Central and North America Virtual Live Hub

By Miriam-Helene Rudd and Joffre Omar Chaiña Flores

The IIC Central and North America Virtual Live Hub featured four dynamic recordings of presentations: “Interrogating Pollutants in Collecting Institutions during the Implementation of HVAC Energy-Saving Strategies” by Emma J. Richardson; “Does Nothing Last Forever? Considering Lifespan in a Contemporary Collection” by Isobel Griffin, Lorraine Maule, and Jacqueline Ridge; “Implementing an Adaptive Climate Control Strategy: Monitoring Collecting and Sustainability Outcomes” by Michael Varcoe-Cocks, Maryjo Lelyveld, Caitlin Breare, Alexandra Bridarolli, Vincent Laudato Beltran, Youkyoung Kim, Ceicilia Winter, and Michael Lukomski; “Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Interventional and Preventive Conservation at English Heritage” by Alice Tate-Harte and David Thickett, all of whom spoke to very important aspects of sustainability in the care of collections of property. 

In the recording “Interrogating pollutants in collecting institutions during the implementation of HVAC energy saving strategies” the authors shared the results mainly from a three-year collaborative research project aimed at understanding the impact of energy saving and mechanical system performance strategies on indoor pollutant levels in data collection institutions, resulting in lessons learned and practical implications for optimizing sustainable environmental control.

In “Does Nothing Last Forever? Considering Life Expectancies in a Contemporary Collection” the presenters considered life spans in a contemporary collection, which has given rise to the debate on the lifespan of a collection. On the other hand, they note that most heritage organizations in Europe have a legally-based purpose for preserving buildings and collections in their care.

In “Implementing an adaptive climate control strategy: monitoring harvesting and sustainability outcomes” the focus was on recognising sustainability and carbon footprint reduction as increasingly important goals in the cultural heritage field, with new environmental guidelines that will support broader environmental parameters issued by a number of organizations that could improve control strategies.

Finally in “Calculating the Carbon Footprint of Interventive and Preventive Conservation at English Heritage” we were told that English Heritage has a plan to reach net zero carbon footprint across the organization by 2040, and while the carbon footprint may be tiny, it is still worth investigating to create a baseline to drive change that is within our control as conservators and restorers.

After watching the four dynamic presentation recordings, we gathered on Zoom to speak to the authors. We were excited about the possibilities of acoustic emissions monitoring to validate the safety of broadened environmental parameters, though still concerned about the barriers to implementing such changes. 

Session Co-chair Fiona Graham began the Q&A session with a big question: what were the largest obstacles your institution faced in implementing sustainable practices? Emma Richardson of the Image Permanence Institute discussed the hesitance of some to broaden parameters and balancing the limitations of time and resources with the need to fully evaluate collections and HVAC systems across all seasons. I loved the way she reframed how we often discuss “compromising” on environmental parameters for the sake of sustainability; it isn’t a compromise, but rather understanding the actual needs of the collection! 

Mary Jo Lelyveld of the National Gallery Victoria also responded to Graham’s question and shared the difficulties of asking people to unlearn something core to their knowledge and training. As cultural heritage professionals we have advocated for strict environmental standards for so long that it can be difficult to reframe our understanding of the needs of materials. Similarly, the standard of excellence for the HVAC industry is flatlining, and we must work with the facilities team to together unlearn ingrained biases. 

Lelyveld next chimed in with a question for fellow panelists Lorraine Maule and Isobel Griffin of the National Galleries of Scotland in Edinburgh, asking if the preservation strategies for modern and contemporary artworks are decided prior to acquisition. As with many facets of conservation, the answer was first that “it depends.” The collections committee approaches each artwork on a case by case basis, but there isn’t always the opportunity to make conservation decisions on topics such as lifespan and replication prior to acquisition. Sometimes issues are only realized following further examination and analysis such as with microfading. 

The topic of replication and shorter lifespans for contemporary art was a point of great interest for all including audience member Franziska Bunse, tuning in from Los Angeles who asked about the challenges with finding common ground between curators, conservators, and museum directors. Griffin echoed the earlier commentary about the difficulty of relearning something core to one’s education and professional practice. Not all artworks can be approached with the same goal of care “in perpetuity,” but care is still put into the decisions surrounding each piece. A lot of communication is necessary, and it gets easier each time. Griffin emphasized the usefulness of looking at individual pieces versus a wider collections strategy. 

We briefly stepped away from the Zoom webinar to watch the three poster presentations:  “Evaluating and predicting sustainability for the maintenance of copper collections” by David Thickett, “Polysaccharide gels for cleaning gilded wooden surfaces – An innovative, ecological and versatile option” by Rita de Cassia, Antonia Gerstner and Stéphanie Auffret and “The Role of Traditional Building Craftsmanship in Rebuilding a Historic Bridge” through which they shared valuable experiences of relevance related to diverse aspects of heritage conservation and sustainability, such as the care of copper objects and their sustainability over time, the application of materials, such as a hydrogel based on polysaccharide mixtures, and finally the role of traditional construction craftsmanship in the reconstruction of a historic bridge, showing us valuable lessons from the shared experiences, and reflected through what is shown in the posters.

When we returned to the Zoom session co-chair Robert Waller asked each of the poster presenters: “what next?” Shujie Chen explained that fire is a major threat to the bridges, and that they are working now on prevention strategies. Chen also hopes to focus more on the role of traditional craftsmanship on rebuilding and reconstruction. For the team working on applications of polysaccharide gels to wooden gilded surfaces, Antonia Gerstner shared that testing continues and recipes will be published soon. There will also be an upcoming workshop in Brazil, where large-scale applications to gilded interiors will be tested! Bhavesh Shah, speaking on behalf of David Thickett, talked about continuing to research the management of archaeological copper and different materials, including silver. 

We ended the day with more engaging and thought-provoking conversations during the Networking Session, and said good-bye, excited for what the next two days of the Congress would bring! 

BLOG AUTHORS AND BYLINES:
Miriam-Helene Rudd, Objects Conservator, New York City, NY (USA)
Joffre Omar Chaiña Flores, Architecture Restorer, Puno City, PUNO (PERÚ)