Photo Conservation

Current Status of Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation

Andrew W. Mellon Fellow, Advanced Residency Program in Photograph ConservationFifth cycle 2007-2009

George Eastman House, International Museum of Photography and Film

Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology

August 2009

Elia Alejandra Mendoza Olmos

Advisor: Grant B. Romer

Para Héctor

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Angelica Rudenstine,

Grant Romer, for his unconditional support,

All the interviewees, for their time, interest and support,

Paul Messier, Nora Kennedy, Greg Drake, Ralph Wiegandt and Doug Nishimura for their instrumen-tal observations to my project,

Ania Michas, Hyejung Yum, Mirasol Estrada, Hye-Sung Ahn, Pau Maynés and Claudio Hernández,

The 5th Cycle Fellows, the staff of the Advanced Residency Program, the George Eastman House and the Image Permanence Institute,

And Héctor Ouilhet for his constant advice, all the technical and design contributions made to my project.

Acknowledgments

Abstract 11

13Introduction

Antecedents of the project

Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation Interviews

The origin of the project

Description of the interviews

The interview questionnaire

Selection of interviewees

List of the interviews performed

Technical description of the interviews

Levels and tools for dissemination and access

Why interviews? Judgment, experience and information

Desired content

The interview questionnaire final version

Type

Precedent: Other Interview Projects in the field

Type of interviews

Description of the questions

Other questions asked

Capture

The library

Academic institutions

The blog

Aim and order

17The interviews17

17

17

17

18

18

18

18

18

18

19

19

20

20

20

20

21

21

22

22

22

22

Development and transformation of the interview questionnaire

Analysis tools for the blog

Creative Commons License

Development and documentation of the interviews

What is Creative Commons?

Transformation of the release form

The Creative Commons License used

Profiling the interviews

33Documentation of the Project

33

28

34

28

35

28

35

28

What is a blog?

Content and design

Planning phase

Format/size

Characteristics and advantages of a blog

Technical information: blog and the published interviews

Rehearsal interviews

Defining a publishing system

Conducting the interviews

Evaluation phase

Publishing system

Format: .m4v

Uploading system for the interviews into the blog: Vimeo

The blog: Conservation Treatment of Photographs

Characteristics of the published interviews

Processing workflow of the interview files

25The blog: documentation and access25

25

26

26

34

35

26

34

35

34

35

26

27

27

27

27

Data analysis

Release Form

Conservation philosophy and ethics

Philosophical –epistemological and ethical- considerations

Transcripts

Terminology: conservation, restoration, treatment, intervention…

Alteration: deterioration, damage, patina

39Analysis of Results

Appendices

39

i

47

47

48

48

51

53

Conclusions

Bibliography

11

Abstract

This research is an analysis of the current status of treatment practices in photograph conservation, based on fifteen video taped interviews with senior photograph conservators, conducted from Janu-ary to May 2009. The interview questions were designed to define and describe current conserva-tion treatment practices and discuss their transformation over time. Training and future challenges of treatment are discussed briefly. The interviews and the documentation of the research process are available in the blog Conservation Treatment of Photographs <http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/>.

Abstract

13

Introduction

Treatment is an activity that characterizes and differentiates photograph conservators from other closely related specialists, such as conservation scientists, collection managers, curators, process historians and photography researchers. It is understood that appropriate treatment options for photographic materials depend on a combination of complex case-by-case variables (considering not only the materiality of the object but also its present and future context and use) and the present accepted guidelines for practice. Therefore, it is the conservator’s role to gather the proper information, propose the most appropriate treatment possibilities and, if collectively agreed with the object’s owner or stewards on a treatment, intervene on it. However from these few sentences, we can infer that if the meaning of appropriateness and adequacy is time, place, object, owner and conservator dependant, then describing the current status of treatment practices in Photograph Conservation becomes a challenging, almost unattainable, endeavor.

Due to the professional challenge of this inquiry and my deep devotion to photograph con-servation, I designed this project with the goal of understanding, documenting and communicat-ing the ways in which treatments are approached, decided, conducted and evaluated, both within institutions and in private practice. I deliberately designed this project considering that personal knowledge, experiences, recollections and examples can best explain treatment implementation, history and development.

I believe that the information contained in this research is fundamental not only to a better understanding and explanation of our present professional situation, but also will prove useful for future conservators in tracing the path that led to their own.

My research materials include: fifteen video taped interviews with senior photograph conserva-tors –thirteen working in the United States and two working in Europe- conducted between the months of January and May of the year 2009; a set of complete transcriptions of the interviews, allowing the interviews to be bibliographical resources; an analysis of the information contained within the interviews; and a complete documentation of the project. All of these are made readily available through the blog entitled Conservation Treatment of Photographs <http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/>, also as a product of my research.

Introduction

The interviews

The Interviews

17

The origin of the project

Why interviews? Judgment, experience and information

Precedent: Other Interview Projects in the field

Antecedents of the project

This chapter contains information that describes the process by which I decided to conduct the interviews as well as the explanation of the process followed to obtain them, and a description of their content and the way it was processed.

When defining my project, my first proposal included the assessment and definition of evaluation criteria for conservation treatments of photographs. However, in developing this idea, I faced a fundamental question that is inherent to the nature of conservation treatments: How to start pro-posing evaluation criteria when each treatment context is so particular and each photograph treated differently?

With this basic question, I realized that to begin proposing evaluation methods I had to better understand and articulate the current status of treatment practices in our field: What treatments are being done? Where? Why? How are they being justified and evaluated? As I recognized that experienced conservators were a firsthand source of information to do so, the idea to perform the interviews originated.

An interview is the formal questioning of a person, or a conversation in which information is elicited.1 Interviews are commonly performed by journalists and reporters, but also by numerous researchers in all the branches of the social sciences. They represent a unique research tool that provides special information, otherwise difficult to obtain, since the interviewee plays a key role in the study. Thus an interview can be seen as a conduit of personal judgment, experience and infor-mation.

In the field of Conservation of Cultural Heritage, diverse projects that include interviews have been developed in recent decades, from which the Oral History Project of the Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation (launched in 1975)2,3 and the Oral History of Photograph Conservation (started in 2001)4 stand out. However, these previous projects were meant to produce oral history, which is a specific type of interview that aims to systematically collect individual testi-monies about personal experiences.5 The Oral History Association,6 among many other institutions

The interviews

18


Description of the interviews

The interview questionnaire

Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation Interviews

Fifteen video taped interviews with senior photograph conservators were conducted between the months of January and May of the year 2009 as the core product of this project. In the following sections, the main characteristics of the interviews and their content will be described.

The main topics addressed during the interviews are listed below. The process by which these were chosen is described in a later section.

I decided to conduct semi-structured interviews, whose main characteristics are:

This is the questionnaire that was sent to the interviewees prior to their interview; it also served as a guide during the recording.

a. Could you please tell me your name, job title and affiliation?b. When was this conservation lab established and for how long have you been working here? (if applicable)c. Could you describe your clientele? (if applicable)

that conduct this type of interviews,7 has specific guidelines as how to conduct these interviews and their desired characteristics.

Other important early projects of this sort, related to photographs and photography, are listed in the article entitled “Oral History Material on Photography,” published in 1975.8 When available, this annotated listing provides the following information: interviewee’s name (usually a photog-rapher’s), interview date, interviewer’s name, a topical summary, the name of the institution that holds the interview material (recording and/or transcription), information about the format of the interview recording, and “every effort to give full particulars about the condition of access and use.”9

Desired content

Type of interviews

The interview questionnaire final version

Definition of treatmentCriteria or Need for treatmentType and Aim of treatmentsTreatments performed and frequenciesDegree/Extent of interventionMethodology for treatment Evaluation of treatment results Transformation of treatment practicesExternal influences for treatment decision-makingHistory of treatment practicesSpecific treatment topics:

Daguerreotype cleaning* “Chemical” intensification * Unmounting/remounting of photographs* Modern and contemporary photographs*

Training and educationFuture challenges for the field in terms of treatment

The questions and development of the interview were pre-planned, but with a cer-a. tain degree of freedom to approach new themes that may come up during its course.

Usually, a template (protocol) was followed to help the interviewer maintain a pre-b. established model.10

The Interviews

19

The majority of the questions asked were open-ended questions (questions to which there is not one definite answer). Responses to this type of question are more difficult to catalogue and interpret;11 however they are normally more informative and thus more useful to achieving my projects goals. Although seven questions in the questionnaire were dichotomous (questions that only have two possible responses, in this case yes/no questions), they were designed to be followed by a how or why open-ended question.

Definition1. How do you define treatment?

Need2. How do you determine the need for treatment?3. Would you propose the establishment of a regular treatment program for the collec-tion? (if applicable, for institutions)

Type & Aim4. What is the scope of treatments that you perform and the types of photographs you treat most frequently?5. What is the aim of the treatments?6. Could you describe, as an example, the intervention of a photograph you treated (meth-odology followed)?7. How do you evaluate treatment results?

Degree/Extent of intervention8. What do you consider as a minor, moderate and major intervention?9. Do you consider the creation and application of secondary housings as conservation treatments?

Transformation10. What changes overtime do you perceive in the way treatments are approached and performed?11. Do you perceive changes in the level of intervention?12. Do you consider that the perception of how a photograph should look, in terms of its condition, has changed through time?

External interactions/influences13. What is your observation of the work performed in other institutions and in private practice in relation to the work performed here?Do use and context of photographs define their treatment approach?14. Does market (value/trends) influence treatment decision-making and performance?

Issues in treatment/specific treatment topics

Daguerreotype cleaning15. What is your opinion about daguerreotype cleaning?

“Chemical” intensification16. What is your opinion about chemical intensification of photographs?

Unmounting/remounting of photographs (including disassembly of albums)17. In what circumstances do you consider un-mounting photographs can be justified?

Modern and contemporary photographs 18. What has been your experience with treatment of contemporary photographs?

Final questions:Treatment experience/training & future

19. Do you consider that treatment proficiency is central to the competences of a photo-graph conservator?20. In terms of treatment, what are the major challenges that the field faces?

Description of the questions

Type

20


Selection of interviewees

List of the interviews performed

The primary selection parameters for the interviewees were based on experience and geography: senior photograph conservators working in the U.S. (practicing conservators or current heads of conservation departments or research/educational institutions).

In September 2008, a list of potential interviewees was created with the help of Grant Romer. Following a second revision, a list with 23 names was delivered to Paul Messier, Nora Kennedy and Grant Romer, for each to select 13 suitable candidates (since they were to be included, the final sample size was comprised of 16 names). After reviewing their selections, a list of the potential interviewees was established.

