TEXAS HISTORICAL COMIVIISSION FINAL REPORT Texas Historical Commission Conservation Treatment for Ten Historic Outdoor Sculptvires Funded by a Federal Grant under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 FOREWORD Thi s report provides the reader with an opportunit\' to learn about recent conservation projects carried out on some of Texas' most important outdoor sculptures. It also documents those projects for future generations and educates readers about proper maintenance methods for outdoor sculpture. It is not a handbook for performing conservation work on similar projects; that work is best performed by professionals. At the time the Federal program called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was introduced, a state-wide survey of all the outdoor sculpture in Texas had commenced with the aid of Save Outdoor Sculpture! (SOS!), a joint project of Heritage Preservation and the Smithsonian's National Museum of American Art. The statewide survey of outdoor sculpture was a cooperative project among several SOS! grant recipients: Dallas/Fort Worth: Adopt-A Monument/Urban Strategies of Tarrant Count)'; San Antonio: City of San Antonio Planning Department; and Austin: Art in Public Places Program. The remainder of the state, including Houston and El Paso, was surveyed by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) under the direction of Hillary Summers. Her tireless efforts helped train scores of volunteers throughout the state on how to read a sculpture and fill out the SOS! inventory forms, assemble this information and set up a database with the aid of many Universit)' of Texas student interns. The ISTEA program arrixed at a perfect time. Hillary proposed the idea of applying for a grant under the ISTEA program to conserve ten outdoor sculptures using data collected from the SOS! project. We were successful in gaining flmds for this project. When the survey phase of the SOS! project was completed, Hillary left to pursue other projects. To help the THC administer the ISTEA project, Mark Van Gelder was hired. His training as a conservator clearly prepared him to understand the principles and goals of the projects. It is the intent that the projects described in this report and the \'ideo titled "Maintaining A Heritage: Outdoor Sculpture in Texas" demonstrate the need to preserve Texas' outdoor sculpture and that these are a catalyst for communities to become aware of their own works of art and their need to properly conserve them. I want to take this opportunit)' to thank the staff of the SOS! project, especially Susan Nichols, Director; ISTEA program coordinator, Brenda Harper; Texas Land Office media staff; and all the THC staff members who helped through their technical expertise and support to make these two projects possible, -k u^r-f -^ 1^ If^l HISTORICAL Gerron S. Hite \^^y COMMISSION Texas Historical Commission Architect nesiaie Agency for Historic Presmation TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 1 INTRODUCTION 3 PARTI Spirit of the Confederacy 5 Dick Dowling 8 Al Hayne Monument II Confederate Monument 14 Moses Austin 18 General Albert Sidney Johnston 21 Treiie de Union Monument 25 George O'Brien Millard 29 Charles Noyes Monument 32 Spirit of the American Doughboy 34 PART 2 MONUMENT MAINTENANCE 36 CONCLUSION 39 REFERENCES 40 Copyright 1999, Texas Historical Commission INTRODUCTION was hired to coordinate the project and formu­ BACKGROUND DISCUSSION late bidding criteria. Conservators who special­ ize in the treatment of outdoor sculpture, and Outdoor monuments are not necessarily perma­ T. hi s report discusses a recent, are also Fellows or Professional Associate mem­ nent fixtures in our communities. Though made grant-funded project at the Texas Historical bers of the American Institute for Conservation of materials that are considered permanent, such Commission (THC) which provided of Historic & Artistic Works (AIC), were invit­ as granite and bronze, they are subject to the professional conservation treatment for ed to submit bids for the specified projects. natural forces of a harsh environment through 10 historic outdoor monuments located weathering, biological growth and acid rain. in various cities in Texas. The THC's ISTEA grant provided 80 percent Neglect, graffiti and vandalism accelerate and of the funding for the conservation work compound the process of deterioration. In 1989, a national Save Outdoor Sculpture discussed in this report, with the required (SOS!) program was created to develop an match of 20 percent of the cost provided by the Additional factors that adversely affect monu­ inventory of all of the publicly accessible out­ local organizations indicated in each section of ments are the general lack of funds to properly door sculpture in the United States. As part of this report. The bids were opened in April maintain these works of art and misunderstand­ the SOS! program, survey information was 1995, and all of the conservation work was ings about the early signs of deterioration. recorded for more than 1,400 sculptures and completed by April 1999. Historically, it was rare that flindraising monuments in Texas by volunteers from around campaigns for a new monument included funds the state. The survey information for Texas Please note that the appropriate conservation for long-term maintenance. Unfortunately, was entered into a computer database at the treatment for each historic object is unique, the public, as well as the owners of these monu­ THC in Austin. and is carefully tailored by a trained conservator ments, lacked the know ledge to detect the early to address the specific requirements of a partic­ signs of the deterioration of historic materials. The SOS! project increased local awareness of ular situation at a given time. Therefore, unless Some considered the corrosion of metal, as in the need to preserve outdoor sculpture, and the it is otherwise specifically stated, the treatment the case of green discoloration of bronze, stains survey information helped the THC identify techniques and materials discussed in this report and loss of material as littie more than signs that monuments which had significant problems should not be adopted for use in otiier these monuments were getting "old." It was requiring professional conservation treatment. situations without further guidance from a only when some major change or material loss In 1994, the commission received a Federal conservator. occurred that steps were taken to deal with this grant, funded under the Intermodal Surface deterioration. This is not the recommended Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), to This report is intended primarily to inform approach; instead a long-range maintenance preserve and restore a selection of important, interested individuals about the results accom­ plan as described in Part 2 is needed to prevent but deteriorating, older outdoor monuments plished by this project, and thus encourage the deterioration of these vulnerable treasures. around the state. similar efforts toward continuing the preserva­ tion of our common cultural heritage. It has Stone is used throughout history for outdoor In contrast to artists or experts in various crafts been arranged in two parts following the monuments. Historically, stone monuments and fabrication trades, conservators are specially introduction: Part 1 presents the historical back­ were generally made of marble or granite while trained in the preservation of existing historic ground of each monument, and describes the limestone and sandstone were used to a lesser works which requires a different approach, dif­ pre-conservation condition of each monument extent. Stones are classified according to their ferent methods and materials, and different ethi­ and how the conservation work was accom­ geological origin: igneous, sedimentary, and cal constraints than the creation of new works. plished; Part 2 discusses the need to continue metamorphic. Igneous rocks such as granite To ensure that the historic monuments chosen to maintain these monuments, recommenda­ are generally very hard and less vulnerable to for this project received conservation treatment tions for their long-range maintenance program deterioration associated with air pollutants. of the highest qualin,', a professional conservator and how to clean stone and bronze. Sedimentary rocks include sandstone and lime- stone. Marble, a metamorphic rock, weathers not contribute to the deterioration, neither does and the bonds between grains are loosened and it offer any protection to the surface. the surface becomes "sugary." Following World War II, the use of sandblasting Most stone deterioration is a natural process. to clean bronze was popularized. The hardness Three major weathering agents - chemical, of the sand, the sharp edges of the sand grains physical, and biological - each require different and the high pressures used concerned conser­ management strategies. Chemical weathering vators because of the amount of bronze deteriorates stone at a higher rate with the removed during the process. In the 1970s, presence of pollution which exists either as acid a method using spherical glass beads under low rain or as airborne gases and particles. Physical pressure was developed to remove surface weathering includes frost (freeze/thaw cycles), corrosion. Glass beads are initially less abrasive abrasion from sand and dust and disintegration than sand, but because of the high cost, they of the mineral structure. Biological weathering are used more than once. Afiier initial impact,