HANDLING WITH CARE: PROCESSING SPECIAL MATERIALS FOR EXHIBITIONS

# 5 A thesis submitted to the faculty of y * San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

In

Museum Studies

by

Laura Alejandra Rodriguez Bandala

San Francisco, California

May 2015 Copyright by Laura Alejandra Rodriguez Bandala 2015 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Handling with Care: Processing Special Materials for

Exhibitions by Laura Alejandra Rodriguez Bandala, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree: Master of Arts in Museum Studies at San Francisco State

University.

rard Luby ofessor Studies HANDLING WITH CARE: PROCESSING SPECIAL MATERIALS FOR EXHIBTIONS

Laura Alejandra Rodriguez Bandala San Francisco, California 2015

This thesis examines how art non-profits process loaned objects for temporary and traveling exhibitions in the context of special or toxic materials. Safety guidelines, emergency planning, and proper registration procedures for exhibitions in both museums and art non-profits are examined through a literature review and a survey of content experts. The survey results indicate that a lack of implementation of safety guidelines and procedures exist in art non-profits, and that training to ensure staff safety is limited. It is concluded that art non-profits need to learn more about how to integrate museum safety practices and procedures into their practices; should make use of Safety Data Sheets

(SDS); and must provide better training to ensure the protection of the health of staff involved in processing, unpacking, and installing exhibitions. Finally, recommendations on improving art non-profits’ safety protocols and awareness of occupational health are presented.

I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.

Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank my friends and my family, specially my parents, for their constant support and sacrifice. Thank you to Jean DeMouthe, Linda Ellis, Christine Fogarty and Edward

Luby for all their help and guidance throughout my studies and the thesis process. Many thanks are offered as well to the staff of the participant art non-profits in California for their collaboration and hard work. Finally, I am ever grateful to my loving husband for his encouragement and great inspiration.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...... viii

List of Appendices...... x

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review...... 7

Traveling and Temporary Exhibitions Basics...... 8 Scope of Art Non-profits in California...... 28 Registration and Loan Procedures...... 35 Workers Health, Environmental Awareness, and Museum Risk Management 49 Hazards in Museum Workplace and Exhibitions...... 64

Chapter 3: Research Methodology...... 79

Purpose of Survey...... 80 Content Experts...... 82 Survey Questions...... 83

Chapter 4: Survey Results...... 94

Demographic Results...... 95 Results on Health and Procedures Questions...... 103 Results on Staff Training Questions...... 109

Chapter 5: Discussion...... 113

Analysis of Demographic Results...... 113 Analysis of Health and Procedures Questions...... 117 Analysis of Staff Training...... 121 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations...... 125

Conclusions...... 125 Recommendations...... 128 Concluding Comments...... 130

References...... 131

Appendices...... 134

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Exhibition Staff List...... 11 2. Sample Task Procedure Schedule...... 13 3. Space Usage for Exhibition Production in a Major Museum...... 19 4. Occupational Health Timeline...... 50 5. Environmental Acts and Regulations in the 1980’s...... 51 6. OSHA Standards that Most Affect Museums...... 55 7. Hazards of Pigments...... 68 8. General Hazards in Exhibit Production...... 73 9. Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions Survey...... 92 10. Four Types of Art Non-profits in Relation to Approximate Annual Exhibition Budgets...... 96 11. Question 5, Exhibition Installation Schedules...... 98 12. Question 6, Art Non-profits with Multiple Responses Concerning Staff Positions Responsible for Proposing Exhibitions...... 101 13. Question 8, Art Non-profits that Borrow Items from Various Lenders 103 14. Question 11, Art Non-profits Answering “Yes” to Instructions on Special Handling being Included...... 104 15. Question 11, Non-profits Answering “Yes” with respect to Hiring Staff to Supply Advise...... 106 16. Question 17, Art Non-profits Answering “Yes” to Presence of Hazard Reporting Mechanism...... 108 17. Question 15, Fire and Earthquake Emergency Response...... 111 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. A Composite Job Description for the Registrar...... 134 2. Modification of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS)...... 136 3. Survey Cover Letter...... 142 4. Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions Survey...... 144 5. List of Art Non-profits Surveyed...... 147

x 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

In many craft-based occupations, such as construction, metallurgy, carpentry, and the like, special or hazardous materials have to be handled and processed on a routine basis. However, a work culture can exist in these professions which, for various reasons, tends to discourage the use of protective equipment such as masks, respirators, or gloves.

In turn, this can promote a lack of concern towards toxic material absorption and occupational health in general. Unfortunately, the lack of concern for health and safety can also occur in art schools, amongst individual artists, and in the staff and management of non-profit art organizations in charge of the creation, processing, and install of exhibitions.

Many of the aforementioned professions come together when art non-profits develop and implement exhibitions. Hazardous materials that require special handling procedures and an awareness of appropriate procedures and practices are often a part of the exhibition process. Unfortunately however, information and training on how to deal with these materials, perhaps due to the difficulty of teaching such a wide-ranging topic, or the backgrounds of staff, appears to be less than adequate

Moreover, many small art organizations do not have a full-time registrar to oversee proper art handling and installation. Museums and most art non-profits also often 2

do not have a conservator or laboratory on site to analyze and address chemical and toxicity issues in items, artworks, and materials used for exhibitions. At the same time, while much of the exhibition installation staff and other personnel in art non-profits tend to know about safety in handling equipment and tools, they may not know much about the presence of or how to interact with toxic materials.

While staff working in smaller arts organizations may have been trained in arts and design, they are unlikely to have learned in depth about health issues related to art making, unlike museum conservators, who are trained in chemistry and safe laboratory standards and procedures. It appears that many employees who work in museums and art non-profits whose training is from outside of museum and conservation professional programs, such as in education, arts and administration, anthropology, history, and many other academic backgrounds, do not usually receive any formal kind of safety and special materials handling as part of that training.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reviews all work environments and regulates occupational health for staff, including the work environments of museums and art non-profits. As outlined by museum professional organizations, emergency planning and standardized procedures and guidelines exist to protect the health of museum personnel, particularly in accredited organizations.

However, safety and health standards are not always enforced in smaller organizations, and in those art non-profits without appropriate procedures in place, serious illnesses and 3

harm can result for those handling art as part of the exhibition process. In addition, installation staff in museums and art non-profits may not receive proper training on how to carry out safety measures.

In this thesis, how art non-profits in California process loaned objects for temporary and traveling exhibitions will be examined, both before and after they arrive at the organization, especially in the context of special or toxic materials. The thesis focuses on loaned objects because they are not in the regular control of the organization, and so may pose additional hazards not expected or planned for by the organization. A major goal of the thesis is examine safety guidelines and training in art non-profit organizations and to assess the adequacy of current practice. This is not only to ensure the safety and security of the loaned objects but also to protect the health of the staff involved in processing, unpacking, and installing exhibitions.

In order to do this, a literature review and a survey of California non-profit arts organizations was conducted. The literature review of this work is presented first, in

Chapter 2. Sources were reviewed primarily to discuss basic exhibition processes, registration methods, core collection and art handling safety procedures, as well as traveling and temporary exhibitions’ loan procedures, emergency planning, and typical hazards found in collections and art materials. Also, the awareness of occupational hazards, the role of OSHA, and the ways in which the human body absorbs toxic materials is outlined in this chapter. In California, a range of art non-profits exists that 4

can be identified as non-profit art centers, non-profit art organizations, non-profit art

galleries, and non-collecting non-accredited art museums. An overview of these four types of art non-profits is also presented in this literature review preceding the survey of

content experts.

Chapter 3 discusses the research methods for this thesis, which included a

literature review and a survey. The sources consulted for the literature review were museum registration and collection management books, exhibition manuals, and web

sites and other published material concerning hazardous materials in general as well as in museums. The survey consisted of a series of questions sent to the staff of 100 art non­ profits in California. The purpose of the survey was to investigate contemporary practices

in the processing, handling, and installation standards for loaned objects for temporary

and traveling exhibitions. It was designed to explore the risks that art non-profits’ staff

face by asking content experts questions about safety, registration and installation procedures that relate to health concerns, guidelines for object handling, and training in

emergency response, hazardous materials, and occupational health. The methods for

selecting the survey’s sample art non-profits, the complete survey questions, and the

reason behind each question, are all outlined in this chapter.

Presented in Chapter 4 are the results from the art non-profits participating in the

survey. This chapter lists the content experts’ responses to each of the survey questions

by presenting the percentages of each answer in written form, with some results laid out 5

in various tables. The survey questions and their results were divided into three categories to facilitate analysis: demographic results, results on health and procedures questions, and results on staff training questions.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the survey and discusses key issues in the art non-profits’ exhibition processing and safety practices. This chapter analyzes the survey responses by grouping them into the same three categories as the previous chapter: analysis of demographic results, analysis of health and procedures questions, and analysis of staff training.

Finally, in chapter 6, conclusions and recommendations to improve safety and occupational health in art non-profits are presented. The recommendations have been developed from the literature review on the research of occupational health, hazardous materials, and safety guidelines in museums, and from the results of the survey of content experts on current registration practices and safety training in art non-profits. The chapter also outlines further research needed, particularly in the area of protective equipment and training in hazardous materials in the art world. Finally, the importance of staff health and safety in both art non-profits and museums is addressed.

The research presented here aims to promote the protection and preservation of artworks and objects of cultural and historical importance that are professionally exhibited in both museums and art non-profits, without losing a focus on the well-being 6

of those who care for this material. Finally, the investigation is designed to support the efforts of art non-profits to improve practices by providing resources and recommendations on how to learn about, implement, and train staff on the use of safety guidelines and procedures for the processing of artworks and other items for exhibitions 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review

There are many challenges in mounting any type of art exhibition. Even though many exhibition manuals do not mention special materials and offer little information on safety, there are many points in exhibition planning and installation that relate to safety.

Likewise, just as many types of temporary exhibitions exist, a range of gallery spaces exist also to display exhibits. Thus, each exhibition possesses different characteristics concerning their construction, installation, and maintenance. The more construction required or the more challenging the items to be displayed, the more time and resources are likely going to be needed to install the exhibition. Furthermore, if an art non-profit or museum does not have the adequate resources and trained staff to implement an exhibition, putting it up can be a dangerous job. Not only is the integrity of the loaned artifacts at risk, the main concern of most texts on registration and exhibition manuals, but inadequate resources can be dangerous and unhealthy for the staff. 8

Traveling and Temporary Exhibitions Basics

This first section presented here will review the main elements in the organization of traveling and temporary exhibitions that pertain mostly to registration, installation, and safety issues. Sources on the standards for the proper organization, processing, and installation of professional traveling, temporary and museum exhibitions will be discussed as they pertain to non-profits that are involved in exhibiting art.

Definitions of Traveling and Temporary Exhibitions

Explained briefly, Witteborg (1991:2) states that “exhibits are environments in which individuals learn and experience in many levels, both intellectually and emotionally.” But how is it that exhibits are made possible? Lord and Lord (2002:1) point out that, in the case of museums, every action from outreach and educational programming, to conservation and curatorial research, come together in the “very public forum of the exhibition.” As a result, developing, planning, and installing an exhibition takes significant energy and great effort. Exhibitions in museums, as well as in other art organizations, are made possible by the collaborative work of various professionals from different disciplines. Today there is a great variety of approaches in the ways to organize and design an exhibit (Lord and Lord, 2002). 9

Exhibitions can range from the ones organized entirely on-site using only the permanent collection, to temporary or traveling exhibitions that loan not only the objects to be exhibited but arrive complete with all of the installation elements. The latter type of exhibits will look very similar no matter the venue that hosts them. In the middle of these two common exhibition types, an institution could have a mix by using both collection and borrowed items from various lenders; there could also be exhibition partnerships between institutions that combine their collections (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). As Buck and Gilmore (2003:7) also emphasize, “the variations seem endless, and each exhibition brings its own unique set of problems, demands and triumphs.”

Because of the great varieties of exhibitions in museums and art centers, and for the purpose of this thesis, the terms temporary exhibition and traveling exhibition are somewhat interchangeable. Even though the terms temporary and traveling are indeed different, particularly since temporary exhibitions do not often travel to more than one location, it could be argued that temporary exhibitions could potentially be more risky to install, since they often do not go through the same levels of pre-planning as do traveling exhibits. This is also the case with many temporary exhibitions in art non-profits that are smaller organizations, or are planned by the artists themselves. Conversely, large traveling exhibitions that are put together by a major collecting museum will require a greater level of preparation and resources in order to produce a safer environment. Thus, temporary and traveling exhibitions will be considered to be very similar in this 10

particular study, because their respective organization, safety issues, risks, and possible hazards are also alike, and this is likely to be even more true in smaller art non-profits like the ones this thesis examines.

General Aspects of Planning a Temporary or Traveling Exhibition

As mentioned above, a vast array of temporary and traveling exhibitions exist, and a range of items can be displayed. Some exhibitions may show mostly two- dimensional paintings or panels, while others may show videos, art installations, or sculptures (Witteborg, 1991) Exhibitions may come complete with cases, while other times the institution has to build or buy its own cases or object mounts. When an institution contracts a traveling show, the organizer should provide detailed descriptions of the size of the exhibit, its contents, the number of objects, and the number and sizes of panels and any other components that would go in the exhibition space (Witteborg,

1991). Other kinds of information that the organizer should secure are, for example, the size of crates before they arrive. All the information on the exhibition should be communicated in advance so that the planning for arrivals, space layout, and needed construction can start (Witteborg, 1991).

The planning for space design, painting, and construction, for example, should be done in advance, mainly because there is usually little time between the arrival of all of 11

the items to be installed and the exhibition inauguration day. The exhibition staff needs to develop a checklist of tasks along with a schedule (Witteborg, 1991). While organizing the tasks and schedule, the number of staff needed and who will fulfill each position should also be considered. The following Table 1 taken directly from Buck and Gilmore

(2003:9) presents a list of the roles of the staff involved in organizing and/or receiving a traveling exhibition, keeping in mind that, at times, one staff member may fulfill one or more positions during the planning and installing of the exhibition (Buck and Gilmore,

2003). Many institutions have the staff position of registrar, in charge of tracking all the items that are loaned and shipped. More on registration processing can be found on the

Registration and Loan Procedures section of this literature review.

Table 1. Exhibition Staff List

Exhibition Staff As Played by Organizing Museum or Gallery Staff Director

Curator

Coordinator of exhibitions

Coordinator of traveling exhibitions

Development officer

Grants Writer

Marketing officer 12

Public relations officer

Registrar Traveling exhibition registrar

Courier

Exhibition Designer

Preparator

Mount maker

Installation technicians

Packing and crating vendor

Shipper

Editor

Photographer

Publisher Insurer

An exhibition schedule is also helpful for determining and deciding on materials, tools, and equipment needed. Table 2 taken directly from Witteborg (1991:18-19) shows a “sample task procedure schedule” for traveling exhibition installs, considering that tasks can vary depending on the type of exhibition and gallery space (Witteborg, 1991).

This schedule should at least take into account the time to take down the exhibit from the previous venue, and the time for shipping, unpacking, construction, and installation 13

(Witteborg, 1991). In addition, it should consider the extra help that may be needed, such as hiring outside conservators, contractors or renting the proper equipment that is not available on-site, as well as coordinating the proper disposal of hazardous materials if necessary.

Table 2. Sample Task Procedure Schedule

Task Procedure Person Materials Required

1. Contracting for the Director or project exhibit & getting detailed information from organizer, coordinator including insurance status. Check also with your own insurance company regarding loan exhibits. Planning supplementary Education person and/or educational programs 2. Announcement of exhibit P.R. Person Press releases, envelopes, to press members stamps 3. Preparation of Designer Architect’s scale, graph preliminary installation paper, drafting tools, plans cardboard, X-acto knife, tape, glue 4. Consultation with Architect, designer, security organizer & outside specialist consultants 5. Preparation of final Designer Final plan & elevation installation plans drawings & scale model 14

6. Discussion of installation Staff, volunteers, students & maintenance staff 7. Preparation of poster & Designer & printer Design materials, as needed invitation designs 8. Completion of time Director or project schedule for exhibit coordinator installation & for publicity 9. Arrangement of catering, P.R. Person car park, cleaning, photographer & other services 10. Finalizing individual Designer Drafting tools, as #3 exhibition case layout 11. Mailing press & P. R. Person Letters, printed invitations, opening day invitations - envelopes, stamps putting up posters 12. Clearing a secure space Maintenance staff for the shipping crates and their contents for unpacking 13. Clearing gallery of Registrar or maintenance previous exhibit staff 14. Preparing gallery for Maintenance staff, painters Ladders, paint, brushes, new exhibit, i.e., lighting, & electricians drop cloth, lighting fixtures painting and cleaning of gallery 15. Delivery of exhibit Maintenance staff 16. Unpacking & checking Registrar A secure area, work table, contents & preparing dollies condition report 17. Installation of major Maintenance staff Dollies, hand tools, elements extension cord, work light 18. Installation of all Registrar, project remaining elements coordinator or designer 19. Photographing of Photographer Camera, film, tripod, lights, 15

objects & installation extension cord 20. Preparation of P. R. Person Press release, photographs information & photographs for the press 21. Final lighting Designer & electrician or Ladder maintenance staff 22. Final cleaning of gallery Maintenance staff & Brooms, mops, sable brush & case interiors registrar 23. Cleaning of glass & Maintenance staff Glass cleaner, clean cloth, closing of cases sable brush 24. Press preview P.R. Person Press Kits 25. Private opening Caterer, guest speaker, Tables, chairs, decorations ceremony board members, invited guests 26. Public opening 27. Review of exhibit By press, visitors A questionnaire 28. Review planning With entire staff process & execution of installation 29. Dismantle exhibit - add Registrar & maintenance Dollies, hand tools, work to condition report staff table

Museums, as well as art centers, often have one or various departments or teams for exhibition projects that can be permanently staffed, created, or contracted (Lord and

Lord, 2002). This is often called the “construction team,” and it includes fabricators, mount-makers, case manufacturers, film producers, and many other technical specialists.

Some museums may have their own department in some of these areas, such as in house mount-making. Other institutions, as Lord and Lord (2002:8) explain, may “contract all 16

this work through a tendering (or binding) process. Often museums will prefer a design/build or turn-key method, which means that the design and construction teams are hired as one team.” This also usually happens in art centers and smaller galleries where it is often one team that does most or all of the art move like loading, unpacking, and directly installing the art, as well as cleaning, painting, and constructing.

Choosing the Exhibition Items

As mentioned previously, some traveling exhibitions might have all of the elements to be exhibited already decided by the organizing institution. In other instances, an organization or museum can borrow items from various lenders or go about using its own collection. In either case, selecting the items to be shown is very important for the success of the exhibition as well as for the organization and safety of the exhibition planning process. As Witteborg (1991:3) explains, “preparing an exhibition is a lot more than simply gathering together several objects and placing them in a pleasing arrangement. When selecting your own things, ask the question: what do I wish to accomplish?” This question can have one or more answers that give the reason and purpose behind the exhibition project, and the organizers should also ask and investigate which are the particular interests and needs of the audience that is expected to be reached

(Witteborg, 1991). 17

Moreover, works of art and items in general are more prone to damage while moving or traveling; therefore, more care should be taken to protect them (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). Evaluating the exhibition items before planning for installation or packing and shipping starts is very important. The organizing institution should provide detailed guidelines for handling and installation at every exhibition venue (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). The organizer should also ensure that every exhibition venue’s environment and registration procedures meet the safety requirements for each loaned item. He or she should make certain security guidelines have been defined (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003).

The above-mentioned measures are all to prevent damage and even loss of the loaned items (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). At the same time, evaluation of items should be done not only by a manager or registrar (to prevent damage), but also by a conservator.

Not only should the fragility and packing method to protect the item be determined, but the safety of the item in human terms should be assessed; as the item could potentially have been treated with pesticides, for example. Alternatively, as in the case of some modern and contemporary artworks, it may have been made with materials that are toxic to the touch, or that are releasing gases that are harmful to breathe. In these cases, guidelines should then include safety measures and environmental conditions to protect and install the loaned artifact, as well as, warnings, handling, and protection guidelines for the staff who receive, unpack, and install potentially hazardous exhibition items. 18

Installation

During production, Witteborg (1991:30) explains that “whether you are adding a

few elements to a traveling exhibition or creating one from scratch, you should know the

exact number and measurements of panels, pedestals, cases, and other exhibit furniture

necessary.” The lending institution should then consider that there may be a number of

panels, walls, pedestals, or shelves that staff may have to build in-house or contract out.

Therefore, as Lord and Lord state,

“one of the most important planning decisions for any museum is whether to produce new permanent and temporary exhibitions in-house, or whether to contract out some or all of the production/fabrication work to specialized firms. This decision can have major impacts on both space requirements and staffing, and thus on both capital and operating costs” (2002:91).