Personal invitations and explanations of the project were extended to the candidates. After consideration of their responses and availability, as well as available resources (time/money) for the project, the individuals were grouped by city or area, and a definitive list was produced. Later, two European conservators not included in the initial selection process were invited to participate when their planned visits to Rochester were confirmed.

Key: number, date, interviewee’s name, interviewee’s title, main institution name, institution loca-tion; (Interview location, if different from the first).

1) Monday January 26, 2009 - Tom Edmondson, Conservator in private practice, Heugh-Edmondson Conservation Services LLC, Kansas City, Missouri; (Tucson, Arizona).

2) Wednesday February 4, 2009 - Gary Albright, Conservator in private practice, Honeoye Falls, New York.

3) Saturday February 7, 2009 - Grant Romer, Director of the Advanced Residency Program in Pho-tograph Conservation, George Eastman House, Rochester, New York.

The effectiveness of the questions could only be judged after performing the interviews, however, in every case, they had initial targeted aims. It is important to mention that not all the questions were asked during the first three interviews; some were developed later to improve subsequent in-terviews. Also, some questions were addressed only to particular subjects, based on their answers and reactions and/or their pre-identified personal expertise and experience.

The aim for the questions asked fall into one or more of these categories:12

As mentioned, additional questions were individuated based on earlier responses. Questions asked in the majority of the interviews include:

Other questions asked

To serve as introductory questionsTo obtain information relative to the definition of termsTo address and describe current treatment practices answering the fundamental

questions of knowledge… who, where, when, why, how much, how oftenTo address areas of interest relative to treatment of photographs, including: trans-

formation/history, external interactions/influences, training/education, futureTo address specific treatment topics, which can be labeled as controversial, but are/

were frequently performed, discussed, investigated and published about To investigate the process and argumentation by which judgment and ethical con-

siderations are reached To serve as final/closing questions

How do you measure/weight treatment risks against its potential benefits?What is your opinion about reprinting contemporary photographs that present

‘major’ damages? How do you think we gain treatment proficiency?Do you think we can evaluate treatment proficiency? How?

Aim and order

The Interviews

21

Technical description of the interviews

4) Wednesday February 11, 2009 - Peter Mustardo, Conservator in private practice, The Better Image, New Jersey-New York City; (New York, New York).

5) Thursday February 12, 2009 - Nora Kennedy, Sherman Fairchild Conservator of Photographs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York.

6) Tuesday February 17, 2009 - Debbie Hess Norris, Chair of the Art Conservation Department, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware; (New York, New York).

7) Thursday February 19, 2009 - Lee Ann Daffner, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Conservator of Photographs, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York.

8) Monday March 9, 2009 - Barbara Lemmen, Senior Conservator of Photographs, Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9) Wednesday March 11, 2009 - Martin Jürgens, Conservator in private practice, Hamburg, Ger-many; (Rochester, New York).

10) Wednesday March 18, 2009 - Paul Messier, Conservator in private practice, Paul Messier LLC, Conservation of Photographs and Works on Paper, Boston, Massachusetts.

11) Thursday March 19, 2009 - Brenda Bernier, Paul M. and Harriet L. Weissman Senior Photo-graph Conservator, Weissman Preservation Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

12) Friday March 20, 2009 - Monique Fischer, Senior Photograph Conservator, Northeast Document Conservation Center, Andover, Massachusetts.

13) Thursday April 16, 2009 - Pau Maynés, Conservator in private practice, Corebarna, Conservació I Restauració de Béns Culturals, Barcelona, Spain; (Rochester, New York).

14) Saturday May 9, 2009 - José Orraca, Conservator in private practice, Sharon, Connecticut.

15) Thursday May 21, 2009 - James M. Reilly, Director, Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Insti-tute of Technology, Rochester, New York.

The interviews were videotaped using a miniDV 1080i HDV Canon camera. A backup capture file (.mov) was produced simultaneously, using the built-in iSight cam-era of a MacBook laptop computer, using QuickTime Pro Software.

Capture

Interview with José Orraca

22


Levels and tools for dissemination and access

From the inception of the project, different levels of dissemination and access were projected for the interviews. After investigating viability, the following three levels were reached. Each interviewee decided through a release form, the level of dissemination allowed for their interview (see Release forms and licensing).

The Richard and Ronay Menschel Library at George Eastman House keeps the original tapes and transcripts, and a DVD access copy, available for research and educational purposes.

A copy of the tapes and transcripts was given to with those academic institutions that impart Pho-tograph Conservation Studies.

The content of the interviews was included in the blog Conservation Treatment of Photographs <http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/>, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncom-mercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License (see The blog: documentation and access).

“Interview.” 1. Word Reference Online Language Dictionaries, <http://www.wordreference.com/definition/inter-view> (accessed May 30, 2009).

Joyce Hill Stoner. “Documenting Ourselves: The History of Twentieth-Century Conservation.” 2. IIC Bulletin 2, April 1998, 1-4.

Over 165 transcribed interviews are now available to researchers housed in the Winterthur Museum ar-3. chives. “List of dates in the history of art conservation.” Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_in_the_history_of_art_conservation> (accessed June 1, 2009).

Pau Maynés and Grant B. Romer. “A Research into the history of Photograph Conservation: George East-4. man’s Legacy.” Past Practice, Future Prospects, British Museum Occasional Papers 145, September 2001, 151-158. And Pau Maynés and Grant B. Romer. “Documenting Conservation through Oral History: A Case Study.” ICOM-Conservation Committee Meeting, Brazil, 2002.

Judith Moyer. “Step-by-Step Guide to Oral History.” 5. Do History Website, created by Film Study Center, Harvard University and hosted by Center for History and New Media, George Mason University, 1993, Revised 1999, <http://dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/oralHistory.htmlWHATIS> (accessed May 31, 2009).

The Oral History Association, <6. http://www.oralhistory.org/> (accessed May 31 2009).

The International Oral History Association, <7. http://iohanet.org/> (accessed May 31 2009).

James McQuaid, David Tait, and Steven Lewis. “Oral History Material on Photography.” 8. Image, vol. 18, no. 2, 1975, 1-12.

Ibid.1.9. “Tipos de Entrevista.” Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Departamento de Orientación e Información al 10.

Empleo, Madrid, 2009.

Arlene Fink. 11. How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, 1995, 105 pp.

A standard interviewing process can be divided into six phases: introduction, warm-up, general issues, deep 12. focus, retrospective, and wrap-up. Mike Kuniavsky. “Universal Tools: Recruiting and Interviewing.” In Observ-ing the user experience. A practitioner’s guide to user research, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 2003, 118.

The library

Academic institutions

The blog

The blog: documentation and access

25

Posting window from Blogger.com

A blog (contraction of the term weblog) is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other materials such as graphics or videos. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order.1 There are many different types of blogs, differing in the type of content and also in the way content is delivered or written. Therefore blogs can be typified by genre, by media type, by device, etc.

What is a blog?



Characteristics and advantages of a blog

In 1999, the proliferation of free weblog-creation programs made blogs accessible for anyone to cre-ate. Before this, most weblogs were hand-coded by web developers or by individuals with certain knowledge of Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML).2 Nowadays, blogs represent one of the easiest web tools for knowledge sharing, allowing users to systematically publish their ideas to an extended audience, without the need of technical understanding or experience. Furthermore, a blog platform enables knowledge to be dynamic by letting invitees or users to express their opinions as comments.

Another important feature of a blog is the ability to syndicate its content, in other words, the ability to make content available to multiple other sites.3 Content syn-dication is an effective way of adding greater depth and immediacy of information to a website,4 transcending restrictions set by format or design. Syndication drives exposure across numerous online platforms, generating new traffic for the site,5 representing a vital feature for collaboration and content sharing.

After ten years of free blogging, the core values of personal or corporate blogs have been established as au-thenticity, passion, transparency, credibility, individu-alism, creativity, originality, relevance, and integrity;6 however, these remain relative to the content, context and users of each blog.

26

Interview blog post


Content and design

Technical information: blog and the published interviews

The blog: Conservation Treatment of Photographs

Blog title Blog posts: post date, title, content, labelsRight column sections:

License* What is this blog about?* Labels * Blog archive* About me * Contact* What can I find in this blog?*

Footer: Author name and title, license

The blog Conservation Treatment of Photographs <http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/> was created in October 2008 to document and make accessible my research process. At that time, the possibility to use the site to publish the interviews was proposed, but a deeper analysis was needed to inform the interviewees about the specifications of the tool.

The main sections of the blog are:

Blogger is the blog publishing system selected for my project.7 Created by Evan Williams and Meg Hourihan (Pyra Labs) and launched in August of 1999,8,9 it was purchased by Google in Febru-ary 2003. The service itself is located at <www.blogger.com>, and blogs that do not publish to their own websites are hosted by Google at subdomains of blogspot.com (as is mine: <http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/>).

Publishing system

27


Display from vimeo.com

After the corresponding technical assessment and trials (see Profiling the published interviews), this is how the interviews were uploaded to the blog:

After a short technical evaluation of the project characteristics (data to be hosted, data transfer, economic investment and projected life), I decided to use a public blog platform, such as Blogger, versus a hosted platform on my domain (alejandramendoza.info) due to the robust infrastructure that public blogs have reached and maintained.

Characteristics of the published interviews

The video files produced were exported as .m4v video files. M4v is a QuickTime format produced by Apple, based on the MPEG-4 Part 2 compression.10

The compression codecs used in .m4v files are H.264 and AAC.11 The dimension or resolution of the videos is 640x360, with a 4:3 ratio.

From capture to export, these were the processing steps followed:

After exporting, the files were uploaded to the blog through Vimeo. (Other upload options were evaluated, see Profiling the published interviews).

Vimeo is a video-centric social network site (owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp), which launched in November 2004. The site supports embedding, sharing and video storage for registered users.

Vimeo does not allow commercial videos, gaming videos, pornography, or anything not cre-ated by the user to be hosted on the site.12 Vimeo has gained a reputation as catering to a high end, artistic group of users because of its higher bit-rate, resolution, and relative HD support.13

Format: .m4v

Processing workflow of the interview files

Uploading system for the interviews into the blog: Vimeo

1. The files were exported from the video camera tape original (miniDV) to an iMac computer using iMovie software2. The video length was trimmed as necessary (beginning and end of the recording, intermediate pauses)3. The frame was custom cropped, if necessary 4. Color editing was performed as needed (white balance, hue and saturation)5. Titles and frame transitions were added6. The videos were exported as medium size (640x360 dimension) .m4v files.

