Listening to one another

Swaby created the works in Fresh Up in discrete series, each showing the evolution of her materials, processes, and technique across five early years in her career. Comprising loans from Swaby, her gallery representation, many private owners, and major cultural institutions, the works included both stretched and free-hanging life size portraits, often using a natural undyed, unfinished canvas textile as a substrate. Each intricate portrait was created by energetic lines of machine stitching, interspersed with flowing areas of patterned, brightly colored, adhered-and-stitched applique fabrics.

The exhibition presented an exciting opportunity for a team of three textile conservators to explore the interplay between conservation practices and artistic intent and how each impacts an object’s biography.  In looking to work collaboratively the sense of community and problem solving became a priority, where to quote bell hooks, the team felt “deeply affected by our interest in one another, in hearing one another’s voices, in recognizing one another’s presence” ¹  –  a feeling that was deepened further by Swaby’s enthusiasm for collaboration with the conservators. Following the naming convention of ‘chapters’ that Swaby used for several portrait series, this article follows the story arc of collaboration and impacts through chapters.

CHAPTER ONE: THE WORKS COME TOGETHER

In 2022, as Swaby’s artwork arrived at the MFA St Petersburg, each of the 47 artworks were assessed as being in good condition by MFA staff through condition reports and documentation photography.²  Each work contained indicative construction methods and materials by Swaby, and with close inspection, the works also showed the response of the sensitive textile fibers to their display and storage environments over the years. The condition reports of written descriptions and digital imaging at MFA St Petersburg began compiling the first chapter of the object biography of each individual artwork during the run of Fresh Up as the works came together.

Object biography is an apt art-historical and conservation lens to apply to the physical materials, digital existence, and cumulative experiences of Swaby’s artworks.³  This framework is often discussed in the conservation of contemporary art, where the artworks, the artists, and conservators are active agents and narrators in creating biographical storylines in museum exhibitions. In this collaborative effort to manage change, preserving the conceptual identity of each artwork is considered in tandem with materiality.⁴ Within the Fresh Up series, Swaby considers these intimate portraits of her inner circle of friends and families as modes of visual storytelling tailored to each person, as “a great expression of love and dedication to the people represented. I consider the portraits to be a residue of the conversation we had.”⁵  This sense of personhood, relationships, agency, and passage of time is imbued in the concept of object biography, making it a compelling framework for the experiences of both artwork and people, in both physical and digital spaces, during Fresh Up.

left: Exhibition photography of Fresh Up, showing six full size portraits on a mix of stretched canvases, and unstretched canvases mounted by conservation staff at the Art Institute of Chicago, May 2023.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Jonathan Matthias.
right: Pretty Pretty 9, 2021, in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, 2021.400.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Katherine Andereck.

While contemporary art conservation theory and practice often focuses on new media such as time based or performance art, or artworks classified as ‘unruly’ , the materiality of textiles in contemporary art creates an interesting space to enact innovative practices of conservation.⁶ Explorations of the order and disorder of textiles by contemporary artists, often guided by feminist, womanist, and queer epistemologies, constructs a rich history of thought to weave into the flexible, responsive frameworks needed for collaborative contemporary art conservation. As stated by textile artist Paulina Berczynski, “Textiles are constructed around a shifting nothingness – around the barely-noticed interstitial gaps between their fibers. The interstices in textiles, as in society, hold the possibility of movement and change.”⁷

CHAPTER TWO: IMPACT AND EXPERIENCE ON DISPLAY

An open display was needed to bring visitors nearly eye-to-eye with the portraits, suggestive of the conversational closeness Swaby created them with. Without imposing bulky mounts, or formal framing and glazing, the softness of woven cloth and stitched thread created a more personal space with which to engage. The signature loose threads of Swaby’s stitching also coiled and dangled across the surface or over the edges of the canvas. These loose threads are an element of her work that Swaby wants accessible for movement, and to allow her to re-arranging for each display. This of course means that traditional framing and glazing into a static art package often used in museums, is not the ideal solution for her works on canvas.

Every mounting and display method will present the possibility of a unique change, risk, or damage to an artwork, and it is often the purview of conservators to advise on the benefits and risks.  These issues are not unusual, or even uncommon occurrences, and highlight the complexity of conversations that value and respect many viewpoints at the same time. Conservation mounting practices must balance artist intent, curatorial vision, visitor experience, and preservation of material and aesthetic integrity. For textile art, which often has no supporting structure of its own like some of Swaby’s works, the mounting system is often considered a primary point of reference for the conservation needs of a particular artwork.