Lord and Lord (2002:92) also suggest that the shops or workshops for exhibition

construction and preparation are divided into two: a “clean workshop,” and a “dirty workshop.” Along side these workshops, Lord and Lord outline many other spaces

needed for exhibition production as shown in their table of Space Usage for Exhibition

Production in a Major Museum. Table 3 from Lord and Lord (2002:92) shows the ideal

spaces used in large museums for exhibition production, though it does not include other

separate spaces needed such as a loading dock, receiving area, crate opening area, and

safe art storing area while items are installed (Lord and Lord, 2002). 19

Table 3. Space Usage for Exhibition Production in a Major Museum

Space Name ft2 (m2) Preparation/Design office 400 (37) Design studio/Graphics 600 (56) Graphics workroom 400 (37) Dirty workshop (carpentry, metalwork) 2,000(186) Clean workshop (matting and framing) 400 (37) Mount-making shop (plexiglass) 600 (56) Installation shop (textiles and paper) 600 (56) Paint room and spray booth 800(74) Tool room 100 (9.3) Clean and dirty supplies storage 200(19) Lighting equipment room 500 (46) Photography studio 1,600(149) Exhibition furniture storage 2,000(186)

Ideally, art centers and art organizations need the same spaces for exhibition installation preparation, even though they could be smaller in scale. However, most of the time such organizations have to use very few spaces and share all of the same activities, which makes safety and proper preservation very difficult. As Lord and Lord declare, attentive lenders,

“will look closely at the facilities through which their items, on loan, enter the host museum, are unpacked, examined, photographed, stored, prepared for display, moved into the galleries and installed in their final positions. The tender loving care given by museum staff can come to nothing if facilities simply are not adequate to provide proper environmental controls and other safety features” (2002:93). 20

And this includes not only the safety of the loaned items, but also the safety of the staff working on the exhibition.

Lord and Lord also emphasize that, “the practice in many museums of packing and unpacking shows directly in the galleries is not recommended” (2002:94). One main reason for this is security, as well as the “possibility of infestations escaping from packing materials into the museum proper” (Lord and Lord, 2002:94). Therefore, Lord and Lord (2002:95) recommend a separate crating/uncrating area where “crates should be opened or packed by qualified museum preparators in the crating/uncrating area only under the supervision of authorized museum personnel—usually a curator, conservator or registrar, who prepares a condition report on the object, and takes photographs if necessary.” The Registration and Loan Procedures section of this thesis will futher discuss registration procedures. Interestingly however, Lord and Lord do not mention the protection of preparators and staff opening certain problematic crates. Without a crate area properly isolated from the rest of the museum, and the proper supervision, an insect or mold infestation can develop. This might not only affect the exhibition, but, depending on the type of infestation, it can also affect the museum personnel’s health and even the visitors. 21

Wall Installation and Structural Systems

There is always an issue for lending institutions on how to secure objects to the wall or a pedestal, and in every exhibition and every element there is going to be a different approach (Witteborg, 1991). Lord and Lord suggest,

“framed material such as paintings should always be attached to walls, or substantial screens, with a minimum of four mirror plates and security screws. If chains, rods or similar methods are used to carry heavy framed materials, they should be attached so that links and fixings cannot be easily opened or removed. The addition of glazing will always increase the level of protection to framed material” (2002:129).

There are many features that an exhibition space should have, such as enough wall surface area, e.g., plywood paneling, painted or covered with textile, to which different elements can be attached without difficulty. Also, flexible structural systems or movable panels, and a good amount of exhibition cases or materials to create them, are vital (Witteborg, 1991). Witteborg acknowledges that budget restraints can be an issue for an organization that wants to have a structural system. The staff may have to build a system that can be used when the institution cannot afford one that is commercially made. Therefore, Witteborg offers in his manual several suggestions and instructions for organizations that have the necessary resources, and the talented staff, personnel or volunteers to build structural systems that can work for their institutions (Witteborg,

1991). It is important to point out that the instructions offered should only be followed if 22

the institution clearly has the required personnel and resources, otherwise, such structural systems could become dangerous to use.

Basics of Exhibition Safety and Security

Large parts of this subsection will refer to Peter Osborne’s section on “Security and Public Safety in Exhibitions” in Lord and Lord’s exhibitions manual (2002). This source provides many recommendations on security and safety for museum exhibition planning. Hazardous materials and safety will be discussed in other sections of this thesis since the security chapters in Lord and Lord and Witteborg’s exhibition manuals do not mention much about hazardous and toxic materials handling, safety, and staff protection.

However, much of their work does concern the general safety measures and best practices during planning and installation of exhibitions, as well as some staff safety, and will be summarized below.

According to Osborne (2002), all over the world artworks and artifacts are pilfered from galleries and museums almost every day. He also points out that on most cases, thefts occur within temporary and permanent exhibition spaces. He does not specify whether these incidents occur during construction for or installation of the exhibit, during public open hours or other times, and to whom most incidents occur, but

Osborne (2002) points out that this is comparable to the worries of institutions that have 23

suffered serious damage from fires, where saving lives is crucial. His chapter also focuses on planning for public safety during exhibit open hours, general fire prevention, and emergency response.

Osborne (2002:124) stresses that “although security is essential in any exhibition program, the preservation of life is paramount to all other considerations, and an institution has both a legal and a moral obligation to protect all persons on the premises.”

Humans can be at risk of various dangers such as injuries, fire, smoke, explosion, attack, and illness, and all precautions to lessen these risks may be taken, from exhibition planning and design through day-to-day operation of the galleries and provisions for emergencies. With respect to public safety and security, all museum professionals should work with the best standards of protection and care in all exhibition and preparation areas. With this statement, Osborne includes the public, the exhibitions in museums during open hours and all the staff in a museum or cultural institution that organizes temporary and traveling exhibitions as part of their public programming.

From the very beginning of the planning of the exhibition space, the gallery’s layout and exhibition design has to comply with all local and national health and safety regulations (Lord and Lord, 2002). These many regulations include fire systems, emergency exits, electric systems, ADA standards, and many others. This thesis’ concern is with the hazards of toxic materials more likely affecting the processing staff or contractual workers team. Thus, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 24

(OSHA) regulations are of great relevance and will be further examined in this thesis’

Workers Health section. Following all appropriate safety and health standards is key; hence, the lack of safety tools and the right protection increases the levels of risk to both human life and materials and could lead to disaster and legal liability (Lord and Lord,

2002).

In addition to following all standards, Osborne (2002) states that a museum should have an exhibition policy where security and safety issues are clearly defined.

Moreover, during the planning of an exhibition, the level of overall protection that is going to be needed during the time of the exhibition should be previously agreed upon.

For example, if the collection or artworks on display are particularly rare, security guards may be considered necessary. Also, the exhibition manager and the whole team should discuss security with their designated in-house security staff and create an awareness of the significance of the displayed items (Witteborg, 1991). If there is no security staff, as in the case of smaller organizations, the organization should contact its local police to show them the exhibition’s plan and ask for their suggestions for better protection

(Witteborg, 1991).

Likewise, Osborne (2002) recommends a complete assessment of the many elements of public safety in all areas of the museum, and from them, staff should create measures that respond to the risks that have been identified; such measures should then be documented in disaster plans and operational manuals where the everyday operation 25

procedures are clearly described. This could be done in various ways, such as offering safety-training sessions for staff, and/or by providing every employee access to documents such as workbooks, policies, and safety manuals for different tasks. As

Orsbome (2002:125) points out, “inter-communication is a key element in achieving the best results and staging a successful exhibition. Persons responsible for safety and security should be familiar with all the various factors and able to liaise with the exhibition organizers and other internal and external sources as necessary.”

In addition, Osborne (2002) stresses that security and safety are not only the responsibility of security guards and security staff, but also every staff member should be alert to dangerous situations for human lives, objects, and buildings, and take the proper action. However, in order to act accordingly, the staff should be properly trained and the organization should have disaster plans and other safety plans and tools in place.

Dispersal of Temporary or Traveling Exhibitions

As part of an exhibition’s organization, it is important to also plan for de-install, packing and shipping of the exhibition before the closing date. Objects should be dismantled carefully, otherwise, it may lead to liability for loss or damage and the organization might not be able to borrow or rent other traveling exhibitions in the future

(Witteborg, 1991). Moreover, as the registrar or staff responsible for de-install needs to 26

ensure timely arrival to the next venue, preplanning the shipping is very important since the cost of getting it wrong could be high, and may result in the organization having to pay the rental fee of the next exhibitor as well as extra shipping charges (Witteborg,

1991).

In the case of a museum or art organization being the last stop for a traveling exhibition, dispersal needs to be pre-planned. On some occasions, the exhibition items belong to a single collection, thus dispersing the exhibition can have the same planning as sending the entire exhibit to a new venue, since it is sent entirely to the original organizer or institution where the exhibition was first put together (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). In other cases an exhibition that has loans from several owners has more ways in which it could be dispersed and requires more advanced planning. Once again, a common way is to return the entire exhibition to the organizer, who then returns the loans to their owners.

In other instances, it is considered best to disperse some or every loan from the final venue (Buck and Gilmore, 2003).

Buck and Gilmore (2003:89) outline important questions to consider prior to deciding the best form of dispersal:

• Is the staff at the last venue prepared and willing to organize all the individual shipments from their site?

• Are the destinations for returns closer to the organizer or to the last exhibition venue? 27

• Would the organizer be able to send a courier to perform the final condition checks before dispersal?

• Will lenders send one or more couriers to oversee crating and shipping of individual objects?

• Do any of the objects have to be removed from travel crates and wrapped or re­ crated in their original containers before they are returned to the owners?

Expenses to the last venue to do the final condition reports and supervise shipping to the original owners should be balanced with the cost and time of sending the exhibition back to the organizer to be un-crated, condition reported, and re-packed (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). Considerations should also be made on the distance of the organizer to the lenders versus the distance of the final venue to the lenders. Packing and crating can have a great influence on the way an exhibition is dispersed. If the items that belong to a specific lender are packed together or individually crated, returns from the final venue may be feasible. Nevertheless, when traveling exhibition items come with other collections or loans in a single crate, arrive soft-packed, or do not come with their original crates, it will be likely easier to return the exhibit to the organizer so they can be re-packed (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). Another possibility is to divide the shipments and send part of the exhibit back to the organizer, and part directly back to the owners (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). 28

Scope of Art Non-profits in California

California has the fortune of having many art non-profits that organize and host traveling and temporary exhibitions of all kinds. However, sometimes it can be difficult to identify and understand the subtle differences between all of the types of non-profit art organizations. Moreover, often commercial art galleries not only show great similarities with non-profit arts organizations, but they also have taken on the ways in which art non­ profits would usually behave and work.

In gathering the information to survey the art non-profits for this research, and in examining several art organizations’ websites, it was sometimes challenging to determine whether an art gallery was commercial or not-for-profit. One possible reason for this confusion is that many commercial art galleries, at least in California, appear to have adopted mission statements similar to those of museums and art non-profits. In addition, they have taken on the duty of educating their visitors. Despite these similarities, commercial galleries are not 501(c)(3) organizations, and since they are not non-profit organizations and not organized for the public’s benefit, they cannot receive donations that are tax-exempt (IRS, 2011).

No charitable organization is equal to another, in the same way that no art non­ profit is equal to any other; even the ones that host traveling or temporary exhibitions all 29

have differences in mission, goals, ways of organization, and even target audiences. In

California, a range of art non-profits exist that can be identified as: non-profit art centers, non-profit arts organizations, non-profit art galleries, and non-collecting art museums. In the sections below, the four types of art non-profits listed above will be discussed in more detail in order to supply context for the selection of the surveyed art non-profits and non­ collecting art museums.

Non-profit Art Centers

As mentioned above, similarities between non-profits for the arts can make differentiating them from one another challenging. It can be particularly difficult to set apart non-profit art “centers” from non-profit art “organizations,” as they both have programs related to arts and art education. One of the most palpable differences may be that art centers are generally more interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary and have various spaces with the flexibility to host and fulfill the needs of different types of artists and art forms. In addition, art centers may not only have gallery space for visual art exhibitions, but they also may have a theater or performance space, as well as a room or movie theater for film and video art. Depending on their mission and goals, some art centers also have a focus on their local community and may have more educational and interactive spaces. Others have programs for contemporary artists, such as studio space 30

for invited artists in residency or specialized exhibition rooms for particular types of artworks and installations.

Art centers in California were the focus of the survey conducted as part of this research. One example is the Ojai Art Center (OAC), which will be described in detail below to illustrate the kinds of activities associated with art centers. This art center has focused on local and multidisciplinary art since its early years: “The Ojai Art Center is the longest continuously-operating multi-disciplinary center serving the arts in the State of California” (OAC, 2013). OAC was first proposed in 1936 by Dr. Charles Butler, a local physician and financier, as a means to bring together five independent arts organizations in Ojai, which were struggling (OAC, 2013). OAC’s construction ended in

1939, and it consists of an art gallery/dance studio, a theater, meeting rooms, and open areas (OAC, 2013). A board of directors oversees the operation of the facility and its seven “branches”: art, photography, film, dance, music, literary, and theater, the latter of which is currently the most active. Programs range from six major dramatic productions a year, to monthly individual or group art exhibitions. In addition to their “branch” activities, the center sponsors other art organizations’ events. It also hosts an annual “Art in the Park” fundraising event that brings together artists from all over California and other states to display both 2 and 3 dimensional artworks in a local park during Memorial day weekend (OAC, 2013). 31

Non-profit Art Organizations

As mentioned above, the main difference between a non-profit art organization and an art center is that art centers tend to be more multidisciplinary. This is not to say that art organizations that do not identify themselves as art centers do not have some or all of the spaces, interests, and goals to provide different varieties of art and educational experiences for their visitors. Conversely, not all art centers may be as multidisciplinary.

However, all kinds of art organizations and art museums are on a path to become more interactive, complex, and flexible. In general, the focus and goals of art organizations tend to be community oriented with programs that are specific for their public.

Furthermore, many art organizations support local and international contemporary artists, for example by, providing low cost or free studio space and materials; while others provide art classes and lectures that are offered to benefit artists’ careers but are also open to the general public.

An example from the surveyed art organizations that strives to make strong connections between artists and communities is Intersection for the Arts (Cullinan, 2013).

Created in 1965 in the middle of a very heated political time, the founders of Intersection wanted to provide a space where art could question boundaries, clear differences, and make new connections within various communities (Cullinan, 2013). Following this goal until today, Intersection’s many programs focus primarily on the ideas of “collaboration, relationships, and process,” and include exhibitions, performances, workshops, art 32

residencies, and public art commissions (Intersection, 2013a). Moreover, Intersection works with over fifty community partners per year and offers artists fellowships and fiscal sponsorship through their “Incubator” program. The Incubator furthers collaboration between artists and community organizations to support art projects, provide fundraising tools for the artist, and career development opportunities

(Intersection, 2013b).

Non-profit Art Galleries/Artists Associations

Some non-profits consider themselves “art communities,” and as part of this, they manage an art gallery rather than an art center. Instead of being multidisciplinary, their main focus is to create art exhibitions that support local artists. Just a few of these art galleries have the characteristic of having been created and currently managed, mostly, by the member artists themselves.

An example of this type of non-profit art gallery is the Marin Society of Artists

(MSA) in Ross, California (MSA, 2013b). Founded in 1927 by a small group of artists and craftspeople, the MSA gallery is not only dedicated to exhibiting, selling, and renting works of art, but also to educating the public about art. This society has over three hundred artist members who create and display both contemporary and traditional arts 33

and crafts in various techniques such as painting, sculpture, ceramics, jewelry, and other media (MSA, 2013a).

In addition, the MSA depends on the volunteer effort of all of its members to both govern and operate the gallery (MSA, 2013b). The gallery has a Board of Directors as well as an Artists’ Advisory Council. The Board of Directors is responsible for finance and policy while the Artists’ Advisory Council is responsible for artistic decisions and determining most of the gallery’s exhibition calendar (MSA, 2013b). Also, each council member serves as a chairperson for one or two shows a year, provides a selection jury as well as written material to promote each exhibition, manages the installation and removal of exhibitions, manages receptions, and edits the MSA monthly newsletter. Moreover, the members serve as rotating staff for exhibition organization, and install exhibitions. In order to enter artwork in the monthly exhibitions, each MSA member is also required to do a minimum of two hours volunteer work each month, or to provide a donation to the gallery if they are unable to volunteer (MSA, 2013b).

Non-collecting Art Museums

In this thesis, only non-collecting and non-accredited art museums were surveyed in California. The main reason for this selection is that accredited museums, even if they are non-collecting, have gone through a professional level of organization and 34

evaluations to become accredited. This evaluation includes risk management and the development of a “disaster preparedness/emergency response plan” that is tailored to the needs of the museum (AAM, 2013). This thesis focuses on smaller, art non-profit organizations that do not have collections, and non-collecting non-accredited art museums; both are close in structure and organization to other art non-profits, as well as share similar safety issues.

One of the non-collecting and non-accredited art museums surveyed for this research is the Santa Monica Museum of Art (SMMoA, 2013). Founded in 1984,

SMMoA is a non-collecting art museum and the largest cultural complex in Southern

California of its type (SMMoA, 2013). SMMoA is also a Kunsthalle that devotes its main gallery and two project rooms to temporary art exhibitions and programs that aim to reveal critical untold stories in the history of contemporary art and culture while embracing varied cultures, views, and techniques (SMMoA, 2013). The museum also promotes the growth and collaboration of contemporary local and international artists, and provides audiences and students with the opportunity and tools to experience, learn from, and enjoy contemporary art (SMMoA, 2013).

An example of the contemporary art collaborations promoted by SMMoA is their new exhibition by artists Yutaka Sone and Benjamin Weissman titled What Every

Snowflake Knows in Its Heart (Dorf, 2013). The exhibition is mainly composed by a series of paintings and sculptures produced during five years by both artists, deriving 35

from their shared experiences in Mammoth Mountain and their passion for snow and related subjects such as skiing, nature, athletics, and the concept of alter-ego (Dorf,

2013). In addition, the artists are going to build an “animatronic ski mountain” and install it inside the museum’s main gallery complete with a roving chair lift and skiing characters (Dorf, 2013). The ski structure’s purpose is to allow audiences to more vividly connect with the experiences and ideas behind the artwork (Dorf, 2013).

The registration and loan procedures for temporary and traveling exhibitions will be outlined in the following section.

Registration and Loan Procedures

Registrar Job and Responsibilities

Registrars have several areas of responsibility within the museum or art non-profit where they work. They are mainly responsible for the management, organization and documentation of collections and/or loaned objects under the care of the museum. To do this job efficiently, “the registrar manages information about the museum’s collection and about transactions and activities involving works in the collection or in temporary custody” (Buck and Gilmore, 1998:1). Also included among registrar duties are storage 36

management, preventive preservation, and general security. This means the registrar is responsible for keeping collection and/or loaned items documented and organized; furthermore, the role oversees incoming and outgoing loans, as well as their insurance, packing, crating, and transportation for public exhibition purposes. On the occasion of traveling exhibitions, registrars often travel as couriers to watch over transportation procedures, documentation, and exhibition installs (Buck and Gilmore, 2003).

The registrar’s job title can be interchangeable with others depending on the museum’s size, organization, and needs (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). Many staff members with different titles such as curator, conservator, project director, or exhibition manager, can fulfill, both in group or individually, the tasks required for the proper documentation and management of museum collections or items loaned for traveling exhibitions. The

AAM’s composite job description for the Registrar is shown in Appendix 1, offering an overview of how flexible the position is. As Buck and Gilmore (1998:XIII) explain

“depending on the type and size of museums, the registrar’s office may do many, most, or all of the tasks that are listed, alone or in concert with other departments in the museum.”

Registrar Administrative Functions

As described in the previous section, the registrar has many different responsibilities within the museum. These mainly revolve around the care and 37

documentation of museum collection items or artworks. Also, registrars are in charge of communicating with and supervising staff who also work on documenting, installing, and/or securing the collection or loaned objects, such as assistant registrar, preparators, volunteers, etc. (Buck and Gilmore, 1998).

Documentation

Proper, timely, and organized documentation of the museum holdings is an important registration task since archives and data from the collection or loaned items are also considered an asset to the museum (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). In other words, effective documentation helps the museum better fulfill its education purpose (Buck and

Gilmore, 1998). Moreover, good documentation shows that the museum and staff are accountable for the caring of the objects trusted to the organization.

Aside from possibly managing a manual catalog system, archives, collection, and loans databases, other important registration documents are: “receipts, master log, worksheets, condition reports, gift agreements, IRS forms, proofs of purchase, copy right licenses, and loan agreements” (Buck and Gilmore, 1998:1). All of these documents are very important records to be maintained because they are evidence of all the transactions involved, and the legal status of the custody and/or ownership of the object (Buck and

Gilmore, 1998). 38

Preventive Care

Registrars also have the responsibility to supervise and manage the environment in which the collection or loaned objects are at all times, particularly when the organization has no permanent conservation staff (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). All objects are in constant process of deterioration, but there are ways to diminish or slower this natural decay with the proper handling, storage, and environmental control (Buck and

Gilmore, 1998). There are two main categories of deterioration, chemical deterioration and physical deterioration; usually both kinds of deterioration happen simultaneously

(NPS, 1999). The agents of deterioration in the environment that can affect objects include contaminants such as air pollutants, radiation from excessive light, inappropriate temperature, and inappropriate humidity (NPS, 1999). Preventive care is an effective strategy to preserve collection and exhibition items precisely because it prevents them from most conservation treatments, making it a more economic and environmentally friendly preservation strategy (Buck and Gilmore, 1998).

Typical measures to diminish object deterioration would include the control and monitoring of temperature, as well as the relative humidity (RH) around objects, including while traveling, in storage areas, and on display in gallery spaces. Other important measures involve controlling the amount of light an object receives, the air quality around it, and the implementation of an integrated pest management program that monitors and prevents pest infestations (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). 39

Processing and Organizing Loans for Traveling Exhibitions

Aside from working with documentation, preventive preservation, security, and other tasks regarding the care of museum collections, a great deal of the registrar management responsibilities include managing loaned objects for temporary or traveling exhibitions (Buck and Gilmore, 1998).

