45th Annual Meeting, Book and Paper + RATS Session, May 31: “Contacts that Leave Traces: Investigations into the Contamination of Paper Surfaces from Handling,” by Karen van der Pal

In libraries, archives, and museums around the world, those in charge of protecting cultural heritage struggle with the topic: Gloves or No Gloves? Karin van der Pal’s talk on the contamination of paper surfaces from handling gives measurable data pertaining to the debate.

Van der Pal’s studies in forensic analysis are being conducted at Curtin University in Western Australia. She is currently collaborating with the Indianapolis Museum of Art on the chemistry of latent fingerprints and with Flinders University, in South Australia.

Van der Pal received paper samples from an Australian paper mill to conduct her research. She first solidified her own approach on how to not contaminate the papers she was testing: wearing cotton gloves underneath nitrile gloves she could take off the top layer and replace with a new set of gloves during the process without any of her marks coming through.

Historically, we know that dark fingerprints appear on paper. The edges of leaves in books become discolored as well. But is this a result of dirt, or could it be because of fingerprint oils? Van der Pal explained that the residue left by fingermarks include aqueous deposits, lipids, and dead skin. The proportion varies based on a person’s age, gender, and diet. Another variable on the kind of mark that is left is environmental exposure. If the pages with the contamination are left in the dark, there is little discoloration, but exposure to light causes the marks to darken.

Fingerprint deposits can be a combination of sebaceous oils and sweat from ecrine and apocrine glands. Typically, van der Pal explains that when a finger print is left, the oily sebaceous residue is on top, while amino acids sink into the paper, and the oil residue evaporates. In van der Pal’s experiments, the fingerprints are not visible to the naked eye, so it was necessary to apply an indicator agent that could show the intensity/saturation of the print left on her test papers. Ninhydrin has historically been used, that develops a fingerprint into a pink-purple. 1,2-Indandione/Zn Chloride exhibits color and luminescence and can show marks left up to 150 years old, so van der Pal selected this to use as an indicator.

The goal of the speaker’s most current experiments was to determine how effective hand washing is, if contaminants pass through gloves, and what effect hand gels and sanitizers have on papers. Using the 1,2 Indandione/Zn Chloride, van der Pal was able to determine that no contaminants come through nitrile gloves up to 2 hours. She cautioned that fingerprints and oils can still be picked up onto the outside of the nitrile gloves if one handles doorknobs and keyboards, for example. One also has to be mindful that wearing nitrile gloves for an extended amount of time is very unpleasant, so an option could be to wear cotton gloves underneath.

Van der Pal’s experiments show that 5 minutes after handwashing, the oils in the skin come back, and that 15 minutes after washing, there is more oil than prior to washing because the body is working to redevelop the oil lost.

Hand creams are left on the surface of the paper.

Antibacterial gels also do not prevent oils from being left on paper.

In the future van der Pal expects to study how drying/aging affects a wider range of paper, how long the fingermarks last on the paper, and what effects whether the marks darken.

Questions from the Floor:

Q1: Can you still detect marks on paper that have been washed? A1: Yes, you can still detect marks on paper that has been subsequently washed up to 3 months.

Q2: Regarding gels, how long did you wait until you tried to detect the oils? A2: we tested at different intervals of time.

Q3: Was there a transfer of the materials/paper to the gloves? A1: Reusing gloves can cause a transfer. Some gilding can attach to cotton gloves. Nitrile shouldn’t pick much up.

45th Annual Meeting – Textile Session, May 31, “Learning From Treatments That Did Not Go As Planned” by Suzan Meijer and Marjolein Koek

Involving a beautiful dress from the late 1860s and stunning before and after photos, Suzan Meijer’s talk was a definite crowd pleaser.  Her talk focused on a silk moire dress in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.  (Now on my Top Ten list of places to visit, as it has over 10,000 textiles, the largest collection in the Netherlands!)  Treatment of the dress was spurred on by the museum’s launch of an expanded website that would allow digital access to select objects in the collection.  This dress was selected because it is one of the few examples of the late 1860s pre-bustle period remaining unaltered.  However, its selection meant that it would have to be dressed on a mannequin for extensive photography.  The dress had been kept in hanging storage, covered, for decades, and Suzan spoke of the truly delicate condition it was in: the silk was split throughout the skirt, and shattered in many places across the bodice.   These damages far exceeded those outlined in the last condition report from 1950 (which may have been partially caused by the dress having been worn to a party at the museum in the early 20th century!).  Although wear and long-term hanging storage undoubtedly contributed to the poor condition of the dress, Suzan noted how the moire production process would also have contributed to the degradation of the silk.  Moire is produced through calendering, which involves heat and a lot of pressure.  Tests showed that the silk may further have been weighted slightly, as small amounts of aluminum and iron were found in the fibers.  But despite structural issues, the silk was phenomenally un-faded!  The dye came back from the lab as 50% barberry and 49% unknown purple, red, and violet components.  One could easily see why the museum was eager to have this dress appear on their website!

