11-PALM 00001 1967 Pacific Coast Conservation Report 2025.pdf

KING LOUIS XVI

TREATMENT REPORT

April 7, 2025

Client: City of Louisville Jessica Bennett Kincaid Director Office of Arts & Creative Industries 444 South 5th Street, Ste. 600 Louisville, KY 40202 502-574-3058

Prepared by: Alison Leard, Director Lucinda Linderman, Sr. Conservator

Pacific Coast Conservation 2334 Colorado Blvd. Denver, CO 80207

Photo Credit: Jon Cherry, 3/11/25

Title: Louis XVI Artist: Achille-Joseph-Etienne Valois Material: White Carrara Marble Year: 1829 Dimensions: ~ H 11’ x W 5’ x D 4’ (without pedestal)

Pacific Coast Conservation (PCC) is proud to present this report detailing the conservation stabilization efforts undertaken for the sculpture Louis XVI by Achille-Joseph-Etienne Valois, which is currently deinstalled and in storage. The conservation treatment was conducted from March 10 to March 26, 2025, by Lucinda Linderman (Conservator), Joy Carlsen (Assistant Conservator), Patrick Lee, Karah Binkowski, and Meg Driscoll, all serving as conservation technicians. During the treatment period, the primary goal was the stabilization of the sculpture. The conservation treatment was fully documented to inform the reasoning behind decisions made in the treatment and care of this sculpture. If further conservation or restoration is carried out on this artwork, PCC will fully document the process with time-lapse photography.

Project Background:

It is important to note that PCC, along with other conservation firms, including Materials Conservation and Third Coast Conservation, unanimously assessed that the removal of graffiti, which was applied during the Black Lives Matter protests, would currently be unethical as knowledge and support of by the affected community is unknown and any choice to remove the graffiti would be premature and is not reversible. Actions, such as the removal of the graffiti, need to follow proper protocols involving direct engagement with the affected community, identifying them as stakeholders in the decision-making process about whether to preserve the sculpture in its current state or incorporate appropriate documentation prior to any restoration efforts. This reflects the guidelines set forth by the American Institute of Conservation (AIC) regarding contested monuments.

The AIC emphasizes the complexities surrounding the conservation of contested commemorative monuments, stating, “Conservators should not feel compelled... to protect contested commemorative and Confederate monuments regardless of social and political contexts” (AIC Position Statement on Contested Monuments, 2020). Furthermore, they assert, “Recognizing the right of society to make appropriate and respectful use of cultural property is significant, as it involves acknowledging the unique character and diverse significance these properties hold” (AIC Code of Ethics). For more information, you can consult the full AIC Code of Ethics document available on the AIC's official website. The Position Statement on Contested Monuments is included below for ease of accessibility.

PCC believes that no additional conservation work should be done on this sculpture until the affected community is fully informed and allowed to express their opinions as to the future of this artwork. This includes sharing details about the structural work recently completed through press releases, in-person meetings with artists and community members, as well as any other known way to disseminate the information. After this educational phase, there should be community engagement to gather feedback on how people want the sculpture to be preserved, its future location, and any changes they wish to see.

Decisions regarding the sculpture’s future should rest with community members and stakeholders in Louisville, rather than elected officials, art conservators, or the Louisville Public Art Committee.

Precedent projects of how cities have moved forward with similar issues were outlined in the report provided by Materials Conservation in 2021 on King Louis XVI in their assessment of the sculpture and are included below, directly taken from the assessment:

“Even before the protests around racial reckoning last summer, municipalities and public art programs were grappling with how to address problematic monuments within their collections. But in light of 2020’s protests the question of who gets memorialized, and why, took on greater energy and importance, and became the question that each owner of memorial art must respond to in a way that is specific for their community. Often the solution was to remove the sculpture until those questions can be explored and resolved. Paul Farber, a co-founder of Monument Lab in Philadelphia distilled the question of monument removal as: “What’s the priority?

