On a tangential matter, I wish to cite the following case: A few years ago there was an exhibition of pre-Columbian textiles at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. The lighting level was very dim, which was perhaps justified in that case. However, the exhibit labels were printed in black on dark grey (or perhaps the other way around). They would have been difficult to read even under the best of lighting, let alone under those dim lights. Surely the museum wasn't afraid that light reflected from white-background labels would have damaged the textiles?

Regards, Yon

As for your point about fading, please refer to my response to Marvin Amstey.

Just by-the-by. When I told John Howe that I'd do this, I also told him that I didn't expect to convince anyone or change any minds.

I recall reading in Hali several years ago a letter regarding the results of scientific testing for color degradation due to exposure to light. Pre-Columbian textiles were said to fade the least of all the groups tested. I recall the exhibit Yon refers to at the BFMA. It might have been more illuminating if more illuminated.

Comparable was the exhibition of Andean four-cornered hats at the Textile Museum about 10 years or so ago. For some reason I was passing through the exhibition as it was being installed and the lights were turned up. The pieces were brilliant. When I returned later for the opening, the lights were turned back down and the real beauty of the objects was impossible to see.

Sara has quite clearly stated that the effects of light on color will vary by group, age, degree of cleanliness and other factors. Perhaps the variations will be by several orders of magnitude, but, perhaps not. In any event, it seems apparent that museum lighting levels need not be the same for all objects.

If it is true that some textiles are less light sensitive than others (e.g., the pre-Columbian example), isn't it possible for museums to adjust the level of the lighting accordingly?

Also, the nature of the light must be considered. My understanding is that new bulbs and/or filters have been developed to reduce ultraviolet rays. Progressive museums have installed motion sensors to turn on lights only when the objects are being visited.

It is interesting to think about the conditions under which many of the beautifully colored antique rugs have survived. While some may have been washed in streams and allowed to dry in the sun and others exposed to direct sunlight during migrations, perhaps the colors of some remain so brilliant because they were kept under layers in mosques or in interiors that were, but today's standards, dimmer than those of our museums.

Wendel

Regards, Yon

Wendel’s got very valid points about visitor-aware amenities in museums like motion-controlled lighting and UV filters. You have to wonder why they’re not used more often. Do curators really care if we visitors can actually see the objects on display - or not? When I tour museum textile exhibitions, I often think I'm suffering that oft-described symptom of fatal poisoning - everything's going gray, then black.

I do sometimes wonder if museum curators would accept a "Holbein" rug if it had been wrapped up and kept out of the light and off the floor for four hundred years. The yellows would be stoplight in intensity, the greens awfully bright, and the whites certainly not ivory. In fact, most rugs and textiles - in museums or private collections alike - would have no patina without long (gentle) exposure to UV and oxygen, and would often be found unacceptable.

Although she didn't address the acceptablity question you raise, Sara acknowledged in a previous post that, for example, the contemporary DOBOG rugs often seem nearly too bright and that the softer colors we often admire (although we seem of two minds about this, since we also celebrate "saturation") are the result of light damage.

Regards,

R. John Howe

I understand: the job of a museum conservator is, unsurprisingly, to conserve "because a museum has an obligation to the preservation of objects over centuries."
The best way to conserve organic materials such as textiles is to keep them shut in a dark place with a controlled climatization. But this goes at odds with the other function of a Museum: to display his collection.
If I well remember, the ICOM (International Council Of Museums) used to recommend, for objects like paintings, designs and water-colors, printed and manuscript books, tapestries and textiles, a lighting comprised between 50 and 300 lux. For paintings I think they suggested something between 150 and 180 lux. Is a rug more fragile than a painting? I don’t think so. True, more old paintings have survived to present days than textiles, but textiles were used, worn, walked on. . .
I certainly would not like to see a Renaissance painting with only a 50 lux light although it should be OK for a design.
For the same reason 50 lux may be appropriate for, say a Coptic fabric, but not for a 19 century tribal rug
Your policy of "50 lux = minimal risk" is applied on all the Museum exhibits or some of them are allowed to be seen in more light?
Best Regards,

Filiberto Boncompagni

I think I understand the "museum" position. Displaying textiles is inherently opposed to the mission of conserving them. Any light is bad. More light is worse. Enough light to see the damn things is downright destructive.

Well, baloney!

What's the point to a museum that displays its precious holdings in such dim light that they can't be seen? Why should anyone go to it? Why should anyone contribute to its support?

Is this just another example of the "cover your ass" thinking that pervades our times? Take the most conservative approach possible and avoid all risk - even if alternatives exist. (For instance, I like the sound of using motion sensors to turn lighting on and off.)

