DEFINITION
An assessment of the overall physical condition, characteristics, and completeness
of a work of art or architecture at a particular time. This includes examinations
of the work under special conditions, such as ultraviolet light, but excludes
interventions or treatments that alter the condition of a work, such as
restoration or conservation.
SUBCATEGORIES
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
Repositories routinely track the condition for the works in their care
over time. Owners and caretakers of architecture will track condition
reports. The condition report is a critical tool to manage the care of
art, architecture, and cultural heritage objects. It charts the condition
of the work and ensures that proper preventive and conservation strategies
are in place. Condition reports typically should be prepared when an object
enters the collection. Periodic reports should be made in order to determine
whether the condition has changed and conservation is required. Condition
reports are generally sent with loans or exhibitions of art works. The
condition of a work of art or architecture may change over time; hence
there may be more than one assessment of it. When more than one condition
evaluation or report is available, each should be described in a separate
occurrence of this category.
Researchers
will also find the condition report useful. A condition report makes it
possible for a researcher to assess the condition of the work in comparison
to its original state. This may provide clues about the work's use or
past history. Technical examinations may also supply further information
about the dating of a work, or its creation. For example, underdrawing
and underpainting may be visible with X-radiography or infrared reflectography.
Also, since the use of particular materials and techniques changes over
time, such analysis may be useful. The condition of a work may also provide
clues to its creation, past use, or history of ownership. For example,
a work once mounted in an album may show traces of glue or remains of
the secondary support on its verso. It may provide insight into the appearance
of the work in the past, thus explaining its critical reception at that
time or why it might have been restored. Technical documentation
may include information about an object's facture, condition, or history.
A work in poor condition may be difficult for the researcher to consult;
access may be restricted or prohibited because of extreme fragility.
Condition
assessments gleaned from historical sources may be divergent or be subject
to interpretation. When available, an objective description of the current
physical condition of a work should be included, based on observation
or drawn from the documentation of a specialized examination. It should
also include references to any available conservation-specific files containing
detailed information. Observations
on a work's condition may be found in both published and unpublished sources.
Travel accounts, diaries, letters, copies of the work, etc. may offer
evidence of a work's condition at a particular time. Today, written reports
of condition assessments are often produced by conservators at the repository,
or at the request of the owner of the object or a dealer. Condition reports
are also routinely made by museums and galleries before an object is lent
or exhibited, and during the course of an exhibition. A scholar may also
make notes on the condition of a work of art when examining it for research
purposes.
RELATED
CATEGORIES and ACCESS
Subcategories should repeat as a group for each available assessment.
A record of any conservation or restoration treatments an object has undergone
is recorded in CONSERVATION/TREATMENT HISTORY. Written reports produced
as a result of the assessment of the condition of a work are recorded
in RELATED TEXTUAL REFERENCES. Images created to document the condition
of a work at a particular time are recorded in RELATED VISUAL DOCUMENTATION.
The materials and methods used to create an object are recorded in MATERIALS
AND TECHNIQUES. Specialized details about the manufacture of a work are
recorded in FACTURE.
Information
about the condition of an object may be used comparatively, within other
defined parameters. A researcher may wish to compare the patterns of wear
on a group of drawings, for example, to see if they may have been mounted
or bound in the same way.
14.1. Condition/Examination Description
DEFINITION
Prose
description of the overall physical condition, characteristics, and completeness
of a work.
EXAMPLES
- Very good condition. Small tears in the margins only.
- Based upon comparison with others of the same model, it seems
the chandelier was originally more profusely mounted with glass drops
[Figure 4].
- Surviving traces of pigment indicate that the sculpture was formerly
brightly painted. There are channels carved between the upright wings,
attesting to the original function of the sculpture as a support for
a table.
-
...diagonal scratch near tip of cherub's wing p.r. side approx. 2¾"
up from bottom edge; small circular nick in Madonna's knee, crescent-shaped
scratch above and to the right of the angel's head in p.r. corner approx.