Removing a wound in order to shut down dissent? Or is it to start writing the next chapter of recollection and repair?”1 Following are a selection of ways that these questions are being explored.

“Louisville: In 2018 Louisville established a Public Art and Monuments Advisory Committee to facilitate public dialogue to inform and develop a set of principles for evaluating Louisville’s existing public art and monuments. Their report forms a road map for considering works of public art and monuments, and a set of criteria for determining outcomes for contested monuments.

https://louisvilleky.gov/government/arts-culture/public-art-and-monuments-advisory-committee

Philadelphia: In 2017, Monument Lab partnered with the Philadelphia Mural Arts Program to commission a series of artists who explored what a monument would look

1 Materials Conservation, “King Louis XVI Conservation Assessment and Treatment Recommendations,” August

11th, 2021, 14.

like in Philadelphia in 2017. In addition to the many artists who were commissioned, a “Field Research Office” placed a Philadelphia artist in residence at the Barnes Foundation on the Parkway. https://monumentlab.com/projects/monument-lab-philadelphia-citywide-ex Look at “Two Me” by Mel Chin in Philadelphia City Hall Courtyard:

https://monumentlab.com/projects/mel-chin-two-me

New York: Prior to making the decision to remove the Equestrian Statue in front of the American museum of Natural History, the museum created an interactive website and exhibit to provide contest to the sculpture and gather public input to inform the sculpture’s fate: https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-statue/artist-intent

Richmond: Richmond created a public process for informing whether new sculptures should go in the place of the removed Confederate sculptures, or whether the bases should also removed: https://www.vpm.org/news/2021-04-12/richmond-to-begin-process-of-transferring-confederate-monuments

Chicago: Chicago created a comprehensive plan to review the fate of controversial public art monuments as part of a “racial healing and historical reckoning project” that “will grapple with the often unacknowledged—or forgotten—history associated with the city’s various municipal art collections, and will provide a vehicle to address the hard truths of Chicago’s racial history.”

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2020/aug ust/AssessMemorialsMonuments.html”

London: The Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square. was originally intended to hold an equestrian statue of William IV, but remained empty due to insufficient funds. The City of London put an esteemed commission in place that commissions a new work of contemporary to be placed on the plinth each year. This approach and the excitement it brings makes the Fourth Plinth a world-class public art destination.”2

To understand the complexities of the ethics of working on contested monuments, here is the Position Statement on contested monuments directly from the American Institute for Conservation for ease of access. As professionals in the field of conservation, we are obligated to adhere to the ethical standards and position statements of our governing body:

“On Contested Commemorative and Confederate Monuments

October 2020

Preface

The mission of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) is to support conservation professionals in their efforts to preserve cultural heritage. To that end, 2 Materials Conservation, “King Louis XVI Conservation Assessment and Treatment Recommendations,” August

11th, 2021, 14.

https://monumentlab.com/projects/monument-lab-philadelphia-citywide-ex https://monumentlab.com/projects/monument-lab-philadelphia-citywide-ex

AIC seeks to clarify the role of conservators as they are tasked with the preservation of monuments deemed to be racist or otherwise offensive or oppressive, especially those located in community spaces.

With the unjust and disputed killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and other Black and People of Color, conservators have found themselves in unexpected and uncertain roles in the reignited movement for racial justice. Specifically, they have become key players in one manner of redress: the deliberate dismantling, defacement, removal, relocation, reconfiguration, or outright destruction of contested commemorative and Confederate monuments.

In this moment, AIC is obligated to re-examine prior approaches to preserving cultural heritage when that heritage promotes racist ideologies, ethnic stereotypes, and settler colonialism among other forms of offensive messaging. We are morally compelled to formulate a thoughtful, comprehensive, and inclusive revised Position Statement to inform and guide conservation professionals and community stakeholders as they navigate emotionally charged calls to action. The following replaces the 2017 AIC Statement on Confederate and Other Historic Monuments.

