Balancing the Preservation Needs of Historic House Museums and Their Collections Through Risk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Joint Conference of ICOM-DEMHIST and three ICOM-CC Working Groups: Sculpture, Polychromy, & Architectural Decoration; Wood, Furniture, & Lacquer; and Textiles The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, November 6-9, 2012 Balancing the Preservation Needs of Historic House Museums and Their Collections Through Risk Management Abstract Irene Karsten*1, Stefan Michalski1, Maggie Case2, John Ward1 1 The Canadian Conservation Canadian Conservation Institute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa, ON Institute recently conducted K1B 4S7 Canada, www.cci-icc.gc.ca comprehensive risk management 2Forensic Science & Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted projects for two historic house museums in central Canada. Police, 1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2 Canada Following an intensive site survey combined with dialogue with the *e-mail: [email protected] clients, risks related to all agents of deterioration affecting the building, interiors and collections were analyzed using the CCI- Introduction ICCROM-RCE method. Risks that ranked highest included loss due Setting preventive conservation priorities in historic house museums is to fire or theft, light fading of complicated by the need to preserve both the historic structure and the collections, damage to some interior and exterior building artifacts within. Comprehensive risk management permits comparison finishes, and water issues resulting of all risks – whether to building or collections – on a common scale: from poor roof repair. Lower risks the loss of heritage value over time. The museum can then devote its in the Canadian context included limited resources to projects that reduce the largest risks. The Canadian pest infestation and damage due Conservation Institute (CCI) piloted a comprehensive risk management to incorrect relative humidity and service to Canadian clients in 2009. Projects to date have included two temperature. Methods that could be implemented to reduce the historic house museums in central Canada: Glanmore National Historic highest risks were shown to be Site and Eldon House. cost-effective even when the estimated cost is very high. The Glanmore is a fine example of Second Empire architecture built in 1882 projects were effective in helping in Belleville, Ontario for J.P.C. Phillips (1842-1912), a wealthy banker. clients set preventive conservation The house was sold to the city in 1971 for use as a museum. The three- priorities for both building and storey, yellow brick house has ornate wood and stone trim and a multi- artifacts. coloured slate mansard roof (Figure 1). Restoration of the exterior and roof was completed in 1993-2002. Restoration of the interiors is Keywords ongoing. The grand, freestanding walnut staircase in the front hall and the decorative finish and mouldings of the ceilings in the principal Historic house museum, risk rooms are of particular importance (Figure 2). The interiors feature assessment, risk management, th preventive conservation, value, some furnishings original to the house and 19 century decorative art cost-effectiveness objects from the Couldery collection, a private collection donated to the city of Belleville in 1955. The collection of over 20,000 artifacts includes, in addition, objects and documents related to local history. Irene Karsten*, Stefan Michalski, Maggie Case, John Ward, Balancing the preservation needs of historic house museums and their collections through risk management Irene Karsten*, Stefan Michalski, Maggie Case, John Ward, Balancing the preservation needs of historic house museums 2 and their collections through risk management Fig. 1. Glanmore National Historic Site. © Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI 120118-0001) Fig. 2. The drawing room at Glanmore showing decorated ceilings. © Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI 120118- 0057) THE ARTIFACT, ITS CONTEXT AND THEIR NARRATIVE: MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONSERVATION IN HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS Irene Karsten*, Stefan Michalski, Maggie Case, John Ward, Balancing the preservation needs of historic house museums 3 and their collections through risk management Eldon House is the oldest surviving dwelling in London, Ontario. It served as the residence for four generations of the Harris family from 1834 until 1959 when the house and most of its contents were donated to the City of London. Set on high ground overlooking the Thames River, this two-storey, white wood frame house reflects Georgian and Regency styles (Figure 3). Fig. 3. Eldon House. © Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI 121683-0179) Interior finishes of particular note are a late 19th century Japanese anaglyptic wallpaper in the halls (Figure 4) and the decorative wood ceilings of the library and dining room. Artifacts include family heirlooms, English pieces inherited in the 1890s, and furniture and objects collected during travels and work abroad. Opened as a museum in 1961, Eldon House is one of few historic house museums in Canada with original furnishings and decorative objects. Eldon House is currently managed by Museum London, which also operates an art and historical museum in downtown London. THE ARTIFACT, ITS CONTEXT AND THEIR NARRATIVE: MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONSERVATION IN HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS Irene Karsten*, Stefan Michalski, Maggie Case, John Ward, Balancing the preservation needs of historic house museums 4 and their collections through risk management Fig. 4. Front hall at Eldon House with its Japanese wallpaper. © Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI 121683-0068) Method The projects were completed using the CCI-ICCROM-RCE risk management method [Michalski and Pedersoli, 2012] and the associated CCI Collection Risk Assessment Database that were developed by the CCI in collaboration with the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE) for the Preventive Conservation – Reducing Risks to Collections courses offered through ICCROM from 2005 to 2011. The approach is based on a cyclical process that consists of five sequential steps (establish the context, identify risks, analyse risks, evaluate risks, reduce risks) informed continually by two other elements (communicate and consult, monitor and review) [ISO 31000, 2009]. Project implementation involved three stages: pre-visit preparation, a one-week site visit and post-visit analysis. The precise method and the Database evolved as work progressed. Glanmore was CCI’s first comprehensive risk management project, completed in August 2010. Eldon House was the third, completed in April 2012. THE ARTIFACT, ITS CONTEXT AND THEIR NARRATIVE: MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONSERVATION IN HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS Irene Karsten*, Stefan Michalski, Maggie Case, John Ward, Balancing the preservation needs of historic house museums 5 and their collections through risk management Establishing context Risks are analysed within the specific context of each historic house museum and how it values its building and artifacts. To understand this context, documents that characterized each museum, its mandate, history, organization, policies and procedures were collected and reviewed. In consultation with staff of each institution, a heritage ‘value pie’ was developed, a pie chart that showed the relative value of the building compared to the collection, as well the relative value of building components and sub-collections. Risk assessment The next three steps comprised the risk assessment phase of the projects. All risks expected to cause significant loss in collection value were identified. Risks for each of the ten agents of deterioration [CCI, 2011] were described in summary sentences that stated the hazard, the adverse effect, the path which leads from the hazard to the effect, and the part of the heritage asset that is affected. The risks are specific to each site, although many are common to both historic house museums. These specific risks were analysed by answering three questions: How often will the event occur or how soon will the process cause loss? How much value will be lost in each affected item? How much of the total heritage value will be affected? Best estimates to answer these questions were derived from research, interviews with staff, institutional history, regional statistics on hazards like fire and earthquakes, comparable case histories, expert knowledge, and observations of the museum, as well as its collections, procedures and maintenance. Heritage value was defined in a broad sense and included historic, aesthetic, interpretive and monetary value as understood by the staff of each museum. The analyses were specific to each site, its geographical location, the structure of the building, and the nature of the collections. Probable, low and high estimates were determined in order to capture uncertainty. A numerical score between 0 and 5, where 5 represents the highest risk, was derived from the answer to each question by the CCI Collection Risk Assessment Database. Scores for the third question on the fraction of the total value affected incorporated information captured in the value pie. The three scores were added to determine the magnitude of risk score (MR), which has a maximum of 15. Risks were then evaluated to establish priorities. The specific risks were classified on a scale from low to extreme based on the calculated magnitude of risk (Figure 5). Risks scoring 10 and higher – high to extreme risks – were considered priority risks for reduction. The risk scale used in the CCI method is a logarithmic scale, which expresses