For various reasons, “most museums do not lend to individuals” (Malaro,

1998:259). Amongst those reasons, Malaro (1998:259) stresses that “museum collections are maintained for the benefit of the public; rarely can a museums justify their exclusive use by any individual.” In addition, “frequently, museums limit borrower eligibility even further by lending only to educational and/or non-profit organizations. The purposes of this limitation are to focus loan activity on educational and research projects and to avoid entanglement in commercial ventures” (Malaro, 1998:200).

There are various types of loans that a museum or organization has to manage for temporary or traveling exhibitions, including loans from museum collections, private owners of art, artists or their gallery representatives, corporations, or a combination of these. As Buck and Gilmore state, “the variations seem endless, and each exhibition brings its own unique set of problems, demands and triumphs” (2003:7). Explained in more detail by Malaro, 40

“in every day legal parlance, a loan creates a bailment. The term bailment is derived from the French word bailier meaning to deliver. The law recognizes innumerable forms of bailments; some are classified for the benefit of the bailor (the one giving), some for the benefit of the bailee (the one receiving), and others for mutual benefit” (1998:240).

Malaro also adds that,

“although the law establishes general categories of bailments and sets forth duties imposed by each, these become of major importance only when there is no expressed contract governing the arrangements. If there is an expressed contract, its terms prevail. A museum is advised, therefore, never to accept a loan unless there is a written contract (that is, an incoming loan agreement) spelling out the rights and responsibilities of each party” (1998:241).

In the next few paragraphs, the loan agreement will be explained in more detail.

Loan Agreement

Loan agreements are both for works that a museum or non-profit is borrowing

(incoming loan) or that a museum is lending to other museum or other organization

(outgoing loan), generally for educational exhibition purposes. This agreement has to be complete and signed before the museum or non-profit organization consents to the delivery of the loaned items (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). In general terms, “the loan agreement describes the object(s) to be lent, the lender, the borrower, terms and conditions of the loan including who will pay what expenses, and the term of the loan” 41

(Buck and Gilmore, 1998:7). As Buck and Gilmore (1998:7) emphasize, “Often the reverse side of this agreement lists conditions that pertain to all loans the museum accepts, with language about responsibility, notification to lender of any damage, reference to any state laws about unclaimed property, and limits or exclusions to insurance coverage.” Malaro adds, “it should not be assumed that lenders are familiar with what a museum may consider the routine use of borrowed objects. To avoid misunderstanding, the museum should spell out these uses in the loan agreement. If the lender objects to specific provisions, these can be discussed before entering into a loan contract” (1998:246).

Handling

As the National Park Service (NPS) Museum Handbook describes to their staff in training, proper handling is an important part of preventive preservation as “regular activities like cataloging, photographing, housekeeping, and packing for shipment all require you to handle and work with objects” (NPS, 1999:6:2). Moreover, “when you move objects you increase the risk of damage and loss because you are both handling them and changing their location” (NPS, 1999:6:9). Therefore, registrars have to direct and supervise the handling of loaned exhibition items or artworks both leaving and arriving to the organization. He or she must plan the movement of the objects and make 42

sure that the staff are trained on the proper and secure ways of unpacking, moving, installing, etc., objects for exhibitions (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). There are various guidelines that have to be followed depending on the materials and size of objects, but there are some general handling rules that the collection manager, registrar or courier has to make sure to implement (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). Moreover, the exhibition contract sent to the borrowing organization should preferably include a ‘care and handling guidelines’ package, where every object is described, condition reported, and where any special care or handling needs are noted (Buck and Gilmore, 2003:46).

Storage

As Buck and Gilmore (1998:109) emphasize, “the goals of good storage are to protect and preserve collections.” As further explained by the NPS Museum Handbook

(1999:7:1), “museum collection storage is a space and a process,” where the “space” is dedicated to store objects, either designed or upgraded, to provide the most protection and optimal use of the collection; and where the “process” is to properly house and care for the collection while in storage. Moreover, each decision regarding storage should consider how to improve the protection and preservation of the objects stored (NPS,

1999). 43

Registrars in charge of loaned objects for traveling exhibitions should see that

artifacts be stored in adequate and climate controlled storage spaces before installation or while waiting between exhibition venues. As Buck and Gilmore note,

“temporary storage for processing objects moving into or out of the museum should be maintained at the same relative humidity as the exhibition or storage areas to which the objects will proceed next. Allow sufficient time for objects to equilibrate to the climatic conditions inside the museum building. This time should also be used to monitor arriving objects form signs of pest infestation. If pests are discovered, objects should be sealed and treated before the problem can spread to other parts of the collection” (1998:109).

Or, as in the case of traveling exhibitions, it is important to prevent the spreading

of pests to other loaned objects.

Packing

As outlined in the NPS Museum Handbook (NPS 1999:6:11), “the hazards of

shipping an object are numerous. Improper packing can cause an object to be

permanently damaged or destroyed. A properly packed container is critical to ensure your

objects arrive safely.” If registrars or conservators determine that some items are not in

delicate condition and will be traveling only a short distance, traveling items can be soft- packed, meaning that they would not be packed in a hard-cover container (Buck and

Gilmore, 1998). For traveling exhibitions however, it should be considered that objects 44

will be likely packed in the same materials for traveling from one venue to the next venue

several times. Soft-packing or inside packing materials used to support and wrap

exhibition objects should preferably be archival, resistant, and provide buffering from

movement, as well as insulation from humidity (Buck and Gilmore 1998). Moreover,

“complex packing methods should be documented by photographs and/or simple

diagrams that accompany the shipment and are placed inside the lid of the case” (Buck

and Gilmore, 1998:131).

Crating

Crating can be a more convenient and secure form of packing items or artworks that are delicate, large, have multiple parts, or that for other reasons cannot be only soft-

packed. Crates for traveling exhibitions have to be built to endure constant handling and

be able to be opened and closed several times (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). Registrars are

often in charge of consulting and hiring the crate maker for the collection or loaned

artifacts that will be traveling to one or multiple venues (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). They

also have to document, label, and keep an organized checklist of all crates, and with it, a

list of each item or items inside each crate (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). 45

Shipping

As Buck and Gilmore describe,

“choosing a method of transportation requires consideration of the museum object. This includes but is not limited to value, size, historical or cultural importance, condition, fragility, rarity, state of packing, crate and shipment size and weight, timetable, and expense. The best method offers the highest level of control of the object. Clear documentation and instructions must be given to the carrier” (1998:141).

Therefore, it is preferable to hire shipping services from companies that

specialized in, or have handled, museum collection items; and it is important to look at

their reputation amongst other museums or organizations (NPS, 1999). It is usually

conservators, collection managers, or registrars who are in charge of deciding what

objects are going to travel, as well as selecting the transportation method. Registrars often

hire the shipping company and must keeping close communication with carriers, freight

agents, airlines, cargo managers and anyone in charge who is involved in the loading,

unloading, and shipment of the exhibition objects (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). They also

supervise that secure methods are used for shipping objects and their containers, such as

making sure that “all objects should be securely strapped within the truck to eliminate

shifting and movement during the transit” (Buck and Gilmore, 1998:136). This can also

be applied to other methods of transportation. More importantly, registrars need to make

sure that all shipping documentation is properly revised and signed, particularly when 46

signing receipts at the moments of transferring the possession of the load, and they

should never sign for a damaged package (Buck and Gilmore, 1998).

Courier

Once an exhibition is traveling, a staff member from the organizing museum or non-profit should supervise the exhibition from the first venue to the last (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). This staff member can be a registrar. The supervision of the exhibition

can occur from far distance, by keeping in close communication with the exhibition staff

of the borrowing organization and requesting updates. However, the lending organization

or private lenders can request and send their own representatives to oversee the exhibition

items arrival, unpacking, condition, and installation. The representatives are present

again for de-install and packing in preparation for travel to the next venue (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). These representatives are also called “couriers”. Having couriers to

address issues of an item’s condition, installation, and/or replacement, if necessary,

makes it easier to supervise exhibitions and solve problems on the moment (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). If an organization does not send representatives to oversee the

exhibition’s install and de-install each time it arrives to a new venue, it should send

someone to review the exhibition once it has been installed in a few venues (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). 47

Insurance

For temporary and traveling exhibitions, all loaned items and artworks must be

insured (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). Usually, the lending organization is responsible for

insuring the loaned objects. In some cases, the lending organization asks the borrowing

one to keep up the insurance. However, this is not a preferred arrangement, as the lender has to ensure that coverage is adequate every time the exhibition travels (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003). Most museums and art non-profits use standard fine arts insurance that

covers, for example, damages and/or loss (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). This coverage is

usually called wall-to-wall or nail-to-nail insurance, including while objects are in transit.

Another type of insurance used is “primary fine arts insurance,” to insure a

museum’s entire collection using the “probable maximum loss calculation” (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003:23). This maximum loss coverage is determined by calculating the cost of

the most valuable items and/or areas of a collection. Where, if a fire or flooding occurred, the loss would be the greatest, that maximum is what the insurance should cover (Buck

and Gilmore, 2003). Since primary fine arts insurance covers collection items including

when they are traveling, in some instances this insurance can be extended to cover some

or the whole traveling exhibition items that belong to the lending museum’s collection.

However, what a primary insurance covers can change according to policies and whether

the economic environment is good or not. Therefore, a separate temporary exhibition- 48

only insurance might be best to cover all loaned items in a traveling exhibition (Buck and

Gilmore, 2003).

More often than not traveling exhibition items may also be borrowed from one or various private lenders. As with a lending museum’s primary insurance, these private loans may be covered by the lender’s insurance. However, to protect the museum from being sued by the lender’s insurance, the museum should request to be listed as an additional insured in the lender’s policy, or ask the lender to waive the rights of subrogation against the museum in writing (Malaro, 1998). As Buck and Gilmore

(2003:24) show, some standard insurance clauses for traveling exhibitions can also include the following:

• Works during transit

• Full sets of two or more (value of whole set if one part is lost)

• Partial loss (cost of restoration and loss of value of piece)

• Loss buy back (the insured can repurchase an item if recovered after the claim had

been made)

Buck and Gilmore (2003:24) emphasize that “as the number of loans and the value and fragility of the objects increase, combinations of exhibition insurance, lenders insurance, and indemnification may be needed.” Therefore, It is often the case that the registrar is in charge of keeping track of all the information from all of the traveling exhibitions’ insurances (Buck and Gilmore, 1998). 49

In summary, the general registrar tasks and responsibilities in museums and traveling exhibitions, and most of the procedures for traveling exhibitions’ loans, focus on the safety and security of the loaned items. However, little attention is given to the safety and health of the staff, full-time, part-time or contractual, who are inspecting, packing, unpacking, mounting and/or installing the loaned objects. Therefore, these topics will be covered in the Workers Health, Environmental Awareness, and Museum

Risk Management, as well as in the Hazards in Museum Workplace and Exhibitions, the following sections of this literature review.

Workers Health, Environmental Awareness, and Museum Risk Management

Public Awareness on Health and Environmental Issues

The history of safety in the arts and museums is only a few decades long, but the realization that the work craftspeople and artists do can physically harm them and cause illness has been known for centuries (Hawks et. al., 2010). The following Table 4, taken directly from Hawks et. al. (2010:17), presents a brief timeline of work practice issues and health discoveries. 50

Table 4. Occupational Health Timeline

360 BCE: Hippocrates identifies lead poisoning in miners and metallurgists______1567 CE: Paracelsus becomes the father of toxicology for his classic quote: “All substances are poisons...; the right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy”______1700 CE: Ramazzini, father of occupational medicine, examines occupational diseases and causes, publishing Diseases of Workers______1775 CE: Percival Pott links occupational cancer to hygiene and working conditions among English chimney sweeps, resulting in the Chimney Sweeps Act of 1788______1897 CE: English medical inspection and compensation laws are passed for factory work 1990s: Dr. Alice Hamilton publishes Exploring the Dangerous Trades and has enormous influence over regulating occupational hazards in the US______

Table 4 highlights how advancements in health research increased the interest in policy creation to protect workers’ health. By the 1970s and by the mid 80s, particularly

in the US and Europe, there was a great public awareness of toxic materials in the

environment (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999). This concern over the environment and toxic hazards, along with the increasing federalism taking place in the US, led to the creation

of a series of laws and regulations to control the production of toxic materials,

particularly to limit dispersion of toxic substances into the environment (Schnepp and

Gantt, 1999). The following Table 5 is a partial list of the regulations that were developed

during the early and mid 1980s, as outlined by Schnepp and Gantt (1999:2). 51

Table 5. Environmental Acts and Regulations in the 1980’s

Clean Air Act______Clean Water Act______Consumer Product Safety Act______Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act______Flammable Fabrics Act______Federal Hazardous Substance Act______Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Federal Water Pollution Control Act______Hazardous Materials Transportation Act______Occupational Safety and Health Act______

Significantly, much of this legislation has affected the way in which museums

and all art non-profits have operated over the past three decades, as the following paragraphs discuss.

Organizations to Protect Art Workers from Occupational Hazards

As mentioned above, a wave of new awareness of health and environmental

issues made possible the ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, thus

creating the offspring agency known as the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA). This entity oversees many laws and other organizations at the

Federal and State levels that protect workers from occupational hazards (Schnepp and

Gantt, 1999). These regulatory efforts resonated in the field of museums and in places of 52

artistic production, leading to individual researchers becoming interested in the hazards faced by artists and museum workers, specifically (Hawks et. al., 2010). Following closely as well were US arts organizations, such as the Foundation for the Community of

Artists and the Center for Occupational Hazards, which also picked-up the concerns of art and museum workers (Hawks et. al., 2010). Fostered by Dr. McCann, the Center for

Occupational Hazards reached out to artists individually as well as to the museum and art community, thus staying ahead of the development of, for example, regulations and court cases significant to the area of health and safety in art (Hawks et. al., 2010).

The various programs developed by the Center for Occupational Hazards caught the attention of Frank Howie, the safety officer of the British Museum of Natural History in London, and moved him enough to put together the first “Safety in Museums” conference in 1985 (Hawks et. al., 2010). Today the Center no longer operates, but many of its activities have been incorporated into communities and programs such as the

University of Illinois Health in the Arts program, the Society for the Preservation of

Natural History Collections, and the work of the Health and Safety Committee of the

American Institute for Conservation, amongst others (Hawks et. al., 2010). 53

OSHA: Standards that Most Apply to Museums

The passing of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) was the first attempt by the federal government to significantly impact worker safety (Schnepp and

Gantt, 1999). Today, OSHA affects the day-to-day workplace environment of nearly all employees of any US museum (Malaro, 1998), as well as art organizations and other non­ profits. Principally, the OSHA law requires that “each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees” (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999:3). This “general duty” is manifested by the US

Department of Labor through OSHA’s standards that regulate all work practice and environment, and are all found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Parts 1029 et seq.) (Malaro, 1998:452).

To carry out its work, OSHA interacts with other government agencies such as the

Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is directly involved in control of toxic substances, insecticides and fungicides regulations, and disposal of toxic waste

(Malaro, 1998). Also, each state has one state agency or more with the authority to implement federal health and safety regulations, as well as administering the requirements that may be specific to that state (Malaro, 1998). 54

In addition, OSHA regulations are accomplished by a series of “evolving mechanisms,” one of the most important one being the capacity of OSHA to create the regulations that cover the many aspects of employment (Schnepp and Gantt 1999).

Specifically, the basics of OSHA regulations require that all employers must do the

following (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999:4):

• Provide competent inspection of each work site

• Prohibit the use of unsafe equipment by employees

• Require trained, experienced equipment operators to use the various equipment

• Instruct employees in hazard recognition and avoidance

• Instruct employees in pertinent regulations and procedures

OSHA also provides free inspection services and booklets to assist employers meet their requirements; therefore, any museum that does not have a safety professional and needs assistance with hazards and workers health and safety can contact the regional

or area office of the US Department of Labor, OSHA, or the state agency with the

authority to implement OSHA’s regulations (Malaro, 1998). Moreover, “employees have the right to file safety and health grievances with their employer or directly with the enforcement authority without fear of retribution, and failure to comply with the act’s requirements can expose an employer to civil and possible criminal penalties” (Malaro,

1998:452). However, a museum that undergoes a timely inspection and focuses on staff 55

health and safety can not only avoid claims, but will create a safer environment for visitors, as well as reduce the museum’s liability exposure (Malaro, 1998).

In the US Code of Federal Regulations, all of OSHA’s standards are found in Part

1910 of Title 29, spanning countless pages, but not all of them involve toxic or hazardous materials (Malaro, 1998). Some standards most specifically affect museums, Malaro

(1998:455-456) points out some of the most important, outlined here in the following

Table 6.

Table 6. OSHA Standards that Most Affect Museums

Subpart D - ’’Walking-Working surfaces”______Subpart E - “Means of Egress”______Subpart G - “Occupational Health and Environmental Control,” with special emphasis on S 1910.95, “Occupational Noise Exposure”______Subpart H - “Hazardous Materials”______Subpart I - “Personal Protective Equipment,” with special emphasis on S 1910.134, “Respiratory Protection”______Subpart J - “General Environmental Controls”______Subpart K - “Medical and First Aid”______Subpart L - “Fire Protection”______Subpart N, S 1910.176 - “Handling Materials, General”______Subpart O, S 1910.212 - “General Requirements for All Machines”; S 1910.213 — “Woodworking Machinery Requirements”; S 1910.215 - “Abrasive Wheel Machinery” Subpart P - “Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-held Equipment”______Subpart Q - “Welding, cutting , and Brazing”______Subpart S - “ Electrical”______Subpart Z - “Toxic and Hazardous Substances,” with special emphasis on S 1910.1047, “Ethylene Oxide,” and S 1910.1200 “Hazardous Communication”______56

Museum Risk Management Overview

Risk management is a fundamental part of museums operations, and is directly involved in registration and collections management functions (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

As mentioned in previous sections, many of the registration functions in both museums and art non-profits have to involve the management of insurance, security, and fire systems; moreover, they must involve pest management, emergency planning and emergency response. Registration staff has to be involved in developing plans to minimize risk to loans and collections, and use the resources available to reduce overall risk as much as possible (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Basically, risk management is a process of looking forward to identify, evaluate and control possible risks (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010).

There are many issues to consider in the planning for risk management. The recommended steps that a museum or arts non-profit can use to begin the development of a risk management plan are: identification and assessment of risks; identification of strategies to eliminate or mitigate risks; assessment of priorities, and plan development, evaluation, revision and modification of the plan (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Moreover, there are ten basic types of risks to collections or loans: physical forces, pests, water, fire, pollutants, criminals, relative humidity, temperature, light and radiation, and negligence

(Buck and Gilmore, 2010). In the same way, there are five strategies for controlling these risks: avoid the source as much as possible; block the agent of deterioration; detect and 57

monitor the agent; respond to mitigate the problem; and recover or treat the result of the problem (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Also, the types of risks can be categorized as mild,

severe or possibly catastrophic; these categories help to develop the best levels of response and control (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Finally, the location, building, room and/or cabinet of each specific item or collection should also be considered, and have a

specific procedure in place as part of controlling risks (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Emergency Planning

The primary reason to have an emergency plan is that, as a public space, a museum or art non-profit is not only responsible for the objects to its care, but also for the

safety of its employees and visitors (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Explained by Hawks et. al., “emergency planning strives to lessen the loss of human life and pain, structural damage, and disruption of services by attempting to foresee the types and routes of all

disasters and to address all potential workplace emergencies” (2010:30). Therefore, the

main objectives of an emergency plan are to first identify the risks in order to prevent

emergencies and avoid them, if possible; and second, to regain control when an

emergency occurs and to mitigate the damage as quickly as is feasible (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010). 58

Emergencies may be caused by natural disasters such as hurricanes, by power failures, terrorist threats, release of toxic gasses, chemical spills or contamination, medical emergencies in museums or field expeditions such as disease or heart attacks, and it can even involve vehicle accidents on an organization’s grounds (Hawks et. al.,

2010). Moreover, today many museums have laboratories that may contain a variety of flammable and toxic substances. Museum staff should be able to safely shutdown any lab process at any point, no matter how far along or complicated it is, and should be prepared to safely contain any hazardous substances and evacuate the building if necessary (Hawks et. al., 2010). If the organization does not have a form of “pre-planned emergency abort procedures” for all lab processes, an emergency could become more serious than it was at the beginning (Hawks et. al., 2010:30).

The three imperative steps for a plan to work well are: planning and documenting, training, and periodic drills, (Hawks et. al., 2010). The process of writing the emergency plan should involve staff members who will implement the procedures and clearly outline their responsibilities during and after an emergency. Therefore, these individuals need to be familiar with the procedures and in some cases may need additional training to implement them effectively (Buck and Gilmore 2010). Large museums may form committees or groups of staff members who will carry out the emergency plan; small organizations may have one or two people in charge of writing the plan (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010). Also, one emergency coordinator should be appointed as well as a back­ 59

up coordinator. Their job during an emergency may involve assessing emergencies,

directing emergency response, calling outside emergency services, directing shutdowns when necessary, and assessing safety after the emergency (Hawks et. al., 2010). An

adequate number of trained personnel in each group is also necessary, and depending on the size of the organization, there may be one or more groups for different types of

emergencies the members training may include the following (Hawks et. al., 2010:32):

• Use of fire extinguishers

• First aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

• Shutdown procedures

• Evacuation procedures

• Chemical-spill control procedures

• Use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)

• Search and emergency rescue procedures

• Protection or removal of valuable collections

Anticipation and prevention of potential risks are fundamental to minimize the

impact of an emergency, but requires an evaluation of both the facilities and the

environment around the organization (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Some planning steps

should include, for example, creation of communication lines, list of materials and tools needed in an emergency, and possible procedures for moving the collection items to a 60

temporary safe location (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). However, these and other specifics of an emergency plan should be written down, taking into consideration the peculiarities of the organization, collections, and staff to determinate the content and format of the plan

(Buck and Gilmore, 2010). A quick response version of the emergency plan should be instantly accessible to all staff so that each individual has the pertinent emergency procedures and contact information readily available (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Moreover, training drills must take place annually or more often for the plan to be useful

(Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Emergency Response and Recovery Basics

The first few hours and days are crucial for mitigating the risks caused by an emergency. These first moments are key when preventing further damage through well- intentioned mistakes (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Buck and Gilmore (2010:363) also point out that,

“safety for staff and visitors is always an over-arching concern. In the initial response to an emergency, during evacuation, consciously look for hazards: loose electrical wires, broken glass, objects on the floor, etc. Guide staff and visitors away from hazards as evacuation continues.”