However, to make this possible, it was determined that the skirt had to receive a full lining, and that the full lining would have to be adhesive since the silk was so delicate.  Unusual for the period, the bodice and skirt of the dress were attached.  Suzan said they hoped to apply the adhesive lining without clipping any of the original stitches but that attempts soon proved this impossible, due to the tight cartridge pleating at the waist.  Therefore, the decision was made to remove the skirt from the waistband so it could be laid flat.  Evacon R, an EVA adhesive, was applied to silk crepeline.  The adhesive coated silk crepeline was then attached to the interior of the skirt using heat reactivation, between 65-75 degrees Celsius.  When this was completed and the skirt began to be re-pleated, it was noticed that some of the slits were popping.  To fix this, nylon net was used as an overlay along the top few inches, sewn down to the underlying silk crepeline.

As for the bodice, it lacked both boning and lining, which proved fortuitous when repairing the shattered silk.  As with the skirt, adhesive-coated crepeline was used, but rather than a full lining, patches were applied.  Again, net was used as an overlay and stitched through to the crepeline.  However, unlike the skirt, small areas of the silk were missing, rather than just split.  Toned Japanese paper was used to fill in these losses.  After the stunning photograph was taken, available here, it was time for the dress to go back into storage.  Obviously, hanging storage was no longer an option, so a large custom box was made in which the dress could be stored flat.  A small “shelf” and tray was built into the box to accommodate the separate belt.  Suzan says that how surprising the condition of the dress was when treatment commenced led them to re-think their hanging storage.  Covers were removed and the garments moved farther apart so that any downturn in their condition would be noticed immediately.  I wish I had before photos to truly illustrate the amazing transformation this dress underwent.  Good job, Suzan!

 

45th Annual Meeting- BPG Session, May 31, “The Codex Eyckensis (8th century). Re-evaluation of the 20th century restoration & conservation treatments by Lieve Watteeuw

Professor Lieve Watteeuw introduces her presentation with a description of the Codex Eyckensis, the subject of her talk. The Codex is comprised of two distinct gospels bound as one, most likely made at the scriptorium of Echternach in Luxembourg in the 8th century. A study in 1994 showed that both of the gospel manuscripts were made in the same scriptorium, and most likely by the same scribe. The manuscripts were held in the treasury of the Abbey of Aldeneik until they were transferred to the treasury of St. Catherine’s church in Maaseik in 1571 during a period of religious unrest. In 1596, a pilgrimage feast was arranged to honor the pilgrimage of the Codex and the other treasures from the Abbey of Aldeneik. Every 7 years thereafter, in tandem with the holy feasts of Aachen, the Codex would be on view, processed to its former home at Aldeneik.  The manuscripts were turned over to private ownership in the years following the French Revolution, until they were returned to Maaseik in 1871. From that date, the manuscripts were again part of processions, but only every 25 years.

from http://www.codexeyckensis.be/codex-eyckensis-the-unique-codex-of-eyke

It was observed in 1957 that the manuscripts were in very poor condition, so an attempt was made to preserve them. At the time, bookbinder Karl Sievers of Dusseldorf laminated the pages of the manuscript with Mipofolie, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In the late 1980s, Professor Watteeuw noticed that the leaves had suffered from this treatment. The PVC had turned yellow and had hardened, and it was decided to remove this damaging material.

The conservation treatment spanned from 1989-93. The removal of the mipofolie was accomplished using a technique developed in Budapest, which involved suction and a light table. Once the mipofolie had been removed, losses in the leaves were filled with parchment pulp. In removing the plastic foil, some pigment was removed as well. All of the mipofolie sheets were kept that had been removed from the Codex Eyckensis with the idea that they might be able to be used one day. At the time of this intervention, the curators decided to rebind the two distinct manuscripts separately using glue free bindings with deer skin covers over oak boards. The manuscripts were put on permanent display.

