Community: bloggers@brooklynmuseum

To those of you who are regular readers to this blog, you may remember my colleague, Jakki Godfrey’s post from May 27 detailing the deinstallation of the dragon and zinc lion to accommodate roof work.  Over the summer, both objects were cleaned by objects conservation staff.

Unfortunately for the objects conservators, not to mention the zinc lion, pigeons found the sculpture to be a very comfortable apartment in a very desirable location.  The amount of bird guano inside the sculpture was both astounding and disgusting.  Guano is both acidic and rich in nitrates, which can be corrosive to the metal of the sculpture and needed to be removed from the interior.  This only proves that the job of an art conservator is not always glamorous.

This week, both sculptures were rigged back onto the roof now that the needed roof repairs had been completed.  Mariano Brothers a specialized rigging firm, returned to reinstall the sculptures.  But what were we to do about the pigeons?

To this end, we contacted Birdmaster, a firm that specializes in installing protective netting and screening that prevents birds from setting up house on buildings and sculpture.  After the riggers installed the sculptures, not taking any chances with those pigeons, we wrapped the lion in plastic, a la Christo, to await the arrival of the crew from Birdmaster.

Pigeons need a 3″ hole in order to set up a nest and two flew immediately over to sit on the head as soon as we removed the plastic, but William Barretto and Brian Dwyer expertly cut and secured with stainless steel wire, resin coated stainless steel mesh and stainless steel spikes to block the access. The birds will be disappointed at the loss of their home, but it’s a happy day for the lion.

Those of you who are 1stfans got an introduction to the animal mummy research project being done at the Museum when we held an informal presentation about the project to look at some x-radiographs and see some animal mummies up close and personal.

In the months that have followed this presentation, the conservation lab has continued to examine and x-ray the collection which consists of about 60 animals in all.  We have enlisted the help of a radiologist at The Animal Medical Center Dr. Anthony Fischetti, DVM, MS.  Recently Anthony and a colleague came to the museum specifically to look at the x-radiographs of our cat mummies.

The wrappings and coffins, when present, represent a huge range of styles and levels of complexity.  The collection consists of a young cat wrapped with simple pieces of linen to larger cats with very complex patterning of dyed linens cut into fine strips.  The coffins themselves can be simple stone boxes with polychrome designs, to wooden forms in the shape of seated cats with sometimes elaborate polychrome and gilt decoration.

In examining the radiographs, the veterinarians were able to confirm that the animals in the x-rays were in fact cats, and were able to give us information regarding possible age.  Depending on the size and shape of the skull and teeth, they were sometimes able to suggest whether the mummified cat was more likely a species of domesticated cat (Felis silvestris) or a wild species (Felis chaus).

As more institutions begin to study their collections of ancient animal mummies, there seems to only be more questions as to what these differences in mummification styles and animal species might actually mean.  The Department of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis is heading a feline genome project.

The project is looking into what ancient DNA can tell us about current domestic cat populations.  Due to the condition of two of Brooklyn’s cat mummies, long bones were able to be sent to Dr. Leslie Lyons for inclusion in the genome project.

Through the generosity of Beth Rudin DeWoody, the Museum recently acquired a multiple component installation piece made by the artist Vadis Turner, which will be included as part of the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art. The installation titled Reception addresses women’s worth as represented in dowries provided at the time of marriage. The sculpture consists of a twin bed piled high with objects in this woman’s dowry, including dishes, candelabra, jewelry, textiles, and stacks of bibles. All of this is surrounded by fabric wedding cakes, chocolate coins, ribbons, fabric flowers, garter belts, paper rose petals made from tampon boxes and plastic brides and grooms mounted on top of fabric cupcakes.

Due to the numerous components—61 fabric flowers alone—and complexity of how the components interrelate, the artist came in to assist with the initial installation of this object. The object is on view in a specially selected room within 21: Selections of Contemporary Art from the Brooklyn Museum on the 4th floor.

The install took a day and a half, but the cataloging and accession numbering of all the components took several weeks. When objects are acquired by the Museum for the permanent collection, a baseline condition report and cataloging of the parts are made. This follows the current standard of best practices, establishing a record which will aid the museum in preservation and proper interpretation of the art work in years to come. Besides the bed, the viewer will note two other major elements in the room; a sex swing and a working chandelier made from tampons. The effect is one of a riotous explosion which seems a little off kilter. In speaking with the artist as she set up the installation, she wants the whole feeling of the piece to be decadent but a little tired; kind of like a melting wedding cake.

What is the Brooklyn Museum’s important Arshile Gorky lithograph doing outdoors?  And why is it immersed in water?  I received these questions many times from museum visitors and employees who strolled by my light-bleaching set-up outside the building’s staff entrance on Monday of this week.

It may look like fun-in-the-sun, or an excuse just to work outside, but light-bleaching is in fact, a treatment technique that is employed often by paper conservators and has been a standardized procedure used in the profession of conservation for at least 30 years.

The technique utilizes exposure to light from the sun or from an artificial light source such as fluorescent lamps to reduce discoloration in paper while it is submerged in a bath of purified and buffered water.

Conservators find light-bleaching to be useful because the process is relatively easy to control, the color of the paper appears quite natural after treatment, the paper feels stronger afterward, and the procedure avoids the introduction of another extraneous chemical into an already degraded paper.

Light from the sun is much stronger than that emitted from an artificial source.  For this reason the exposure time necessary for good results when sun-bleaching is much less than when light-bleaching indoors.  It should be noted however, that while light-bleaching improves the appearance of an object, it does not prolong the life span.