After an emergency, staff should not enter the area until cleared by professional contingency responders such as fire officers or police. Upon re-entering, staff should 61

proceed only if equipped with the necessary safety gear, and should consciously look out for hazards (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Even though this seems like common sense, there could very well be professionals and staff who will first think about the safety of specimens and items, and not people (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Because resolving salvage issues is akin to dealing with the unforeseeable, periodic assessment of the response, and flexibility, are needed as work continues, as well as to assign staff, equipment and supplies as needed (Buck and Gilmore, 2010) Even though staff can be trained to apply basic methods for salvaging materials and stabilizing items, at times, expert knowledge will be necessary to assess salvage methods and the condition of specific items (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Basic issues to collections and loans after an emergency can possibly include water damage: too much humid, mold, salt build-up, corrosiveness; other common problems may involve air pollutants such as gasses or ash, broken items, pests, and unknown hazardous materials (Buck and Gilmore,

2010). Finally, as mentioned above, the best response and recovery to an emergency situation is done by organizations and individuals that have completed advance planning, research, and training, before the emergency happens (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). 62

Integrated Pest Management and Hazards

Another important aspect of museum risk management involves the control of pests. Any kind of facility needs pest control, but museums put large amounts of effort into this because the many items and collections that they hold are usually not only delicate, but often irreplaceable, therefore, protection is required at all times (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010). Most buildings house multiple species of insects that may not cause damage to facilities but can cause disgust and fright to tenants or visitors, such as spiders, ants or flies (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). However, the need for pest control in any facility is a great one also because, as Buck and Gilmore (2010:369) point out, “many nuisance pests also present a continuum of more tangible health risks (bites, stings, and disease transmission), the severity of which depends greatly on individual circumstances.”

Today the challenge of protecting facilities and collections from pests has become increasingly complex because the traditional chemical methods started in the 1950s are now considered to be potentially harmful to human health and collections (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010). This is mainly why “modern pest control” has become a more specialized field often termed “Integrated Pest Management” (IPM) (Buck and Gilmore,

2010).

The staff in charge of implementing IPM should have three main objectives in mind: “protection of property, protection of health and safety, and legal compliance” 63

(Buck and Gilmore, 2010:370). Even if the “protection of property” and objects seems to be the most obvious reason for IPM, it is important that all staff responsible for implementing it note that the effective protection of a museum’s collection and facilities goes far beyond applying chemical pesticides and killing animals (Buck and Gilmore,

2010).

The objective of “protection of health and safety ” has come from realizing that the almost exclusive use of chemicals to control pests in the past has presented potential harmful effects on human health (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). As mentioned, pests can sometimes be a threat to both human and environmental health; however, visitors expect public buildings to be protected from pests without affecting, for example, the safety of the food consumed in the facility, or the indoor air quality (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Moreover, children in particular are considered to be at a greater risk from any kind of toxic substances (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

The use of pesticides in any workplace is regulated, as mentioned, by a wide array of laws. For “legal compliance,” at minimum, museum staff responsible for IPM should be familiar with the label and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for every pesticide or chemical used in the organization, whether an in-house staff or an outside contractor applies it

(Buck and Gilmore, 2010). The label, more than a set of directions, is a legal commandment, for example, if pesticides are stored in the building; in addition, there are specific federal or state requirements for signage, security, and fire protection (Buck and 64

Gilmore, 2010). Organizations should also check with their state’s pesticide regulatory agency for more information, especially when in doubt about legal practices (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010).

Hazards in Museum Workplace and Exhibitions

What Constitutes a Special Material?

A hazardous material or a special material can vary greatly. One common definition of hazard or hazardous material used in this thesis is as follows: a potential source of danger or risk, particularly health risks and risks to personal safety (New

Oxford, 2010). Also used is the term toxic, meaning as well poisonous, to refer to chemical hazards that pose health risks (New Oxford, 2010). While these are common definitions of special materials or hazards, they are still very broad. Classification and identification of chemicals in the workplace can be confusing and complicated (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999). For example, according to the US Department of Transportation, as noted by Schnepp and Gantt (1999) the eight major hazard classes or groups are: corrosives, explosives, flammable liquids, flammable solids, gases, oxidizers, poisons and radioactive materials. However, there are many other lists for hazard classification.

According to Hawnks, et. al. (2010), some of the specific hazards in museum work are 65

classified as: particulate hazards, chemical hazards, biohazards, physical, mechanical and electrical hazards, as well as ionizing radiation and lasers; furthermore, each category has its own sub-divisions of hazard types.

As mentioned in previous sections, OSHA requires that Safety Data Sheets

(SDS), which outline a substance’s specific risks, be accessible to all employees working with special materials and hazardous chemicals (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999). The identifying and classifying of hazards and toxic materials is not always easy, not even for health agencies like OSHA. Also, SDS tend to vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer, and even from country of origin (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999). Therefore, in recent years OSHA has modified the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) and has adopted the Globally Harmonized System of Classification of Chemicals (GHS) of the

United Nations (OSHA, 2014). The GHS is a document that “provides harmonized classification criteria for health, physical, and environmental hazards of chemicals. It also includes standardized label elements that are assigned to these hazard classes and categories, and provide the appropriate signal words, pictograms, and hazard and precautionary statements to convey the hazards to users” (OSHA, 2014). The “HCS

Pictograms and Hazards” for materials’ labeling and SDM’s, and more information on

GHS adoption by OSHA can be found in the online document, “Modification of the

Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations' (UN) 66

Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS);” see

Appendix 2.

Special Materials in Museums

Focusing on the special materials used during the registration process and installation of temporary exhibitions, this thesis is specifically concerned with the types of toxic or chemical hazards, as well as the most common hazards and safety issues that affect workers’ health in museums and art non-profit organizations. A list of all of these hazards however, would be very long and could vary greatly from organization to organization, exhibition to exhibition, and even item to item. No one publication could contain all the information someone would need on hazardous materials and protection from all health and safety hazards in museums or any other field. Nonetheless, the following pages will discuss a number of the kinds of hazards that affect staff in collections, as well as in the processing and installation of exhibitions.

Chemical Hazards

Some of the special materials used in museum work are classified in the group of chemical hazards: chemical groups such as solvents, acids, alkalis, pigments, organic 67

peroxides, paints, resins, plastics, pesticides, fumigants and preservatives (Hawnks, et. al., 2010). Most of these chemicals may only be used in conservation and collection work. However, the paragraphs below will explain some of these chemical hazards as they relate more to exhibitions and registration procedures in art non-profits, as well as in museums.

Dyes and Pigments

Temporary and traveling exhibitions can bring with them hazards in the very artworks or specimens to be exhibited. One of the most common hazardous materials in artworks can be the dyes and pigments decorating an object. Artifacts such as paintings, sculptures, or textiles could have been adorned with materials that carry chemical hazards. For example, minerals such as lead, mercury, and cobalt can be found on old dyes and pigments and do pose a risk to human health (Hawnks, et. al., 2010).

The following Table 7 is a partial table taken from Hawnks, et. al. (2010:274-294)

“Table 5. Hazards of Pigments.” It shows some of the mentioned examples of pigments and harmful known health problems that they can cause and how they are caused. 68

Table 7. Hazards of Pigments

Pigment Other Names Hazards Antimony Black Color Index #77050 Moderately toxic by skin contact, (antimony sulfide) highly toxic by inhalation, extremely toxic by ingestion. Hazards of antimony compounds include skin absorption and ulceration. Acute inhalation or ingestion can cause metallic taste, irritation of mouth and nose, problems with breathing, and gastrointestinal upset. Chronic exposure can cause sleep disturbances, appetite loss, headache, and eventually liver and kidney damage. Probable reproductive toxin. Barium Yellow Lemon Yellow, Pigment Known human carcinogen. (barium chromate) Yellow 31 Extremely toxic by inhalation, highly toxic by skin contact and ingestion. Chromium (VI) compound. Chromium (VI) compounds are known or probable human carcinogens. Skin contact can cause skin corrosion, irritation, ulceration, and allergy. Lung cancer, irritation, allergy, and nasal septum perforation can be caused by inhalation. Ingestion can cause kidney damage, gastrointestinal disease, and circulatory problems. Cobalt Blue Thenard’s Blue, Pigment Highly toxic by inhalation and (cobaltous aluminate) Blue 28 ingestion; slightly toxic by skin contact. Chronic skin contact with cobalt compounds can cause skin allergies, 69

and chronic inhalation of these can cause asthma, heat problems, and possibly fibrotic lung disease. Ingestion of cobalt compounds can cause vomiting and diarrhea. Scheele’s Green Paris Green, Pigment Not in present day use. (cupric acetoarsenite; Green 22 Arsenic compounds are known originally copper human carcinogens and probable arsenite) mutagens and developmental toxins. Skin contact can cause sin irritation, damage, ulceration, and skin cancer. Inhalation can cause respiratory irritation, and skin, lung and liver cancer. Inhalation and ingestion can cause digestive problems, liver and kidney damage, alopecia, peripheral nervous system damage, and hemoglobin damage.

Solvents

A majority of marking materials and solvents to remove markings in collection or

exhibition items are toxic to some degree; moreover, because of their quick evaporation,

they can be highly volatile and can cause both fire and health hazards (Buck and Gilmore,

2010). Marking or removing varnishes should not be done without the professional

recommendations of a conservator, also, using solvents to mark, remove marks, or clean

should only happen in very well ventilated areas, all bottles should be capped when not in

use, and rapidly cleaned if spilled (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Other precautions include

avoiding skin contact and washing hands thoroughly and frequently when using solvents. 70

As any other workplace, museums and art non-profits should keep SDS on site and available to staff for all solvents, cleaning materials, and in general for all chemicals used for collections and exhibition work (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

Pesticide Residue

Caring for the very fragile condition of lots of exhibition items and their preservation is important for museums and art non-profits, but a concern exists for the sometimes toxic preservation methods used in past times, as well as the inherent materials of such items (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). In earlier times, many objects and specimens were treated with pesticides containing chemicals such as arsenic, ethylene oxide, Vapona, DDT, strychnine, mercuric chloride, naphthalene and paradichlorobenzene (mothballs) (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). This is particularly the case with many natural history, archeological, anthropological and other historic collections in museums (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Modem and contemporary art and other artworks in general may not present as many of the kinds of pesticides found in historic collections.

However, it should be kept in mind that, aside from the mentioned pigments and solvents, many materials in artworks, including found materials that could compose them, can also contain other toxic substances. This is why even though it is exciting to be part of the staff that opens a package or crate, or the one that installs the exhibition, possible health 71

risks demand added caution and usage of the appropriate protective equipment and special procedures may be needed to handle such items (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). The

NPS reports that at least 55 different chemical compounds and mixtures (including arsenic and mercury) may have been used to preserve their museum collections (NPS,

1999). Virtually all are irritants and many are harsh poisons and/or carcinogens (NPS,

1999). Other concerns exist with collection objects including asbestos, radioactivity, and pathogens (Hawnks, et. al., 2010).

Even if the usage of toxic pesticides in museums is being controlled or avoided in current times, much pesticide residue still remains in collections, in art storage, and on the surface of various artifacts and may present a health hazard to whoever handles them without the appropriate information and protective equipment (Buck and Gilmore, 2010).

There are several toxicological variables when dealing with pesticide contamination on items and other chemicals, as the harmful effects to health depend on the inherent toxicity of a substance, duration and quantity of exposure, and the particular susceptibility of each individual (Odegaard and Sadongei, 2005). For example, the amount of pesticide residue on an item may be large, but the exposure can be small; individuals using the appropriate protective equipment will have very low exposure and lower health risks (Odegaard and

Sadongei, 2005). Moreover, museums with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs have developed more conscious uses of pesticides, employing more eclectic and healthier 72

methods for pest control, as well as keeping SDS of all current pesticide use (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010).

Special Material and Safety Issues in Preparing Exhibitions

Taking down walls, installation, construction, painting, and general carpentry are some of the common activities for gallery renewal for temporary or traveling exhibitions.

Therefore, installation, up-keep and de-installation of exhibits can involve a wide variety of skills and specialties (Hawnks, et. al., 2010). In larger non-profits both the in-house and temporary staff may be highly professional, on the other hand; smaller organizations’ staff may have little or no training on some of the multiple tasks they need to perform

(Hawnks, et. al., 2010). Risks can be minimized through appropriate ventilation, protective equipment, machine guards, limiting the use of hazardous products and selecting products that emit low levels of fumes (Hawnks, et. al., 2010).

The following Table 8, adopted directly from Hawnks, et. al. (2010: 606-607)

“Table 1.General Hazards in Exhibit Production,” shows a summary of some of the hazards when working on exhibition install or de-install and what kind of protective measures to use. 73

Table 8. General Hazards in Exhibit Production

Operation Potential Exposure Protection Woodworking Cutting: table saw, band Dust inhalation, physical Machine guards, eye saw, circular saw, saber injury, noise protection, dust mask, saw, radial arm saw gloves, hearing protection, dust collection Drilling Physical injury Eye protection Fastening: screws, nails, Physical injury Training and/or use of staples professionals, strengthening exercises, proper lifting technique, protective equipment or use of appropriate lifting equipment Repetitive motion Physical injury Ergonomic program Laser tools Eye injury Appropriate equipment, work area restrictions Surface Preparation Solvents Vapor inhalation and skin Eye protection, ventilation absorption, physiological or exhaust, respirator, injury gloves, choice of low- emitting products Flame retardants Skin absorption Eye protection, respirator, gloves Dust Dust inhalation, old Eye protection, dust mask surfaces might have lead or respirator, dust collection, ventilation or exhaust Repetitive motion Physical injury Ergonomic program Vitrine Production Glass Physical injury Physical protection, eye protection Acrylic sheet (Plexiglas or Dust inhalation Eye protection, gloves, dust other) mask Solvents, adhesives Vapor inhalation, skin Eye protection, respirator, absorption, physiological ventilation or exhaust, injury choosing low-toxicity 74

solvents and joining methods Mount Fabrication Metalworking Dust inhalation, physical Eye protection, gloves, injury, noise ventilation or exhaust, respirator, fire prevention Plexi work Dust or vapor inhalation, Eye protection, gloves, dust bums mask Graphics Production Vapor inhalation, skin Eye protection, gloves, absorption, Physiological ventilation or exhaust, injury respirator, choosing low- emitting and nontoxic materials Installation Small object installation Physical injury Appropriate protective gear, training, adequate supervision Rigging, lifting Physical injury Training, supervision, and/or use of professionals; strengthening exercises; proper lifting technique; protective equipment or use of appropriate lifting equipment Ladders Physical injury Electrical work Training in safe use of ladders Housekeeping

Solvents Physiological injury Eye protection, gloves, ventilation, choosing nontoxic products with low impact on artifacts Cleaning agents Physiological injury Eye protection, gloves, ventilation, choosing nontoxic products with low impact on artifacts 75

Exhibition staff also need to be very cautious when re-using materials and when working with objects coming from various donors and lenders, since there may be little knowledge about their composition and past treatments (Hawnks, et. al., 2010).

Moreover, stress and working in overcrowded areas with tight deadlines can also lead to accidents (Hawnks, et. al., 2010). These many possible risks during exhibition installation can be further minimized by well planned exhibition schedules, safety plans, review of sites, tools, and materials, supervision, and implementation of safe work practices

(Hawnks, et. al., 2010).

Wavs In Which Workers Can Absorb Toxic Chemicals

As seen in previous examples, each toxic material can be introduced to the human body in many ways, or in one particular way but not another. Substances we commonly consume can become toxic if ingested in large quantities, for example, water and salt in moderate amounts are beneficial to the body, however, with overconsumption they can become very harmful; it is all about how much of the substance is actually absorbed by the body (Odegaard and Sadongei, 2005). Arsenic, on the other hand, is a poison because a much lower dose can cause harmful effects to the body (Odegaard and Sadongei, 2005).

Health risks can be immediate, cumulative, and long-term, and these may be lower or higher depending on a substance’s dosage, time exposure, and each person’s individual 76

body defenses (Odegaard and Sadongei, 2005). Therefore, the best way to prevent illness caused by sporadic or even constant exposure to special materials is to understand how do we come into contact and absorb toxins in general, so that possible health issues can be prevented.

Residues from pesticides, and other toxic substances, can be absorbed into the human body through inhalation, ingestion, or absorption through the skin (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010). This also means that these substances can be absorbed through exposed ear canals, eyes can also absorb them, and the gastrointestinal track through touching or licking our lips. The exhibition, registration, collection and conservation staff members and any temporary workers that could be most affected by these hazards should follow all standard procedures and safety precautions. As expressed by Buck and Gilmore (2010:

217), “staff involved with handling any material that may pose a health or safety risk should approach such objects with caution, information, and protection.”

If the staff does not use or has the proper protective equipment (respirators, masks, non-permeable gloves, etc.), the repeated exposure that installation teams, preparators, registrars and volunteers, conservators and collection managers dedicated to receive, unpack, construct, design and install exhibitions can have respiratory and other kinds of illnesses more often than other people, and their accumulation can also contribute or even cause life threatening illnesses (Hawnks, et. al., 2010). As Buck and

Gilmore (2010) stress, museum supervisors working with these collections are urged to 77

enforce staff usage of protective equipment and prolonged contact with toxic materials, as well as working in areas with inadequate ventilation, has to be prohibited. This issue of ventilation is very important to keep in mind for art non-profits. Efforts to improve ventilation are essential even more so when an organization’s facilities do not have an air filtering system. Proper ventilation is necessary in separate workrooms for exhibition organization, art construction and install rooms. Furthermore, proper isolation from galleries and office areas is needed to protect all staff and keep air free of toxic particles that can accumulate and travel.

This section concludes the literature review portion of this thesis; it was designed to be an introductory look at hazardous materials involved in registration, museum and art non-profit work as it is a complex and broad issue, and no one book or manual could cover everything that it is needed to know for handling, processing, and working with toxic materials and hazards. As outlined before, every museum and art-nonprofit has to look at and evaluate its own collections, exhibitions, installations, their surrounding environment and so on, in order to identify and create ways to protect staff and visitors from the organization’s own particular hazards. The following chapters will outline the general methodology, show the survey results sent to the art non-profits, and the overall conclusions of this research.

As previously seen, not only the artwork, ethnographic materials, or specimens brought into an organization to be exhibited could bring in hazards, but also much of the 78

materials used by the organization to renew and prepare the gallery space for new exhibitions. In the same way, all painting, construction and carpentry operations could also bring in toxic materials into the workspace, as some art organizations may have the appropriate tools and protective equipment, but others may not be as prepared to handle and install certain materials. Therefore, a survey about processing special materials for traveling exhibitions was sent to content experts working in 100 art non-profits in

California to investigate their particular situations as non-collecting art organizations that host temporary exhibitions and/or traveling exhibitions; results can be found in the next chapters. 79

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

In this chapter, the methods used to undertake this thesis will be outlined. In addition to a literature review, a survey of content experts at non-profit art organizations, art centers, art galleries, and non-collecting art museums in California was conducted, as discussed below.

A literature review was conducted as presented in Chapter 2 of this thesis. The main sources reviewed where museum registration and collection management books, the second source were exhibition manuals, as well as the surveyed non-profit arts organizations’ web sites, and finally, sources on hazardous materials. These sources were reviewed primarily in order to discuss art non-profits work, registration methods, basic collection and art handling procedures, as well as traveling and temporary exhibitions loan procedures and typical hazards in collections and art materials.

Also as part of the research methodology, a survey consisting of eighteen questions was mailed to content experts at one hundred California art non-profits, as shown below in Table 9 and in Appendix 4. These art non-profits included non-profit art organizations, non-profit art galleries and non-profit art centers run mostly by professional staff, but also with some run by artists and volunteers. Non-accredited and non-collecting art museums were surveyed as well, because, even if California has many 80

non-profit art organizations, it was still challenging to identify one hundred art non­ profits to survey in one state. Likewise, non-collecting museums operate similarly to other art non-profits but often have a registrar, and follow conservation standards. By including these types of non-profits, a diverse range of responses was sought. It was also important to survey one hundred art non-profits for this research because questions regarding special materials and hazards might be considered challenging for respondents to answer, so a large sample was surveyed in the event that few organizations responded.

The list of all surveyed non-profit art organizations is included in Appendix 5.

Purpose of Survey

The purpose of the survey was to investigate contemporary practices in the processing, handling, and installation standards for loaned objects in art non-profits in

California, specifically in relation to temporary and traveling exhibitions. California was selected to keep the survey size manageable and to allow the state to serve as a snapshot of similar practices across the United States. The survey was also designed to explore the risks that art non-profits face and how they train and protect the safety and health of their own staff, in particular when it involves handling, processing, and installing special materials for temporary exhibitions. 81

Organizations were selected from the California Association of Museums (CAM) web site was consulted to identify all kinds of art non-profits in the State. A preliminary list of art organizations was then compiled, and the website of each organization examined in order to identify art-focused non-profits that host temporary and traveling exhibitions, and which were also not accredited and were non-collecting.

