Managing Environments for Collections: The Impact of International Loans on Sustainable Climate Strategies

ABSTRACT

Exhibitions in general and loans in particular still appear to be driving median and relatively tight climatic parameters for collection environments. This paper explores the impact of international loans on the adaptation of more sustainable climate control strategies. By offering a description of the complexities and (un)certainties associated with international loan policies that moves beyond the climate parameters, it explores why a more pragmatic approach to environmental control strategies is impeded. It describes how the Getty Conservation Institute’s Managing Collection Environments initiative is addressing this impasse and gives some suggestions for moving the debate forward.

KEYWORDS:

• Preventive conservation
• loans
• museum
• climate

Introduction

In his book The Museum Environment, Garry Thomson predicted that international loans would eventually lead to a standardized approach:

 … most museums these days … will borrow and lend. For the larger museums this implies exchange between countries, possibly of very different climate. The lending museum may very properly demand conditions reasonably close to its own. This will strengthen a trend towards median RH values (50 or 55%). (Thomson 1978, 112)

Lending has increased since then, and Thomson was right in predicting the dominance of median RH values, often pursuing very narrow environmental parameters to facilitate loans from different climatic zones. A specified range, regardless of the climatic history of the loaned object, provides a degree of certainty and accountability.

This attitude of striving for tight parameters has had far-reaching implications for climate control strategies in collecting institutions, not only for loan exhibitions but also for permanent collections. Renovations, extensions or even newly built facilities often strive for this ‘ideal’, supported by the argument that any system installed should have the capacity to maintain these set-points for international loans conditions, and are often applied to the entire building for flexibility.

As the profession identifies the costs and risks of rigid climatic conditions, possibilities for aligning internal conditions with external environments are being revisited. Open advocacy for non-mechanical control is evident in policy documents relating to international loans (IIC/ICOM-CC 2014). So, what is stopping the profession from collectively moving forward? Why has lingering uncertainty been such an obstacle?

Reflecting on the 1994 congress

The logic and sustainability benefits of accounting for external environments in climate management, the different climatic needs of varied materials, the cost of control and the historical reasons for set-points have been known for some time. The milestone IIC 1994 congress showed the varied climatic needs of different materials (Erhardt and Mecklenburg 1994), demonstrated the benefits of non-mechanical control methods related to climatic region (e.g. Staniforth, Hayes, and Bullock 1994), illustrated how difficult reaching moderate, tight climatic conditions was for many countries (Johnsen 1994), introduced risk assessment to preventive conservation (Waller 1994), and challenged the logic of loans conditions (Ashley-Smith, Umney, and Ford 1994).

Since then, researchers in conservation have examined the response of number of material properties to fluctuations in climate (Bratasz 2013), none of which point to a range of +/−5%. The notion of ‘proofing’, that (untreated) objects stabilized in a climate are unlikely to undergo further plastic deformation, has been articulated. Anecdotal evidence has supported this, and cases reporting shifts from the ‘ideal’ of +/−5% have not involved damage (The Smithsonian Institution 2017).

Despite this evolution in thinking about environmental conditions, the ghost of ‘ideal conditions’, particularly 50% or 55% RH, remains implicitly if not explicitly in loan conditions, environmental targets, and policy. Not only is this assumption impractical and imbalanced, but potentially damaging for objects outside median climate profiles. Highly technical specifications that require a scientist to understand, or an HVAC system to implement, do not represent the majority of loan situations.

Professionals understand the environmental and economic benefits of climate control that aligns with the qualities of their local climates, but reconciling the tension between local climates and international loans remains a significant barrier. Until this impasse is fully addressed, progression on this topic will continue to be a challenge. The problems, however, need to be further unpacked to better understand their implications.

Simplifications and certainties

Debates about climatic conditions have often focused on notions of conditions being ‘tight’ or ‘relaxed’ (Plus/Minus Dilemma 2010; Burmester and Eibl 2014), i.e. how close to that ideal need we be. This implies that arriving at a median set-point from a different climate can be considered an upgrade, regardless of the environmental history of an object. The implications of chasing an ideal may be evident, but so pervasive as to almost seem natural. Such rhetoric can even reinforce the notion of a perfect climate that is subject to acceptable compromise for reasons of costs, feasibility, or physical access. Emphasis on numbers over context can limit policy and practice to concepts that have historically favoured well-resourced or geographically temperate locations compared with accommodating objects moving from dry or humid to temperate climates. The object’s return from an ‘ideal’ climate remains mostly unexplored, not being part of a negotiation, but understanding this risk is just as important. Although aligning with that environment might be better for an object than reaching an ‘ideal’ climate, instead abstract targets are presented. The environmental history of the lender is just as important as that of the exhibition location. If decision-making is expressed as reaching pre-defined targets rather than mitigating damaging conditions, the risks are not so much reduced as displaced.