28


License Conditions from Creative Commons

Creative Commons License

Analysis tools for the blog

Creative Commons provides free, easy-to-use legal tools that “give everyone from individual creators to large companies and institutions a simple, standard-ized way to grant copyright permissions to their creative work. The Creative Commons licenses enable people to easily change their copyright terms from the default of ‘all rights reserved’ to ‘some rights reserved.’”15

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that “works to increase the amount of creativity (cultural, educational, and scientific content) in ‘the commons’ — the body of work that is available to the public for free and legal sharing, use, repurposing, and remixing.”14

Google Analytics is a free service that generates detailed statistics about the visitors to a website.17 It allows tracking of referrers (including search engines), geographical position and visit time.18

On June 14, the blog was registered in Google Analytics to collect and analyze its traffic and activity. After two months, 247 people (through 794 visits and 1,825 page views) from 28 countries have accessed the site.

The license selected for the blog and its content is a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommer-cial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.16

What is Creative Commons?

The Creative Commons License used

Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives

Data displays from Google Analytics

The Interviews

29

“Blog.” 1. Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog> (accessed June 2, 2009).

“What are blogs, and how did they become so popular?” 2. Ask Yahoo, 2002 <http://ask.yahoo.com/20021115.html> (accessed June 2, 2009).

In broadcasting, syndication is the sale of the right to broadcast radio shows and television shows to mul-3. tiple individual stations, without going through a broadcast network. “Broadcast syndication.” Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_syndication> (accessed June 2, 2009). Web syndication is a form of syndication in which website material is made available to multiple other sites. “Web syndication.” Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_syndication> (accessed June 2, 2009).

Internet Content Syndication Council, <4. http://internetsyndication.org/about/index.html> (accessed June 2, 2009).

The two main families of web syndication formats are RSS and Atom.5. Steven Streight. “18 Characteristics of Good Blog Content.” April 30, 2005, <6. http://blogcorevalues.blogspot.

com/2005/04/18-characteristics-of-good-blog.html> (accessed June 2, 2009). And Webdesigner Depot. “13 Character-istics of Outstanding Blog Design.” <http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2008/12/13-characteristics-of-outstanding-blog-design/> (accessed June 2, 2009).

Other blog publishing systems are: Gandi, LiveJournal, MySpace, Open Diary, Wordpress.com, Skyrock, 7. Tumblr, TypePad, Typo, Vox, Windows Live Spaces, and Xanga.

“Blog.” 8. Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog> (accessed June 2, 2009).

“The Story of Blogger.” 9. Blogger, Google, <http://www.blogger.com/about> (accessed June 2, 2009).

The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), the working group within the International Organization 10. for Standardization (ISO), defined MPEG-4, which was finalized in 1998, became an international standard in 2000 and included in QuickTime in 2002. “MPEG-4: The container for digital media.” Apple Inc., <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/mpeg4/> (accessed May 31 2009). “MPEG-4.” Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4> (accessed May 31 2009).

“H.264: Stunning clarity from 3G to HD.” Apple Inc., <11. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/> (accessed May 31 2009).

“Vimeo guidelines.” 12. Vimeo, <http://vimeo.com/guidelines> (accessed May 9 2009).

Marshall Kirkpatrick. “Vimeo Offering HD Video Option.” 13. Red Write Web, October 16, 2007, <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/vimeo_hd.php> (accessed May 31 2009).

“What is CC?” 14. Creative Commons, <http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc> (accessed April 6 2009).

Ibid.15. “Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.” 16. Creative

Commons, <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/> (accessed April 6 2009).

“Google Analytics.” 17. Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics> (ac-cessed July 17 2009).

“Google Analytics.” Google, 2009, <18. http://www.google.com/analytics/> (accessed July 17 2009).

Documentation of the project

33

Documentation of the Project


Development and transformation of the interview questionnaire

This chapter describes documentation aspects that have not been addressed, focusing on the trans-formation of the end products of the project.

Developing a questionnaire about treatment is not an easy task. Intrinsically, treatment is not an oral subject but rather a practical one, and in the end, even after the treatment action, it is the object and the materials that prevail.

The interview questionnaire is the final version of six drafts. As the title of my project states, my purpose was to describe the current status1 of treatment practices in photograph conservation. However, from the beginning, I intended to develop questions that focus on the philosophical and theoretical aspects of treatment and not the descriptive details of treatment procedures, which in, my opinion, could not be addressed orally through this particular project.

The first part of the questionnaire,2 through its five versions, consisted of questions that address the fundamental queries: Who? Where? Why? Which? For whom? For what? How much? The progressive iterations serve to chart my process of improving the formulation of questions (with relatively small variations), always working to move closer to a question construction with the de-sired characteristics of clarity and brevity.3

The section Transformation derives from the idea that to describe a present state you have to describe previous and project future ones. Comparison helps to better understand the present: what has changed and why? The section External interactions/influences was created following the same thread of thought.

The section entitled Issues in treatment/Specific treatment topics was probably the one that changed the most during this process. It was created, as mentioned earlier, to address treatment topics that have caused controversy or a difference of opinion, both in and outside the conservation field. These topics have been frequently performed through the history of conservation treatment of photographs –except for the topic of treatment of contemporary materials- and have been the subject of significant professional discussion, research and publication. Based on these consider-ations, I determined that multiple discussions of these controversial topics would compose a valu-able source of opinion-based information that might otherwise be difficult to obtain, understand and disseminate.

The approach to these topics changed through the different questionnaire versions. At the be-ginning, uncertain on how to tackle them, I formulated questions using hypothetical treatment

34


Development and documentation of the interviews

proposals for specific objects. For example, the intensification of a severely faded family gelatin silver print or the disassembly of a 19th-century well-known album. However, this format proved to be unusable, as it seemed rather contentious and open to misinterpretation by others, and very limited in the scope of potential answers it would produce.

Instead, the most general question possible was introduced: What is your opinion about ‘this treatment’? And an introductory paragraph to each topic was added to provide some context to both the interviewees and the future listeners. Follow-up questions were formulated, to be asked if considered pertinent.

Finally, it is worth saying that, while constructing and reviewing the questions, special care was taken to avoid double negatives and both loaded and leading questions, given such formulations are “the bane of all social research since they inject the prejudices of the person asking the question into a situation that should be completely about the perspective of the person answering it. […] But avoiding directed questioning is easier said than done.”4

Conducting interviews is a complex process that requires planning, rehearsal, implementation, and interpretation phases.5

During the questionnaire development process, a bibliographic search was performed, both for guidance to select question topics and to justify the actual selec-tion. While doing so, I transcribed direct quotations from texts that I considered particularly valuable due to their content, their rarity, or my personal interest.

The preliminary and final versions of the question-naire are available in the blog as individual postings searchable under the label of Documentation of the pro-cess. Initially, the bibliographical quotations, with their corresponding citation information, were posted into the blog. However, these were later removed both to avoid issues related to copyright and because at subsequent stages of the research there were many more consulted sources than those posted.

Blog label: Documentation of the process

Planning phase

Rehearsal interviews

Conducting the interviews

The initial planning of the interviews included the already described questionnaire development and interviewees selection. Besides these, other administrative aspects, such as scheduling and confirming the interviews, and the later follow-up with the interviewees, required time, prepara-tion and extensive communication.

As a means of rehearsal I conducted three formal interviews, recording the first two with the built-in camera of a laptop computer and the last with the miniDV Canon camera I planned to use for the official interviews. In all cases, the fifth version of the questionnaire was followed.

The interviewees, current or previous Andrew W. Mellon fellows at the Advanced Residency Program, were Anna Michas, Hyejung Yum and Taina Meller.

I created a simple materials checklist with the items I needed to bring or have for conducting the interviews. Later, in the corresponding venue, I followed an action checklist before, during and after each interview. Both lists proved useful for purposes of preparation and consistency.

35


Transformation of the release form

Profiling the interviews

The “Principles and Standards of the Oral History Association” states that interviewees should be informed of the mutual rights in the process, such as “editing, access restrictions, copyrights, prior use, royalties, and the expected disposition and dissemination of all forms of the record, including the potential for electronic distribution,” and that they also should be informed that they will be asked to sign a release.6

Following these guidelines and in accordance with my project’s intention of dissemination, I developed a release form prior to conducting the fist interview. For this, I followed the format and content of the form developed by Pau Maynés in 2000, which he used for the Oral History of Pho-tograph Conservation Project.7

This release form was used for the first three interviews, however after further research and sub-sequent conversations with the interviewees,8 I designed a second release form, with more detailed and specific information (see Release Form). This form, ultimately used for all the official interviews, allows the interviewee to establish the level of dissemination desired for the documents produced. This level of specificity was particularly important since the interviews were to be published online. Therefore, the Creative Commons license chosen for the Internet dissemination of the interviews –restrictive to the blog only- was included in this definitive release form.

In April, after conducting the majority of the interviews, I needed to define the characteristics of the files that were to be published in the blog. Several formats, sizes and publishing systems were evaluated as explained below.

Evaluation phase

Format/size

Defining a publishing system

An individual informal assessment was performed after each interview to evaluate its outcome, identify effective questions and approaches, and also mistakes made. After all the interviews were completed, the content was synthesized and discussed.

The final decision to export the videos as .m4v files (640x360) was reached after several trials with formats and resolutions. The decision was based on the resolution obtained (as observable in a com-puter screen) versus the resulting file size (in megabytes), considering that the length of the actual videos ranged from 30 to 90 minutes. The decision also was made considering the capabilities of the publishing system as described in the next section.

Sizes and formats tried include: *.3gp (176x144), *.m4v (480x272, 640x360 and 960x540), *.mov (640x480), and *.mp4 (176x144, 640x360 and 1280x 720HD).

The file sizes produced (.m4v files, 640x360) range from 350MB (30 minutes) to 1GB (90 min-utes). Interviews longer than 90 minutes were exported into two files.

The selection of the publishing system to be used to upload the interviews into the blog was also reached after a short experimental phase.

The first option tried was to upload the interviews directly to the blog (not as embedded files). Although possible and tried, this option only allows the upload of small size files (maximum 100MG), resulting in very poor resolution clips which, on top of all, don’t have edition options.

The next option tried was YouTube.com. This is a good publishing system that allows the em-bedding and editing of video files. A clip of a rehearsal interview (with Anna Michas) was up-loaded to the website and a link embedded in the blog for a period of two months. Neither the video nor the blog were formally promoted yet 35 people viewed the video in this time, though none

36


posted a comment. Among the disadvantages noted dur-ing the trial was that a video uploaded to YouTube may lose its context since the “related videos” that are linked to it may be contrary or completely unrelated in content. Also, a certain reluctance was observed when random subjects (some interviewees included) were asked their opinion about being uploaded to YouTube.