Next, the web page of Art-Support was reviewed (Art-Support, 2012). Art-

Support lists nonprofit art organizations, divided by Southern California and Northern

California, as well as by city and county, such as San Diego, San Rafael, and Pasadena.

Links to websites listed on Art-Support to the organizations’ web pages were followed to confirm which of these art organizations were actually art non-profits that also hosted art exhibitions.

In sum, non-profit art organizations were selected that hosted traveling exhibitions and/or borrowed and exhibited art installations and all kinds of contemporary art. Non-profit organizations that cared for living collections, historical associations, or children’s museums were not included because these have other types of programming and the issues they face generally do not concern art handling, art installation, and special materials handling. 82

Content Experts

The survey was designed to be answered by registrars. The registrar is often the position/job title within a museum or art organization that is responsible for insurance, transportation, loan agreements, condition reports, ensuring the safety of, and managing related issues concerning special objects borrowed for exhibitions. However, the organization and staff structure of art non-profits art vary, in California and elsewhere, as some organizations have a registration position while others do not. Therefore, most of the one hundred surveys were mailed to a leadership position, the executive director, and a request was made to forward the response to the person in the organization most commonly responsible for tracking and handling objects as part of temporary exhibitions.

Not only are executive directors involved in all aspects of their organizations’ daily operations and work, their contact information is commonly supplied by the non-profit itself, making it difficult to identify who is actually responsible for registration duties in an art non-profit.

If the director’s information was not available, the survey was mailed to the organization’s president, exhibition director or registrar. However, as mentioned above, the survey’s cover letter offered the option to the person receiving the survey to forward it to another content expert currently working in their organization who might have been more capable or more available to answer the survey. The cover letter can be seen in

Appendix 3. 83

Survey Questions

Since the survey was designed to be confidential, it is not possible to connect the art non-profits with the survey answers. Therefore, the first few questions of the survey were designed to identify and place each survey response into a group according to non­ profit type and budget size. In the section below, each survey question is outlined, along with an explanation of why the question was asked. In Table 9, as mentioned above, the survey is presented.

The survey was designed to be answered by art non-profits. However, because

California has many types of art organizations, and on occasion, it is not always clear whether these organizations are non-profits or not, as well as institutions that collect or display art or not, respondents were asked, in question number one (1), about the kind of non-profit they were. The survey was designed to be answered by content experts working in art non-profits and art museums, not by private organizations and galleries or other types of non-profits. Specifically, question one asked content experts to select between the options provided, such as non-accredited non-collecting art museum or nonprofit art gallery. Also, respondents could write to identify what kind of non-profit they were.

Question number two (2) asked respondents to indicate their job position/title. As mentioned above, the one hundred surveys were sent and addressed mostly to the 84

executive directors working in California art organizations, whose contact information was publicly available. However, the cover letter gave the option to the person receiving the survey to forward it to another content expert currently working in their organization who might be more suited to answer the survey, such as a registrar. This was done in order to ensure that the survey would be answered by the most knowledgeable person in the organization when it came to registration functions.

The third question (3) asked content experts to select between the options provided and identify the approximate yearly exhibition budget range of their non-profit.

This again makes it possible to divide the responding art non-profits into different categories according to size and finances. Responses to this question can help determine whether or not a smaller or larger budget affect, for example, whether the non-profit hires conservators for specific projects and whether it provides staff training.

The fourth question (4) was designed to establish how many traveling exhibitions respondents hosted each year. Respondents were asked to write the number of traveling exhibitions their organizations hosts during a year, so that the frequency of their encounters with special materials could be assessed.

The fifth survey question (5) asked content experts how much time their organization’s schedule usually has between de-installing an old exhibition and installing a new one. The less time between exhibitions, the more likely the art non-profit and staff 85

is pressured to meet opening deadlines. The more pressure, the more careless or tired the staff can get, and more accidents can occur. However, the number of staff or the size of the gallery, as well as the amount of construction needed for each exhibition, can also affect the time it takes each organization to process and install an exhibition.

Question six (6) asked which staff positions were responsible for the development or selection of the organizations’ exhibition programming. The question requested respondents to select between job title options such as on-site curator and exhibition manager or to specify other staff positions who are also responsible for selecting exhibitions. The knowledge and expertise of the person who selects and organizes the exhibition will affect safety issues including installation. In addition, if the staff member is only hired temporarily, his/her experience and knowledge of the non-profit’s resources, staff, gallery space, materials, safety plans, and the institution in general may be more limited.

Question number seven (7) asked if the institution hosts traveling exhibitions that have been pre-fabricated by other organizations and to select from the options provided the kind of organizations they obtain these exhibits from, such as museums or for-profit galleries. This question was asked in order to determine the kinds of organizations that surveyed non-profits obtain exhibitions from. If the exhibitions are derived from museums, for example, the objects and artworks in the exhibition may arrive better 86

documented and in a safer condition because dedicated registrar positions generally exist in museums.

Similar to question number seven, question number eight (8) asked in more general terms what kinds of organizations have previously lent objects to each surveyed non-profit for exhibition purposes and to select from the options provided, such as library collections, artist directly, and/or manufacturers directly. Again, objects and artworks loaned from museums or libraries are more likely to be better documented or have better instructions for care and safety. Artworks that are borrowed from artists or collectors directly may be less than thoroughly documented, since there may be no registrar involved.

To find out about the registration processes that the organization currently follows for incoming loans, Question number nine (9) asked respondents if, prior to shipping to the organization, they are asking lenders where and for how long has the object or artwork been stored. Knowing where an object/artwork has been before arriving to the organization allows registrars and/or staff to predict whether an object can carry possible risks. For instance, if the organization mainly borrows objects from artists directly, and does not ask the artist about where the object has been stored, it may run into a safety or conservation issue. For example, if the artwork has been stored in the artist’s home, garage, or studio without any type of climate control, there is a higher probability that the object might present issues of humidity, mold, fungi, and other pests or hazards. Also, the 87

response can demonstrate how much the non-profit is thinking ahead about solving issues of processing, handling, installation, safety, etc. with regard to exhibition installation.

Question number ten (10) asked content experts if their non-profits have written guidelines for object handling, and if so, which staff members are trained to follow them.

Guidelines help staff share direction and action plans. While guidelines for unpacking, transporting, handling, and installing exhibit help diminish risks for staff and loaned objects, they often indicate procedures or steps for all stages during which the object is being handled. It is expected that these notes will also cover the equipment and tools necessary to handle the object.

If the art non-profit does not have written guidelines for object handling, there cannot be a consensus on how to treat objects. Similarly, without them, new staff members will not be able to learn the organization’s policy on handling of artworks, leading, therefore, to a dysfunctional system that allows anyone to handle an object whichever way they want, instead of learning standards to tackle particular issues or specific care for different kinds of materials.

In most cases there is no conservator or registrar working in the art non-profit that can provide directions. Regardless of having these staff roles, guidelines are needed to understand a particular organization’s needs and resources. Communicating these needs, in turn, helps train other staff on the broader set of concerns. Also, without written 88

guidelines, experiences and materials that the organization might encounter with every new exhibition and loan cannot be documented to improve the efficiency of different procedures.

Question number eleven (11) asked content experts if the collections, artworks, and other objects that their organization borrows are ever accompanied by instructions for special handling or care, particularly concerning special materials. This question investigates how often objects loaned to California, non-collecting art non-profits come with their own instructions for the safe handling of the object and security of staff processing it. If no information is provided by the lender on the materials (information on building or structural notes on the object, safe-handling, past damages, etc.) both the object and the staff can be at risk.

If no instructions and/or documentation are ever given, all responsibility is left to the borrowing organization to investigate and decide how to handle each object.

Problems they may encounter will have to be dealt with as they arise, which can lead to hard situations and irreparable damage. For example, an object might have a very delicate internal structure which is not visible from the outside, or it could have been treated and/or created with chemicals that might still be present in the object. When these issues are not reported, the staff is not fully informed of risks. 89

Question twelve (12) asked if the non-profit’s staff ever requests and/or keeps a file of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on the products and materials that the organization uses. Manufacturers in the U.S. are required by OSHA’s Regulations on

Occupational Safety and Health Standards to produce, publish and provide MSDS or

SDS information on the products and, particularly, the chemical substances that they manufacture and distribute (OSHA, 2012). MSDS or SDS should be provided to all employees and specify how the product should be used, how to protect oneself while using the product, how to store it, what to do in case of poisoning, contact, or ingestion.

All this safety information should be distributed to any employee using such substances, including detergents, adhesives, paints, solvents, etc. Some museums have a file or binder where they keep this information available to all staff, so that anyone who needs to use a product can access this information. It can often be found online and printed, or requested from the manufacture.

Question number thirteen (13) asked if the non-profits ever found the need to hire a conservator, interim registrar, museum consultant, or other professional to advise on or oversee the handling and installation of a specific object and/or special material. If that had been the case, they were asked to briefly describe in which way the organization needed such professional help and/or advice. The answers to this question would help determine how often and in which occasions non-accredited art non-profits seek 90

professional help to handle and install challenging objects and artworks, and to see how often these organizations need help with their special materials.

Question fourteen (14) asked content experts if their facilities and/or the traveling exhibits they host often required that old walls be demolished and new ones built. Also, whether they have a movable-wall system that lets them avoid building new walls. The more demolition and construction a gallery or exhibition space has to undertake, the more risk to their preparation staff. Building new walls requires heavy-duty materials as well as more paint and other possibly toxic substances.

Question fifteen (15) asked content experts if their organization provides emergency response training to staff members and to specify what kind of emergencies are covered and how often do these trainings occur. If training is provided, the staff is more knowledgeable and ready to act in case of an emergency. Providing training reflects that the non-profit is trying to be organized and prepared for emergency situations and disasters. It also indicates that they all understand how to respond to protect themselves and others.

Question number sixteen (16) asked if any of the training that might be provided to staff in the non-profit includes training on proper handling of hazardous materials in order to protect staff and visitors. This question was asked in order to expand upon the previous question because not all emergency response training includes sharing 91

information on hazardous materials. Staff may be trained on how to act in case of a fire or earthquake but not necessarily in the case of objects being chemically treated or having a toxic or hazardous composition: One example is a wet collection item, while another is a product that might be toxic yet is required for the installation process, like certain paints and adhesives. The question also examines whether exhibition staff and other staff receive other types of training.

Question number seventeen (17) asked if the organization has a hazard reporting mechanism for employees, and if so, to briefly explain how it works and if it included volunteers, interns, and contractual art handlers. Having a hazard reporting mechanism in place helps staff and anyone working for the non-profit to ask for help promptly and securely in case of a hazard-based event. The mechanism would have a person or group of people in charge who are prepared to quickly respond to these kinds of situations.

This demonstrates that the organization is planning ahead in safety manners and that it provides appropriate tools to staff.

Question number eighteen (18) asked if the organization provides staff with any training on occupational health as well as to specify who provided this training and who were required to attend. In order to protect themselves and others, the organization should provide general occupational safety training or workshops. This question helps determine whether the art non-profits surveyed educate employees on work-related hazards to protect staff and visitors from hazards. Exhibition installation and handling of 92

loaned artworks and other objects can be associated with specific risks; staff should be aware of risks and hazards.

Table 9. Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions Survey

1. Please indicate the type of institution where you currently work. If you work at a museum, please indicate if it is accredited or not by the American Association of Museums. Please check the box that applies.______Accredited non-collecting art museum Non-profit art organization Non-accredited non-collecting art museum Non-profit art gallery Non-accredited collecting art museum Non-profit art center Other:______2. Please indicate your job position/title:______3. What is your organization’s approximate yearly exhibitions budget?______Less than $50,000 $50,000-$ 100,000 $100,000-$250,000______$250,000-$500,000______$500,000-$800,000______$1,000,000 and over______4. Please indicate the number of traveling exhibitions your organization hosts during a year:______5. Approximately, how much time does your organization’s schedule allow for de- installing the past exhibit and installing the new one?______6. Most of your organization’s exhibitions are proposed by (please check all that apply): Onsite curator Exhibition manager Guest curator______Other(s): ______7. Does your organization usually host pre-fabricated traveling exhibitions? If the answer is yes, where from? Please check all that apply.______Museums______Other non-profits______For-profit exhibit developers For-profit galleries______Other(s):______8. From which kind of institutions or private parties does your organization most often borrow objects for temporary exhibition purposes? Please check all that apply.______Museum collections______Library collections______Other non-profits______For-profit galleries representing artists or other lenders______93

Artists (directly) Collectors (directly) Manufacturers (directly) Other(s):______9. Does your organization ask lenders where and/or for how long has the borrowed object been in storage or in use prior to shipping to your organization?______10. Does your organization have written guidelines for object handling? If so, which staff members are trained to follow them?______11. Are collections, artworks and other objects that your organization borrows ever accompanied by instructions for special handling or care, particularly concerning special materials (e.g. minerals, specimens, pesticides, organics, etc.)?______12. Does your organization request and/or keep a file of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on the products and materials that the organization uses?______13. Has your organization ever found the need to hire a conservator, interim registrar, museum consultant or other professional to advise on or oversee the handling and installation of a specific object and/or special material? If so, please briefly describe in which way your organization needed their help and/or advise.______14. Do your organization’s facilities and/or travelling exhibits often require that with every show old walls be demolished and new ones built? and/or do you have a movable wall system to avoid having to build new walls every time?______15. Does your organization provide emergency response training to staff members? How often are these trainings provided and what kinds of emergencies are covered? (e.g. fire, chemical spill, earthquake, etc.)______16. Does any of the staff training provided by your organization include proper handling of hazardous materials to protect one’s self and others?

17. Does your organization have a hazard reporting mechanism for employees? If yes, briefly explain how it works. Also, does it include volunteers, interns, and/or contractual art handlers?

18. Does your organization provide staff training on occupational health? If so, who provides the training and who are required to attend?______94

Chapter 4: Survey Results

As outlined in the previous chapter, 100 surveys concerning the processing of special materials for traveling exhibitions were sent to content experts working in art non-profits in California that host temporary and/or traveling art exhibits as part of their programs. Thirty-one surveys were received back from the art non-profits contacted, but only 29 could be counted because two of the surveys were completed by collecting art museums. As mentioned in the methodology, the surveys were to be answered only by non-accredited, non-collecting art museums and by non-profit art centers, art organizations, and art galleries. As a result, two survey responses were discarded, and the overall response rate to the survey was a respectable 29%, just under one-third of all those surveyed.

The results of the surveys will be presented in three groups. First, responses concerning general demographic questions will be presented. Second, the results of the questions that relate to health concerns as well as to registration and installation procedures will be presented. Finally, results regarding staff training will be presented. 95

Demographic Results

Since the survey was designed to be confidential, and it is not possible to connect the non-profits with the survey responses, questions 1 through 8 were designed to identify and place each survey response into groups, in order to facilitate analysis. Groups included organization type and budget size, as well as key characteristics of exhibition work, such as what staff position in the art non-profits was responsible for proposing exhibitions, and what kinds of organizations the responding non-profits borrowed items from.

Question 1 asked respondents what kind of art non-profit they currently work in.

Of the 29 surveys received, 31% (9) came from non-profit art centers', 31% (9) more came from non-profit art galleries; 28% (8) came from non-profit art organizations', and

10% (3) from non-accredited non-collection art museums.

Question 2 asked respondents to indicate their current job position/title. Of the 29 surveys received, 65% (19) were answered by the Executive Director, two of whom also listed “curator” as part of their job title. The other content experts’ job titles were: 7% (2) presidents of the board of directors; 10% (3) exhibit directors; 3% (1) exhibition and registration director; 3% (1) program director; 3% (1) program associate; 3% (1) program coordinator/curator; and 3% (1) registrar. 96

Results gathered for question 3 concerning annual exhibition budgets are as follows. Of the 29 surveys received, 48% (14) art institutions’ exhibition budget is less than $50K annually; 10% (3) institutions have budgets between $50 and $100K; 24% (7) have budgets between $100 and $250K; 7% (2) have budgets between $250 and $500K; and 10% (3) have budgets of $1 Million or more.

Responses to question 3 concerning budgets can be related to the results from two questions in the survey, the type of art non-profits from question 1, and exhibition schedule time frame, from question 5. Presented first is the approximate exhibition budget in relationship to the mentioned four types of art non-profits discussed (Table

10). Results from question 5 and its relationship with question 3 will be discussed below, after question 4.

Table 10. Four Types of Art Non-profits in Relation to Approximate Annual Exhibition Budgets

Approx. Percent and Percent and Percent and Percent and annual number that are number that are number that are number that are exhibit art galleries art organizations art centers art museums budget Less than 50 % (7) 36% (5) 7% (1) 7% (1) $50k $50-$100K 0 33% (1) 67% (2) 0 $100- 29% (2) 0 71% (5) 0 $250K $250- 0 100% (2) 0 0 97

$500K 1 Million 0 0 33% (1) 67% (2)

Question 4 asked respondents to indicate the number of traveling exhibitions their organization hosts during a year. Of the 29 art non-profits, 65% (19) responded that they do not host any traveling exhibitions whatsoever; one respondent commented, “we make our own.” Even though it was not part of the question, 2 of the 19 non-profits that do not host traveling exhibitions noted instead the number of temporary exhibitions they host per year. Of these 2, one art gallery hosts 7 exhibitions per year, while another art gallery hosts 26 exhibitions per year.

On the other hand, 24% (7) non-profits do host from 1 to 10 traveling exhibitions per year. From these 7 art non-profits, the type of art non-profits and number of traveling exhibitions they host per year is as follows: one art center hosts 1 traveling exhibition while 1 other art center hosts 2 traveling exhibitions. One art organization hosts 2 to 3 traveling exhibitions; 1 art organization hosts 4 traveling exhibitions; and 1 other art organization hosts 5 traveling exhibitions. One non-collecting, non-accredited art museum hosts 4 to 6 traveling exhibitions, while 1 other art museum hosts 10 traveling exhibitions.

Finally, 10% (3) of non-profits responded that they rarely host traveling exhibitions, 1 art center occasionally hosts 1 traveling exhibition, while 1 art gallery also 98

occasionally hosts 1 traveling exhibition, and one other art gallery occasionally host 1 to maybe 2 traveling exhibitions per year.

Question 5 next asked respondents approximately how much time their organization’s schedule allows between the de-installation of their past exhibit and installation of the new one. The responses from the 29 surveys received were quite varied with few overlaps and are presented below on Table 1 in relationship to the number of days needed for installation.

Table 11. Question 5. Exhibition Installation Schedules

Percentage and number of art non-profits Days between installations 3% (1) 1 3% (1) 2 3% (1) 2 to 3 3% (1) 4 3% (1) 3 to 7 13% (4) 7 3% (1) 8 3% (1) 7 to 10 6% (2) 7 to 15 3% (1) 10 3% (1) 11 99

3% (1) 8 to 12 6% (2) 10 to 14 13% (4) 15 3% (1) 21 3% (1) 15 to 21 3% (1) 15 to 30 3% (1) 30 3% (1) 21 to 35

Finally, 3% (1) of respondents commented that the schedule “varies,” while another 3% (1) responded with the following comment: “2 to 5 hours of our time. Artists transport and retrieve their own work and usually hang it.”

As mentioned above, results from question 5 can be related to the budget results of question 3 in the survey. Of the 14 art non-profits with budgets of less than $50K, 28%

(4) have 7 days between exhibitions de-install and install; 7% (1) has 8 days; 14% (2) have 15 days; 7% (1) has 30 days; 7% (1) has between 7 to 15 days; 7% (1) has 10 days;

7% (1) has 4 days; 7% (1) has only 1 day; 7% (1) other responded “varies;” and the last

7% (1) responded with the previously mentioned comment: “2 to 5 hours of our time.

Artists transport and retrieve their own work and usually hang it.” 100

Of the 3 art non-profits with budgets of $50k to $100K, 33% (1) has 7 to 11 days between exhibitions de-install and install; 33% (1) has 11 days; and the other one 33%

(1) has 15 days.

Of the 7 art non-profits with budgets of $100 to $250K, 28% (2) have 10 to 14 days between exhibitions de-install and install; 14% (1) has 15 to 21 days; 14% (1) has 8 to 12 days; 14% (1) has 7 to 15 days; 14% (1) has 2 to 3 days; and the last one 14% (1) only has 2 days.

Of the 2 art non-profits with budgets of $250 to $500K, 50% (1) has 15 to 30 days between exhibitions de-install and install, while the other 50% (1) has 3 to 7 days.

Finally, of the 3 art non-profits with budgets of $1 Million or more, 33% (1) has

21 to 35 days between exhibitions de-install and install; 33% (1) has 21 days; and the last

33% (1) has 15 days.

Question 6 asked survey respondents to specify the job title of the person who proposes most of the exhibitions in their organization, with possible responses as follows: on site curator, guest curator, exhibition manager, or to specify another job title. Of the

29 art non-profits, 20% (6) respondents specified that their “onsite curator” only proposes their exhibitions; 13% (4) of respondents specified the “executive director” only proposes their exhibitions; 3% (1) specified other: “other galleries in exchanges;” 3% (1) responded other: “contracted curator;” another 3% (1) responded “exhibition manager;” 101

3% (1) responded other: “exhibitions committee;” and 3% (1) specified “other” but did not write the job title.