Statement on Contested Commemorative and Confederate Monument It is indisputable that there exist highly visible monuments in community spaces that, because of their racist imagery and ideals, are repugnant to all who believe in the equality and dignity of humankind. Such commemorative monuments (especially Confederate monuments) were either erected with the intent to intimidate Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) or are today recognized as painful to this segment of our citizenry. Decisions about the preservation of such contested monuments must include and prioritize the views of those subjected to their never-ending visual and psychological abuse.

Conservation professionals who are called upon to work on contested commemorative and Confederate monuments may play a key role in determining the future of these works. It is imperative that anyone involved in decision-making about a contested monument consider the history and context of the work in question and encourage, if not insist upon, the inclusion of stakeholder communities. An unquestioning or exclusive decision-making process on the part of conservation professionals may serve to perpetuate racist messages.

Regardless of the decisions made about a contested monument, conservation professionals have a responsibility to design a course of treatment in keeping with community consensus and according to best conservation practices. The preservation of a monument may include preserving damage such as vandalism done in the name of social justice, since historical precedent indicates that defacement often becomes part of the meaning of the work.

We support the removal of contested monuments from community spaces if this treatment is elected by the affected communities.

For conservators working with contested monuments, Community-centered Treatment Considerations and Definitions are provided below.

Community-centered Treatment Considerations

Options for dealing with contested commemorative and Confederate monuments in community spaces abound. AIC endorses a plan of treatment that incorporates the wishes and needs of the community, particularly those segments of the community who are harmed by the monument’s offensive messages and imagery. In this respect, AIC explicitly supports the removal of the monument in question if this is the community’s preferred option. The following are general considerations and cannot address the unique challenges of individual commemorative and Confederate monuments:

● Although artistic value is a factor in commemorative and Confederate monumental public art, in the case of contested monuments, it cannot supersede the importance of social justice.

● Graffiti and other vandalism that is perpetrated against a contested monument can be considered an historical part of the monument.

Conservators should document such interventions thoroughly, particularly if considering the removal of protest-related graffiti and other damages. See definition of vandalism.

● Relocation, removal, dismantling, and/or recontextualization of contested monuments should first and foremost consider the wishes and needs of the community, in particular those members who are subjected to offensive messages and imagery.

● Conservators can refuse to conserve contested monuments without violating their professional commitment to the AIC Code of Ethics.

Regardless of the nature of their involvement, conservators should not be harassed, retaliated against, or otherwise penalized because of their personal stance or the requirements of their employment.

● Conservators should not feel compelled by the AIC Code of Ethics to protect contested commemorative and Confederate monuments regardless of social and political circumstances; the cause of preservation is best served by aiding in the proper removal or alteration of such works rather than preserving them at all costs. Conservators should use their best judgement when weighing the needs of the community and conservation ethics in these cases, with the needs of the community taking precedence.

AIC encourages the following:

● The involvement of conservators at all stages of helping to design appropriate procedures for dismantling, removal, storage, access, and reconfiguration of contested monuments.

● The retention of graffiti, attacks, former site footprints, and other evidence of past events as historical features of contested monuments.

● Open dialog with stakeholders to share options for removal, dismantling, storage, access, and/or contextualization. These might include full or partial removal of monuments, preservation of graffiti or other alterations, and repositioning of the contested work (for example, laying it on its side or adding other materials).

● Thorough documentation of all removal and contextualization processes.

● Safe practices in removal to prevent physical injury to all personnel.

The safety and well-being of community members, preservation professionals, and conservators must have priority at every stage of deliberations and during all ensuing actions.

Definitions

To clarify this Position Statement, selected definitions are provided below, which are intended to guide conservation professionals and community stakeholders in their deliberations.