Therefore the decision to use a publishing system with finer editing options and publishing restrictions was made, which led to the selection of vimeo.com. A Vimeo Plus account was created, which allowed the posting of video files of up to 1GB in size, and provided substantial setting options regarding embedding and privacy.

Rehearsal interview uploaded to YouTube

Status seen as “a state at a particular time.”1. Questions a, b, c, and 1 through 9.2. Catherine Courage and Kathy Baxter. “Interviews.” In 3. Understanding your users. A practical guide to user

requirements. Methods, Tools and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann Elsevier, San Francisco, 2005, 264.

Kuniavsky. “Universal Tools.” 119.4. Courage. “Interviews.” 247-311. William M.K. Trochim. “Interviews.” 5. Research Methods Knowledge Base

Website, 2006, <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intrview.php> (accessed June 1, 2009).

“Principles and Standards of the Oral History Association.” 6. Oral History Evaluation Guidelines, Oral His-tory Association, Pamphlet Number 3, Adopted 1989, Revised Sept. 2000, <http://www.oralhistory.org/do-oral-history/oral-history-evaluation-guidelines/> (accessed June 1, 2009).

The initial stage of the Oral History of Photograph Conservation Project took place from the year 2000 to 7. 2001, with thirty-two interviews. However, the project has been continued, at different rates, for one decade by the Advanced Residency Program Fellows and Pau Maynés. The original format of its release form was modified in 2009 for the two interviews conducted by the 5th Cycle Fellows. This modification, towards greater specificity, was made with the mutual agreement of the author and Pau Maynés.

Other in-house release forms consulted include “The L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation Re-8. lease Form” and the George Eastman House “Permission to Record.”

Analysis of results

39

Analysis of Results

The following graphic and textual analysis is a personal synthesis and interpretation derived from the data obtained through the interviews. For specific answers and complete opinions, I strongly encourage watching the interview videos. The percentages are calculated from 15 answers, or oth-erwise noted.

Data analysis

Interviewees’ affiliation type

Interviewees’ years of experience in the field

Analysis of Results

Private practice

Art Museum

Academic instituion

Conservation center

Archives and libraries

7%

27%

20%46%

> 35 years

26 - 35 years

16 - 25 years

< 16 years

47%

20%

13%

13%

7%

40


Not specific for each interviewee, in alphabetical order:

Categories in order of frequency of mention:

The definition for treatment provided by each interviewee fall into one of the following:

This graph includes the establishment of Photograph conservation laboratories and Paper conservation laboratories, where photographs were initially treated. Only the laboratories mentioned during the interviews are graphed.

Total: 13

Establishment of Conservation Laboratories

Types of clientele

Factors that determine the need/performance of treatment

Definition of treatment

Aim(s) of treatment(s)

19681973 1975 1977

1981

1989 19911994

20002004

1 2 3

ArchivesArtists/artist studiosAuction housesDealersEstates GalleriesGovernment agenciesHistorical societiesInsurance companiesLibrariesMuseums (Art, Archeology, Ethnology) Private corporationsPrivate individuals/private collectors

Deliberate, direct intervention of a photograph, designed to stabilize its condition or improve its legibility or aesthetic presentation

Any direct action that alters an object’s physical or chemical natureAny action that changes an object or secures its future (including preservation

measures).1

Stabilization (allow safe handling and increased access, promote short or medium-term preservation and ideally long-term preservation)

Improve legibility/aesthetic presentation/appreciation Promote long-term preservation.

Client needs: present use (access, research, personal use) or projected use (imaging, exhibition, sale)

Materiality of the object: condition (damage, deterioration), composition, struc-ture, finishing

Characteristics of the treatment: possibility to be performed (defined by the treat-ment), individual abilities, knowledge of the treatment effectiveness, practical impli-cations, risk assessment.

41

Not specific for each interviewee, in alphabetical order:

Degrees of intervention (set by the question): minor, moderate and major.

The factors that determine the degree of an intervention –according to the answers of the inter-viewees– are: time involved, risk to the photograph, and degree of the produced alteration.

Based on these factors, I developed a schematic model to help in the description of our assign-ment (as conservators) of the degree of an intervention. This model does not intend to be absolute and the initial values used are arbitrary.

For modeling purposes, I figured that if I assigned initial values for each factor (from one to three, with one meaning low, two medium and three high) and a range of values for the degrees of intervention (minor from 3 to 4, moderate from 5 to 6, and major from 7 to 9), then the sum of the values of the factors can numerically represent the de-gree of an intervention. In this model, the seven possible outcomes (values ranging from 3 to 9) can be reached through 27 combinations of factors. From these, 4 (or 15) fall into the category of minor, 13 (or 48) into moderate and 10 (or 37) into major interventions. (It is in-teresting to note, that for two interviewees, all interventions are major interventions.)

Time involved Risk to the photograph Degree of alteration = Intervention Degree

1 1 1 1+1+1= 3 (minor)

2 2 1 2+2+1= 5 (moderate)

1 3 1 1+3+1= 5 (moderate)

3 3 2 3+3+2= 8 (major)

Categories in order of frequency of mention:

For example,

Photographs treated

Treatments performed

Factors to determine the degree of an intervention

Analysis of Results

Accretions removalBleachingCase repairChemical intensificationConsolidation (of cracks, binders, and surface coatings)Cosmetic inpaintingCrease reductionElectro-cleaning of daguerreotypesFilling of lossesFlattening (with or without humidification, heat, weight/pressure, stress)LiningMold remediationRemoval of poor quality secondary supports or housingsSilver-mirroring reductionStain reductionSurface cleaningTape removalTear repairWashing

Prints: gelatin-silver prints, albumen prints, platinum prints, salt prints, chro-mogenic prints, digital prints, carbon prints, cyanotypes, others

Cased objects: daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, tintypes, othersNegatives: calotypes/paper negatives, gelatin dry plate negatives, plastic roll film

(acetate and nitrate), collodion negatives, others.

15%

48%

37%

42


None of the interviewees follow an established method or fixed criteria for evaluation, but certainly they perform treatment evaluation through one or more of the following ways:

Do you consider the creation and application of secondary housings as conservation treatment?

This is an interpretation schematic model. Its intended use is theoretical/conceptual and not math-ematical.

Evaluation of treatment results

Creation and application of housings

Discussion with the client1. Inspection of the object/condition report2. Research about the object/consultation with colleagues, when needed3. Treatment proposal4. Agreement with the client5. Advanced documentation 6. Treatment7. Treatment report 8. Evaluation, oral or written.9.

Yes

No

Part of treatment or only if itinvolves direct attachementto the object

1 1 1

3

1

3

1

5

2 2

1

5

3 3

8

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Series1 1 1 1 3

Series2 1 3 1 5

Series3 2 2 1 5

Series4 3 3 2 8

Time involved Risk to the photograph Degree of alteration Intervention Degree

Major

Minor

Moderate

Example 3

Example 2

Example 4

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

50%

25%

25%

General methodology (or protocol) followed for treatment

Objectively (or quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative):

Material characterization: Did the material characteristics of the photograph re-main constant (when desired)? Measured in terms of size, shape, color, gloss, texture, thickness, hardness, and composition.

Efficacy: Were the proposed treatment steps followed as planned? Was the treat-ment finished in the expected time frame?

43

Analysis of Results

What changes over time do you perceive in the way treatments are approached and performed?

What changes over time do you perceive in the way treatments are approached and performed?

Do you perceive changes in the level of intervention?

The answers to this question address both general tendencies in the field and personal changes.

General transformation tendencies in the field:

Yes, towards:

However, a factor that directly influences the perception of what can be considered acceptable condition for a photograph is age. For an individual ‘born in the digital era’ and used to pristine surfaces and retouching before printing, ‘flaws’ have become less comprehensible. Similarly, natural aging of contemporary materials is not expected and thus not understandable (although it has been observed in different degrees/times, some which can be considered objectionable).

From the answers to this question, I can conclude that there is no agreement in the use of the word “patina” for photographs. The answers range from the complete acceptance and routine use of this term when describing photographic materials to the absolute rejection of its use and its ap-propriateness, regardless of the type of photographic material in question (and of the age of the respondents).

Personal transformations:

Transformation

Increased levels of documentationIncreased knowledge and understanding of the objects (in terms of materials, his-

tory, meaning, use)Greater appreciation for cultural contextStronger implementation of treatment evaluation (addressed previously)Decreased levels of intervention (see next question)Incorporation of new materials for treatmentDevelopment of new treatment techniquesIncorporation of treatment materials and techniques from other branches of con-

servation and allied disciplines (arts, craftsmanship, material science).

Increased acceptance and appreciation of the photograph as an objectGreater acceptance of signs of natural deterioration (aging) of objects.

Increased knowledge and skill levelsDevelopment of predetermined (habitual) treatment methodologies (which can be

beneficial or harmful when carrying out treatment procedures)Increased or decreased confidence levelsEstablishment of a solid clientele base.

58%18%

24%

Yes, decreased

No

In the field in general, notparticularly in the last decade

Subjectively (or relative to individual judgment)

Effectiveness: Does the treatment meet its goals? How, why?Appearance: Does the outcome look right? Why?Client satisfaction: Is the client satisfied? Does the treatment outcome meet the

expectations?Adherence to the code of ethics.

44


What is your observation of the work performed in other institutions and in private practice in relation to the work performed here? Do use and context of photographs define their treatment approach?

What is your opinion about daguerreotype cleaning?

Does market (value/trends) influence treatment decision-making and performance?

All the answers to this question were affirmative, but differed in the way the interviewees perceive the influence:

External interactions/influences

Specific treatment topics Daguerreotype cleaning

Institutional work can be considerably less treatment oriented, for various reasons: the institution’s mission, the condition of the collection, the use of the collection, the outsourcing of (private) conservation laboratories to perform treatment when needed

The established clientele base of private laboratories determines the type of photo-graphs treated and the treatment procedures that are carried out. Therefore, the levels of intervention are affected by these factors

Within an institution, the treatment approach for a given object can be influenced (and/or changed) by a deeper (or revealed) understanding of the object’s context(s) and meaning(s).

DryRemoval of loose particles with air. * Removal of local accretions with a fine brush/needle. *

WetWater wash (with or without ammonia, warm water).* Electrolytic cleaning (without external current). * Electro-cleaning (with current). *

Plasma cleaning.