Finally, 48% (14) of respondents indicated that more than one job title proposes exhibitions; a sample of the varied responses is presented in Table 12 below.

Table 12. Question 6, Art Non-profits with Multiple Responses Concerning Staff

Positions Responsible for Proposing Exhibitions

Artistic director and program director______Independent______Executive director and chief curator______Onsite curator (3 shows a year) and guest curator (7 shows a year) Gallery director/exhibition manager______Executive director and board of directors______Exhibition committee______Board or solo shows______Staff and outside parties______Onsite curator and guest curator(s)______Onsite curator and exhibition manager______Annual submissions program reviewer______Executive director

Question 7 asked respondents whether their art non-profit usually borrows pre­ fabricated traveling exhibitions, and more importantly, where they borrow from: museums, other non-profits, for-profit exhibit developers, for-profit galleries or other(s).

As shown in the results of question 4, most of the respondent non-profits do not host 102

traveling exhibitions, so the response rate to this question was low. Three of the respondents did not answer this question; of the remaining 26, 15% (4) responded “N/A;” and 65% (17) simply responded “No” to this question. Of the 19% (5) art non-profits that do host traveling exhibitions, the following responses were received: two non- accredited, non-collecting art museums stated that they borrow from “museums;” two other respondents, 1 from an art gallery and 1 from an art center, stated they borrow from

“other non-profits;” and one art organization stated that they borrow from “other” sources without specifying the kind, but commented that “most of our projects are site specific.”

Next, question 8 asked what kind of institutions or private parties did art non­ profits most often borrow items or artworks for their exhibitions in general. Three of the

29 respondents did not answer this question. Of the 26 remaining, 11% (3) responded

“N/A” to this question; 53% (14) answered that they borrow from “artists directly” and did not indicate any other sources; and 34% (9) responded to this question with more variable answers because they borrow from more than one kind of lender, although they all also borrow from “artists directly.” The 34% (9) variable answers are presented in

Table 13 below. 103

Table 13. Question 8. Art Non-profits that Borrow Items from Various Lenders

For-profit galleries representing artists or lenders, artists directly, and collectors directly. Museum collections, for-profit galleries representing artists, other non-profits, and artists directly.______Artists directly and collectors directly______For-profit galleries representing artists, artists directly, and collectors directly.______Artists directly and collectors directly.______Museum collections, artists directly, collectors directly.______Museum collections, for-profit galleries representing artists, artists directly.______Artists directly and other non-profits.______For-profit galleries representing artists and artists directly.______

In sum, the results from question 8 indicate that a total 88% (23) of the responding art non-profits borrow items directly from artists in one form or another.

Results on Health and Procedures Questions

Six questions in the survey regarded safety, registration, and/or installation procedures that relate to health concerns in art exhibition work: questions 9, 11, 12, 13,

14 and 17. The results of these questions are as follows:

Question 9 asked if the art non-profits requested information from their lenders on where and for how long objects to be borrowed have been in storage or in use prior to shipping. One of the 29 respondents did not answer this question. Of the remaining 28,

67% (19) responded “No,” and 1 of these 19 added that the “work tends to be newly 104

made,” 21% (6) responded “N/A,” and 11% (3) responded, “Yes” to this question. One of the three who responded “Yes” added that they ask the lenders both “where plus how long.” In total, this indicates that 67% of the art non-profits do not ask lenders where objects to be exhibited have been stored been prior to shipping, while 11 % do ask this question.

Next, question 11 asked if the collections, artworks, and/or other objects borrowed by the art non-profit are ever accompanied by instructions for special handling or care, particularly concerning special materials such as minerals, specimens, pesticides, organics, etc. Two of the 29 content experts did not respond to this question. Of the remaining 27, 11% (3) responded “No,” while another 11% (3) responded “N/A.” and another 63% (17) responded, “Yes” to this question. Lastly, 15% (4) gave varied but similar responses shown in the following Table 14.

Table 14. Question 11. Art Non-profits Answering “Yes” to Instructions on Special

Handling being Included

Only with respect to hanging or installing

Sometimes but normally not

Rarely 105

Sometimes

This indicates that 10% of all the art non-profits surveyed do not receive any instructions on the objects they borrow, while 58% do get instructions, and 13% obtain these kinds of instructions sometimes.

Question 12 asked if art non-profits request and/or keep a file of Material Safety

Data Sheets (MSDS) on the products and materials that their organization uses. Of the 29 survey responses, 75% (22) responded “No” to this question. One of these respondents added, “however we minimize the use of hazardous materials and store them safely.”

Twenty percent (6) responded “N/A,” and 3% (1) responded, “Yes.” In sum, 75% of the respondent art non-profits do not use MSDS or SDS.

Question 13 asked if the art non-profits have ever found the need to hire a conservator, registrar or other outside consultants to supply advice on or to oversee the handling and installation of a specific object and/or special material, and to please describe in which way they needed this professional help or advice. Of the 29 survey responses, 65% (19) responded “No” to this question, while 3% (1) responded “N/A.” Of the 65% (19) “No” responses, 3 respondents added the following: one wrote, “No. We would not have the funding for something like this;” another wrote, “No, we are too small;” and the last one wrote, “No hire, but periodically we seek advice to install a 106

specific object, e.g. recent installation of ceramic tile wall.” Another 3% (1) responded neither yes or no to this question, instead, only commenting that “our artists ship their artwork or deliver them by hand.” The remaining 24% (7) of the respondents answered

“Yes” to this question. Additional comments to the “Yes” response are presented in Table

15.

Table 15. Question 11. Non-profits Answering “Yes” with respect to Hiring Staff to

Supply Advise

We’ve had a registrar for an individual work of art on 2 occasions. All of our in- house exhibitions are installed by an outside professional.______Yes. Conservator to repair a damaged paining.______Yes - Curatorial consultant. Manages two off site exhibitions per year. Handles call for entry, exhibition design, registration, opening, de-install.______Yes - Conservators as warranted or required by lenders; registrars as needed (workload).______Yes, for mural restoration.______Yes, we mounted our own exhibition and needed a registrar.______Yes, recently did a show of performance art garments and props. We needed to work with a textiles conservator and preparator.______

Overall, this indicates that 65% of art non-profits do not hire outside professionals to advise or oversee the handling and installation of exhibition items, alongside 24% who do hire such help. The respondents who do hire outside professionals specified that they 107

needed help with restoration and installation, but they did not specify that they required help with regards to special materials.

Question 14 asked respondents whether the facilities in their art non-profit require that with every exhibition old walls be demolished and new ones built, or whether they have a movable wall system to avoid building new walls. One respondent did not answer this question. Of the remaining 28, responses are as follows: 3% (1) responded “N/A;”

21% (6) responded “No” to both questions, while the other 25% (7) responded with similar comments such as “we work with the existing space,” or “we’ve no portable wall system. Otherwise, the basic shape configuration is the same.” An additional 32% (9) responded that they do not demolish walls and have “movable walls;” of these 9, one responded that they have “1 movable wall;” another stated “no demolition, 2 movable walls,” and another one commented, “we do not rebuild walls. We have some walls that can be removed or reconfigured for a different exhibition.”

On the other hand, 7% (2) of the non-profits perform wall demolitions often, with of these respondents commenting “Yes, new walls for most shows,” and the other stating

“Yes demolition, no movable walls.” In addition, 3% (1) respondent commented, “we do not typically build new walls, rarely, when we do it’s not a movable system.”

In the middle of the two categories, 3% (1) of the respondents stated the non­ profit has “movable walls, occasionally build walls.” Finally, 3% (1) of the art non­ 108

profits commented that “our exhibition space is different. We work with artists who operate outside of walls.”

In sum, 50% (14) of the responding art non-profits do not demolish walls and do not have a movable wall system; 35% (10) do have some form of movable wall system;

7% (2) do not have movable walls and perform wall demolitions often; and 7% (2) demolish their walls sometimes.

Question 17 asked if art non-profits have a hazard reporting mechanism for employees, to briefly explain how it works and if it includes volunteers, interns, and/or contractual art handlers. Of the 29 respondents, 62% (18) responded “No” to this question, with one adding “we don’t allow hazardous materials.” In addition, 20% (6) responded “N/A,” one respondent stated “verbal, email or written, but this is pretty much

N/A,” and 14% (4) responded “Yes.” Additional comments to “Yes” are presented in

Table 16.

Table 16. Question 17, Art Non-profits Answering “Yes” to Presence of Hazard

Reporting Mechanism

Yes; reporting to security and/or facility director______Yes, it’s a report form for all the staff and interns to fill out______We are small. Hazards are reported to the site manager______Staff reports hazards to management who may call poison central and/or order evacuation 109

Finally, 3% (1) of the respondents did not clearly answer “yes” or “no” to this question, but wrote the following statement: “We tell everyone, ‘use all safety precautions necessary.’”

Results on Staff Training Questions

There were four questions in the survey that asked art non-profits about different types of staff training with regards to different aspects of safety precautions and procedures in registration and exhibition installation work, as well as safety in general.

These are questions 10, 15, 16, and 18.

Question 10 asked if art non-profits have written guidelines for object handling and if so, who on their staff is trained to follow them. Of the 29 content experts, 79% (23) responded that they do not have written guidelines for object handling, while 21% (6) responded “Yes” to having written guidelines.

The results of the second part of the question, “who is trained to follow handling guidelines?” are a little more varied. Of the 6 that responded “Yes” to having written guidelines, 33% (2) did not state who was trained, and another 33% (2) responded that all their registration and preparation staff is trained to follow the guidelines. One stated that temporary preparators are also trained. Another 17% (1) responded that all staff working 110

with art is trained on these guidelines, and lastly, 17% (1) non-profit responded that all staff, as well as volunteers and interns, are trained on these guidelines.

Question 15 asked whether the art non-profits provide emergency response training to their staff, and if so, how often and what kinds of emergencies are covered

(e.g. fire, chemical spills, earthquake). Of the 29 art non-profits, 51% (15) responded that they do not get emergency response training, and 12% (3) of non-profits responded N/A.

The remaining 37% (11) of the non-profits responded “Yes”, they do get some emergency response training. In sum, 63% of art non-profits’ staff do not obtain any kind of training on emergency response.

Once again, the results are more varied from the respondents who indicated that they do get emergency response training. Of these 11 art non-profits, 9% (1) commented

“yes but limited” without any other specification. Also, 27% (3) of non-profits responded

“yes, once a year” but did not state what kinds of emergencies are covered. Another 18%

(2) of these non-profits answered that they address this 2 times a year, but only one specified that they get fire training, while the other one did not specify the type of training. Another 36% (4) non-profits responded that they get training on both fire and earthquake emergency response. The variables on the responses of these 36% (4) are shown in the following Table 17. Ill

Table 17. Question 15. Fire and Earthquake Emergency Responses

Specified fire and earthquake training only______Fire and earthquake, and specified that the staff trains four times a year before each exhibition cycle______Fire and earthquake including training to find shelter______Fire and earthquake as well as training on medical emergencies______

Lastly, 9% (1) other art non-profit responded that it has a small staff and they are all trained from previous employment on situations such as earthquakes and CPR, but they actually do not get this training at their current place of employment.

Following this, question 16 asked if any of the training provided to staff included proper handling of hazardous materials to protect one-self and others. Of the 29 respondents, 65% (19) answered “No,” while 22% (6) responded “N/A,” and only 13%

(4) responded “Yes.” Of those who responded that they do not receive training on hazardous materials handling, one respondent added that while they do not provide this training, he or she as the Executive Director has some training in this area and his/her knowledge informs the way they handle materials at that non-profit. Also, another survey respondent stated, “We do not. We use common sense with cleaning products, etc. We have no particularly hazardous products on the premises.” 112

From the 13% (4) art non-profits that stated they do have some hazardous materials training, one responded it is “on a case by case basis,” one stated “when appropriate,” one stated “as need by position,” and the last one stated “yes, as needed.”

Finally, the last training question and last survey question, number 18, asked if the organization provides staff with training on occupational health, and if so, who provided this training, and which staff members are required to attend. Of the 29 art non-profits,

79% (23) responded “No,” while 14% (4) responded “N/A.” Only 7% (2) responded,

“Yes” to this question. From the 7% (2) art non-profits who provide this kind of training, one responded that all their staff gets this training at hire, but did not specify who provides this training, while the other organization responded that they have attended to training on art hazards.

At the end of the survey, it was not required to leave any comments but several respondents left comments on the back of the survey. These comments can be summarized in the following way: these organizations stated that they are very small, mainly volunteer or artist-run community art non-profits, with tiny budgets. They suggested that the questions in the survey, and the topic of hazardous materials, does not really apply to them, even though their volunteers and artists transport and install a range of local to international contemporary art exhibitions with little, if any, professional help.

In the following chapter, the results of the survey will be discussed. 113

Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter will discuss the key findings of the survey. As outlined in the

Results chapter, the survey questions were divided in three categories: demographic questions, health and procedures questions, and questions regarding staff training. In the following paragraphs, the results of several questions in each of the three categories will be analyzed.

In general, most of the respondents indicated that they took some effort to avoid injuries, and that they were aware of safety while working with objects in exhibitions.

However, in examining the overall results, most of the non-profit art organizations surveyed indicated that they did not have appropriate guidelines and procedures in place to avoid and/or to be prepared for emergencies, nor were such guidelines in place to protect their staff from health hazards.

Analysis of Demographic Results

The survey was confidential; therefore, the first eight questions in the survey were designed to place each respondent into groups to identify general characteristics of their exhibition work. Below, the results of questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 will be discussed. 114

From question 1, the four different types of art non-profits of the surveys that responded were: 31% (9) identify as non-profit art centers', 31% (9) identify as non-profit art galleries', 28% (8) non-profit art organizations', and 10% (3) as non-accredited non­ collection art museums. The first three types answered in similar percentages, while the fourth type, art museums, was the smallest category from which answers were received.

This is a well-balanced rate of responses from the four types of organizations, since the situation of art non-profits is of the most interest to this research, while information from art museums is valuable for comparative purposes.

In question 2, the survey asked respondents to indicate their current job position/title. In sum, 72% (21) of the respondents were the executive directors and presidents of the board of directors of the art non-profits, 17% (5) were exhibition and program directors, with a smaller 10% (3) response from program associate, program coordinator, and registrar. These answers are provided by such staff in accordance to the survey requesting only certain positions to respond. As mentioned in the Methodology, most of the non-profits’ contact information provides the director or upper management contact information. The survey cover letter asked the staff receiving it to pass it on to the non-profit’s registrar or most qualified staff to answer it, but as shown in these results, most of the directors and upper managers who received the survey answered it themselves. Therefore, it is important to notice that most of the survey results reflect the perspectives of the art non-profits administrators and not those of the registrars. 115

In the Results chapter, question 3 asked about annual exhibition budgets, and was related to question 1 on the types of art non-profits. These results show no significant differences between the types of art non-profits and their approximate budgets, since all types were found to have different budgets. The majority, 48% (14) were on the $50K or less on annual budget rubric. The exceptions were the non-profits with budgets of 1 million or more, which was a low 10% (3). Two of the three responding art museums had budgets at this level, while the third, art museums, had budgets of $50K or less, while the other non-profit with a budget of $1 million or over was an art center. It could be assumed that the budget of most art museums would be larger than most art non-profits, but as the results show, this is not always the case. Also, not all art non-profits have low budgets. These results indicate that the working situation of art non-profits are indeed variable, and that compared to the results of most other questions in the survey, budget does not always determine an art non-profits’ level of organization or implementation of safety procedures.

For example, when relating the same budget results of question 3 to the results of question 5 on how much time non-profits have in between installation and de-installation of exhibitions, responses varied. A larger budget did not mean that the non-profit scheduled more time between installations. As shown in the results, the art non-profit that was found to have the most time between exhibits, 30 days, was part of the percentage of non-profits with an annual budget of $50K or less, while the art non-profits with budgets 116

of Si million or more had an average time of 21 days between exhibits. This indicates that each art non-profit has a particular situation, where the decision to take less or more days for their exhibition installations does not depend so much on their budgets, but other factors specific to each.

Question 4 asked respondents to indicate the number of traveling exhibitions each organization hosted during a year. From this question, only 24% (7) responded that they hosted traveling exhibitions. Question 7 asked if the art non-profits usually borrowed traveling exhibitions and from where, and 65% (17) respondents stated that they did not borrow traveling exhibitions. The survey did not ask the total number of all exhibitions the art non-profits organized during the year. However, the low response rate and the respondents’ comments to questions 4 and 7 on traveling exhibitions, demonstrate that most of the surveyed art non-profits do not bring in much pre-fabricated traveling exhibitions, and on the contrary, most of the time, they organize their own temporary exhibitions. This is an important result to note because, if these temporary exhibitions are not well managed, it could mean safety and health risks for the staff, as will be discussed below.

Question 8 asked from which kind of institutions or private parties did art non­ profits most often borrow items or artworks for their exhibitions in general. Results show that 88% (23) respondents to this question do borrow directly from the artists producing the work, with a 53% (14) of them borrowing only from artists, while 34% (9) also 117

borrow from other sources. Looking at the relationship of question 8 and question 4, these results have a very positive aspect, in that they indicate that all the responding art non-profits support contemporary artists, and that most of the time, they all make their own original exhibitions with their own viewpoints, which in turn enriches the larger field of art. However, this can have its downside in the area of safety and health issues.

As mentioned in the literature review, the safety of the borrowed object in human terms should be assessed. In the case of some modern and contemporary artworks, for example, they may have been made with materials that are toxic to the touch, or that are releasing gases or particles that are harmful to breathe. In these cases, guidelines should then include safety measures and environmental conditions to protect and install the loaned artifacts, as well as, warnings, handling, and protection guidelines for the staff that receive, unpack, and install potentially hazardous exhibition objects, as will be discussed in the next section below.

Analysis of Health and Procedures Questions

Six of the survey questions regarded safety, registration, and/or installation procedures that related to health concerns in art exhibition work. The findings from the results of questions 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 will be discussed below. 118

On the results of question 9, it was found that the majority of respondents, 67%

(19), do not ask lenders where and for how long has the borrowing object been prior to arriving to the organizations facilities, and only 11% (3) answered that they do request this information. Moreover, of the respondents to question 11, 63% (17) stated that they do receive information and guidelines on how to properly handle borrowed items or artworks, while 22% (6) stated that they do not receive this information or guidelines, and

13% received this information sometimes.

Together, the results of previous questions 4 and 8, with the results of questions 9 and 11, indicate that the temporary art exhibitions organized by most art non-profits can potentially bring in hazards and cause safety and health problems. As previously mentioned in the literature review, pre-fabricated traveling exhibitions and most museum exhibitions usually go through a more thorough planning and organization phase, especially since a revision of all of the loaned items is usually completed by a conservator or registrar prior to shipping, and a detailed installation and handling guidelines list accompanies the exhibition items (Buck and Gilmore, 2003). On the other hand, as seen in the responses to these questions, this does not always happen with contemporary art exhibitions that are not traveling but which have been temporarily organized by the art non-profits surveyed. As a result, in non-accredited arts organizations, which not have adequate safety procedures in place, risks are likely increased for staff working with traveling exhibitions or on temporary exhibitions. 119

Furthermore, as mentioned in the literature review, exhibition staff needs to be very cautious when re-using materials, including handling found materials in artwork, and when working with objects coming from various lenders, since there may be little knowledge about their composition and past treatments (Hawks, et. al., 2010).

Moreover, question 12 asked about the request and keeping of a Material Safety

Data Sheet (MSDS) file of the products and materials that the non-profits use.

Significantly, 75% (22) of the respondents stated that they do not ask or keep MSDS, and only 3% (1) reported using them. This is an important result to note, because as mentioned in the literature review, for legal compliance, museum staff should be familiar with the label and MSDS or SDS for every pesticide or chemical used in the organization, whether an in-house staff or an outside contractor uses it (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). The label, more than a set of directions, is a legal mandate when, for example, pesticides are stored in the building. In addition, there are specific federal or state requirements for signage, security, and fire protection (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Modem and contemporary art and other artworks in general may not present as many of the kinds of pesticides found in historic collections. However, it should be kept in mind that, as previously mentioned, pigments, solvents and many materials in old and new artworks, including those in found materials, can also contain other toxic substances. This is why even though it is often seen as a desirable task to be part of the staff that opens a package or crate, or the one that installs the art exhibition, possible health risks demand added 120

caution and usage of the appropriate protective equipment; special procedures may be needed to handle such items (Buck and Gilmore, 2010). Furthermore, everyone in the staff working with chemicals has to be informed about associated hazards and must be trained in how to safely work with these materials (Hawks, et. al., 2010). This system of regulation also specifies that, as in any other workplace, art non-profits should keep

MSDS or SDS on site and available to staff for all solvents, paintings, cleaning materials, and in general for all chemicals used for collections and exhibition work (Buck and

Gilmore, 2010).