from http://www.codexeyckensis.be/codex-eyckensis-the-unique-codex-of-eyke

After years on permanent display, Professor Watteeuw was asked to perform a condition report of the Codex in 2008, and in 2016-17 she began the process of analyzing the manuscripts. Her studies showed that there was still residue of the PVC within the pores of the parchment. With the Hirox 3D microscope, parchment fibers from the leafcasting treatment could be seen overlapping into the pigment on the leaves as could Japanese paper fibers from paper mends. MA-XRF (macro x-ray fluorescence ) analysis demonstrated the presence of Cu, Fe, Pb, and Iron Gall Ink, suggesting important similarities to the pigments used in the Book of Kells. The MA-XRF also showed that the same palette was used for both of the manuscripts of the Codex Eyckensis. Watteeuw used photometric stereo to document the thickness of the paint layers along with their texture. Using the pigments peeled away from the manuscript leaves on the mipofolie foils, Watteeuw could analyze the pigments using Raman, essentially making the best of a bad situation set in motion when the mipofolie was applied in 1957.

All of this analysis gives information on the possibly very close connections between the manuscripts of the Low Countries to Anglo Saxon lands. During this analysis,  Professor Watteeuw also played a crucial role in digitizing the Codex, which is now available online.

Questions from the floor following the talk:

Q1: Were you able to ID the green pigments? Can you see corrosion? A1: yes we were able to see corrosion, but undetermined green pigment, since some green not corroded.

Q2: Was there treatment strategy of stabilizing copper green? A2: no consolidation in the 90s, but parchment pulp might not have been the best choice of fill material (could have made worse?) Watteeuw notes she is afraid to turn the pages because she can hear the PVC within the leaves.

Q3: Any underdrawing? A1: yes, underdrawing or “mise en place” of canon tables is visible

Q4: Is it on permanent display? A4: yes, was on permanent display at fixed page. Now it’s in the lab, but will eventually be on permanent display again, for which we are developing lighting scenarios.

What a great, informative talk! Thanks to Professor Watteeuw, and I look forward to seeing what more they discover about these incredibly important manuscripts!

 

Bibliography

https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/english/news/codex_eyckensis

http://codexeyckensis.blogspot.com/

http://www.codexeyckensis.be/codex-eyckensis-the-unique-codex-of-eyke

45th Annual Meeting – Book and Paper Session, June 1, “The Challenge of Scale Revisited: Lessons learned from treatment and mounting an exhibition of 160 illuminated manuscripts” by Alan Puglia and Debora Mayer

At last year’s annual meeting, Debora Mayer described the approach of Harvard University’s Weissman Preservation Center to the treatment of 160 illuminated manuscripts for the exhibition “Beyond Words: Illuminated Manuscripts in Boston Collections.” That talk had focused on the challenges of undertaking a massive amount of media consolidation, which they had done by forming two teams of conservators, each following the same procedure in treating the manuscripts. This year, her colleague Alan Puglia followed up on that talk with a reflection of what they learned in the effort.

It is rare that a conservation lab can review a large body of conservation work that was, at least theoretically, conducted in the same way. This is particularly true when one considers media consolidation. Likewise, few labs are large enough to have so many conservators collaborate in trying to create consistent treatments. As such, the two teams decided to review a segment of their consolidation treatment to evaluate its efficacy.

One of the main goals of the treatment protocol had been uniformity; that is, it should be impossible to identify which conservator had treated which items. Another goal was open communication. Over the course of the review, it became clear that there had been some degree of departure in treatment procedures due to a lack of communication between the two teams of conservators. The teams were efficient in themselves, but communication tended to occur within the teams. As such, when a team tweaked procedures in response to the needs of specific manuscripts, these changes were not communicated to the other team. Alan identified this as one of the major pitfalls of undertaking large-scale treatments of this type – communication between teams as well as that within teams needs to be prioritized.

A selection of treated manuscripts was reviewed, and this review process was also conducted in two teams. The review was conducted blind, without looking at pre-exhibit documentation. Where there were questions raised, the other team was asked to review the pre-exhibit documentation. Pre-exhibit treatment documentation had been conducted in Photoshop with specific colors depending on the type of consolidant used; post-exhibit treatment was conducted on the same files using different colors to show the extent of the need for additional treatment. The result of the review process was that, while most manuscripts did not require much further work, there were some that clearly required a more complete treatment. The reasons for this are complex. As Alan said, the best treatment is not proof against handling, and perhaps the stress of travel and handling was too much for the fragile media in some manuscripts. In one manuscript, the three leaves that had suffered the most damage were clearly by a different artist, and perhaps there was something relating to the quality of his materials that made the media more vulnerable. Other red flags included cockling and creases, and the presence of glazes or overpainting.

The review also raised additional questions. When should the conservators stop treatment? Is their handling causing damage even as they seek to preserve the manuscript? Ultimately, Alan acknowledged, updating consolidation protocols is an ongoing process.

