-centered Museum Anthropology course, which was conducted within the gallery work space as well as the lab.
Additionally, PMF-MALDI-TOF was used to characterize skin and sinew thread types. Humpback whale sinew was identified on one kayak, as well as bearded seal skin (formerly presumed to be sea lion skin)! The analytic results enable comparisons between current and historical material use.  Study and stabilization of the collection will enable its long-term loan to the Alutiiq Museum, thereby preserving and repatriating traditional knowledge to the Alutiiq community.
*According to Sven Haakanson, a contemporary Alutiiq artist carved a new paddle from a sketch of the double-bladed original in the Peabody’s collection.  After testing it in Kodiak, he reports that his paddle’s exit from the water is silent as compared to plastic versions.  For those interested, Haakanson plans to teach double-bladed kayak making in Seattle.
 

42nd Annual Meeting – Objects Session, May 31, "Conserving Stringed Sculpture: The Treatment of Henry Moore's Mother and Child" by Nicole Ledoux

Nicole Ladoux, a Samuel H. Kress Fellow at the Straus Center for Conservation and Technical Studies, Harvard Art Museum, presented her talk entitled “Conserving Stringed Sculpture: Treatment of Henry Moore’s Mother and Child.” She described the complicated decisions surrounding whether or not to replace or preserve degraded linen strings used on a cast lead sculpture. The treatment illustrated innovative techniques that could be incredibly useful for others with similar stringed challenges. Having been confronted with an almost identical bronze sculpture at the Baltimore Museum of Art, I was eager to hear how she had overcome the challenges that I worried about with my own project.

48450089
Henry Moore Mother and Child, 1939 Lead and string on stone base 13.5 x 18.8 x 5.1 cm (5 5/16 x 7 3/8 x 2 in.) Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Bequest of Mary Gershinowitz, 2003.40.19

 
Moore is well known for his Mother and Child sculptures and for working with a variety of materials but you might not have seen his stringed sculptures. Harvard’s Mother and Child was part of series from 1939. An edition of seven bronze and string sculptures were made but Harvard’s is the only known lead sculpture from the series. He made several other lead sculptures in different forms between 1938-40.
When Nicole first encountered Mother and Child, it had seen better days. The lead sculpture was abraded and gouged in areas with a white haze, while the loose, frayed, and broken strings had changed from yellow to brown. Working from an older photo, she was able to create a diagram documenting what was there and how it all went back together. This diagram was crucial and developing the treatment. The treatment centered around one question: to repair or restring?
The strings were threaded through holes in the sculpture that were then covered over with lead solder making the restringing difficult. If she were to restring, the solder would have to be removed to complete the task. To repair the strings, she would be challenged to reattach and secure what was there without much flexibility. In the end, she and the curator decided to preserve what was there, partially because the color of the stings was considered acceptable in light of the overall patina that the lead had taken on over the years.
Nicole reached out to the Objects Specialty Group distlist for suggestions and researched treatment options. She created mockups by stretching modern linen thread, slicing them, and testing repairs. Adhesives tested included 50% B-72 in acetone, Lascaux 498HV, and wheat starch paste in conjunction with Stabiltex threads and twisted rolls of Japanese tissue paper. In the end, the best option proved to be the wheat starch paste and Japanese tissue paper. The tissue gripped and held the tension better.
The next challenge was how to hold and align the threads so she could perform her repairs and have precise alignment. Realizing that this was a known challenge for a ship model restorer, she consulted one who suggested using electric wire test clamps. She was then able to construct a jig using the clamps, twill tape, foam blocks, and a magnifying glass (among other items) to do the repairs. You’ll have to wait on the OSG postprints to see how this all works together because I even need to see it again. The key seemed to be the clamps. Her strategy depended on the situation including where the string was attached and what had to happen. For instance, a string that had pulled out of its original socket could be covered with a protective tissue sleeve and secured in the hole with B-72, and held with a clamp padded with volara. Other more complicated breaks, such as a one that broke that near the hole where it was threaded in the center of the sculpture, could be reattached using multiple twists that were used to hold tension and then others that were used to secure two broken ends together. The clamping jig was key to holding everything together.  If there was a gap, more twists could be added to bulk up the missing area and better secure the string. Again, you’ll have to use your imagination but just wait until you see Nicole’s images because it will all be clear!
Nicole acknowledged that these repairs will likely weaken with age. She mentioned that restringing could become necessary in the future but that treatment works well for the moment. Overall, it was a great in depth look into a complicated problem. I can’t wait to take another look at my museum’s Mother and Child and digest these excellent tips and suggestions.

42nd Annual Meeting – Architecture + Objects Session, May 29, “Modern Preservation for a Modernist City: Developing a District-Wide Preservation Plan for Columbus, Indiana”

If you are a fan of mid-century modern architecture, Columbus, Indiana, is not to be missed.  I drove straight there after hearing this NPR story about the “The Midwest Mecca of Architecture” in 2012, and was thus thrilled to attend Richard McCoy’s presentation on the subject.  The town of 44,000 residents boasts 7 of Indiana’s 35 National Historic Landmarks. 6 were designed between 1942 – 1965, when Cummins Inc. elected to pay all architect fees for new civic structures, attracting the likes of Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Richard Meier, I.M. Pei, Harry Weese, Henry Moore, and Dale Chihuly, to name a few.  Construction of schools, churches, parks, and office buildings was founded on the principle that the built environment is crucial to a quality community.
McCoy has been tasked with forming a preservation plan to preserve Columbus’ architectural wealth, while not restricting the town’s ability to grow and thrive within its historic landscape.  His talk, retitled “The Columbus Challenge”, discussed the initial stages of guiding the town- and its residents- into a new way of caring for its cultural heritage.
What is the goal? To create a preservation process for historic architecture, landscaping, and public art located within the Columbus Arts District.  The plan should be: useful and fun, foster community, educate, raise and distribute funds, and provide for a sustainable future.
How?  First, put information in highly visible places. As McCoy states: “If you can’t Google it and get back good information, then it doesn’t exist”.
Actions: Wikipedia inventories of landmarks, modern and historic buildings, public art, as well as architect biographies were published.  Public artworks were also made accessible on The Public Art Archive and CultureNOW’s Museum Without Walls. Several previously undocumented artworks were ‘discovered’, and a total of 440 building entries were recorded during the inventory process.
Next steps: Develop stakeholder support and engagement, as well as connect with allied organizations, understanding that all answers to a preservation policy must originate from- and be sustained by- the community itself.
Your next step: Visit Columbus. Take a tour and then eat ice cream at Zaharakos’ (est. 1900) marble counter.