Monument A monument is a statue, building, mural, mosaic, structure, plaque, or other work erected in a public space to commemorate a person, group, event, or idea. The definition often refers to public sculptural works that are figurative; but, in the broadest sense, a monument can also be symbolic or abstract (for example the Confederate flag or the name of a landmark). Statues or other structures placed by or over a grave or dedicated site in memory of a deceased person are personal monuments and are exempt from this Position Statement.

Contested Monument A contested monument is one that members of a community deem to be offensive and or oppressive. Examples of offensive content include racist, misogynist, dissonant histories, or the glorification of a system of oppression and/or aperson/group that contributed to human trafficking and bondage, genocide, persecution, and conquest. There are many examples of monuments that are especially offensive to Indigenous groups, including conquistador monuments, monuments celebrating the Mission system, white colonial settler monuments, and those celebrating historical figures that championed the removal and genocide of Indigenous people. Some contested monuments may be venerated by certain groups or individuals despite the aforementioned content or for other contributions. We recognize that differing points of view may need to be taken into account when evaluating such monuments.

Confederate Monument Confederate monuments are a unique type of contested monument. Primarilystatues, buildings, markers, gateways, landscapes, or other structures, theseworks champion the cause of American slavery and the self-proclaimed “Confederacy” that broke off from the United States and engaged in the Civil War between 1861 and 1865. These monuments represent a person, group, event, or idea related to the Confederacy, including, but not limited to, the “Lost Cause,” “benevolent slave owner,” and “glory” of the “Old South” in a community space. The vast majority of these public works were installed in the early 20th century with the express goal of glorifying slavery as a means of denigrating or threatening African Americans during Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, and after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such they are considered especially abhorrent and humiliating to Black Americans. Though grave markers or dedicated sites that commemorate Confederate dead may also possess the same objectionable content, their placement in burial grounds separates them from this category.

Community Space

A particular area or place that is in the public view and/or dedicated for use by a community, whether broadly defined as the population of a city or more narrowly defined as the student body of a specific college. These locations might include parks, plazas, playgrounds, transit hubs, highways, or public places in front of civic, commercial, and religious buildings. The term community space is purposely more expansive than public space and includes areas that may be under private or institutional ownership.

Vandalism The unauthorized intervention of a monument, artwork or public space. This definition is neutral and makes no value judgement. The actions of vandalism can be additive (such as graffiti or tagging) or destructive (tearing down, gouging, removing original material). Historical precedents abound for both of these sorts of activities on monuments and works of art that represent oppressive or objectionable ideologies or simply historical positions that are no longer palatable or relevant, like veneration of a dictator. Sometimes, for example, in the case of historical graffiti, such unauthorized interventions are considered preservable heritage. Within this context, it is appropriate to state that some of the recent additive and destructive interventions into monuments could be considered protectable heritage under the AIC Code of Ethics.

Community engagement Community engagement is the act of including relevant community members and other affected stakeholders to help determine the treatment of a monument,including its removal and reinterpretation. Because so many contested monuments, particularly Confederate monuments, were installed in community spaces with the goal of encouraging oppression of the BIPOC members of those communities, AIC encourages conservators, preservation practitioners, and community leaders to incorporate input from BIPOC individuals and groups when determining the future of these works. We encourage conducting community-centered discussions in a manner that avoids retraumatizing those already harmed by these monuments and the ideals they uphold and strongly recommend that such discussions include a conservator to help stakeholders make informed decisions about treatment options. Conservators can offer the necessary expertise to ensure the safety of all involved parties, utilize the appropriate treatment techniques, and preserve the material history of the monument as deemed appropriate by the community of stakeholders.