45th Annual Meeting – Objects Session, June 1, “The 40 Year Old Restoration of Bruce Conner’s CHILD” by Megan Randall

In this talk, Megan Randall, Objects Fellow at the Museum of Modern Art, tells the unique treatment history of Bruce Conner’s Child from 1976 – 2016. Bruce Conner was an artist who worked across media, from collage and sculpture to painting and drawing. Created in 1959, his sculpture Child is a corpse-like figure made of casting wax and shaped by hand. He sits in a high chair and is bandaged with stocking fabric and a belt around his waist, with additional wax painted on the surface. Child was made in response to the execution of Caryl Chessman, which Conner believed to be a social injustice.

Megan structured her discussion to be a timeline of Child’s complex exhibition and treatment history and described the numerous events that resulted in the figure’s condition when she first arrived at MoMA as a fellow in 2015. The sculpture was first exhibited in 1960 and received great attention from the public. It continued to gain exposure at galleries, in Conner’s one-man show, and even in public protests against police brutality and in 1970, was acquired by MoMA. The work was treated in 1976 in which the cheeks and head needed to be stabilized and an arm mended. Then, later that year, it was exhibited at SFMOMA, where Conner was disappointed to see its state significantly worsened. At this point, there had been no direct contact between MoMA and Conner, but he referenced the Geoffrey Clements photograph of how Child was originally positioned. It was clear that the shape of the figure had been badly deformed. The full figure had slumped forward, the mouth was now closed rather than open, and the legs had lowered and were in complete contact with the chair. However, it continued to tour at Hirschhorn Museum in 1988 and then at the Whitney in 1996, where Conner saw it once more and horrified, requested that it immediately be taken off view.

After several correspondences between MoMA and Conner, with the artist’s input on what needed to be adjusted, it was decided that a treatment of Child was necessary. Much of the issues with the positioning of the body was a result of the failing handmade hardware and joints and during an unfortunate turn of events during treatment, the body fell apart. Luckily all the original material was maintained, and the challenge was in terms of its assemblage. Sadly, Conner passed away in 2008.

In 2015, Megan Randall and Associate Objects Conservator at MoMA, Roger Griffith, started the journey to restore the exhausted Child. They began with documentation of the figure including imaging, photogrammetry to observe the three-dimensional positioning, and radiography to get a sense of the joining materials and the thickness of the wax. Child had been a victim of transport, handling, and failing of structural elements between its conception in 1960-2000.e treatment aimed to return the figure and vintage nylon stocking to their original orientation and stabilize the materials, while using images from the archive and Conner’s studio as reference.

Using a Go-Pro to document the process, the conservators carefully disassembled the figure, photographing each individual section and even had a carpenter create a replica of the high chair that Child sat on so that they could build up the figure away from the original nylon and wood. Loose sections were consolidated and the wax that had deformed was readjusted with heat and pressure. The next challenge was to create an armature that would help support the weight of the wax, as this was one of the original causes of the figure’s collapse. After months of testing, Megan and Roger decided to use polycaprolactone (PCL), an orthopedic thermoplastic polyester resin. It suited this project as it is a conformable, adjustable material that can withstand travel and is long lasting. Altraform was added into the armature and 3D Light Mesh was used to support weight from above as well. These materials were also Oddy tested and deemed safe for conservation practice.

After the figure was positioned back together, Megan and Roger had to tackle the vintage nylon stockings. Luckily, most could be repositioned safely, but three pieces needed replacements, for which Roger ordered online and surprisingly, toned with coffee and tea, to obtain the distressed appearance that gave Child its haunting effect. Finally, Child was back in its original orientation and ready to be shown at the Bruce Conner Retrospective at MoMA, and then subsequently, SFMOMA and the Reina Sofia.

After treatment photographs were taken to capture the armature inside each section and several techniques were used for recording its position. Photogrammetry was captured once again to compare future sets for monitoring any potential deformations or movements and radiography was done in order to monitor if the armature moved in the future as well as if the figure shifted in any way. A custom crate was created for safe travel to its next two immediate exhibition spaces and it just returned safely to MoMA, much to the happiness of the conservators. Ultimately, Bruce Conner’s Child has a complicated and extensive history, including it falling apart, but after countless hours of testing and treatment by conservators at MoMA, the figure was returned to its intended appearance and we as visitors had the pleasure of viewing its haunting and delicate beauty.