1"from top edge; slight nick in robe of Madonna's leg just above
ankle; slight white nick on tunic of fleeing angel in upper p.l. corner
(nick at waist approx.3" down from top edge); slight brownish nick
approx. ½" below Madonna's middle toe. Lower section of relief,
esp. p.r., slightly more orange.[1]
DISCUSSION
and GUIDELINES
Optional: Record a discussion of the physical
condition of the work, including evidence of prior repairs
or damaged areas. While condition reporting is required by
most repositories, it is optional to make this information
accessible to researchers.
Form and syntax
Use sentence case; capitalize proper names. Follow rules for
notes in the DESCRIPTIVE NOTE category.
Note
information about technical investigations such as microscopic examinations,
X-radiography, infrared and ultraviolet examination. If you know what
has caused damage, note it. There may be multiple condition reports available
for the object over time. This subcategory can also accommodate notes
about the "completeness" of the object, and information about
missing parts. The length of a condition or examination report may vary
from a few sentences to several pages. If possible, avoid abbreviations,
particularly if the report is accessible to researchers or the general
public.
Note the overall condition of the work, if pertinent (it is more common
for dealers to note overall condition than for museums and other repositories
to do so). Use the following terms, and others as necessary: very good,
good, fair, poor, very poor; stable, fragile, endangered. Define the
terms as they should be used by your institution; be consistent and avoid
subjectivity.
Itemize
signs of damage, age, flaws, old repairs, insect attack, corrosion (e.g.,
rust), condition of stretchers or strainers, lack of tautness of canvas,
damage of the media or surface, friable or fragile surfaces, loose or
missing areas, accretions, stains, spots, holes, and leaks or lack of
stability in architecture. Note the color of corrosion, spots, or discoloring
on metal, paper, canvas, or walls.
Note
the location (relative to the object itself or the subject depicted in
the object) where the damage or other characteristic of condition occurs;
describe the general location or an exact location. Be consistent in using
right and left (meaning the viewer's right and left side)
or proper right and proper left (meaning the work's right
and left, which is the opposite of the viewer's). If possible, use a photograph,
diagram, or transparent overlay to graphically note the location of damage.
General
location: Use terms such as upper left quadrant or lower
right corner to note the general location (e.g., discolored in
upper left quadrant).
More
specific location: To note a more specific location, measure from
the nearest sides or edges (e.g., foxing is located 150 mm from the
left and 115 mm from the top).
Relative
to the image or subject: Note the part of the image or subject depicted
relative to where the damage appears, as appropriate (e.g., torn at
the lower decorative band or lacunae near the goddess' nose).
Architecture:
Use cardinal directions for architecture and outdoor works, as appropriate
(e.g., loss of bricks on upper western wall).
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Free
text: This is not a controlled field, however the use of consistent
terminology is recommended for clarity. Include the following conditions
and terms, and others as necessary, as appropriate for the type of work
being described: abrasion, accretions, acidic condition, breaks, brittle,
cockled, corrosion (e.g., rust), cracks, crazing, creases, cut, dented,
discolored, distortion, dusty, excrement, faded, flaking, fly specks,
foxing, fragile, frayed, friable, graffiti, grime, hairline crack, holes,
insect damage, lacunae, leaks, lifting, loose, losses, mold, odorous,
oxidized, powdering, previous repairs, pitting, puckered, punctures, scratches,
slack canvas, splatters, splits, spots, stains, sticky, stretchers, tarnished,
tears, torn, warped, weak structure, wrinkled, yellowed.
14.2. Examination Type
DEFINITION
The
kind of examination made of the work's condition.
EXAMPLES
infrared light examination
raking light examination
microscopic examination
autoradiography
X-ray spectroscopy
visual examination
DISCUSSION
and GUIDELINES
Optional: Identify the type of examination
made of the work. Use terms in lower case (with the exception
of "X-ray" and others that arecapitalized in authoritative
sources).
For historical assessments, the type of examination may not
be known, other than that visual examination may be presumed.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Controlled
list: Control this subcategory with a controlled list, including
the terms in the Examples above, and other terms as necessary.