Once works arrived at MFA St. Petersburg in Spring 2022, consultation on mounting and installation was done with conservators outside of the institution, with implementation by MFA collections staff, and input from the curatorial team and the artist. Some of Swaby’s free-hanging pieces were installed at the MFA St. Petersburg with earthenware magnets along the top edge. This was intended to retain a sense of movement and engage with the viewer, rather than appearing static, an aesthetic decision necessary for the work. Choosing to forgo a more protective installation method, however, meant that the artworks would respond more rapidly to changes in the environment: collecting dust, freely moving, changes with relative humidity and temperature, curling softly at the unsupported edges, and un-stretched works taking on minor circular indents under the magnets.

Caption: Isaac Facio and Gio Swaby discussing Pretty Pretty 5, 2021 from the collection of Claire Oliver Gallery in one of the Art Institute of Conservation’s conservation labs. Artwork
©Gio Swaby. Photo: Melinda Watt.

Fresh Up in particular highlighted ongoing discussions about conservation best practices in a world where climate changes are increasingly volatile and unpredictable. Open communication and trust in each other’s skill-sets and ethos were vital for developing a textile conservation practice and ethics alongside the artist’s vision and intentions. In the earliest organizational stage of exhibition development, AIC textile conservator Isaac Facio was involved in advising and consulting virtually for the care of the objects as they arrived and were installed in Florida.  In the hot and humid summer of July 2022, an unpredicted and short-lived malfunction of the HVAC system occurred at the museum during the exhibition. The environmental fluctuation was quickly rectified by MFA staff, and rapidly communicated to all exhibition team members and institutions.  Quickly following this incident, Kaelyn Garcia was contacted and asked to fly to St. Petersburg to examine and provide condition documentation of each work in the exhibition. This was essential in determining if damage occurred during this period and what next steps would then follow for all stakeholders.

CHAPTER THREE: CONNECTING AND DOCUMENTING

Garcia spent a week working with MFA staff to inspect the works, identifying areas of change on specific works and documenting the current condition of the pieces. She relied heavily on verbal information from museum staff and existing written and photographic documentation to piece together any measurable change in each object’s current condition.  Being aware of their conversations about Swaby’s intent, outside mounting advice, and certain construction methods and materials helped provide insight into artist intent and Swaby’s construction preferences while mitigating visible undesired changes.

Kaelyn Garcia examining and documenting Swaby’s triptych Gyalavantin’ 2021,
from the collection of Claire Oliver Gallery at the Art Institute of Chicago.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Megan Creamer.

One issue documented by Garcia was a slight loose-ness, or slackness in some of Swaby’s works that were stretched on traditional stretchers. While all the artworks on wooden stretchers were intended to have a softness, and some undulation of the canvas in their presentation, this effect had been exacerbated over time as the unfinished, raw canvas relaxed in fluctuating environments. Similarly, un-stretched works showed an expansion and looseness at the edges of their raw canvas in response to temperature and humidity changes, resulting in more undulations and curves, beyond those intended by the artist.

Reviewing the detailed documentation provided by Garcia, planning for treatment began immediately through virtual discussions with Swaby, the curatorial group, and Art Institute of Chicago (AIC) textile conservators Isaac Facio and Megan Creamer. This planning was cut short by the rapid approach of Hurricane Ian. As it became clear that Ian was directly approaching St Petersburg, multiple conversations across the exhibition teams at both co-organizing venues culminated in the decision to close Fresh Up early and pack the artworks for an emergency evacuation. By the time Ian landed as a category 4 hurricane on September 8, 2023, the artworks were safely out of the storm and in transit to Chicago.

CHAPTER FOUR: INTERPRETATION AND THE GROWING NETWORK OF CARE

In the tightly scheduled and controlled world of fine art shipping and exhibition storage, changing the arrival date of over 40 artworks several weeks early impacted scheduling and logistics at AIC. The teams worked to coordinate storage to ensure the implementation of a conservation treatment plan for Swaby’s works.  Additional textile conservation treatment space was identified and set up for the artworks.  While in-house conservation staff moved to swiftly complete other treatments in the primary lab, Kaelyn Garcia was again brought on as a contract conservator to work on-site in January 2023 at the museum.