But having an "exhibition" where the exhibits are all but invisible is downright rude to the people who have made the trek to see it. If the owners of the textiles don't want them subjected to light, they shouldn't contribute them to the exhibition. By the same token, if the curators of a museum collection doesn't want their holdings exposed to light, they shouldn't hold exhibitions.

These textiles aren't spiderwebs. They don't vanish in a gentle breeze. Most have survived for very long times in very bright light. Limited exposures to further bright light are unlikely to contribute to much additional damage. (As you can tell, I'm not especially impressed by a single experiment with a colorimeter. Has anyone bothered to confirm the findings? Or is one test all the data a conservator needs to form a shibboleth?)

Like they said in "Jerry McGuire," "Show me the rugs!"

-Jerry-

I completely agree with your assertions that people who don't want their rugs exposed to light (whether collectors or curators) shouldn't exhibit them.

But I think you're kind of harsh on the museum folks, who have two conflicting objectives. One is to preserve the textiles for posterity, the other is to make them available to the public. Nobody would suggest, for instance, that they let anyone who comes into the museum handle the stuff, so we all recognize that they have no alternative to setting some restrictions. The only issue is whether the restrictions they adopt are reasonable.

I happen to believe that any restriction that prevents the viewer from seeing the piece being exhibited is too restrictive. The near-trivial amount of damage light does to a textile under reasonable viewing light during, say, 12 hours a day for a 3 month exhibition is (in my opinion) more than justified. And forbidding flash photography is completely absurd for any reason except to protect the museum's right to sell its own photos.

Steve Price

I know that we have strong views and it's hard not to express the frustrations we experience vigorously but we have an invited guest as our salon host. I would like not to repay her courtesy here with intemperate language.

Sara - Jerry, as you know, is a public relations professional who weighs every word he writes carefully for full effect.

Regards,

R. John Howe

I’m afraid John Howe didn’t warn you properly about the risks you are exposed in participating to a Turkotek Salon.
I invite you to read carefully Salon 55.
Yours truly,
F. Boncompagni

P.S. Hey Jerry, I have another customer for Mr. D’Arque Angelli!

And, regarding what a museum does versus what a collector does, there's really no comparison. As a collector, one can nail their piece to the wall with impunity, blast it with sunlight, treat it with mothballs (which have a negative impact on the preservation of some dyes), and their obligation is to themself alone. When that same piece crosses the threshhold of a museum, all of the rules change. A collector's piece that goes into a museum receives the same level of care while there that every other of the museum's treasures receive.

It saddens me that some collectors decline to give their pieces to museums on the basis that they won't be seen all the time. A collection is greater than the sum of its parts, and scholarship evolves from depth in a collection. This, however, is a curatorial, rather than conservation discussion.

Let me begin by saying that I am extremely grateful to you for being willing to undertake this dialog between yourself - representing the museums of the world - and the assembled collectors who would love to be able to treat museum collections as their very own. Most of us recognize that some compromises are necessary, and being able to hear the bases for some of them is very useful, even when we don't agree with all of them.

I would like to clarify my position vis-a-vis donating pieces to museums, since you allude to it in your previous messge when you say, It saddens me that some collectors decline to give their pieces to museums on the basis that they won't be seen all the time.

I don't expect my pieces to be seen all the time, but to be seen by the public only for a few months every few decades, and then only in less than ideal lighting, is counter to my own objectives. I'm more of an evangelist than a conservator, rug-wise. That is, I would rather educate someone to the wonders of the textiles I love than make sure the world's scholars will always have access to the pieces. That's why I give lectures, volunteer for an assortment of activities in Rugdom, and edit Turkotek. This makes it very important to me that people be able to not only see, but to see from many angles, and to feel and probe the pieces. I recognize that a museum can't do this, since it has different priorities. So, when I say that I will lend my stuff to a museum any time one has a use for it, but won't give the pieces to them, it's because of this difference. It isn't hostility, it's just recognition of How Things Are.

Regards, and many thanks,

Steve Price

In spite of the attention the nature of the verbiage has drawn, the questions asked remain unanswered.

Why do museums hold exhibitions if the exhibits aren't lighted well enough to be seen? I mean, why bother? What's the point? I'm sure Sara hasn't even begun to relate all the work involved in a major exhibition. With so much effort to so little effect....

Does it just come down to fundraising? Let's face it: most museums are generally underfunded. From what Sara tells us the TM isn't exactly rolling in surplus money. Which leads me to wonder: what role do the TM's exhibitions play in fundraising? If there were no exhibitions, would a major opportunity for fundraising be lost? Collateraly, if conservators had their way and rugs were rarely displayed and even then only under view-unfriendly conditions, would the funds they need to continue their work be lost? Is this a curatorial Catch-22? Exhibitions are tolerated for their revenue production?