—AIC Board of Directors The AIC Board of Directors thanks the Confederate/Contested Monuments Working Group for their contributions to this statement.”3

3 American Institute for Conservation Board of Directors, “AIC Position Statement Revised: On Contested Commemorative and Confederate Monuments,” October 2020, https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12.

https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12 https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12 https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12

Conservation Treatment Report

Condition Assessment:

The sculpture is in poor condition, exhibiting a sugaring surface that releases marble particles upon contact. During the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in 2020 incurred by the killing of Breonna Taylor, the surface was subjected to multiple pressure washings (approx. 3000 psi) by city maintenance staff, exacerbating its friability. Each time graffiti was pressure washed off, it was graffitied in protest again. A prior restoration by Venus Conservation was done in 2004, which involved surface cleaning with Enviro Clean and Mora Poultice, now deemed too aggressive for marble, which, if it was not cleared correctly, may have introduced salts into the marble pores, contributing to further deterioration.

The combination of these factors and acidic rain has resulted in a surface that is both friable and cracked.

Overall, the sculpture also exhibits loss of depth of the carved elements and rounding of edges from weathering.

Cleaning Protocol Prior to conservation work, the sculpture’s surface was heavily soiled with dust, grime, atmospheric pollution, and insect nests. Initial dry cleaning was performed using Hake brushes and vacuums. A very dilute solution of Vulpex in distilled water was then employed with soft nylon brushes to remove surface accretions; this process did not affect the existing graffiti or remove the egg present on the surface. For deeper cleaning, particularly in areas with visible atmospheric dirt, distilled water was applied to fill the marble pores followed by the use of a heavy-duty cleaner from Cathedral Stone, which was agitated and thoroughly rinsed with distilled water. No graffiti was removed during these cleaning procedures. Areas heavily soiled with deep inaccessible crevices such as the Ermine and Ascott were treated with a latex cleaner and then rinsed again with distilled water. Following approximately one week in storage, the sculpture accumulated more dust, necessitating another cleaning and covering to protect it from environmental contaminants.

Losses and Broken Elements:

The proper right hand had detached from the sculpture due to a person exerting pressure on the hand to balance himself standing on the small base of the sculpture. The hand, previously damaged, had a previous Dutchman repair using a mortise and tenon joint with a pin placed through the top of the arm into the hand. The tenon broke where the pin was installed, allowing the hand to come off. The tenon was repaired during the stabilization treatment and then placed back in the mortise and repined using a ceramic pin.

Two fingers were broken off the hand at an unknown point after the hand came off of the sculpture.

These were pinned and losses filled during treatment.

All four corners of the self-base had broken due to a lack of support and buckling of the rigging cradle while removing the sculpture from the site. These were repaired during treatment.

The toe and finger of the Cherub was missing and rebuilt during the stabilization. A corner of the proper left cuff was also rebuilt during the treatment. Old losses that showed very soft edges from weathering were not rebuilt during this conservation cycle.

Any extant pieces and corners were re-adhered as possible during the treatment. Most likely these detached due to the rigging crib during removal of the sculpture.

Areas of unstable grout around old Dutchman repairs or removed as possible and re-built with a pointing mortar for marble. The previous grout used around the Dutchman repairs was cementitious and harder than the marble and so it was not removed, as this could have damaged the original stone, only areas of losses were filled in as removing the old cementitious mortar was damaging the original marble.

Extensive Cracking:

There are approximately 32 cracks noted in the surface of the sculpture. The cracking totals approximately 890.5 inches in length throughout the sculpture. These cracks were all injected with a microinjection mortar during stabilization. No testing has been done to determine the depth of the cracking. Of particular concern, there is an extensive system of cracking that encircles the cloak and extends up and over the proper right shoulder and down the front of the sculpture.

The locations and sizes of the cracks were documented by drawing on photographs, photographing them with a crack gauge, and measuring them; this information is found below.

Rigging Crib Modifications:

The steel cradle around the sculpture was removed before stabilization work began. When the cradle was removed, the base bent downward more and ended up breaking apart all four corners of the sculpture. There was no structure supporting the sculpture underneath and no angle iron reinforcing the bottom of the metal cradle.