Garcia provided knowledge and insight into each individual artwork’s status in Chicago because of her time spent documenting each object at MFA St. Petersburg. Her experience with each object helped bridge the gap between exhibitions and provide support to the AIC’s staff as the planning stages of the exhibition began. There is no substitute for a conservator’s experience with an artwork across time, when combined with high quality written and photographic documentation. Garcia’s work was crucial for this step, and she expedited a large, unexpected workload of documentation and treatment with Facio and Creamer. This exchange and hand-off of invaluable expertise between the three conservators, across two institutions was a keystone allowing for fruitful discussions that could lead to successful conservation treatments in a compressed timeline.

The next foundational step was to have Swaby on-site at AIC to understand and respond to the changes seen in her work. She spent nearly equal time between curatorial and conservation pursuits while working on site in Chicago, participating in the close relationship between Chair and Christa C. Mayer Thurman Curator Melinda Watt, and the Conservation and Science Department Textile Conservation lab conservators Facio and Creamer. The wider team included collections manager Katherine Andereck, textile technician Esther Espino, and administrative coordinator Tess Smith. Everyone involved worked to make a joyful space for learning, documenting, exploring, listening, and sharing information.

Embarking on intensive treatments required coordinated navigation of the legal rights and interests of all the stakeholders for each artwork. Lenders, living artists, and each of the co-organizing museums, with staff from different backgrounds all have a variety of legal rights, ethical guidelines, and professional interests. These viewpoints do not overlap seamlessly and can significantly differ from one another, but the responsibility of care, intent, and aesthetics are shared between all colleagues. The additional strain of managing change to artworks through conservation treatment in the middle of an exhibition run could make for fraught dialogue. Purposefully and earnestly making time to create a collaborative and communicative environment was critical to creating the trust needed between all these stakeholders, particularly with the artist, to successfully conserve the artworks. As Facio discussed in a panel presentation with Swaby, “We took about a week working together…we really needed to take specific time to learn and understand how it is that you want these things to live now, and how is it that you want them to live into the future?.”⁸ Through a combination of clear and concise reporting of condition issues, discussion, listening and documenting the concerns and goals of each stakeholder, with some required legal paperwork, the AIC staff created a team approach, led by the artist and conservators to care for the artworks.

Isaac Facio, Gio Swaby, and Megan Creamer examining the printed cotton textile of one of Swaby’s works using a USB microscope at the Art Institute of Chicago.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Melinda Watt.

The first goal was to create a mounting solution that would both address some of the condition issues of curling edges and avoid the pressure indents that can happen with magnet installations. Listening to Swaby describe the importance of the soft, contoured, flexible look for the unstretched canvas artworks, Facio and Creamer designed a pinnable, flexible mount that created a nearly invisible profile with deeply mitered edges making a floating effect. Before Swaby’s visit, they prepared a prototype miniature mount to be able to discuss materials, and options for Swaby and Watt to customize the appearance of each work as needed. Each work would be temporarily mounted using fine entomological pins, with the pinheads in-painted to match the textile colors, so the contouring of each artwork’s ripples, and each purposefully loose thread could be arranged to create the look Swaby desired. In person examination of conservation materials and mounting methods allowed conversation, input, and enthusiasm to flow freely between all involved. Enthused by the archival, supportive, and flexible mounts for textile art, the conservation team was pleased to present Swaby with the miniature mount and a selection of labeled conservation sample materials to take back to her studio. With this test mount out for a public panel discussion, Watt underscored the importance of this work, “the collaboration, that particularly in textiles has to happen between a curator and the conservator…we have to work together very closely to make sure we are understanding the object itself, when it doesn’t have a [mounting] structure of its own”.⁹

Constructed of mitered Renshape® (polyurethane foam) struts, Ethafoam® (open cell polyester foam), and Fosshape® (polyester felt), the mounts flexibly bridged the space between conservation’s preservation goals, curatorial aesthetics, and artistic integrity and intent for nine of the artworks.  After testing, Creamer reduced the visibility of the circular magnet indents, and curling of the raw canvas edges of the un-stretched works using humidification applied through a vapor barrier. With the indentations and curling no longer visible to viewers, the new mounting system could be implemented fully to create the aesthetic Swaby intended for each work. In a discussion panel conversation at the Art Institute, Gio expressed that:

Being able to work with the conservation team was one of the most exciting parts about having this exhibition here, and being able to be here in person to see how it all works…There is a real scientific aspect to how these works are conserved and its truly an art, and it’s something I have always wanted to know more about, and to learn first-hand from the geniuses on this team, was just an incredible experience–.¹⁰

The more highly interventive step of correctly tensioning the works on stretchers again involved understanding the object biography in detail. Swaby’s input and guidance on each unique work was needed to achieve a compatible state of soft, smooth stretching without over-tensioning. There is a certain amount of contraction and expansion that often occurs to woven textiles, with more contraction in heavier areas of stitching or adhesive. In Swaby’s works, the machine stitching plays with loose and tight tension, while the appliqued layers of fabrics, created with stitching and adhesive, create areas that flex and respond to movement differently than the rest of the work. In exploring these issues, Swaby, Facio, and Creamer had to discuss how to mitigate the overly lax undulations, and come to an agreed upon solution before proceeding.

While conservators are bound to the guidelines of ethical practice of the American Institute for Conservation’s Code of Ethics¹¹ , artists too have rights to exercise under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA).¹² There are also the legal rights of the owners of each artwork, meaning that the consent of fully informed owners required a consensus and trust between all. With this in place, 19 works in total were re-tensioned. Facio sourced stainless steel nails, acid-free washers, and cotton twill tape, so that a combination of materials and techniques found in upholstery techniques and traditional paintings construction could be used to achieve the aesthetics, structural support, and long-term preservation qualities desired by all parties.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONTINUING THE THREAD OF CONNECTION

The cycle of sharing information, creating a trust and exchange of skills and perspectives to care for the artworks in Fresh Up was continued again with the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM). In discussion with PEM, the decision was made to ship the AIC mounts for the final run of the exhibition. The end of the AIC run of the exhibition had a clear success of minimal changes to the artworks. As the mounts were custom-made for each artwork, this re-use of materials balanced the investment in shipment, and meant that the PEM production team did not have to start new design and mounting conversations with Swaby. Without a textile conservator on staff at PEM, and the level of intervention needed to attach the artworks onto the flexible mounts with entomological pins, Creamer traveled to PEM to assist with installation. The works were adeptly received by registrar Elena Cardona, where the PEM team added many additional layers of digital information to the biography of each work and worked together on a beautiful new install of the works. Swaby provided the final hand on each length of thread on each of the portraits, arranging every loose end of black thread on each portrait before the opening of the exhibit. This process highlights her care and attention to detail in how these portraits are displayed, “it’s an important part of my process for me to be able to adjust all of the last hanging threads”.¹³

Members of the Fresh Up exhibition team at the Art Institute of Chicago, from left: Isaac Facio, Megan Creamer, Katherine Andereck, Esther Espino, Gio Swaby, Melinda Watt, Loren Wright, Tess Smith, Nancy Chen, and Danielle Wright with Pretty Pretty 9, 2021 on the table for examination in the Art Institute of Chicago textile conservation labs.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Jonathan Mathias.

THE FINAL CHAPTER: FRESH UP INTO THE FUTURE

Fresh Up provides a case study about the complexity and sensitivity of contemporary textile art. The successful path of embedded, direct communication that integrated conservation from the outset played a major part in creating a collaborative exhibition team, especially when high levels of intervention were unexpectedly needed. Object biography was a useful lens to reflect on conservation practice to view this process, tracking how the individual portraits in Fresh Up were changed at each of the venues. This change was successfully managed by conservators through trust and good communication among a well-informed artist, curators, and lenders.

Creamer found the experience to be essential, saying:

Fresh Up was the first exhibit where I intervened so significantly on artworks by a living artist. The opportunity to learn from Gio directly about her methods, materials, and the values embedded in her work was invaluable in determining the degree to which I then implemented more changes through conservation practice. The ease of our conversation about reversing some changes completely, while seeing new elements as tell-tale marks of her process to preserve, made me confident in my decision making for conserving and mounting these works which could not have been possible any other way.