Furthermore, an incomplete understanding of the risks imposed by fluctuations in relative humidity (RH) may result in unnecessary rigidity. Enforcing strict numbers in loan agreements without justification or using unvetted climate data for setting the targets that lending institutions have to adhere to, increases this displacement of risks.

Complexities and (un)certainties

As the profession’s understanding of climate risk increases, the complexities of deterioration processes and the limitations of models have helped pin-point where uncertainties lie. That uncertainty has fuelled much of the debate in conservation, a consequence of which has been the call to remain at the safe position of stable, moderate RH (Burmester and Eibl 2014) – ideally a flat line at 50%. Both the ‘stable is safe’ position (Burmester and Eibl 2014) and the Bizot (2015) declaration pointed to complexity as a reason for their approach (objects too complex to model, and collections too diverse for a single climate specification, respectively).

As well as complexity, there is uncertainty: not necessarily a total belief that these are the optimal conditions, but perhaps more a feeling of reassurance that nothing bad happened while these set-points were in place. Diverting from the safety of the ‘known’, heightens the perception of responsibility that staff directly involved with a loan might feel. The feeling of ‘If it goes wrong, who is to blame?’ is very powerful and can strongly influence a decision, even if that decision could have been made more objectively. The benefits of moving away from ‘ideal’, if that is already the case, are ambiguous, and the nuances of loan risks are difficult to express in general terms. Loan requirements can be inherited from previous staff, requiring some justification to shift from accepted policy. But who wants to climb down from ‘ideal’?

Debates about loans will always be haunted by unknown factors. A conservator or scientist will never know everything. One must consider, though, the practical difference between what is possible ever to know and what is necessary to know when making a decision or discussing generalities.

Conservators may be responsible for asserting or meeting conditions, but they are not the only professionals involved in the decision, or accepting responsibility. Every risk accepted by the conservator is accepted by the registrar, director and insurance underwriter. The further removed from the situation, the more pronounced the uncertainty. The greater the complexity, the harder to attribute accountability. Registrars, often the gatekeepers of loan requests, may decide whether or not conservation expertise is needed. Smaller institutions may not be able to call upon a conservator or scientist, so need reference points.

Broadening the focus

The environmental conditions debate was sparked by museum directors, but has not involved many contributions from outside the conservation field. We would like to take a broader perspective, in order to consider the role of conservation in the loan process rather than a debate about conservation matters alone.

Although conservation discourse has largely revolved around the setting of numerical set-points and ranges as the field refines its understanding of responses to climatic variations, the negotiations of loans involve a much bigger set of decisions. Solely considering risk from environmental conditions removes conservation from this context. When considering ‘risks’ that stem from loans, curators or exhibitions managers must consider financial risk from an exhibition or contract, reputational risk, legal or ethical risks. When thinking about damage or loss, security or disaster may well be a bigger risk.

Risk assessment in preventive conservation has developed various ways to express loss of value (particularly through loss of material), but cost/benefit analysis and risk management also provide the capability of expressing increase in value. It is well understood that keeping an object in a dark, hermetically sealed box stops value from being derived from it. Increased accessibility through loans is a corollary of that matter that valorizes an object. Like display, loans elicit value from an object. It comes with risks and benefits, and it is misleading to only consider loss.

Opportunity for renowned objects to be displayed at their institution, or for their objects to be seen more widely, can often involve exchanges and long-term relationships for which one object is a small component. Risks for outgoing loans may be accepted when objects seen as highly desirable incoming loans have been identified. A conservator may view loans singularly, commenting on a facilities report or specifying a climatic range, but individual loans are part of a relationship with another institution. Because exhibitions often involve loans from different institutions in the same space, this can mean different, even competing requirements and relationships. If damage does occur, the issue that arises for directors may not only be that future generations will not get to see the object as the present generation have, or that costs are incurred for conservation or restoration, but whether the lending institution will lend again. The consequences for damage may also be very contextual, such as an institutions’ expectations and whether refusing further loan activity from an institution with a desirable collection is strategically far-sighted. The risk of damage may fall under reputational risk in the eyes of a director or registrar, rather than object lifetimes.

Upon agreement, the numbers quoted for loan conditions are not just adhered to in order to prevent damage, but are contractual obligations that can come with legal consequences. If a gallery falls out of specification, damage does not have to occur for legal, financial, or reputational risk to be encountered. The situation of institutions both requesting and agreeing to unattainable loan conditions as described by Ashley-Smith, Umney, and Ford (1994) puts institutions in a vulnerable position.