It has an influence only to objects with high market valueIt defines what objects are treated in their practicesIt doesn’t influence treatment performance, but influences the level of documenta-

tionIt has a positive influence in the field of photograph conservation as a whole, set-

ting tendencies and priorities, raising standardsValue –not only monetary- influences the treatment approach to be followed,

among various possibilities.

The term “daguerreotype cleaning” normally refers to wet or “chemical” cleaning methods of plates. It is not only the first treatment performed to photographs but also one that has transformed im-mensely over time. It was initially performed by photographers, sellers/dealers and collectors, and later by curators and conservators –which doesn’t mean that it is no longer conducted by the first three.

Current cleaning methods include:

To some interviewees, the history of photograph conservation can be described –or evaluated-through daguerreotype cleaning, while to others, it reflects individuals’ professional attitude and practice habits. Whatever the case, it is a topic that produces mixed feelings across the conservation field.

Many of us are familiar with the frequently told 19th-century anecdote2 that describes the reac-tion of a widow in front of the freshly cleaned daguerreotype of her husband, which was “com-pletely covered with a film that there was nothing to be seen and I [the photographer] brought it up as good as it was originally.”3 And also with the later account which narrates the unfortunate and dramatic cleaning of the famous Dorothy Draper portrait, performed by John H. Gear in 1934 in which “for some reason that I am unable to suggest, a kind of milky bloom appeared.”4

These instances exemplify the results that have been and can be produced by daguerreotype cleaning –be it cyanide, thiourea, ammoniated water, or other. They also illustrate the origin of the current conflicting positions.

45

Analysis of Results

What is your opinion about chemical intensification of photographs?

Some opinions expressed by the interviewees include:

Chemical intensification

The case for the need to clean a daguerreotype plate can undoubtedly be made. Historically, many daguerreotypes have been cleaned In general, daguerreotype cleaning is not frequently warranted or performed in

the present The risk for the object involved during the treatment is too high and its effects are

not completely understood The effectiveness of the treatment is difficult to interpret Private individuals, whose desire is to see (or use) the daguerreotypes they own

and value, represent the greatest need for this treatment Upcoming results of research and characterization projects will provide informa-

tion for a deeper understanding of daguerreotypes, in all levels.

As with daguerreotypes, the individual case for the need to intensify a photograph can undoubtedly be made

Potentially, a faded image can misrepresent the values of a photograph as much as any other form of deterioration

“Chemical treatment” of photographs is a term that has been used to include treatments (chemical intensification, bleach and redevelopment, sodium borohydride, etc.) that aim to strengthen/recov-er image characteristics or reduce/remove alterations like silver mirroring, yellowing and stains. By convention, in photograph conservation chemicals treatments include those that, through a single or series of reactions, produce a photograph that is potentially different in chemical composition or in image particle morphology.5 However, in my opinion, “chemical treatment” is a general term that does not clearly define the group of treatments it encompasses since almost any treatment can, or does, fit into this category (in other specialties of conservation it is used as a general term as well).

During the interviews, this topic meant to address those treatments that aim to alter –strength-en, improve, recover- the image of photographs, as exemplified by the use of the term chemical intensification in the initial question. This goal was achieved in all conversations, though in some cases discussions about other treatments –such as silver mirroring removal or light bleaching- were also addressed.

Intensification of photographs is a historical restoration treatment inherently related to one of the major deterioration manifestation of photographs: fading. Therefore, it has largely transformed through conservation epochs (conservation as a social phenomenon and later as a professional field), and has been a complex –at times controversial- subject, practice and research topic.6

It is important to note that the term chemical intensification is used to refer, generically, to those treatments that aim to strengthen or recover photographic images, regardless of the specific chemi-cal reactions they might include.

The variety of opinions and remarks expressed by the interviewees include:

Wash Electro-cleaning

no73%

yes27%

no36%

yes64%

Percentages calculated from 11 answers

46


In what circumstances do you consider unmounting photographs can be justified?

What has been your experience with treatment of contemporary photographs?

Finally, the following oppositional opinions, were expressed:

Unmounting/remounting of photographs (including disassembly of albums)

Modern and contemporary photographs

Chemical intensification treatments belong to a historical stage of photograph conservation practice and research

Chemical intensification treatments have a place in photograph conservation, and might play a more important role in the future.

A more sophisticated understanding of the causes of deterioration of photographs has produced a decline in the practice and frequency of print unmounting

The individual case for the need to remove a photograph form its mount can un-doubtedly be made, for stabilization or aesthetical reasons

Unmounting and remounting constitute a major intervention, that involve high time, risk and stress to the materials and structure of the photograph treated

Unfortunately, albums were, and still are, dismembered for marketing purposes (a practice considered unacceptable and highly unethical within the conservation profes-sional field).

Contemporary materials are essentially untreatable; they are not meant to be treated

Contemporary philosophical approaches are needed to conserve and document these objects, including, perhaps, the recognition that there are fewer cases where these objects are treatable

The steady increase in the complexity levels of mounting systems, installation requirements, structure and format of contemporary photographic materials, has pro-duced new conservation concerns and to date, fewer treatment options

There is a perceived need for continuous research on the subject.

Chemical intensification treatments are technically difficult to predict, conduct, reproduce and evaluate

During these treatments, the risk exerted to the photograph is very high. Philosophically, these treatments raise issues of authorship or ‘authenticity’Historically, one of the reasons for the objection of the performance of these treat-

ments was the change of monetary value of the treated photographs The misrepresentation of photographs that are socially considered as art works has

produced complex reactions.

Finishing –mounting and framing included- has always being an essential part of creating, dis-playing and marketing photographs. Extensive historical and modern literature on the diverse mounting systems and materials is available.7

However removing a photograph from its mount is a practice that has clearly transformed dur-ing the past decades of photograph conservation. Perhaps once considered routine or required practice (mainly for stabilization purposes), now it is closer to being considered the exception. On the other hand, the temporary or permanent disassembly of albums to allow the individual display or sale of prints is a controversial practice, yet performed.

The interviewees’ recollections and opinions on this topic include:

Modern and contemporary photographic materials, the tendency for larger formats, and the use of new materials, like rigid supports, plastic laminates and face-mounting systems, have challenged current treatment practices. However, work and research has been performed on contemporary materials over the past decade.8

Some of the observations of the interviewees who deal with this type of materials, are:

47

Analysis of Results

Do you consider that treatment proficiency is central to the competences of a photograph conservator?

Treatment training

47%

53% Central for education,not necessarily forindividual professionalagendas

Yes

In terms of treatment, what are the major challenges that the field faces?

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”9

Confucius

Major future challenges

Monitor the effects of treatment over timeContinue scientific research for treatment of ‘traditional’ photographic processesPreserve and disseminate the current knowledge about treatment proceduresAddress the continued need to pursue new materials and techniques, and improve

current onesBuild stronger international connections and obtain fundraising for treatment re-

search.

Continue to improve the understanding and characterization of the effects and effectiveness of surface cleaning

Continue to improve the understanding of daguerreotype characterization, dete-rioration and conservation treatments

Address the topic of mold remediationFace and overcome the discontinuation of industrial gelatin-silver photographic

materials (paper and negatives) to use as test materials for treatment research and for training of future conservators

Define and develop options for treatment of contemporary (including chromoge-nic color and other chemical color processes) and digital materials.

General:

Specific:

Terminology: conservation, restoration, treatment, intervention…

Philosophical –epistemological and ethical- considerations

In September of 2008, ICOM-CC, the International Council of Museums, Committee for Con-servation, addressed the still present need for a clear and consistent terminology in conservation.10 Although I agree that we shouldn’t agonize in pursuing this activity, it is impossible to communi-cate effectively when using individualized definitions of terms.

The definitions and usage of the terms conservation, restoration and preservation (less so treat-ment) have been discussed at length over decades. However, it is necessary to understand and con-sider not only how the meanings of these terms have transformed over time, but also the reasons and justifications that have generated these changes.12

Using the term treatment for this research was not unintended. It is a word we use on a regular basis to refer to our work, and it avoids the endless debate arising from the different interpreta-tions of the terms conservation and restoration. It is an established term used in ‘treatment reports,’ ‘treatment proposals,’ and other documents that we create to communicate our work.

48


“The Storyteller (1986) by Jeff Wall has been in our museum since 1991. […] Subsequently, Jeff Wall confirmed the poor state of the cibachrome,

and with his help we were able to replace it. Yet it is interesting to note that a cibachrome is supposed to have a life span of between twenty-five and thirty years,

yet this one had started to fade after just ten years. […]”12

Jean-Christophe Ammann, director of the Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt

“‘Conservation theory’ is most often related to ‘conservation ethics’, although these notions are not synonyms. This is a convention which, even though it is very widespread, is still a

convention. […] It is communicatively very efficient, but the expression contemporary philosophy of conservation would not be inappropriate at all.”17

Salvador Muñoz Viñas

Patina, restoration and deterioration are all terms that describe an alteration of an object […] the criteria that defines them are both intention and value. Patina is the kind of alteration, which is unwanted and adds to the object’s value. Restoration also contributes to the object’s value, but it is a deliberate alteration. On the other hand, only those alterations of the object which actually reduce its value are usually consid-ered as ‘deterioration’ or ‘damage’.

When systematically discussing treatments, the intended meaning of the terms deterioration, dam-age and patina are highly relevant to documenting the intervention taken with an object, and yet they are used and interpreted in very different ways. Researching this, I found a set of extremely valuable definitions presented by Jonathan Ashley-Smith in 1995,13 in which he expresses that:14

By 2009, many authors have written about the contemporary philosophy of conservation, and elu-cidated in similar terms the ideas and results explained through my project. Contemporary authors are not aestheticists or architects, like previous creators of the classical theories of conservation, but primarily conservators, trained and active in the present. Current philosophical models, like those by Jonathan Ashley-Smith, Chris Caple and Salvador Muñoz Viñas, respond to a matured and more cosmopolitan viewpoint of the world and the profession of conservation.

Definition of terms and activities, justification for actions, theoretical precepts, guiding prin-ciples and ethical codes all form part of conservation philosophy. Photograph conservation, as a definite field within the profession, follows the general shared current philosophy.18 The application of this generalized philosophy is then adapted to the specific intrinsic problems that photographs present and represent –particularities which are exemplified and described at length through the interviews.

However, these complex philosophical discernments relative to our profession, particularly eth-ical ones, cannot be reached on an individual level: ethics is necessarily defined by a given society, time and place.19

Stating that conservation/restoration treatments produce a deliberate alteration of the objects is a simple, yet fundamental philosophical premise that helps both to define and communicate the meaning of these terms. On the other hand, this simple definition of patina, away from the Renais-sance tradition,15 is useful to help understand a “term that is both ambiguous and complex”16 yet significantly used in art and conservation vocabulary, inclusive of photograph conservation.