Space and time for conservators to explore how Swaby envisioned her artworks being experienced at past exhibits, during Fresh Up, and in the future, was critical to preserving the artistic intent of the artworks in creative and aesthetic partnership.  Treatments intervened with Swaby’s works in significant ways, with re-tensioning stretched works, designing and constructing new mount systems, reducing of creasing and compression marks, as well as select areas of stitch stabilization and re-activation of adhesives. This conservation work benefited from continual conversation and building mutual respect of expertise between conservation, the artist, and the curatorial teams from the earliest stages of planning through to installation at the final exhibition venue. As described by curator Melinda Watt, “working with Gio Swaby has been such a privilege. In addition to her obvious talents as an artist, she has been the most generous collaborator.”¹⁴ This sentiment is shared by the whole team that realized Fresh Up across three institutions. Once dispersed back to their lenders, the Fresh Up storyline of each object’s biography ended, leaving a rich trove of detailed documentation, personal experiences and emotional connections as each artwork, and each of our collaborators move into their futures, changed by this experience.

Acknowledgements:
Thank you to our institutional partners and colleagues working on Fresh Up at the Museum of Fine Arts St Petersburg, and the Peabody Essex Museum who collaborated with the conservation team so generously to steward these works during the exhibition.

1. bell hooks, Teaching To Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (New York, London: Routledge, 1994), 8.

2. Kaelyn Garcia, condition and photo documentation, January 2022.

3. Chiara Zuanni. “Object Biographies in the Digital age: Documentation, Life-histories, and Data.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 29, no. 7(2023): 695-710. Last accessed March 3, 2024. 2024, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2023.2215733 .

4. Van de Vall et al. “Reflections on a Biographical Approach to Contemporary Art Conservation,” in ICOM-CC: 16th Triennial Conference postprints,  ed. J. Bridgland, (Lisbon, 19-23 September 2011). Last accessed March 3, 2024. www.restauratoren.nl/upload/documenten/1918_543_van_de_vall_icom-cc_2011.pdf

5. Gio Swaby. “Gio Swaby Fresh Up: Exhibition Stories.” Art Institute of Chicago. June 8, 2023. Last accessed March 2, 2024. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BnsQkYjacn0

6. Dominguez Rubio. “Preserving the Unpreservable: Docile and Unruly Objects at MoMA,” Theory and Society 43, (2014). Last accessed March 3, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11186-014-9233-4.

7. Paulina Berczynski. “Social Action Considered Through the Language of Textiles,” Feral Fabric Journal. vol. 4. Last accessed March 2, 2024. https://feralfabric.com/Paulina.

8. Art Institute of Chicago. “Panel Conversation with Gio Swaby: Love Letters,” Art Institute of Chicago lecture, April 08, 2023. Fullerton Hall. Art Institute of Chicago Youtube Channel, accessed March 2, 2024, https://youtu.be/aw8qwF4uHFA?feature=shared

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. American Institute for Conservation. “Our Code of Ethics,” revised August 1994. Last accessed March 2, 2024. www.culturalheritage.org/about-conservation/code-of-ethics

12. Congress.gov. “H.R.2690 – 101st Congress (1989-1990): Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990,” June 11, 1990. Last accessed March 2, 2024.  www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/2690 .

13. Art Institute of Chicago. “Panel Conversation with Gio Swaby: Love Letters,” Art Institute of Chicago lecture, April 08, 2023. Fullerton Hall. Art Institute of Chicago Youtube Channel, accessed March 2, 2024, https://youtu.be/aw8qwF4uHFA?feature=shared

14. Melinda Watt. “Textile Talk, Gio Swaby: Fresh Up at the Art Institute of Chicago, presented by SAQA,” Studio Art Quilt Associates, Inc., May 18, 2023. Last accessed April 27, 2024. https://youtu.be/vghdbc8r3as?si=b3hzqNO2u6Yw2y3l

Main image
Gio Swaby in the Art Institute of Chicago textiles conservation lab,
discussing the back of the stitching and construction process of Pretty Pretty 9, 2021,
from the Art Institute’s collection with the entire exhibition team.
Artwork ©Gio Swaby. Photo: Jonathan Matthias.

Image description
A photo of artist Gio Swaby standing in front of a textile work, laid upside down on a large table. Swaby, who wears a colorful floral jacket and has dark braided hair with red ends, appears gesturing as if speaking to off-frame listeners. The artwork in front of her features an image of a seated woman, created with black thread on a cream-colored stretched canvas.