I guess what I want to know is what is the goal of a rug exhibition? Education? Building a new generation of rug enthusiasts? Adding to the reputation of the institution holding the exhibition? Fundraising? Fulfilling a requirement of some donor's bequest?

And is that goal advanced by hanging rugs that you can't see?

-Jerry-

Jerry, I am as baffled as you are by the references to intemperate remarks, as I think the disgreements have been expressed without personal attack (except to the extent that in this setting Sara is seen as more or less speaking for all museum personnel which, of course, she doesn't and can't).

On the other hand I do see some argument taking the form of rhetorical overstatement. Sara implies that collectors want the museum's rugs to be in the sunlight and as public as any park bench all the time. That just isn't so. You imply that museums exhibit rugs without making them visible. That's not so, either.

The facts are that the collector and the curator have somewhat different priorities, so they adopt different compromises. The collector is in charge of what he owns, pursues his agenda with it. The curator is responsible for the museum's holdings, and pursues their agenda. Therein lies the conflict.

There, now I've offended everyone.

Steve Price

I think Sara was referring to the fact that she has encountered upset people at the TM wanting to see things not on display and that they were rude about not getting their way and not being allowed unfettered access to the museum holdings. I do not think she was casting aspersions on our gentle readership.

I visited the Los Angeles Museum with the Ardebil carpet about ten years ago. I went to the textile section thinking that, of course it would be on display since it is the most famous carpet in America. Not seeing it made me curious and I asked some museum workers if it was available. They not only did not know, they had no clue what I was talking about. I had gone quite out of my way to visit just this museum for just this purpose and was disappointed not to see the carpet.

I do not recall being verbally abusive or visibly upset, but I suspect a lot of single minded rug lovers go to Washington to see their beloved rugs and find.....a little old house with a handful of things they don't recognize and a rather Surly Sara (no offense, Sara, just a little fun with the topic) indignant that they would expect anything more! "GEEZ. WHADDYA THINK THIS IS ANYWAY?!?!? A ZOO??", says the curator amicably. "C'MON MABEL, WERE GETTIN' OUTA THIS CRUMMY PLACE AN' STARTIN' A COLLECTION OF BEER BOTTLE CAPS INSTEAD OF RUGS!!!", replies the modestly diappointed pilgrim to his rancorous band of snot-nosed ragamuffins, while wiping his muddy boots on a 14' x 23' silk Heriz.

I wouldn't characterize it as visiting the Louvre without seeing the Mona Lisa, but it is discouraging not to see what you expect to see. I also think there are a few less than pleasant people in the rug community with inflated egos and wallets to match and they just expect to get their way by intimidation wherever they go. To some extent it is probably like the folks who just MUST bargain for EVERY rug, EVERY car they buy and EVEN their ELECTRICITY rate. And look what is happening in California because of them!

Insightfully yours,

Patrick
Weiler

Re:fundraising. This is a question better addressed to someone like the museum's director, but I'll take a stab at it. In the time I was at The Textile Museum, we shortened the length of time exhibitions were up, and worked hard to lessen the "dark" time between shows precisely because we knew that we were dependent upon people coming to exhibitions for our "bread and butter." The term "textile" means many different things to different people, and one of the most distressing things about listening to or reading complaints from the people who come at any given time, is that no matter what we have put up on the wall, they came to see something else. If there's a rug show up, someone wants to see Japanses textiles. If Japense textiles up, someone wants to see pre-Columbian....and so on. When you're on the receiving end, it seems like you can't win for losing.

I don't have the mission statement of The Textile Museum in front of me, but I think it contains right up front "research, present and conserve." I don't think the word, "access" appears, although perhaps it should. Could we do better? Yes. And we know it. And we try.

Regards, Yon

For the last two or three years, the Textile Museum has devoted a room on the second floor for a display of diverse textiles. The last time I was in the room, there was a magnificent Persian white on white prayer cloth. I doubt that it has ever been shown before.

There just isn't enough time or space to display everything that everyone wants to see.

Sara is absolutely right about the demands that "something else" be shown. The TM says that one of the most popular and successful (meaning unsolicited favorable comments and donations) exhibitions was of contemporary baskets and other objects woven from clear plastic sheets. (Ed _____ was the artist). You can imagine just how much I liked it, but others loved it.

Wendel

Yon

If you really believe that the present facilities are inadequate, start contributing. The lowest estimate of the CASH necessary for the TM to acquire a new facility is around $25 million. None of the current endowment of about $16 million can be used for that purpose. Substantial renovation of the existing building is infeasible for a variety of reasons.

Although the TM does have an abundance of material that could hardly be called "museum quality" any proceeds of de-accession would scarcely matter.

All of us would like to see the museum move to accessible quarters with lots of exhibition space and state of the art equipment. The only impediment isn't exactly chump change.

Wendel