However, the answers to the question How do you define treatment? show that there is not a con-sensus, and that the definition of ‘treatment’ varies fundamentally in scope. For some interviewees, treatment refers only to the deliberate direct intervention of an object, which produces an altera-tion, and for others, it includes any action that aims to prolong an object existence.

Alteration: deterioration, damage, patina

Conservation philosophy and ethics

49

Analysis of Results

‘Adaptive ethics’ acknowledge that a conservation process might be performed for very different reasons and under very different circumstances, and that subjective fac-tors can be more relevant, as “they lie at the core of the activity”. These factors are varied, and involve at least two crucial aspects: a) The meanings or (‘functions’ or ‘values’) the object has for the affected people; b) The decision-maker’s willingness to allocate resources to the conservation process. These factors are not the only variables that can have an influence on a conservation work, but they are the most important ones, as they are both ever-present and fundamental in ethical and technical decision-making.22

Codes of ethics “are necessary in order to provide a basis for making choices,” and thus they contribute to the conceptual basis of the profession.20 However, the problem with many of these guiding ethical ideas is the extent to which they can realistically be applied in any given situa-tion. During the last fifty years, guidelines for practice changed as the discipline of conservation matured and professionals realized that some ideas (such as ‘true’ or absolute reversibility) are not achievable. A new generation of ethical ideas such as retratability, minimum needed intervention, and the research and use of stable materials has developed.21

As Muñoz Viñas states:

The third definition includes the second, but not vice versa.1. Cited in M. Susan Barger and William B. White. 2. The Daguerreotype: nineteenth-century technology and mod-

ern science. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1991, 252; and in Grant Romer, “Some Notes on the Past, Present and Future of Photographic Preservation,” Image, vol. 27, no 4, 22.

Abraham Bogardus. “Trials and Tribulations of a Photographer.” 3. British Journal of Photography 36, 1889, 184.

Cited in Romer. “Some Notes on the Past.” 22.4. Doug Nishimura, personal communication, July 27, 2009.5. Chronologically, some references in the topic include:6.

Louis Alphonse Davanne and Jules Girard. “On the Revivification of Faded Positives.” * Journal of the Photographic Society 2, no. 32, 21 July 1855, 199-200.

George Shadbolt. “Restoration of Fading Proofs.” * Photographic Journal 6, no. 85, 1 January 1859, 11.Klaus B. Hendriks and Lincoln Ross. “The Restoration of Discolored Black-and-white Photographic *

Images in Chemical Solutions.” Preprints of papers presented at the sixteenth annual meeting New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1-5, 1988, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 99- 117.

Valerie Baas, J. J. Bischoff and L. Stodulski. “Ongoing Investigation into Chemical Image Enhancement * of Faded Vintage Printing-out Photographic Prints.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 5, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation, Washington, 1993, 95-116.

Joe Iraci and Paul Begin. “Theory Guides, Experiment Decides: Working with Klaus.” In * Klaus B. Hen-driks, A life Remembered, ed. Mogens S. Koch, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 2002, 25-30.

Douglas Nishimura. “Report on the Chemical Treatment of Photographic Materials Workshop: a * Chemist’s Perspective.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 9, Compiled by Sarah S. Wagner, Ameri-can Institute for Conservation, Washington, 2001, 1-43.

Some conservation references in the topic include:7. Gregory Hill. “The Conservation of a Photographic Album at the National Archives of Canada.” * Journal

of the American Institute for Conservation, vol. 30, no. 1, Spring 1991, 75-88.Debbie Hess Norris. “The Unmounting of Historic Photographic Prints: Factors to consider.” Type-*

script, unpublished, 1993, 4 pp.José Orraca. “Unmounting is easy… not.” Typescript, unpublished, 1993, 3 pp.* Stephanie Watkins. “Origins and Development of Dry Mounting.” * The Book and Paper Group Annual,

vol. 12, 1993, 66-73.Sarah S. Wagner. “Conservation Tip: A modified Dacron lining Technique for Photographs.” * Topics

in Photographic Preservation, vol. 4, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation,

50


Washington D.C., 1991, 31-33.Sarah Wagner and Barbara Lemmen. “The Use of Solvent- and Heat-Activated, Pressure-sensitive, and *

Remoistenable Systems in the Mounting of Photographic Materials.” Typed notes for the Mellon Work-shop in Photograph Conservation: Unmounting and mounting Photographs, unpublished, March 13-17, 2000, 8 pp.

Some conservation references in the topic include:8. Sylvie Pénichon and Martin Jürgens. “Issues in the Conservation of Contemporary Photographs: the *

Case of Diasec or Face-mounting,” AIC News, vol. 27, no. 2, 2002, 1, 3-4, 7-8. Also available at <http://www.martinjuergens.net/Assets/download/AIC_News_March_2002.pdf>.

Lee Ann Daffner and Christopher McGlinchey. “The Big Picture: Conservation Research Program for * Contemporary Color Photographs.” Modern Art, New Museums, Contributions to the Bilbao Congress, 13-17 September 2004, Edited by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, London, 2004, 109-113.

Erin Murphy. “Basic Care of Face-Mounted Photographs at the Museum of Modern Art.” * Topics in Pho-tographic Preservation, vol. 12, Compiled by Brenda Bernier, American Institute for Conservation, Wash-ington, D.C., 2007, 160-174.

Peter Mustardo. “Approaches to Treating Contemporary Photographs.” * Topics in Photographic Preserva-tion, vol. 12, Compiled by Brenda Bernier, American Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C., 2007, 126-130.

Nora Kennedy and Peter Mustardo. “Changing perspectives on color photography.” In * Diversity in Heri-tage Conservation: Tradition, Innovation and Participation, 15th Triennial Conference, 22-26 September 2008 New Delhi, vol. II, ICOM-CC, 2008, 689-694.

William Wei. “International Research on the Conservation and Restoration of Face-Mounted Photo-* graphs.” In Diversity in Heritage Conservation: Tradition, Innovation and Participation, 15th Triennial Con-ference, 22-26 September 2008 New Delhi, vol. II, ICOM-CC, 2008, 702-708.

The Analects of Confucius9. , Book 13, Verse 3, translated by James R. Ware, 1980, <http://www.analects-ink.com/mission/Confucius_Rectification.html> (accessed June 1, 2009).

“Terminology to characterize the conservation of tangible cultural heritage.” Submitted to the ICOM-CC 10. membership on the XVth Triennial Conference, New Delhi, 22-26 September 2008, <http://www.ecco-eu.org/documents/ecco-documentation/index.php> (accessed April 8, 2009).

Understood in broad terms, “epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination 11. of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry”. Matthias Steup. “Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/> (accessed June 1, 2009).

Jean-Christophe Ammann. “On the Ageing of Works of Art.” In 12. Modern Art: Who Cares?, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art/ Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam, 1999, 282-283.

Jonathan Ashley-Smith. “Definitions of Damage.” Unpublished talk given in the session “When conserva-13. tor and collections meet” at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Art Historians, London, April 7-8, 1995, <http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/ashley-smith/damage.html> (accessed July 13, 2009).

Synthesized by Salvador Muñoz Viñas in 14. Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Elsevier Butterworth-Hei-nemann, Oxford, 2005, 101-104.

“The origin of the Italian word patina is controversial. It first appears in a text printed in 1681in the Va-15. cabolario toscano dell’Arte del Disegno by Filippo Balduccini, mentioned as a term used to indicate the dark tone that appears on paintings as an effect of time and that sometimes embellishes them.” Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro. “The idea of Patina. Introduction to Part VII.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1996, 366.

Ibid. 16. Muñoz Viñas. “Contemporary Theory.” xii.17. A significant document that addressed photograph conservation philosophy specifically is: José Orraca. 18.

“Developing treatment criteria in the conservation of Photographs.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 4, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 1991,151-155.

“Ethics.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 19. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194023/ethics> (accessed April 3, 2009).

The first code of ethics for a group of conservators appeared in 1963 with the AIC ‘Standards of practice and 20. professional relationships for conservators’, published in Studies in Conservation in 1964. Many codes have been produced and revised afterwards.

Chris Caple. 21. Conservation skills: judgment, method, and decision making. Routledge, New York, 2000, 59-69.

Muñoz Viñas. “Contemporary Theory.” 202-203. 22.

51

I consider that this project to be successful on many levels.

Foremost, it gave me the opportunity to talk with fifteen senior photograph conservators, about a topic that is close to my heart. Additionally it gave me the chance to work closely with conserva-tors whom I knew already, and also the opportunity to meet others, build a connection with them, and extend my network within the photograph conservation community.

The interviews, the blog and the data analysis produced are useful tools for teaching, explain-ing and disseminating the current status of treatment practices in photograph conservation. These I believe to be needed tools and useful for all photograph conservators: for those just entering the field, those in current practice, and eventually for conservators of future generations to understand the evolution of photograph conservation practice and philosophy.

Interviewing is a challenging skill that one has to develop and improve through practice. Each time I conduct an interview I have a different feeling, a different energy, and a different result. Those who have conducted formal interviews can relate to this statement, which explains why the same ques-tions posed to different people in different contexts can vary widely in tone and sentiment, as well as response. For those who have not, it may be difficult to understand how personal the interview experience is.

The interviews I conducted for this project were not the first I had done and, I suspect, they will not be the last. I sincerely believe that the formal questioning of an individual or a group of people, in an ordered fashion, delivers invaluable information that otherwise might be irreparably lost.

I feel that many aspects were successful in this process, and the results confirm it. Many others didn’t go as planned –as is so often the case- but in the end, the challenge to find satisfactory solu-tions has added to my learning experience and professional growth.

The success of an interview relies on the involvement of both interviewee and interviewer and their ability to establish not only a conversation but real communication. Innumerable other factors come into play: the timing, the venue, the surroundings (light and noise levels), etc. Many factors are beyond control, so there can never be a perfect setting. In some of my interviews, I had to face this reality, and on each occasion I decided to take my opportunity and conduct the interview, as compromised as the conditions were.

I recognize that the collaboration and interest of all the interviewees made this project possible.

Conclusions

Conclusions

About the interviewing process

52


On one hand, the challenges of dissemination and communication are two obstacles to professional development in all fields, and on the other, the rapid and continuous development of web tools in the last decade has evolved exponentially in ways that provide new avenues to dynamically address those obstacles. To overcome the former and take advantage of the latter, I proposed and created the blog as part of this project.