Prior to repairing the corners, a fabrication company reinforced the bottom of the rigging crib by lifting the bowed steel with hydraulic lifts and then welding angle iron onto the bottom to stabilize the base.

Additional angle iron supports were welded underneath the sculpture to ensure that if anything breaks, the sculpture is still supported.

The marble touching the rigging crib on the bottom proper left side broke when the sculpture was moved. This area was cut out of the steel frame so that when the cradle goes back on it will not contact the sculpture.

Comments on the Stability and Relocation of the Sculpture:

A structural engineer examined the cracking and friable surface. Because of the extensive cracking through the marble They recommend that a marble specialist examine it further, as these cracks could cause the sculpture to break apart, posing a significant risk to public safety. Micheal Ford, a material specialist in marble will be assessing the structural integrity of the sculpture in April 2025.

The sculpture should not be displayed outdoors because weather conditions will worsen its surface damage. It needs to be placed indoors, but not in an area with heavy traffic and machinery, as vibrations could cause existing cracks to worsen. Public access must be limited since the marble hand and arm cannot support the weight of a person because of previous damage and the potential for veining release.

The sculpture was moved to storage in September 2020. Upon disassembly of the Limestone plinth, it was noted that the plinth was created from 4 pieces of limestone held together by gravity from the weight of the capstone and sculpture. A new pedestal should be designed by a structural engineer before being placed. It is important to keep the sculpture raised and out of reach of people climbing.

Treatment Performed:

1. High-resolution digital photographs were taken before, during, and after treatment.

2. The sculpture was dry cleaned throughout using chip brushes and wooden skewers to reduce and remove dust, dirt buildup, and insect nests from the surface.

3. The sculpture was washed using solution of Orvus®, a conservation grade detergent and distilled water. This was applied to the surface with soft bristle brushes. Next the surface was rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and allowed to dry.

4. The base of the metal cradle was repaired by the original fabricators, Padgett, Inc. A hydraulic lift was placed on the metal frame to lift it enough to weld in a support angle iron across the front and the back of the sculpture. Then two additional angle irons were welded across the center of the base but not touching the sculpture. This is to ensure that if the sculpture cracks, it will still be supported by the metal angles underneath. The hydraulic lift was not placed anywhere directly on the marble.

5. The cracks in the sculpture were injected using a 1:1 solution of Cathedral Stone Jahn® M30 M#32 Injection Mortar and distilled water. The mortar was injected into the cracks using syringes. The injection mortar was allowed to set. Then excess mortar that was injected into the cracks were mechanically cleaned using sponges, a scalpel, and damp microfiber cloths. A total of 2 quarts of microinjection grout was placed into the cracks.

6. Cathedral Stone® Potassium Silicate was painted onto the injected cracks in order to seal and protect the injected mortar.

7. Cathedral Stone® Natural Adhesive was used to reconnect the marble on the base that had become detached from the sculpture on the front proper left corner and on the back proper right corner. Marble that was detached from the crown located on the proper right side near the base of the sculpture was reattached with an application of Cathedral Stone® Natural Adhesive.

8. Cathedral Stone® Latex cleaner was applied to reduce atmospheric pollution on the surface of the sculpture. Latex cleaner was used on the Ermine and Ascot and the bottom of the outstretched arm. The cleaner was brush applied in a thick layer and pushed into all of the crevices. This was allowed to dry over the weekend before pulling it off.

9. Cathedral Stone® Heavy duty cleaner was tested on a small area of the sculpture and determined to clean the atmospheric soiling off well. This was used in small, controlled areas to remove the atmospheric soiling. The area was rinsed for several minutes using distilled water, then the gel cleaner was applied to the surface and agitated for 10 minutes. The areas were then thoroughly rinsed for several minutes using distilled water. Once all the areas had been cleaned, a final rinse was performed overall using distilled water and scrubbing the surface with soft nylon brushes. This also removed the accumulated dust that had settled over the last two weeks of work.