Question 13 asked respondents if the art non-profit hires outside conservators or consultants to supervise and help with the install of exhibition objects, to indicate the type of help they required, and to specify if it included advise on handling of hazardous materials. Interestingly, 65% (19) of respondents stated they do not request this kind of professional help; comments on this question from respondents indicated that one of the main reasons for this was the lack of funding for it. On the other hand, 24% (7) of respondents noted that they do hire conservators on occasion, and listed some of the reasons why. From these art non-profits who do hire an outside professional for advice, results indicated that they did it mostly for restoration proposes and a few times for help with proper installation. However, none of the respondents specified that they hired these professionals to help them with or to assess potential health hazards, which indicates that this is not usually an issue or a concern. 121

Finally, question 14 asked respondents whether the art non-profit facilities require that with every show old walls be demolished and new ones built, or whether the organizations have a movable wall system. Fifty percent (14) of respondents neither build new walls nor have a movable wall system and work with their current layouts;

35% (10) of non-profits do have some form of movable wall system; 7% (2) do demolish their walls some times; and only 7% (2) do perform wall demolitions often and do not have a movable system. In sum, most of the responding art non-profits work with their layout or have a movable wall system, and this is likely easier to manage for the staff since they do not perform constant wall demolitions. As noted in the literature review, there are many features that are vital to an exhibition space, such as enough wall surface area to which different elements can be attached without difficulty, as well as flexible structural systems or movable panels, and a good amount of exhibition cases (Witteborg,

1991).

Analysis of Staff Training

Questions 10, 15, 16, and 18 asked art non-profits about types of staff training with regards to different aspects of safety precautions and procedures in registration and exhibition installation work, as well as hazardous materials and occupational health training in general. The findings from these questions will be discussed below. 122

Question 10 asked whether the art non-profits have written guidelines for object handling for their staff. Importantly, 79% (23) responded that they do not have written guidelines for object handling, while 21% (6) stated they do have written guidelines.

Question 15 asked if the non-profit provides emergency response training to staff members: 51% (15) responded that they do not provide emergency response training to their staff, 12% (3) responded N/A to this question, and the remaining 37% (11) of respondents said they do obtain some emergency response training. From the 37% that do obtain training, most of those specified receiving only fire and earthquake training and not for any other kinds of emergencies; only one respondent specified that their staff also received medical emergency training.

Next, question 16 asked whether any of the training provided to the staff includes proper handling of hazardous materials to protect themselves and others. Of all respondents, 65% (19) answered that their staff does not receive hazardous material training, 22% (6) responded N/A to this question, and only 13% (4) responded that they do receive such training. Similarly, question 18 asked if the organization provides any kind of occupational health training: 79% (23) responded that the non-profit does not provide this kind of training, 14% (4) responded N/A, and only 7% (2) responded that they do provide this training to their whole staff.

All 29 art non-profits that responded to the survey answered the four training questions, with response rates as follows: 79% do not have written guidelines for object 123

handling; 51% or so do not train their staff on emergency response; more than 65% do not provide training on hazardous materials; and more than 79% do not provide occupational health training.

The sum of all of the results on training are very unsatisfactory for the education, preparation, and protection of staff, and for preventing health and safety hazards as well as emergency situations. As mentioned in the literature review, security and safety are not only the responsibility of security guards and security staff, but also every staff member should be alert to dangerous situations for human lives, objects, and buildings, and know how to take the proper precautions (Lord and Lord, 2001). However, in order to act accordingly, the staff should be properly trained and the organization should have disaster plans and other safety plans and tools in place (Lord and Lord, 2001)

Moreover, the basics of OSHA’s regulations specifically require that all employers must do the following (Schnepp and Gantt, 1999:4):

• Provide competent inspection of each work site

• Prohibit the use of unsafe equipment by employees

• Require trained, experienced equipment operators to use the various equipment

• Instruct employees in hazard recognition and avoidance

• Instruct employees in pertinent regulations and procedures 124

Finally, as mentioned above, the best response and recovery to an emergency situation is implemented by organizations and individuals that have completed advance planning, research, and training, before the emergency happens; moreover, training drills must take place annually or more often for the plan to be useful (Buck and Gilmore,

2010).

Based on the literature review, the survey, and the findings presented, several conclusions and recommendations above will be presented in the next chapter,

Conclusion. 125

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The information presented in the literature review, together with the results of the survey conducted for this thesis, indicate that much work remains to be done to educate the non-profit art community about the handling of special materials in exhibitions.

Indeed, the education that needs to take place may seem overwhelming for personnel working in art non-profits, which are usually staffed by just a few individuals. However, it may be useful to look at the situation on art non-profits from the perspective of the

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, where many tribal members had their sacred items finally returned to them from museum collections, only to learn the harsh realities about the dangers of toxic pesticides that some of the items had been contaminated with (Odegaard and Sadongei, 2005). As Micah Loma’omaya (2005),

Hopi anthropologist and archeologist, states, “There is a cost to tribes. Tribes will bear the burden of communicating the health risks to the community” (Odegaard and

Sadongei, 2005:73).

From this perspective, it is clear that the museum and art non-profit community needs to do more to educate staff about potential hazards of working with objects, and to place less of the burden for this education on sometimes understaffed art non-profits. As 126

part of a field in which artworks, historical and educational material, and other significant items as regularly cared for and moved as part of exhibition work, it is important to educate personnel about potential hazards, to learn from one another, and to highlight any lessons learned about any unperceivable, and therefore often overlooked, risks to health.

As noted in the literature review, abundant information exists about how hazardous materials enter the human system; what the dangers are to human health and how to identify them; what appropriate procedures currently exist, as governed by

OSHA; and best practices for dealing with pesticides and other toxics in the context of museums. The museum and art non-profit community needs to do a better job about the safety protocols that currently exist, perhaps by conducting workshops at professional meetings, or by developing safety inserts that could be included along with standard documentation that accompanies objects, such as loan paperwork.

As mentioned earlier, in many occupations, not only in art- related ones, an organizational culture that tacitly discourages protection and care of occupational health exists. The lack of care about health concerns can be pervasive among the staff and the upper management of non-profit art organizations, as well as among individual artists.

As a result, not only does a shortage of training and dissemination of information exist, but art non-profits are not always aware that they have the ability to identify potential hazards, protect themselves, and to seek further help in identifying appropriate hazardous material handling measures on an organizational level. Increased efforts must therefore 127

be made on an organizational level in the area of hazardous material handling, so that the responsibility for the safety of employees in not just borne by the employee him- or herself

In the area of future research, due to space limits on the length of the survey, several important questions were not posed. For example, asking whether or not art non­ profits provide the appropriate protective equipment to their staff in charge of receiving, unpacking, installing and de-installing exhibition items, be they full-time, temporary, or volunteers, could be part of a future study. At the same time, some of the responses to survey questions in the area of staff training indicated that most of the art non-profits that responded were not prepared to handle emergency situations, and that staff were not given appropriate guidelines and training for working with special materials. Taken together, these comments suggest that more research concerning knowledge about and the use of protective equipment in art non-profits is needed to shed more light on this topic.

Another important point to examine in more depth is that most art professors in art schools, as well as many artists, whether trained academically or not, do not go through regulated, standardized training concerning safety and health procedures. In addition, while making and teaching art, they may be risking their health, and the health of others, without being aware of the hazardous nature of some of the material they are working with. This affects art non-profits not only because a great deal of contemporary 128

art is made with mixtures of potentially hazardous materials and is then exhibited, but also because many artists who are skilled in this essentially craft-based occupation end up working in art non-profits installing exhibitions, thus carrying their potentially unsafe practices into the workplace.

In general, working with hazardous materials in art outside of the context of conservation is a topic that should be examined more. One possible starting point could be learning more about practices in academic art education, and conducting additional surveys of art non-profits with an emphasis on the use of protective equipment.

Recommendations

The most important recommendation to be made here is a simple one: art non­ profits need to further professionalize in order to integrate safety guidelines and procedures into their general operations. To do this, they can start by learning more from the museum community by closely examining the procedures, guidelines, and recommended best practices of museum professional organizations.

In addition, art non-profits, as part of developing appropriate procedures, need to routinely assess the materials used for creating exhibits so they can identify and minimize potential hazards. Organizations must also reduce, eliminate, or substitute hazardous 129

materials as much as possible, and develop and make available to all staff the SDS of all chemical materials used in the organization.

Another recommendation is that more staff training is necessary. The results of the survey demonstrate that art non-profit staff training is insufficient in the areas concerned with emergency response, hazardous materials, and occupational health.

Training is essential to ensure staff and visitor safety and to support a quick and appropriate response to emergency situations; it should be provided by supervisory staff or outside professionals when staff is hired as well as annually or when required, such as when new equipment or material is introduced to the workplace (Hawks, et. al., 2010).

Moreover, training should be provided to all staff, including part-time and temporary staff, since such staff members are likely to work within the non-profit arts community in the future.

Finally, staff with experience in the area of hazardous materials and safety should train others, and not from the perspective that this training is a burden, but as part of what makes exhibition work a true collaboration. The continued professionalization of the non-profit art sector through the efforts of museum associations or Museum Studies programs will support this kind of effort, and will benefit non-profit exhibition spaces, as well as museums, since personnel often move between non-profit art organizations and museums. 130

Concluding Comments

Art non-profits, as well as museums, should make every effort to identify and integrate all applicable safety and health guidelines and procedures, as well as emergency planning and responses, into their regular operations in the area of exhibitions. Caring for exhibition items, artwork, and collections is professionally rewarding, enriches our lives, and allows staff to be part of the generations of people who have cared for items before us, sometimes for centuries. In fact, it can be said that museum and art non-profit staff have given these items many lives. However, people only have one life, and their lives should not be jeopardized while working in processing, installing, and preserving the integrity of exhibition items and artworks. Everyone’s life should always come first. 131

References

American Alliance of Museums. Core Documents: Disaster Preparedness/ Emergency Response Plan. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/assessment-programs/core-documents/ documents (accessed 6 September 2013).

Angus Stevenson, A., and C. A. Lindberg, eds. 2010. New Oxford American Dictionary. New York, NY.: Oxford University Press.

Art-Support. Nonprofit Art Organizations and Art Centers, http://art-support.com/ nonprofits.htm (accessed 5 April 2012).

Buck, R. A., and J. A. Gilmore. 2003. On the Road Again: Developing and Managing Traveling Exhibitions. Washington, DC.: American Association of Museums.

Buck, R. A., and J. A. Gilmore, eds. 2010. Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition. Washington, DC.: American Association of Museums.

. 1998. The New Museum Registration Methods. Washington, DC.: American Association of Museums.

Cullinan, D. 2013. Testimony - History. Intersection for the Arts. http://theintersection.org/about-intersection/vision-statement/ (accessed 24 September 2013).

Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service. 2011. Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization. Publication 557. http://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/formsPublications.html?indexOfFirstRow=75 &sortColumn=sortOrder&value=&criteria=&resultsPerPage-25&isDescending=f alse (accessed 6 September 2013). 132

Dorf, L. 2013. Yutaka Sone and Benjamin Weissman: What Every Snowflake Knows in Its Heart. Santa Monica Museum o f Art. http://smmoa.org/press_release/santa-monica-museum-of-art-presents-yutaka- sone-and-benjamin-weissman-what-every-snowflake-knows-in-its-hearth/ (accessed 9 October 2013).

Hawks, C., M. McCann, K. A. Makos, L. Goldbert, D. Hinkamp, D. C. Erthel Jr., and P. Silence, eds. 2010. Health and Safety for Museum Professionals. New York, NY.: Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections.

Intersection for the Arts (a). About Intersection for the Arts. http://theintersection.org/about-intersection/ (accessed 24 September 2013).

Intersection for the Arts (b). What is the Incubator?. http ://theintersection.org/programs/intersection-incubator/ (accessed 24 September 2013).

Lord, B., and G. D. Lord, eds. 2001. The Manual o f Museum Exhibitions. Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press.

Malaro, M. 1998. A legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections. Washington, DC.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Marin Society for Artists (a). Marin County's Premier Artists' Showcase Since 1927. http://marinsocietyofartists.org/index.html (accessed 6 September 2013).

Marin Society for Artists (b). About Us. http://marinsocietyofartists.org/about.html (accessed 6 September 2013).

National Park Service.1999. Museum Handbook Part I: Museum Collections. http://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/MHi/mushbki.html (accessed 2 February 2013). 133

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Modification of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom-faq.html (accessed 15 May 2014).

Odegaard, N., and A. Sadongei. 2005. Old Poisons, New Problems. Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press.

The Ojai Art Center. About OAC. http://www.ojaiartcenter.org/about-oac/ (accessed 18 September 2013).

Santa Monica Museum of Art. Mission + Overview. http://smmoa.org/about/mission-and-history/ (accessed 6 September 2013).

Schnepp, R., and P. Gantt. 1999. Hazardous Materials: Regulations, Response & Site Operations. Albany, NY.: Delmar Publishers.

Witteborg, L. P. 1991. Good Show! A Practical Guide for Temporary Exhibitions. Washington, DC.: Smithsonian Institution Traveling Service. Appendix 1

I d | A C o m p o s it e J o b D e s c r ip t io n f o r t h e R e g is t r a r

REBECCA BUCK

P r o f il e Academic background B.A., M.A., or Ph.D. in museum’s specialty field and/or museum studies; information sciences and business/legal studies a plus Reporrs to Director or head of collections division Supervises Assistants for loans, collections, and information management; preparators, packers, handlers, and photographers; interns, work-study students, and volunteers; rights and reproduction, and, in some cases, library and archives. Coordinates conservation as necessary

A r e a s o f R esponsibility Information management: manual and computerized Creates/compiles and maintains legal documents, histories of use, and physical histories of permanent collections objects and/or specimens Legal forms and acknowledgments Permanent collections catalog and Piles Loan, conservation, condition, publication records Exhibition, insurance, and location records Organizes and implements inventory projects Coordinates/assists with computer projects Systems specs and software choices Data standards committees Data input management Disseminates information as needed to other departments, researchers, and students Coordinates object identification services Coordinates or is involved with DAMS projects Collections management Monitors legal and ethical implications and care standards of transactions Facilitates care and control of collections on site Initiates, drafts, and, upon adoption, implements collection policies Oversees object movement, internal and external Oversees packing and shipping Acts as courier or designates courier Implements security procedures / works closely with security forces Designs and controls storage areas Works with contractors Determines storage methods MUSEUM REGISTRATION METHODS | 5TH EDITION

Oversees integrated pest management programs Contracts for outside services as needed Conservation, rigging, packing, crating, shipping, photography, insurance Exhibitions Borrowed exhibitions Negotiates loan contracts Schedules and supervises packing, shipping, condition reporting, and object movement Prepares grant reports as necessary Produces indemnity applications as necessary In-house exhibitions Provides information to other departments as needed Coordinates object movement and record keeping Prepares or helps in preparation of label copy Traveling exhibitions Drafts/reviews contracts Prepares and coordinates documentation, packing, shipping Provides courier service Other services and responsibilities Maintains archives Manages photographic services Supervises collections photography Stores photographic collections Provides rights and reproduction services

A dministrative R esponsibilities Administers department Hires, trains, and evaluates staff Develops and runs internship program Prepares and implements budgets, in whole or part Departmental Exhibitions Storage and other special projects Contracts for services Purchases office and collections management equipment and supplies Prepares rate structures Loans, traveling exhibitions Photographic services 136

Appendix 2

Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

uu'rsDsrari: Search

A to Z Index | En Espanol | Contact Us | FAQs | About OSHA

OSHA Q SHARE E*E3 ... Newsletter i i RSS Feeds Was this page helpful?

Occupational Safety & Health Administration We Can Help Wh<,tW*tetk$ pflf OQhelpful? OSHA

Home Workers Regulations Enforcement Data & Statistics Training Publications Newsroom Small Business Anti-Retaliation

Back to Hazard Communication

Modification of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Questions and Answers

Q. What is the Globally Harmonized System?

A. The Globally Harmonized System (GHS) is an international approach to hazard communication, providing agreed criteria for classification of chemical hazards, and a standardized approach to label elements and safety data sheets. The GHS was negotiated in a multi-year process by hazard communication experts from many different countries, international organizations, and stakeholder groups. It is based on major existing systems around the world, including OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and the chemical classification and labeling systems of other US agencies.

The result of this negotiation process is the United Nations' document entitled "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals," commonly referred to as The Purple Book. This document provides harmonized classification criteria for health, physical, and environmental hazards of chemicals. It also includes standardized label elements that are assigned to these hazard classes and categories, and provide the appropriate signal words, pictograms, and hazard and precautionary statements to convey the hazards to users. A standardized order of information for safety data sheets is also provided. These recommendations can be used by regulatory authorities such as OSHA to establish mandatory requirements for hazard communication, but do not constitute a model regulation.

Q. Why did OSHA decide to modify the Hazard Communication Standard to adopt the GHS?

A. OSHA has modified the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to adopt the GHS to improve safety and health of workers through more effective communications on chemical hazards. Since it was first promulgated in 1983, the HCS has provided employers and employees extensive information about the chemicals in their workplaces. The original standard is performance-oriented, allowing chemical manufacturers and importers to convey information on labels and material safety data sheets in whatever format they choose. While the available information has been helpful in improving employee safety and health, a more standardized approach to classifying the hazards and conveying the information will be more effective, and provide further improvements in American workplaces. The GHS provides such a standardized approach, including detailed criteria for determining what hazardous effects a chemical poses, as well as standardized label elements assigned by hazard class and category. This will enhance both employer and worker comprehension of the hazards, which will help to ensure appropriate handling and safe use of workplace chemicals. In addition, the safety data sheet requirements establish an order of information that is standardized. The harmonized format of the safety data sheets will enable employers, workers, health professionals, and emergency responders to access the information more efficiently and effectively, thus increasing their utility.

Adoption of the GHS in the US and around the world will also help to improve information received from other countries—since the US is both a major importer and exporter of chemicals, American workers often see labels and safety data sheets from other countries. The diverse and sometimes conflicting national and international requirements can create confusion among those who seek to use hazard information effectively. For example, labels and safety data sheets may include symbols and hazard statements that are unfamiliar to readers or not well understood. Containers may be labeled with such a large volume of information that important statements are not easily recognized. Given the differences in hazard classification criteria, labels may also be incorrect when used in other countries. If countries around the world adopt the GHS, these problems will be minimized, and chemicals crossing borders will have consistent information, thus improving communication globally.

Q. What is the phase-in period in the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A. The table below summarizes the phase-in dates required under the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS):

Effective Requirement(s) Who Completion Date

December 1, 2013 Train employees on the new label elements and safety data sheet Employers (SDS) format.

June 1, 2015* Compliance with all modified provisions of this final rule, except: Chemical manufacturers, file:///Users/guestl/Desktop/Hazard%20Communication_ForAppendix2.webarchive Page 1 of 6 137

Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

December l, 2015 The Distributor shall not ship containers labeled by the chemical importers, distributers manufacturer or importer unless it is a GHS label and employers

June 1, 2016 Update alternative workplace labeling and hazard communication Employers program as necessary, and provide additional employee training for newly identified physical or health hazards.

Transition Period to May comply with either 29 CFR 1910.1200 (the final standard), or Chemical the effective the current standard, or both manufacturers, completion dates importers, distributors, noted above and employers

‘ This date coincides with the EU implementation date for classification of mixtures

During the phase-in period, employers would be required to be in compliance with either the existing HCS or the revised HCS, or both. OSHA recognizes that hazard communication proyams will go through a period of time where labels and SDSs under both standards will be present in the workplace. This will be considered acceptable, and employers are not required to maintain two sets of labels and SDSs for compliance purposes.

Q. Why must training be conducted prior to the compliance effective date?

A. OSHA is requiring that employees are trained on the new label elements (i.e., pictograms, hazard statements, precautionary statements, and signal words) and SDS format by December 1,2013, white full compliance with the final rule will begin in 2015. OSHA believes that American workplaces will soon begin to receive labels and SDSs that are consistent with the GHS, since many American and foreign chemical manufacturers have already begun to produce HazCom 2012/GHS-compliant labels and SDSs. It is important to ensure that when employees begin to see the new labels and SDSs in their workplaces, they will be familiar with them, understand how to use them, and access the information effectively. For more information, http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/effectivedates.html.

Q. What are the major changes to the Hazard Communication Standard?

A. The three major arras of change are in hazard classification, labels, and safety data sheets.

■ Hazard classification: The definitions of hazard have been changed to provide specific criteria for classification of health and physical hazards, as well as classification of mixtures. These specific criteria will help to ensure that evaluations of hazardous effects are consistent across manufacturers, and that labels and safety data sheets are more accurate as a result. • Labels; Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to provide a label that includes a harmonized signal word, pictogram, and hazard statement for each hazard class and category. Precautionary statements must also be provided. ■ Safety Data Sheets: Will now have a specified 16-section format.

The GHS does not include harmonized training provisions, but recognizes that training is essential to an effective hazard communication approach. The revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires that workers be re- trained within two years of the publication of the final rule to facilitate recognition and understanding of the new labels and safety data sheets.