45th Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials Session, May 31, “Uncovering Irving Penn’s Chemical Treatment Techniques” by Laura Panadero

In this talk, Laura Panadero detailed the research she conducted in order to learn more about the chemical treatments performed on Irving Penn’s Nudes series. Shot and printed by Penn between 1949-50, the Nudes series depicts over one hundred images of female nudes that more recently, have garnered increased visibility. For example, they were exhibited in a solo show, entitled, Earthly Bodies: Irving Penn’s Nudes, 1949-50, in 2002, and are currently on display in the extensive retrospective, the Irving Penn: Centennial, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Nudes have long since been a topic of interest as the body shapes in this series deviates heavily from those of the models whom Penn frequently photographed for Vogue. However, Laura was most interested in the visual differences between the nudes and the fashion works that Penn produced and decided for this exploration to be the focus of her thesis project for her studies at NYU’s Institute of Fine Arts Conservation Center, from which she graduated this May.

Since there were no notes written by Penn explaining his process for the Nudes, Laura consulted two documents for her research. In an early interview with Maria Morris Hambourg, Irving Penn attributes the visual distinctness of his Nudes series from his other photographs to chemical treatment. Laura also conducted her own interview with Robert Fresón, the man who worked with Penn to print the Nudes, to gather information about the process. The goals of Laura’s research included finding evidence for chemical treatment on the photographs, uncovering the techniques of the treatment, and understanding the significance of the treatment as it related to the series’ concept and materiality, as well as to Penn’s work as an artist.

Laura began by addressing the visual evidence for chemical treatment that she saw on the Nudes. First, they consist of a split tonality, in which the minimum density and mid density areas exhibit a pink or orange tone, whereas the maximum density and shadow regions had more of a neutral or cool tone. Secondly, the photographic image displayed a mottled or uneven effect at the edges of the model’s body, which, when compared with the crisp and clean negative, hinted at some alterations at the printing stage. Thirdly, there were variations between different versions of the same image, including variations in density.

The darkroom experiments that Laura performed were crucial to her process and research. In the interview with Penn that Hambourg wrote about, Penn described that his prints were affected by a bleach and redevelopment treatment. This process involved taking your developed photograph, bleaching out the metallic silver so that it oxidized into colorless silver salts, and then redeveloping the print a second time. Both Irving Penn and Robert Fresón attest to a bleach and redevelopment treatment, explaining that Penn began with a slightly overdeveloped print, and then used the chemical process to work with the excess image density and give the prints their mottled effects. However, Penn described the bleaching agents as potassium ferrocyanide and potassium permanganate solutions, while Fresón described it as potassium dichromate.

Laura replicated the two methods to see which produced images more closely resembling those of Penn. She did these experiments at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the Department of Photograph Conservation’s darkroom and produced interesting results. She found that when using the method described by Fresón, the print had lost density in the maximum density areas and it produced a softly mottled appearance, similar to that of the Nudes, and that the potassium dichromate bleaching agent was more likely to be the one that Penn used when bleaching his prints to achieve the desired aesthetic look. The potassium ferrocyanide and potassium permanganate solutions, she found, intentionally disproportionally affected the maximum density areas and contrastingly, in the Nudes, the maximum density areas seem to be the least affected by the chemical treatment.

XRF analysis was done on the Nudes and on Laura’s samples by Andrea Schlather, Scientific Research Fellow at the Met, and it was found that the XRF detected traces of chromium in the samples that were treated with the potassium dichromate bleach. However, there was no chromium or non-silver material detected in the Nudes themselves; XRF indicated only silver particles over a baryta layer. Does this suggest that the visual congruity between Fresón’s process and the experiments performed by Laura on the samples is just a coincidence? Laura wondered if the chromium could be washed away from the sample to only keep the silver salts, but this question was not part of the active experimentation. She also pointed out that the XRF analysis couldn’t tell us anything more than the elemental composition of the silver gelatin print, and couldn’t give any information about the change in quantity or oxidation state of the silver, so this is important to note for future monitoring.

She recognizes that there are factors that could not have been accounted for, such as the paper Penn was using, nor the developing chemistry, and that the printers may have been contaminating bleach baths, or otherwise mixing chemistry during the process in a way that would alter the effects. Although the project has not returned any definitive results, the research is ongoing and Laura would like to conduct more tests and also employ analysis such as color measurements for continual monitoring. Ultimately, Laura’s talk is a reminder that investigating an artist’s process is crucial to understanding his or her workflow and thought process. She concluded that from the interview and from scholarly research, it was evident that Irving Penn was very interested in the materiality and darkroom processing of the photograph and this interest has clearly and physically manifested in a set of beautiful and unique photographs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

Prize-winning corn in the Iowa State archives.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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