10. The corners of the self-base were rebuilt with Cathedral Stone® M120 self-cure mortar formulated for marble. The edges were routed out prior to placing the mortar to ensure proper adhesion.

11. The cherub’s finger and proper left cuff were rebuilt with Cathedral Stone® M120 self-cure mortar formulated for marble. Pins were placed in the cuff, 3 pins each 1” long by 1/16” diameter. The pins were adhered with Akepox® 5052 epoxy and allowed to cure for 24 hours.

12. Areas of mortar that had been lost around the older dutchman repairs was replaced using Cathedral Stone® Jahn 110 pointing mortar. If there were cracks along the edges of the old mortar but it was still stable, then microinjection mortar was injected to fill the cracks.

13. The fingers were re-adheared to the hand. One ceramic pin was placed in each finger, each pin measured 1” in length and 1/8” in diameter. The pins were adhered with Akepox®5010 epoxy and allowed to cure for 24 hours.

14. A barrier coat of Paraloid B72 dissolved in Acetone (~10%) was brush applied to all surfaces that were epoxied together. The barrier layer was applied to both the interior side of the hand and the exterior side of the arm in the area around the hole where the mortise goes into the tenon. A barrier layer was also applied to both sides of the finger and hand where they would join and where fills would be placed. The barrier coat was allowed to dry for 24 hours.

15. The fingers were then epoxied on using Akepox® 5010, a knife grade conservation epoxy. The fingers were bound onto the hand using paracord and knotting to ensure that the pieces keyed together and were held in place for 24 hours while the epoxy cured.

16. Losses around the joins were filled with Akepox ®5010 mixed with marble dust.

17. The original pin in the mortice and tenon dutchman repair was drilled out. The stone left on the inside was pulled out. The broken stone was adhered back together using Akepox®5010 and was bound in place using paracord until the epoxy was fully cured. All of the joining done with epoxy was on vertical surfaces. No epoxy was placed on any horizontal surface to ensure that water did not become trapped underneath epoxy.

18. The hand was then inserted back into the arm. A small bead of epoxy was placed on the right and left of the arm but not on the mortise inserted into the tenon. The hand was bound in place using paracord and clamps while the epoxy cured.

19. A ceramic pin measuring 2” in length and ¼” in diameter was placed back through the original hole in the arm and the original hole in the tenon. This was secured with Akepox® 5010. The hole was then filled with Akepox® mixed with marble dust.

20. The toe was rebuilt using Akepox® mixed with marble dust. A barrier coat of Paraloid B72 dissolved in Acetone (~10%) was brush applied to the edge of the toe prior to rebuilding the tip.

21. A Tyvek cover was created with soft Tyvek. It was taped together using gaff tape and then draped over the sculpture. The soft side was placed next to the marble and the gaff tape was only used on the exterior of the cover.

Diagram of Cracking in Sculpture:

Front Back

Proper Left detail Proper Left

Front – Crack 1 – (top left) – 9 inches long Crack 2 – (Top Right) front – around top of left shoulder – appx. 49 in. (same as crack 18) Crack 3 - inside midsection – 8 in d Crack 4 – midsection right – 12 in. to the side Crack 5 – mid section vertical crack inside fold on right 68 inches Crack 6 – bottom left corner – 9 in Crack 7 – front middle bottom left – 7 in Crack 8 – front middle bottom center – 16.5 in Crack 9 – front middle bottom center offshoot – 4 in

PL-

Crack 10 – top left inside robe curves around top of arm and down inside forearm 54 in Crack 11 – top right inside robe curves around to the back of upper arm 13 in (same as crack 20) Crack 12 – top right inside fold of robe on back – 11 in Crack 13 – on lower part of robe sleeve extends to back – 20 in Crack 14 – over the robe end on back - 5 in Crack 15 – lower right extends to back at midsection on robe - 16 inches (same as crack 22 and 32) Crack 16 – scepter crack midway – 3 inches Crack 17 – 29 in (lower right extends from midsection downwards inside robe fold)

Back – Crack 18 – top left around shoulder from front 27 in (same as crack 2) Crack 19 - Top middle vertical crack from base of hair to upper back 26 in Crack 20 – Top Left extends across the back to the right ends halfway through right side (same as crack

11) 33 in Crack 21 – mid left in fold of robe 8 in.