Arshile Gorky (American, born Armenia, 1904-1948). Painter and Model, 1931. Lithograph, Sheet: 11 1/4 x 9 7/8 in. (28.6 x 25.1 cm). Prints, Drawings and Photographs. Dick S. Ramsay Fund, 63.116.5.

Gorky’s Artist and Model is a 1931 crayon lithograph printed with black ink on medium weight, machine made, wove paper.  It is scheduled to go out on loan to the Philadelphia Museum of Art this October and so it came to the Paper Conservation Lab for examination.

The print was mostly in good condition except that at some point in its history, animal glue was applied to the front of the sheet just above the image.  Over time the glue had become dry and brittle, shrinking and pulling on the paper and resulting in distortion.  I carefully removed the adhesive using moisture, revealing a dark brown adhesive stain underneath.

The paper was also discolored in the image area where it was not covered by a mat.  This discoloration is the result of overexposure to light over time.  Ironically, exposure to light (using controlled aqueous baths) is what can help to reduce this discoloration.  In consultation with Eugenie Tsai, the museum’s John and Barbara Vogelstein Curator of Contemporary Art, who agreed that the stains and discoloration were distracting while viewing the image, it was decided that the print would benefit from a light-bleaching treatment.

Many precautions must be taken when light-bleaching.  Light-bleaching is an oxidizing reaction catalyzed by the light’s energy in the presence of oxygen.  This means that water is an essential component in the light-bleaching process.  During its exposure to light, the object is fully immersed in a tray of deionized water.

Also due to the oxidizing reaction that takes place, it is very important to keep the water bath alkaline (at a pH higher than 7) by the addition of calcium hydroxide both during light exposure, and afterwards by rinsing in a second alkaline bath.

Cellulose in paper generally begins to absorb UV radiation at levels below 400 nanometers, which can cause the cellulosic structure of the paper to weaken.  For this reason, a sheet of UV filtering Plexiglas is used to eliminate low level radiation by placing it over the tray of water.

This past Monday was a perfectly clear and sunny day.  I decided to take advantage of the weather and so I prepared a cart with all of the necessary supplies and rolled it outside.  I had pre-rinsed the print in an alkaline bath and carefully transported it on the cart as well.  After two hours of carefully monitored exposure during peak sunshine, from 12-2pm, the appearance of the brown adhesive stain at the top of the sheet and the overall discoloration was greatly reduced.

After rinsing the print, I allowed it to flatten while it dried by placing it between blotters under gentle, even pressure.  This process eliminated the cockling of the paper caused by the adhesive residue.

Arshile Gorky (American, born Armenia, 1904-1948). Painter and Model, 1931. Lithograph, Sheet: 11 1/4 x 9 7/8 in. (28.6 x 25.1 cm). Prints, Drawings and Photographs. Dick S. Ramsay Fund, 63.116.5.

A few more steps are necessary to complete the full treatment of this piece before it will go out on loan, including mending tears and reinforcing creases, but the light-bleaching portion of the treatment was a success.

It should not be so hard to tell a woman from a man. Yet three of the five male mummies from the Brooklyn Museum that were CT-scanned in the last eighteen months at North Shore University Hospital were at one time thought to be women. One of the clearest benefits of the recent CT-scans performed on Brooklyn’s mummies was clarification of their sex. Why were they once thought to be women? These determinations were made on the basis of bad grammar, bad x-rays, and bad judgment.

Mummy and Portrait of Demetris, Hawara, Egypt, Painted cloth, gold, human remains, wood, encaustic, gilding (13 3/8 x 15 3/8 x 74 13/16 inches), 50—100 C.E., Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 11.600.

Demetris entered the Brooklyn Museum collection in 1911. He lived in the first century C.E. when many Egyptians had Greek names, the result of Alexander the Great’s conquest in the fourth century B.C.E. Demetris was thought to be a woman because his name—written on his linen wrappings—ended in “is,” a feminine grammatical ending in classical Greek. Scholars early in the twentieth century thought that a man could only be named “Demetrius.” One early curator commented that Demetris’ portrait represented a particularly “homely” woman. Later x-rays proved that he was anatomically male and showed he was an example of a particular Egyptian custom of Greek, male names ending in “is.”

Coffin and Mummy of Thothirdes, Saqqara, Egypt, Wood, paint, linen, human remains, (7 x 10 x 56 inches), Dynasty 26 (664-525 B.C.E.), Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.1521E.

Thothirdes’ masculinity was questioned because of bad x-rays. In spite of the beard of Osiris on his coffin, in spite of his red face—a trait traditionally associated with portrayals of Egyptian men—an x-ray very early in the twentieth century suggested to an early curator that he was “clearly female.” The most recent CT-scan showed, on the contrary, that Thothirdes is unquestionably anatomically male. This is a particular relief since it means that his beard and red face make better sense.

Cartonnage of Hor, Thebes, Egypt, painted linen, gesso, human remains, (69 3/4 x 18 1/16 inches) Late Dynasty 25 (712-656 B.C.E.), Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.50E.

Finally, “The Lady Hor” was identified as female because of her lovely face, “clearly feminine” in the judgment of an early curator. Again the face was red, but the lack of a beard on the cartonnage coffin and the face’s delicacy was taken as proof that Hor was a woman.

CT-scan of Hor at North Shore University Hospital.  Photo by Adam Husted.

The CT-scan, however, left no doubt that he was a man. Sometimes judgment alone is too subjective to make this determination.

As a curator, I now miss the opportunity to compare male and female mummification practices in Brooklyn’s galleries. But I hope that we have now settled this issue for good.