For a side-by-side comparison of the current HCS and the final revised HCS please see OSHA's hazard communication safety and health topics webpage at: http://www, osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index. html

Q. What Hazard Communication Standard provisions are unchanged in the revised HCS?

A. The revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) is a modification to the existing standard. The parts of the standard that did not relate to the GHS (such as the basic framework, scope, and exemptions) remained largely unchanged. There have been some modifications to terminology in order to align the revised HCS with language used in the GHS. For example, the term "hazard determination” has been changed to "hazard classification" and "material safety data sheet" was changed to "safety data sheet." OSHA stakeholders commented on this approach and found it to be appropriate

Q. How will chemical hazard evaluation change under the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A, Under both the current Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) and the revised HCS, an evaluation of chemical hazards must be performed considering the available scientific evidence concerning such hazards. Under the current HCS, the hazard determination provisions have definitions of hazard and the evaluator determines whether or not the data on a chemical meet those definitions. It is a performance-oriented approach that provides parameters for the evaluation, but not specific, detailed criteria. The hazard classification approach in the revised HCS is quite different. The revised HCS has specific criteria for each health and physical hazard, along with detailed instructions for hazard evaluation and determinations as to whether mixtures or substances are covered. It also establishes both hazard classes and hazard categories—for most of the effects; the classes are divided into categories that reflect the relativeseverity c f the effect. The current HCS does not include categories for most erf the health hazards covered, so this new approach provides additional information that can be related to the appropriate response to address the hazard. OSHA has included the general provisions for hazard classification in paragraph (d) of the revised rule, and added extensive appendixes (Appendixes A and B) that address the criteria for each health or physical effect

Q. How will labels change under the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A. Under the current Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), the label preparer must provide the identity of the chemical, and the appropriate hazard warnings. This may be done in a variety of ways, and the method to convey the information is left to the preparer. Under the revised HCS, once the hazard classification is completed, the standard specifies what information is to be provided for each hazard class and category. Labels will require the following elements:

file ///Us*rs/guestl/Desktop/Hazard%20Communication_ForAppendix2.webarchive Page 2 of 6 138

Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

• Pictogram: a symbol plus other graphic dements, such as a border, background pattern, or color that is intended to convey specific information about the hazards of a chemical. Each pictogram consists of a different symbol on a white background within a red square frame set on a point (i.e. a red diamond). There are nine programs under the GHS. However, only eight pctograms are required under the HCS. • Signal words: a single word used to indicate the relative level of severity of hazard and alert the reader to a potential hazard on the label. The signal words used are "danger" and "warning." "Danger" is used for the more severe hazards, while "warning" is used for less severe hazards. ■ Hazard Statement: a statement assigned to a hazard class and category that describes the nature of the hazard(s) of a chemical, including, where appropriate, the degree of hazard. • Precautionary Statement: a phrase that describes recommended measures to be taken to minimize or prevent adverse effects resulting from exposure to a hazardous chemical, or improper storage or handling of a hazardous chemical.

Q. What pictograms are required in the revised Hazard Communication Standard? What hazard does each identify?

A. There are nine pictograms under the GHS to convey the health, physical and environmental hazards. The final Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires eight of these pictograms, toe exception being the environmental pictogram, as environmental hazards are not within OSHA's jurisdiction. The hazard pictograms and their corresponding hazards are shown below.

HCS Pictograms and Hazards

Health Hazard Flame Exclamation Mark £

• Carcinogen • Flammables • Irritant (skin and eye) • Mutagenicity • Pyrophorics • Skin Sensitizer • Reproductive Toxicity • Self-Heating • Acute Toxicity (harmful) • Respiratory Sensitizer • Emits Flammable Gas • Narcotic Effects • Target Organ Toxicity • Self-Reactives • Respiratory Tract Irritant • Aspiration Toxicity • Organic Peroxides • Hazardous to Ozone Layer (Non Mandatory)

Gas Cylinder Exploding Bomb

• Gases under Pressure • Skin Corrosion/ burns • Explosives • Eye Damage • Self-Reactives • Corrosive to Metals • Organic Peroxides

Flame over Circle Environment Skull and Crossbones (Non Mandatory) 6 M:

• Aquatic Toxicity • Acute Toxicity (feta! or toxic)

Q. Can I use a black border on pictograms for domestic shipment?

A. Under the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), pictograms must have red borders. OSHA believes that the use of the red frame will increase recognition and comprehensibility. Therefore, the red frame is required regardless of whether the shipment is domestic or international.

Q. Will OSHA allow blank red borders? A. The revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires that all red borders printed on the label have a symbol printed inside it If OSHA were to allow blank red borders, workers may be confused about what they mean and concerned that some information is missing. OSHA has determined that prohibiting the use of blank red borders on labels is necessary to provide the maximum recognition and impact of warning labels and to ensure that users do not get desensitized to the warnings placed on labels.

Q. When must label information be updated?

A. In the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), OSHA is lifting the stay on enforcement regarding the provision to update labels when new information on hazards becomes available. Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributers, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information, and shall ensure that labels on containers of hazardous chemicals shipped after that time contain the new information. If the chemical is not currently produced or imported, the chemical manufacturer, importer, distributor, or employer shall add the information to the label before the chemical is shipped or introduced into file / //Users/guestl/Desktop/Hazard%20Communication_ForAppendix2.webarchive Page 3 of 6 Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

the workplace again.

Q. How will workplace labeling provisions be changing under the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A. The current standard provides employers with flexibility regarding the type of system to be used in their workplaces and OSHA has retained that flexibility in the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Employers may choose to label workplace containers either with the same label that would be on shipped containers for the chemical under the revised rule, or with label alternatives that meet the requirements for the standard. Alternative labeling systems such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 704 Hazard Rating and the Hazardous Material Identification System (HMIS) are permitted for workplace containers. However, the information supplied on these labels must be consistent with the revised HCS, e.g., no conflicting hazard warnings or pictograms.

Q. How is the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) changing under the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A. The information required on the safety data sheet (SDS) will remain essentially the same as that in the current standard (HazCom 1994). HazCom 1994 indicates what information has to be included on an SDS, but does not specify a format for presentation or order of information. The revised Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom 2012) requires that the information on the SDS be presented using specific headings in a specified sequence.

Paragraph (g) of the final rule provides the headings of information to be included on the SDS and the order in which they are to be provided. In addition, Appendix D provides the information to be included under each heeding. The SDS format is the same as the ANSI standard format which is widely used in the U.S. and is already familiar to many employees.

The format of the 16-section SDS should include the following sections:

Section 1. Identification Section 2. Hazard(s) identification Section 3. Composition/information on ingredients Section 4. First-Aid measures Section 5. Fire-fighting measures Section 6. Accidental release measures Section 7. Handling and storage Section 8. Exposure controls/personal protection Section 9, Physical and chemical properties Section 10. Stability and reactivity Section 11. Toxicological information Section 12. Ecological information Section 13. Disposal considerations Section 14. Transport information Section 15. Regulatory information Section 16. Other information, including date of preparation or last revision

The SDS must also contain Sections 12-15, to be consistent with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). Although the headings for Sections 12*15 are mandatory, OSHA will not enforce the content of these four sections because these sections are within other agencies' jurisdictions.

Q. Will TLVs be required on the Safety Data Sheet (SDS)?

A. OSHA is retaining the requirement to include toe American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) on the safety data sheet (SDS) in the revised Standard. OSHA finds that requiring TLVs on the SDS will provide employers and employees with useful information to help them assess the hazards presented by their workplaces. In addition to TLVs, OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs), and any other exposure limit used or recommended by the chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer prepanng toe safety data sheet are also required.

Q. May the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) lists be used to make carcinogen classifications?

A. In the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), OSHA lias provided classifiers with the option of relying on the classification listings of IARC and NTP to make classification decisions regarding carcinogenicity, rather than applying the cnteria themselves. OSHA believes that this will make classification easier for classifiers, as well as lead to g reater consistency. In addition, OSHA has provided in non-mandatory Appendix F of the revised rule, guidance on hazard classification for carcinogenicity. Part A of Appendix F indudes background guidance provided by GHS based on the Preamble of the IARC "Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans” (2006). Part B provides IARC classification information. Part C provides background guidance from the National NTP "Report on Carcinogens" (RoC), and Part D is a table that compares GHS carcinogen hazard categories to carcinogen classifications under IARC and NTP, allowing classifiers to be able to use information from IARC and NTP RoC carcinogen classifications to complete their classifications under the GHS, and thus the HCS. Q. Will the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifications be required on the Safety Data Sheet (SDS)?

A. OSHA has retained the requirement to indude IARC and NTP classifications on safety data sheets (SDSs). Therefore, if a chemical is listed as a carcinogen by either IARC or NTP, it must be noted on the SDS. Additionally, if OSHA finds a chemical to be a carcinogen, it must be noted on the SDS as well.

Q. How has OSHA addressed hazards covered under the current Hazard Communication Standard that have not been addressed by the GHS?

A. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OSHA proposed to include hazards currently covered under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) that have yet to be addressed by the GHS (OSHA provided several examples: simple asphyxiants, and combustible dust) in a separate category called "Unclassified file:///Users/guestl/Desktop/Hazard%20Communication„ForAppendix2.webarchive Page A of 6 140

Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

Hazards". In response to comments from the regulated community, OSHA has renamed the category to "Hazards Not Otherwise Classified (HNOC)" to minimize confusion. In the final HCS, HNOC hazards will not be requited to be disclosed on the label but will be required to be disclosed in section 2 of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). This reflects how GHS recommends these hazards should be disclosed. Chemical manufacturers and importers are expected to assess these hazards when they are conducting their hazard evaluation of physical and health hazards. A new or separate evaluation is not required. Also in the final standard, in response to comments, OSHA has removed pyrophoric gases, simple asphyxiants, and combustible dust from the HNOC hazard category and has addressed these chemicals individually (see question below for more information on each hazard).

Q. How has OSHA addressed pyrophoric gases, simple asphyxiants, and combustible dust?

A. In the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), OSHA has added pyrophonc gases, simple asphyxiants and combust)We dust to the definition of "hazardous chemical". OSHA has also added definitions to the revised HCS for pyrophoric gases and simple asphyxiants, and provided guidance on how to define combustible dust for the purposes of complying with the HCS.

■ Pyrophoric gases: OSHA has retained the definition for pyrophonc gases from the current HCS. Pyrophoric gases must be addressed both on container labels and SDSs. OSHA has provided label elements for pyrophoric gases which indude the signal word "danger" and the hazard statement "catches fire spontaneously if exposed to air".

Simple asphyxiants; OSHA has revised the definition of simple asphyxiants that was proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as a result of comments from the regulated community. In the final HCS, simple asphyxiants must be labeled where appropriate, and be addressed cm SDSs. OSHA has provided label dements for simple asphyxiants which include the signal word "warning" and the hazard statement "may displace oxygen and cause rapid suffocation".

■ Combustible dust: OSHA has not provided a definition for combustible dust to the final HCS given ongoing activities m the specific rulemaking, as well as in the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (UN/SOEGHS). However, guidance is being provided through existing documents, including the Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program Directive CPI 03-00-008, which includes an operative definition, as well as provides information about current responsibilities in this area. In addition, there are a number of voluntary industry consensus standards (particularly those of the NFPA) that address combustible dust.

In the final HCS, combustible dust hazards must be addressed on labels and SDSs. label elements are provided for combustible dust in the final HCS and include the signal word ’'warning" and the hazard statement "May form combustible dust concentrations in the air".

For chemicals in a solid form that do not present a combustible dust hazard, but may form combustible dusts while being processed in normal downstream uses, paragraph (f)(4) of the HCS allows the chemical manufacturer some flexibility in labeling requirements. The manufacturer or importer to may transmit the label to the customer at the bme of the initial shipment, but the label does not need to be included with subsequent shipments unless it changes This provides the needed information to the downstream users on the potential hazards in the workplace, while acknowledging that the solid metal or other materials do not present the same hazards that are produced when these materials are processed under normal conditions of use.

Q: How many businesses and workers would be affected by the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A: OSHA estimates that over 5 million workplaces in the United States would be affected by the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). These are all those workplaces where employees a total of approximately 43 million of them—could be exposed to hazardous chemicals. Included among these 5 million workplaces are an estimated 90,000 establishments that create hazardous chemicals; these chemical producers employ almost 3 million workers.

Q: What are the estimated overall costs for industry to comply with the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A: The revised Hazard Communications Standard’s (HCS) total cost, an estimated $201 million a year on an annualized basis for the entire United States, is the sum of four major cost elements. (1) OSHA estimates that the cost erf classifying chemical hazards in accordance with die GHS criteria and revising safety data sheets and labels to meet new format and content requirements would be $22.5 million a year on an annualized basis. (2) OSHA estimates that training for employees to become familiar with new warning symbols and the revised safety data sheet format under GHS would cost $95.4 million a year ori an annualized basis. (3) OSHA estimated annualized costs of $59 million a year for management to become familiar with the new GHS system and to engage in other management-related activities as may be necessary for industry’s adoption of GHS. (4) OSHA estimated annualized costs of $24.1 million for printing packaging and labels for hazardous chemicals in color.

Q: What are the estimated benefits attributable to the revised Hazard Communication Standard?

A: OSHA expects that the modifications to die Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) will result in increased safety and health for the affected employees and reduce the numbers of accidents, fatalities, injuries, and illnesses associated with exposures to hazardous chemicals. The GHS revisions to the HCS standard for labeling and safety data sheets would enable employees exposed to workplace chemicals to more quickly obtain and to more easily understand information about die hazards associated with those chemicals. In addition, the revisions to HCS are expected to improve the use erf appropriate exposure controls and work practices that can reduce the safety and health risks associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals.

OSHA estimates that the revised HCS will result in the prevention of 43 fatalities and 585 injuries and illnesses (318 non-iost-workday injuries and illnesses, 203 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, and 64 chronic illnesses) annually. The monetized value of this reduction in occupational risks is an estimated $250 million a year on an annualized basis.

file:///Users/guest l/Desktop/Hazard%20Commumcation_ForAppendix2.we bare hive Page 5 of 6 141

Hazard Communication 2/24/15 1:38 PM

OSHA estimates that the revised HCS will result in savings of $475.2 million from productivity improvements for health and safety managers and logistics personnel, $32.2 million during periodic updating of SDSs and labels, and $285.3 million from simplified hazard communication training.

OSHA anticipates that, in addition to safety and health benefits, the revised HCS will result in four types of productivity benefits: (1) for chemical manufacturers, because they will need to produce fewer SDSs in future years; (2) for employers, in providing training to new employees as required by the existing OSHA HCS through me improved consistency of the labels and SDSs. (3) for firms engaging in, or considering engaging in, international trade.

Q. I understand that the United Nations revises the GHS every two years. How will OSHA manage and communicate changes to the Hazard Communication Standard?

A. It is expected that the GHS will be a living document and is expected to remain up-to-date and relevant; therefore further changes may be adopted on a two year cycle. Presently most of the recent updates have been clarification of text. However, OSHA anticipates that future updates of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) may be necessary and can be done through various rulemaking options, including:

• Technical updates for minor terminology changes, ■ Direct Final Rules for text clarification, and ■ Notice and Comment rulemaking for more substantive or controversial updates such as additional criteria or changes in health or safety hazard classes or categories.

Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers 1 Important Web Site Notices | International | Contact Us

U.S. Department of Labor | Occupational Safety & HeaWi AdnwiBtration ! 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210 Tetephone 800-321 -OSHA (6742) | TTY www.OSHA.gov

file ///Users/guestl/Desktop/Hazard%20Communication_ForAppendix2.webarchive Page 6 of 6 142

Appendix 3

Alejandra Bandala, Graduate Candidate [Contact information] [Phone number] [Email]

Date 06/15/12

[Art non-profit name] [Art non-profit contact information]

Dear [Art non-profit staff member name], [Position],

My name is Alejandra Bandala and I am conducting a project on the subject of travelling exhibitions processing and handling in regards to special materials. The information gathered will be used to investigate how non-profit art organizations, art centers, and art museums in California process loaned objects for temporary exhibition purposes before and after they arrive at the organization. I am hoping that I might have approximately fifteen minutes of your time to complete the enclosed survey.

The data collected from this survey would be used for the completion of a Master of Arts degree in Museum Studies at San Francisco State University. You have been contacted because your organization is a non-profit that serves the public through art related programs including temporary and traveling exhibitions, and because you are an expert in the area of loans processing, art handling and installation oversight of traveling exhibitions. If you agree to complete the survey, please understand that any information provided by you may appear in the final written thesis. However, note that you need not supply any information on the response that links your museum to the survey.

If you are not the most appropriate person in the organization to answer the survey, it would be most appreciated if you forward it along to someone working in your organization who can respond. A self-addressed envelope has been supplied, if you decide to reply I would greatly appreciate the return of the survey by 08/01/12.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact my research advisor, Professor Linda Ellis at [Email]. The title of my thesis is Handling with Care: Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions. 143

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Alejandra Bandala 144

Appendix 4

Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions Survey

Thank you for your time in participating in this survey. Electronic copies of files requested may be submitted to [email protected]. If you require more space to answer a question, please use the back(s) of these pages. If you would like a copy of the results, please provide your contact information at the end of this survey.

1. Please indicate the type of institution where you currently work. If you work at a museum, please indicate if it is accredited or not by the American Association of Museums. Please check the box that applies.

□ Accredited non-collecting art museum □ Non-profit art organization □ Non-accredited non-collecting art museum □ Non-profit art gallery □ Non-accredited collecting art museum □ Non-profit art center □ Other:______

2. Please indicate your job position/title:______

3. What is your organization’s approximate yearly exhibitions budget?

□ less than $50,000 □ $50,000-$ 100,000 □ $ 100,000-$250,000 □ $250,000-$500,000 □ $500,000-$800,000 □ $ 1,000,000 and over

4. Please indicate the number of traveling exhibitions your organization hosts during a year:___

5. Approximately, how much time does your organization’s schedule allow for de-installing the past exhibit and installing the new one?

6. Most of your organization’s exhibitions are proposed by (please check all that apply):

□ Onsite curator □ Exhibition manager □ Guest curator □ Other(s):______

7. Does your organization usually host pre-fabricated traveling exhibitions? If the answer is yes, where from? Please check all that apply. 145

□ Museums □ Other non-profits □For-profit exhibit developers □ For-profit galleries □ Other(s):______

8. From which kind of institutions or private parties does your organization most often borrow objects for temporary exhibition purposes? Please check all that apply.

□ Museum collections □ Library collections □ Other non-profits □ For-profit galleries representing artists or other lenders □ Artists (directly) □ Collectors (directly) □ Manufacturers (directly) □ Other(s):______

9. Does your organization ask lenders where and/or for how long has the borrowed object been in storage or in use prior to shipping to your organization?

10. Does your organization have written guidelines for object handling? If so, which staff members are trained to follow them?

11. Are collections, artworks and other objects that your organization borrows ever accompanied by instructions for special handling or care, particularly concerning special materials (e.g. minerals, specimens, pesticides, organics, etc.)?

12. Does your organization request and/or keep a file of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on the products and materials that the organization uses?

13. Has your organization ever found the need to hire a conservator, interim registrar, museum consultant or other professional to advise on or oversee the handling and installation of a specific object and/or special material? If so, please briefly describe in which way your organization needed their help and/or advise.

14. Do your organization’s facilities and/or travelling exhibits often require that with every show old walls be demolished and new ones built? and/or do you have a movable wall system to avoid having to build new walls every time? 146

15. Does your organization provide emergency response training to staff members? How often are these trainings provided and what kinds of emergencies are covered? (e.g. fire, chemical spill, earthquake, etc.)

16. Does any of the staff training provided by your organization include proper handling of hazardous materials to protect one’s self and others?

17. Does your organization have a hazard reporting mechanism for employees? If yes, briefly explain how it works. Also, does it include volunteers, interns, and/or contractual art handlers?

18. Does your organization provide staff training on occupational health? If so, who provides the training and who are required to attend?

Thank you for completing the Processing Special Materials for Traveling Exhibitions Survey. Your time is greatly appreciated. If you wish to receive a copy of the results of this survey, please indicate the appropriate mailing address or email address below. For paper copies, please include your full mailing address. For electronic copies, please include your email address. 147

Appendix 5

18th Street Arts Center LH Horton Jr Gallery (San Joaquin Delta 57 UNDERGROUND College) Angels Gate Cultural Center Armory Center for the Arts Long Beach Arts Art Center Los Angeles Los Angeles Art Association Art Share Los Angeles Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions ART2102 Machine Project Arts Council of Napa Valley MAK Center for Art and Architecture Arts Council Silicon Valley Marin Society of Artists ArtSpan Materials & Applications Berkeley Art Center Mendocino Art Center Border Council of Arts and Culture Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts Carmel Art Association Movimiento de Arte y Cultura Latino Casa Romantica Cultural Center and Americana Gardens Muckenthaler Cultural Center Center for Contemporary Art, Museum of African Diaspora Sacramento Museum of Craft and Folk Art Center for Photographic Arts Museum of Neon Art Center for the Arts Eagle Rock MuzeO Chico Art Center New Langton Arts Craft and Folk Art Museum NIAD Art Center Creative Growth Art Center O'Hanlon Center for the Arts Creativity Explored Orange County Center for Contemporary Davis Art Center - Tsao Gallery Art Expressions Gallery Pacific Art League Fifty Crows Palos Verdes Art Center First Street Gallery Art Center Pasadena Museum of California Art Foto vision Pence Gallery Galeria de la Raza PhotoAlliance Grand Central Art Center Pro Arts Headlands Center for the Arts Richmond Art Center Intersection for the Arts Riverside Arts Council LA Artcore (Union Center for Fine Arts) Roseville Arts - Blue Line Gallery La Jolla Art Association Sacramento Fine Arts Center LA>

Santa Barbara Art Association - Gallery The Firehouse Arts Center 113 The Irvine Museum Santa Barbara Contemporary Arts The Lab Forum The Luggage Store Santa Cruz Art League The Ojai Art Center Santa Cruz Mountains Art Center The Society for Art Publications of the Santa Monica Museum of Art - Americas - Meridian Gallery Bergamot Station G1 The Velaslavasay Panorama Scotts Valley Artisans Torrance Art Museum Sea and Space Explorations Vacaville Art League & Gallery Sebastopol Center for the Arts Verge Center for the Arts Self Help Graphics & Art Viewpoint Photographic Art Center SF Camerawork Visual Aid Side Street Projects Wells Fargo Center for the Arts Skirball Cultural Center Works/San Jose SomArts Yerba Buena Center for the Arts Southern Exposure Spectrum Art Gallery Tannery Arts Center The Cherry Center for the Arts The Contemporary Jewish Museum The dA Center for the Arts