14.3. Examination Agent
DEFINITION
The identification of the person who performed a specific
examination, including his or her name, role or title, and
institutional affiliation.
EXAMPLES
- Klein, Peter (conservator, Ordinariat für Holzbiologie,
Universität Hamburg, (Hamburg, Germany))
- Glinsman, Lisha (conservation scientist, National Gallery
of Art (Washington, DC, United States))
- Columbus, Joseph V. (textile conservator, National Gallery
of Art (Washington, DC, United States))
- Fra Pamarancio (clerk, Santa Maria Novella (Florence,
Italy))
DISCUSSION
and GUIDELINES
Optional:
Record the name and institutional affiliation of the person or persons
who examined the object or architecture. This affiliation is not necessarily
the same as the place where the examination took place; the examiner often
comes to the work of art rather than vice versa.
Form and syntax
For guidelines regarding the formulation of personal and corporate
body names, see the CREATION - CREATOR subcategories and the
PERSON/CORPORATE BODY AUTHORITY.
While a full name should be available for modern examinations,
the names of examiners who made condition assessments in the
past may not be known. The name of the person who performed
an examination can be drawn from the documentation of the
examination of the work, which includes formal reports and
unpublished material found in the files of museums and galleries.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Authority:
Control this subcategory with the PERSON/CORPORATE BODY AUTHORITY.
14.4. Examination Date
DEFINITION
The date when an examination took place, or when a work was known to have
been in a particular condition.
EXAMPLES
12 December 1991
May 1970
before 1952
1993
between 1700 and1798
by 1848 - ca. 1880
1940-1949
17th century
Christmas 1492
20 August 1542
Summer 1956
DISCUSSION
and GUIDELINES
Optional: If you are recording a condition report, including
the date of the report is highly recommended. Include nuance and expressions
of uncertainty as necessary.
Form and syntax
Follow rules for display dates in CREATION - CREATION DATE.
The date of a condition evaluation informs the researcher
of the state of a work at a particular moment in its history,
shedding light on how it appeared or how it may have been
evaluated critically at that time. In most cases specific
dates will be known for modern examinations, but historically,
it may only be known that a work was in a particular condition
during a particular span of time. Information about condition
can be drawn from the documentation of the examination itself,
or supplied by the cataloger if he or she made the examination.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Free-text:
This is not a controlled field. Maintain consistent capitalization,
punctuation, and syntax where possible. Index the dates in the controlled
EARLIEST and LATEST DATE subcategories.
14.4.1. Earliest Date
DEFINITION
The earliest date when an examination took place.
EXAMPLES
1991-12-31
1948
DISCUSSION and GUIDELINES
Optional: Record the earliest month, day, and year, or
the earliest year alone, as indicated by the display DATE.
Form and syntax
Always record years in the proleptic Gregorian calendar in
the indexing dates fields. Record the precise day and time,
if possible. Use the following syntax: YYYY-MM-DD (year, month,
day, separated by dashes), if possible. (The standards suggest
alternate possibilities: you may use an alternative syntax
if you are consistent and it is compliant with the standards.)
It is optional to record EARLIEST DATE; however, if you record
a value here, you must also record LATEST DATE. For additional
rules, see CREATION - CREATION DATE - EARLIEST DATE.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Controlled format: Date information must be formatted consistently to
allow retrieval. Local rules should be in place. Suggested formats are
available in the ISO Standard and W3 XML Schema Part 2.
ISO 8601:2004 Representation of dates and times. International Organization
for Standardization. Data Elements and Interchange Formats. Information
Interchange. Representation of Dates and Times. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization, 2004.
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, 2001. www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/.
14.4.2. Latest Date
DEFINITION
The latest date when an examination took place.
EXAMPLES
1991-12-31
1952
DISCUSSION and GUIDELINES
Optional: Record the latest month, day, and year, or the
latest year, indicated by the display DATE.