The blog has proven to be useful, and hopefully will continue to be so. Visits to the blog have been steady and comments from colleagues positive. Important considerations are the need to maintain the blog over time and the potential of technical failures (which are beyond my control). These issues are partially attenuated with the copy sets of the interviews (in DVD format) made available to schools and the complete documentation of the whole process. However, ‘digital pres-ervation’ is a complex, now universal, problem that needs to be considered.

We as conservators are not philosophers, but we inevitably and continuously contribute to, con-struct and follow a philosophy of conservation. Through this research, I expressed the relevance of understanding and explaining our philosophical considerations.

I reiterate my invitation to the readers of this paper –as photograph conservators, specialists in allied fields, or stakeholders and users of photographs- to reflect upon the changing values and meanings of cultural objects, and the effect that these have in conservation practices, treatment in particular. More specifically, I invite conservators to consider that our work is not determined –in Muñoz Viñas words- “by truth or science, but rather, by the uses, values and meanings that objects have for people.”1

Finally, I encourage conservators to completely document their work, fully record their thought processes for decision-making, and make these records as accessible as possible. Conservators must continually strive to accomplish these most important activities so that in the future people will understand the changing conservation mindset, and maintain a coherent historical record of con-servation interventions, and their philosophical basis.

One of the most valuable results of this project is the analysis of the collected data, which provides an easily accessible synthesis of information. I hope that this analysis will serve as reference for future interpretations and research on the subject.

About the blog

About the philosophy of conservation

About the Analysis of Data

Muñoz Viñas. “Contemporary Theory.” 202-203. 1.

53

Bibliography

Books

Bibliography

ASHLEY-SMITH, Jonathan. Risk Assessment for Object Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford-Boston, 1999, 358 pp.

APPELBAUM, Barbara. Conservation Treatment Methodology. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Great Britain, 2007, 437 pp.

AVRAMI, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre. Values and Heritage Conservation. Re-search Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2000, 96 pp. <http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/valuesrpt.pdf>

BARGER, M. Susan, and William B. White. The Daguerreotype: nineteenth-century technology and modern science. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1991, 252 pp.

BRÜCKLE, Irene, and F. Christopher Tahk, editors. North American Graduate Programs in the Conservation of Cultural Property. Association of North American Graduate Programs in the Con-servation of Cultural Property, Buffalo, 2000, 170 pp.

CAPLE, Chris. Conservation skills: judgment, method, and decision making. Routledge, New York, 2000, 232 pp.

CLAVIR, Miriam. Preserving what it is valued. Museums, conservation and first nations. UBCPress, Vancouver, 2002, 295 pp.

COURAGE, Catherine, and Kathy Baxter. Understanding your users. A practical guide to user re-quirements: Methods, Tools and Technique. Morgan Kaufmann Elsevier, San Francisco, 2005, 781 pp.

FINK, Arlene. How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, 1995, 105 pp.

HENDRIKS, Klaus. Fundamentals of Photographic Conservation, A Study Guide. National Archives of Canada, Lugus Publication, Toronto, 1991, 560 pp.

KOCH S., Mogens, editor. Klaus B. Hendriks, A life Remembered. The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 2002, 158 pp.

MUÑOZ Viñas, Salvador. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2005, 239 pp.

54


Articles

“AIC Definitions of Conservation Terminology.” The Western Association for Art Conservation News-letter, Volume 18, Number 2, May 1996, <http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn18/wn18-2/wn18-202.html> Also available at <http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=620>

AMMANN, Jean-Christophe. “On the Ageing of Works of Art.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art/ Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam, 1999, 282-283, <http://www.incca.org/theory-and-ethics/267-ammannarticle1999>

ASHLEY-SMITH, Jonathan. “Definitions of Damage.” Unpublished talk given in the session “When conservator and collections meet” at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Art His-torians, London, April 7-8, 1995, <http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/ashley-smith/damage.html>

AVRAMI, Erica, Kathleen Dardes, Marta de la Torre, Samuel Y. Harris, Michael Henry, and Wendy Claire Jessup, contributors. “The Conservation Assessment: A Proposed Model for Evalu-ating Museum Environmental Management Needs.” The Getty Conservation Institute, Los An-geles, 1999, 39 pp. <http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessmodeleng.pdf>

BAAS, Valerie, J. J. Bischoff and L. Stodulski. “The Effects of Sodium Borohydride Solutions on Silver-Based Photographic Materials: An Update.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 4, Com-piled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 1991, 156-160.

. “Ongoing Investigation into Chemical Image Enhancement of Faded Vintage Printing-out Photographic Prints.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 5, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 1993, 95-116.

BLACKMAN, Christabel. “Salvador Muñoz Viñas, New Horizons for Conservation Thinking.” e_conservation, the online magazine, no. 6, September 2008, 20-27, <http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/627>

BOGARDUS, Abraham. “Trials and Tribulations of a Photographer.” British Journal of Photogra-phy 36, 1889, 184.

CARRIER, David. “Restoration as Interpretation.” In Altered States: Conservation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Works of Art, Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts, 1994, 19-27.

“Code of Ethics.” International Council of Archives, 1996, <http://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/Ethics-EN.pdf>

“Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice.” The Canadian Association for Conservation of Cul-tural Property (CAC) and The Canadian Association of Professional Conservators (CAPC), Ot-tawa, 2000, 20 pp. <http://www.cac-accr.ca/pdf/ecode.pdf>

REEDY, Terry J., and Chandra L. Reedy. Statistical Analysis in Art Conservation Research. The Getty Conservation Institute, California, 1988, 106 pp. <http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publica-tions/pdf_publications/statistics.pdf>

. Principles of Experimental Design for Art Conservation Research. GCI Scientific Program Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1992, 123 pp. <http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/principles_experiment.pdf>

STANLEY-PRICE, Nicholas, M. Kirby Talley Jr., and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, editors. His-torical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1996, 500 pp.

The Imperfect Image: Photographs their Past, Present and Future. The Center for Photographic Con-servation, London, 1992, 379 pp.

55

Bibliography

“Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.” Revised August 1994, Dan Kushel, Member, Ethics and Standards Commit-tee, <http://www.conservation-us.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=858&nodeID=1>

“Código de ética y normas prácticas para la profesión de restauración del patrimonio cultural de México.” Coordinación Nacional de Restauración del Patrimonio Cultural (CNRPC), México, CNRPC-INAH-CONACULTA, 1998, 26 pp.

“Código de Ética,” Associacao Catarinense de Conservadores e Restauradores de Bens Culturais, 2006, <http://www.accr.org.br/noticia_full.php?idnot=16>

DAFFNER, Lee Ann, and Christopher McGlinchey. “The Big Picture: Conservation Research Program for Contemporary Color Photographs.” Modern Art, New Museums, Contributions to the Bilbao Congress, 13-17 September 2004, Edited by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, London, 2004, 109-113.

DAVANNE, Louis Alphonse, and Jules Girard. “On the Revivification of Faded Positives.” Jour-nal of the Photographic Society 2, no. 32, 21 July 1855, 199-200.

“Defining the Conservator: Essential Competencies.” American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, Washington D.C., 2003, 19 pp. <http://www.conservation-us.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/definingcon.pdf>

“E.C.C.O. Professional Guidelines,” European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ Organi-sations, 2002, <http://www.ecco-eu.org/about-e.c.c.o./professional-guidelines.html>, also available at <http://www.icon.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=121&Itemid>

HERNÁNDEZ, Claudio, Pilar Hernández, and Alejandra Mendoza. “Conservadores de Fo-tografía, Hacia un Código de Ética.” Unpublished, talk given at the XIV Coloquio del Seminario de Estudio y Conservación del Patrimonio, La fotografía: imagen y materia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Oaxaca, Mexico, May 30th, 2006.

HENDRIKS, Klaus B., and Lincoln Ross. “The Restoration of Discolored Black-and-white Pho-tographic Images in Chemical Solutions.” Preprints of papers presented at the sixteenth annual meeting New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1-5, 1988, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 99-117.

HENDRIKS, Klaus B. “The Evaluation of Conservation Treatments.” Research Techniques in Pho-tographic Conservation, Proceedings of the Conference in Copenhagen 14-19 May 1995, The Royal Dan-ish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 1996, 47-50.

HILL, Gregory. “The Conservation of a Photographic Album at the National Archives of Cana-da,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, vol. 30, no. 1, Spring 1991, pp. 75-88.

“ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums 2006.” International Council of Museums, <http://icom.mu-seum/ethics.html> IRACI, Joe, and Paul Begin. “Theory Guides, Experiment Decides: Working with Klaus.” In Klaus B. Hendriks, A life Remembered, ed. Mogens S. Koch, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 2002, 25-30.

KENNEDY, Nora. “The coming age of Photograph Conservation.” ICOM Committee for Conser-vation 11th Triennial Meeting, Edinburgh, 1-6 September 1996, 101-107.

. “Practical Application of Klaus B. Hendriks’ Research.” In Klaus B. Hendriks, A life Remembered, ed. Mogens S. Koch, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 2002, 31-36.

KENNEDY, Nora, and Peter Mustardo. “Contemporary Photography from a Conservation Per-spective.” In The Imperfect Image: Photographs their Past, Present and Future, The Center for Photo-graphic Conservation, London, 1992, 367-375.

56


. “Changing perspectives on color photography.” In Diversity in Heritage Conser-vation: Tradition, Innovation and Participation, 15th Triennial Conference, 22-26 September 2008 New Delhi, vol. II, ICOM-CC, 2008, 689-694.

KOCH S., Mogens, et al. “Conservation problems of contemporary photography.” In Modern Art: Who cares?, The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam, 1999, 349-355.

KUNIAVSKY, Mike. “Universal Tools: Recruiting and Interviewing.” In Observing the user ex-perience, A practitioner’s guide to user research. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 2003, 83-127.

MAVER, Ian. “Some Research into Methods of Mounting, Lining or Repairing Albumen Prints.” In The Imperfect Image: Photographs their Past, Present and Future, The Center for Photographic Conservation, London, 1992, 311-315.

MAYNES, Pau, and Grant B. Romer. “A Research into the History of Photograph Conservation: George Eastman’s Legacy.” Past Practice, Future Prospects, British Museum Occasional Papers 145, September 2001, 151-158.

. “Documenting Conservation through Oral History: A Case Study.” ICOM-Conservation Committee Meeting, Brazil, 2002.

MELUCCO Vaccaro, Alessandra. “The idea of Patina. Introduction to Part VII.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 1996, 366-371.