Understanding the complexities of the museum environment is a significant advancement, but how this can be integrated into broader decision-making is a further challenge. There are no standard decision-making mechanisms, and even single institutions may vary in loan practices between departments, or between outgoing and incoming loans, with limited connection between them. A universal aspect, though, is that loan decisions all involve much more than the numbers that conservators debate.

Efforts to assist forward movement

As the field moves forward, the Managing Collection Environments (MCE) initiative has been designed to help respond to these matters. The initiative has developed a multi-strand approach to sustainable collection preservation, including research, education and dissemination. This section will describe some of the connected activities that are contributing to progress in the area of loan agreements.

More evidence that pushes boundaries in terms of both repeatability and realism

Ashley-Smith, Umney, and Ford (1994) noted the need to connect theoretical knowledge to how real objects respond to environmental changes. Seen as one of the major impediments to a wider acceptance of evidence-based environmental parameters, MCE aims for a better understanding of the response of hygroscopic materials to climatic fluctuations at both the micro- and macro-scale. The initiative combines highly repeatable laboratory research into historic and reference material at the micro- and nano-scale with empirical studies of climate-induced damage on historic objects. These studies will help identify more precisely the conditions under which irreversible damage occurs as a result of climatic agents of deterioration. The use of historic materials and objects moves the research beyond mock-ups or artificially aged materials, aligning better with conservation concerns.

In order to make this more accessible to the practitioner, the initiative is collaborating with the Jerzy Haber Institute to further develop a simulation tool (HERIe) that can incorporate the experimental data to help predict if change from an existing climate (e.g. related to a loan) could result in potentially harmful stresses.

The initiative also involves applying epidemiological principles commonly found in medical science to identify gaps, discrepancies and quality of evidence used to make decisions. This provides a framework from which its scientific results can connect with other work in this area to contribute to a larger picture.

It is not just the lack of technical knowledge that limits progress, however, but also how and when to use information in decision-making in uncertain environments.

Holistic conservation that connects technical knowledge with collaborative practice

Responding to the necessity of inter-disciplinary collaboration in implementing sustainable environmental strategies, MCE targets the wider conservation community: conservators, architects, engineers, facility managers, registrars and curators. Its central education component – a course for mid-career professionals – focuses on decision-making, and combines up-to-date technical expertise with interpersonal skills and follow-up by mentoring participants through the implementation of course concepts in their institution.

The MCE educational programme encourages critical dialogue among colleagues working in this area through collaboration, workshops, and expert meetings with a range of dissemination outlets for allied professional groups.

Addressing policy and practice with allied professions

When all parties feel that the responsibility is on their shoulders, communication is affected. If conservators aim to avoid physical change in objects, facilities managers aim for cost effective control, registrars aim for loan agreements that work, and directors aim for good working relationships with other institutions, a pragmatic, evidence-based approach provides much room for agreement.

MCE is developing ways to work more closely together with administrators responsible for implementing loan policies, and with facilities managers responsible for implementing climate control policies, aiming to include allied professionals in the climate debate and in designing pragmatic conservation policies that support international loans for a wide array of cultural institutions. Conservators having a better understanding of the wider implications of loan agreements mean that, ‘at curator, registrar or conservator level, it should be possible to discuss what is reasonable in the light of logic and specific knowledge, rather than dogma’ (Ashley-Smith, Umney, and Ford 1994).

This responds to the need for realistic and accessible alignment of the relevant indoor climates with the sensitivities of a loan object travelling between two institutions to inform a pragmatic climate control strategy to be integrated into loan decisions. Collaboration is required to adapt guidelines for loans, including starting points for negotiation, how responsibilities can be shared, and what climate data is sought. Current guidelines call for ‘ … transparency about actual environmental conditions achieved in museums to ensure that realistic requirements are made for loan conditions’ (IIC/ICOM-CC2014). But what constitutes ‘actual’ environmental conditions will have to be better defined in order to allow for greater clarity and uniformity, since climate monitoring and data vary greatly between institutions. Through dissemination of its course materials within and beyond conservation, MCE will share guidance and best practice.

Conclusion

The conservation community has done much to reduce the uncertainties surrounding materials damage from specific climatic ranges. When holistically considering the complexities and (un)certainties that impact the realm of international loans, however, it becomes apparent that the climate debate must move beyond trying to establish more broadly accepted prescriptive ranges (the numbers) to wider, inter-disciplinary decision-making that is based on risks and benefits (the process). Consequently, sharing decisions and responsibilities with allied professionals is essential if debates about environmental standards are to progress. Looking beyond targets and ranges helps consider collaborative approaches that connect with the wider decision-making processes surrounding loans. By integrating more pragmatic climate control strategies for loans, more sustainable strategies for museum environments can be developed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID

Foekje Boersma http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0545-9836