Form and syntax
Always record years in the proleptic Gregorian calendar in
the indexing dates fields. Record the precise day and time,
if possible. Use the following syntax: YYYY-MM-DD (year, month,
day, separated by dashes), if possible. (The standards suggest
alternate possibilities: you may use an alternative syntax
if you are consistent and it is compliant with the standards.)
It is optional to record EARLIEST DATE; however, if you record
a value here, you must also record LATEST DATE. The LATEST
DATE may be the same date as the EARLIEST DATE, when the examination
took place on one particular day or year (i.e., when the display
DATE does not represent a range of time). For additional rules,
see CREATION - CREATION DATE - LATEST DATE.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Controlled format: Date information must be formatted consistently to
allow retrieval. Local rules should be in place. Suggested formats are
available in the ISO Standard and W3 XML Schema Part 2.
ISO 8601:2004 Representation of dates and times. International Organization
for Standardization. Data Elements and Interchange Formats. Information
Interchange. Representation of Dates and Times. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization, 2004.
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, 2001. www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/.
14.5. Examination Place
DEFINITION
The
location, studio, or laboratory where the examination of the work's condition
took place.
EXAMPLES
- Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution
(Washington, DC, United States)
- Canadian Conservation Institute (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)
- Albright-Knox Art Gallery (Buffalo, New York, USA)
DISCUSSION
and GUIDELINES
Optional:
Record the place where the examination procedure took place, which
is not necessarily the institution or place associated with the examiner.
Note that the examiner often comes to the work of art rather than having
the work brought to him.
Form and syntax
For guidelines regarding the format and syntax of place names,
see the CURRENT LOCATION category and the PLACE/LOCATION AUTHORITY.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Authority:
Control this subcategory with the PLACE/LOCATION AUTHORITY, which
can be populated with terminology from the controlled vocabularies named
below. An authority with hierarchical structure, cross referencing, and
synonymous names is recommended.
Populate the authority with controlled vocabulary, including the following:
TGN, NGA or USGS, Canadiana_Authorities, LC Name Authorities, LCSH, and the
Official Museum Directory. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums,
2004.
14.6. Remarks
DEFINITION
Additional notes or comments pertinent to information in this category.
DISCUSSION and GUIDELINES
Optional: Record a note containing additional
information related to this category. Use consistent syntax
and format. For rules regarding writing notes, see DESCRIPTIVE
NOTE.
FORMAT/TERMINOLOGY
Free-text: This is not a controlled field.
Use consistent syntax and format.
14.7. Citations
DEFINITION
A reference to a bibliographic source, unpublished document, or individual
opinion that provides the basis for the information recorded
in this category.
DISCUSSION and GUIDELINES
Optional: Record the source used for information
in this category. For a full set of rules for CITATIONS, see
RELATED TEXTUAL REFERENCES - CITATIONS.
TERMINOLOGY/FORMAT
Authority: Ideally, this information is controlled
by citations in the citations authority; see RELATED TEXTUAL
REFERENCES.
14.7.1. Page
DEFINITION
Page number, volume, date accessed for Web sites, and any
other information indicating where in the source the information
was found.
DISCUSSION and GUIDELINES
Optional: For a full set of rules for PAGE,
see RELATED TEXTUAL REFERENCES - CITATIONS - PAGE.
FORMAT/TERMINOLOGY
Free-text: This is not a controlled field.
Use consistent syntax and format.
EXAMPLES
[for
a sculpture]
Condition/Examination Description: The marble is in stable condition.
The resin coating has discolored and is deeper in tone and more opaque
in the lower part of the sculpture. Staining along the left and right
edges of the relief were caused by iron supports.