MCQUAID, James, David Tait, and Steven Lewis. “Oral History Material on Photography.” Im-age, vol. 18, no. 2, 1975, 1-12.

MOOR, Ian L., and Angela H. Moor. “The Effects of Aqueous Treatments on Photographs.” In The Imperfect Image: Photographs their Past, Present and Future, The Center for Photographic Con-servation, London, 1992, 236-244.

MURPHY, Erin. “Basic Care of Face-Mounted Photographs at the Museum of Modern Art.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 12, Compiled by Brenda Bernier, American Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C., 2007, 160-174.

MUSTARDO, Peter. “Approaches to Treating Contemporary Photographs.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 12, Compiled by Brenda Bernier, American Institute for Conservation, Washing-ton, D.C., 2007, 126-130.

NISHIMURA, Douglas. “Report on the Chemical Treatment of Photographic Materials Work-shop: a Chemist’s Perspective.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 9, Compiled by Sarah S. Wagner, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 2001, 1-43.

NORRIS, Debbie Hess. “The Conservation Treatment of Deteriorated Photographic Print Ma-terials.” In The Imperfect Image: Photographs their Past, Present and Future, The Center for Photo-graphic Conservation, London, 1992, 361-366.

. “The Unmounting of Historic Photographic Prints: Factors to consider.” Type-script, unpublished, 1993, 4 pp.

. “Current Research Needs in the Conservation Treatment of Deteriorated Pho-tographic Print Materials.” Research Techniques in Photographic Conservation, Proceedings of the Con-ference in Copenhagen 14-19 May 1995, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 1996, 101-105.

. “Contributions of Klaus B. Hendriks to the Field of Conservation.” In Klaus B. Hendriks, A life Remembered, ed. Mogens S. Koch, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark, 2002, 19-21.

57

Bibliography

O’KEEFE, Georgia. “Rules for use of the Alfred Stieglitz Photographs and Photogravures.” Type-script, unpublished, 1951, 1 p.

ORRACA, José. “The Conservation of Photographic Materials.” AIC Annual Meeting l973, Kansas City, Missouri, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 1973, 32-38.

. “Philosophy of Conservation.” Society of American Archivists, Toronto Canada, October 1, 1974, 6 pp.

. “Developing treatment criteria in the conservation of Photographs.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 4, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conserva-tion, Washington D.C., 1991, 151-155. Also available in the periodical OJO, Spring 1991. . “Unmounting is easy… not.” Typescript, unpublished, 1993, 3 pp.

PÉNICHON Sylvie, and Martin Jürgens. “Two Finishing Techniques for Contemporary Pho-tographs.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 9, Compiled by Sarah S. Wagner, American Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C., 2001, 85-96. Also available at <http://www.martin-juergens.net/Assets/download/Penichon_Juergens_Topics_9.pdf>

. “Issues in the Conservation of Contemporary Photographs: the Case of Diasec or Face-mounting.” AIC News, vol. 27, no. 2, 2002, 1, 3-4, 7-8. Also available at <http://www.mar-tinjuergens.net/Assets/download/AIC_News_March_2002.pdf>

. “Plastic Lamination and Face Mounting of Contemporary Photographs.” In Coatings on photographs: materials, techniques, and conservation. Edited by Constance McCabe, Pho-tographic Materials Group of the American Institute for Conservation, Washington, D.C., 2005, 218-235.

POLLMEIER, Klaus. “Photograph Restoration: a Question of responsibility.” In FIAF-Sympo-sium Restoration Works of Art as a Common Theme between Film Archives and other Cultural Institu-tions. Ethical problems of Restoration of Different Art Forms, Prague, April 26, 1998, 1-6.

“Principles and Standards of the Oral History Association.” Oral History Evaluation Guidelines, Oral History Association, Pamphlet Number 3, Adopted 1989, Revised Sept. 2000, <http://www.oralhistory.org/do-oral-history/oral-history-evaluation-guidelines/>

ROMER, Grant. “Some Notes on the Past, Present and Future of Photographic Preservation.” Image, vol. 27, no 4, December 1984, 16-23.

SCHAAF Larry J. “Introduction.” In Sun Pictures, Catalogue Three, The Harold White Collection of Works by William Henry Fox Talbot, Hans P. Kraus Jr. Inc., New York, 1987, 5-24.

SHADBOLT, George. “Restoration of Fading Proofs.” Photographic Journal 6, no. 85, 1 January 1859, 11.

STRETCH, Bonnie Barrett. “The State of the Art: Photo Intensification.” American Photographer, vol. XV, no. 1, July 1985, 22-24.

STONER, Joyce Hill. “Documenting Ourselves: The History of Twentieth-Century Conserva-tion.” IIC Bulletin 2, April 1998, 1-4.

SWAN, Alice. “Conservation Treatments for Photographs: A Review of Some of the Problems, Literature and Practices.” Image, vol. 21, no. 2, June 1978, 24-31.

. “The Preservation of Daguerreotypes.” AIC Preprints of papers presented at the ninth annual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 27-31 May 1981, American Institute for Conserva-tion, Washington, 1981, 164-172.

“Terminology to characterize the conservation of tangible cultural heritage.” Resolution to be sub-mitted to the ICOM-CC membership on the occasion of the XVth Triennial Conference, New Delhi, 22-26 September 2008, <http://www.ecco-eu.org/documents/ecco-documentation/index.php>

58


The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3, translated by James R. Ware, 1980, <http://www.analects-ink.com/mission/Confucius_Rectification.html>

“The Conservator-Restorer: a Definition of the Profession.” ICOM Code of Ethics Copenhagen 1984. ICOM Committee for Conservation, Copenhagen, September 1984, <http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=191>

“Tipos de Entrevista.” Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Departamento de Orientación e Infor-mación al Empleo, Madrid, 2009.

VAN DE VALL, Renée. “Painful Decisions: Philosophical Considerations on a Decision-making Model.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art/ Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam, 1999, 196-200.

VAN DE WETERING, Ernst. “Conservation-Restoration Ethics and the Problem of Modern Art.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art/ Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Amsterdam, 1999, 247-249.

“Victoria & Albert Museum Conservation Department Ethics Checklist.” 2nd Edition, Conserva-tion Department, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, December 2004 (1st edition by Jonathan Ashley-Smith, 1994) <http://www.vam.ac.uk/files/file_upload/27931_file.pdf>

WAGNER, Sarah S. “Conservation Tip: A modified Dacron lining Technique for Photographs.” Topics in Photographic Preservation, vol. 4, Compiled by Robin E. Siegel, American Institute for Conservation, Washington D.C., 1991, 31-33.

WAGNER, Sarah, and Barbara Lemmen. “The Use of Solvent- and Heat-Activated, Pressure-sensitive, and Remoistenable Systems in the Mounting of Photographic Materials.” Typed notes for the Mellon Workshop in Photograph Conservation: Unmounting and mounting Photographs, unpublished, March 13-17, 2000, 8 pp.

WATKINS, Stephanie. “Origins and Development of Dry Mounting.” The Book and Paper Group Annual, vol. 12, 1993, 66-73.

WEI, William. “International Research on the Conservation and Restoration of Face-Mounted Photographs.” In Diversity in Heritage Conservation: Tradition, Innovation and Participation, 15th Triennial Conference, 22-26 September 2008 New Delhi, vol. II, ICOM-CC, 2008, 702-708.

WHITE, Minor. “Care and Preservation of the Old Photographs and Negatives.” Image, vol. 4, no. 8, November 1955, 59-60.

Websites and web articles

Ask Yahoo, <http://ask.yahoo.com>

Blogger, Google, <http://www.blogger.com>

“Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.” Creative Commons, <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/>

“Documents on Conservation-Restoration.” European Network for Conservation-Restoration Educa-tion (ENCORE), <http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=17&tabid=284>

“Ethics.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194023/ethics>

“Google Analytics.” Google, 2009, <http://www.google.com/analytics/>

“H.264: Stunning clarity from 3G to HD.” Apple Inc., <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technolo-gies/h264/>

Internet Content Syndication Council, <http://internetsyndication.org/about/index.html>

59

Bibliography

KIRKPATRICK, Marshall. “Vimeo Offering HD Video Option.” Red Write Web, October 16, 2007, <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/vimeo_hd.php>

“MPEG-4: The container for digital media.” Apple Inc., <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technolo-gies/mpeg4/>

MOYER, Judith. “Step-by-Step Guide to Oral History.” Do History Website, created by Film Study Center, Harvard University and hosted by Center for History and New Media, George Mason Uni-versity, 1993, Revised 1999, <http://dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/oralHistory.htmlWHATIS>

STEUP, Matthias. “Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/>

STREIGHT, Steven. “18 Characteristics of Good Blog Content.” April 30, 2005, <http://blogcor-evalues.blogspot.com/2005/04/18-characteristics-of-good-blog.html>

TROCHIM, William M.K. “Interviews.” Research Methods Knowledge Base Website, 2006, <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intrview.php>

The International Oral History Association, <http://iohanet.org/>

The Oral History Association, <http://www.oralhistory.org/>

Theory and Ethics, articles. International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art, Nether-lands Institute for Cultural Heritage, <http://www.incca.org/theory-and-ethics>

“Vimeo guidelines.” Vimeo, <http://vimeo.com/guidelines>

“What is CC?” Creative Commons, <http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc>

Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org>

Word Reference Online Language Dictionaries, <http://www.wordreference.com>

“13 Characteristics of Outstanding Blog Design.” Webdesigner Depot, <http://www.webdesignerd-epot.com/2008/12/13-characteristics-of-outstanding-blog-design/>

Appendices

Appendices

i

Release Form

Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation

I, the undersigned, grant the Richard and Ronay Menschel Library of the George Eastman House, permission to videotape my interview on the subject of Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation, to contribute to the research with the same title, performed by Alejandra Mendoza, Andrew W. Mellon Fellow of the Advanced Residency Program in Photograph Conservation. The tapes, and their transcript, will be housed in the Library and made available for research and educational purposes.

Name of the interviewee: _______________________________________

Signature of the interviewee: _______________________________________

Subject of recording: Treatment Practices in Photograph Conservation

Date of interview: _______________________________________

Location of the interview: _______________________________________

Name of interviewer: Alejandra Mendoza

I further grant permission to share a copy of these tapes and transcript with those academic institutions that impart Photograph Conservation Studies.

Yes _______ No _______

I also grant permission to include the content of this interview in the blog “Conservation Treatment of Photographs”, http://photograph-conservation.blogspot.com/, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Yes _______ No _______

Note: By request of the interviewee, any portion of the recording may be closed for a specific time period.