[for
a sculpture, suggesting part of the work may not be original]
Condition/Examination Description: The corpus
of the crucifix is in good condition except for worn gilding on the
legs (especially inside the proper right leg, where a casting flaw is
repaired with a metal patch), and for the hands. The sections of the
hands attached to the cross are battered and blackened, the latter possibly
due to galvanic corrosion between the nails and hands. The fingers,
separated from the palms, are so flat as to raise a question as to whether
they belong to the present corpus. The palm section of the right hand
bears file or saw marks on the back, suggesting it was cut free of the
fingers to remove the corpus from the cross. X-ray fluorescence analysis
indicates that the present, detached fingers of that hand differ in
composition from the corpus.[2]
[for
a building]
Condition/Examination Description: The structure is
in poor to fair condition. The stone masonry veneer of the northern
wall has allowed weather infiltration of the interior, where there is
continuing water damage to the ceiling plaster and murals. The exterior
wooden elements are in need of painting and general cleanup; the exterior
masonry shows old repairs in many places that should be removed and
replaced with more stable modern materials. Exterior western wall shows
signs of cracking; appears to be superficial.
[for
a painting]
Condition/Examination Description: The
support is a twill fabric that is evenly coated with a moderately
thick white ground. It has been lined, but the original
tacking edges are preserved, and it is mounted on what appears
to be the original five-member (including a vertical crossbar),
mortise-and-half-miter stretcher. The paint layers range
from very thin to very thick, applied by brush and, in places,
palette knife. Orange-red marks on the vertical edges presumably
had to do with the placement of the original design or transfer
from a sketch. The painting is generally in very good condition,
although the paint is somewhat abraded overall. X-radiography
reveals vertical bands of damage at the top of the painting
that may be original to it and were perhaps repainted by
the artist.[3]
[for
a painting, listing lighting conditions]
Condition/Examination Description: Natural
light examination, visual examination: Good condition, crazing throughout,
relined. Black light examination: Good condition, inpainting throughout.
[for
a painting, artist's changes are noted]
Condition/Examination Description: Paint is applied
in thin opaque layers. Numerous artist's changes are visible as pentimenti
and in infrared reflectography and x-radiography. The man had shorter
hair and wore a brimmed hat, a decorated tunic, and an embroidered cape
tied under his plain collar. The woman, whose proper right arm was raised
to hold the reins, wore a large brimmed hat pushed back on her head,
a cape, and an ornate dress that fell over the horse's right side. The
white horse's decorated martingale was slung lower. The boy in the middle
ground was running, accompanied by five greyhounds. Contour changes
were made in the seated rider at the far left and in the lower left
landscape. Old discolored overpaint covers many of the pentimenti. Scattered
small and moderately sized losses have been retouched, often without
prior filling, and all edges have been overpainted, extending well into
the picture. A thick coating of discolored natural resin varnish is
present, along with remnants of aged coatings from prior selective cleanings.[4]
[for
a group of drawings]
Condition/Examination Description: Drawings
had been tightly rolled together and wrapped in unbleached
linen. The wrapper and drawings have a moderate level of
surface grime. Some drawings are mounted on paper supports,
which are brittle and discolored. The edges of the drawings,
which form the ends of the roll, are damaged with small
losses and tears. Occasional moderate tears and sharp creases
occur along the edges of the drawings, probably the result
of improper handling when attempting to unroll the drawings
in the past. Scattered foxing and other marks occur on many
drawings.
[for
a ceramic bowl]
Condition/Examination Description: On
the rim near the edge are four kiln-support marks. The plate
has been broken into several pieces and repaired with broad
areas of overpaint, especially in bands across the center
from ten to four o'clock and from seven to one o'clock,
and on the rim from nine clockwise to one o'clock and between
three and four o'clock. The plate was already noted as damaged
when described by Frati in 1852.[5]
[for a carpet, including indexing fields for Date, Agent, Place,
etc.]
Condition/Examination Description: Very slight even
wear overall. Small number of small reweaves; both ends are rewoven
at the borders. Metallic threads in all areas are very slightly corroded.
Type: visual examination
Date: 25 November 2002 Earliest Date: 2002-11-25
Latest Date: 2002-11-25
Agent: Helen Obermeyer, BA Textile Conservation (Mission
Conservation Services, Los Angeles, California, USA)
Place: Edmond Textile Galleries (Mishwash, California, USA)
NOTE: The outline numbers are subject to change; they are
intended only to organize this document.
Revised 8 September 2008
|