Crack 22 – mid extends from left all the way across back into PR side 62 inches (same as crack 15 and 32) Crack 23 – right side in fold of robe at mid back 50 in Crack 24 – bottom left inside fold of robe 56 in Crack 25 – bottom right inside fold of robe 20 in Crack 26 – bottom right horizontal on robe fold 9 in Crack 27 – behind head of cherub 11 in Crack 28 – bottom left inside fold of robe 17 in Crack 29 – on palm of cherub bottom right 18 in Crack 30 – dutchman’s repair bottom left 43 in Crack 31 – bottom right on scroll all cracks measured as one – 19.5 inches Crack 32 – on back wing of cherub wraps around the back of wing – 18 in. (unable to be injected)

Overall:

Front Before Treatment Front After Treatment

Proper Left Before Treatment Proper Left After Treatment

Back Before Treatment Back After Treatment

Proper Right Before Treatment Proper Right After Treatment

Dry and Wet Cleaning:

PR Back Shoulder Before Cleaning PR Back Shoulder After Cleaning

Ermine before cleaning Ermine after cleaning with latex poultice

Hand before cleaning Hand after cleaning

Injection:

Crack #22 Before Injection Crack #22 After Injection

Crack #38 Before Injection Crack #38 After Injection

Dutchmen’s Repair on PL Back Side Before Injection After Injection

Reattachment and repair:

Rebuilt toe Rebuilt finger

Rebuilt cuff

Fingers reattached to hand Detail of fills around fingers.

Tenon repaired Mortise Detail

Base repaired

Cover over sculpture

Full treatment photographs are located here: King Louis XVI Treatment photos https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/8ij8wibbxev3l8jy92hb1/ABwW79i8UxA9aY-n3cVeLWw?rlkey=z1jehqzqu98ljst6li8cjtwky&st=gu5liufz&dl=0

Maintenance Recommendations:

Yearly maintenance should include overall inspection of the sculpture and cleaning with conservation-grade detergent and distilled water. Cracks should be measured and sounded to determine if they have expanded or opened. A breathable water repellant should be applied to the surface annually. An overall consolidant is not recommended at this time as this can create pockets of moisture on the inside of the sculpture, which may lead to further degradation. An anti-graffiti coating is not recommended, as it has to be pressure-washed off with hot water. Even though the pressure is much less than an industrial pressure washer, the surface of this sculpture cannot withstand the pressure required to remove graffiti without driving water into the cracks and pitting the surface.

Recommendations for Moving from Structural Engineering Report:

When determining a site to relocate the sculpture to, it is important to reduce exposure to vibration because of the extensive cracking throughout the sculpture. It is essential to assess potential sources of vibration, such as nearby construction, traffic, public events, or the framing of interior floors. If excessive vibrations are detected, implementing damping solutions like rubberized foundation pads may help, or if feasible, relocating the statue to a more stable location could be a viable alternative.

Additionally, it is important to use proper lifting techniques when handling the statue. During transportation, the statue should be secured in a custom crate lined with padding, and using a shock-absorbing base can further minimize any impact encountered while traveling.

Bibliography

American Institute for Conservation Board of Directors. “AIC Position Statement Revised: On

Contested Commemorative and Confederate Monuments.” October 2020.

https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12.

Materials Conservation. “King Louis XVI Conservation Assessment and Treatment Recommendations.”

August 11th, 2021.

https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12 https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12 https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/resources/administration/governance/position-papers-and-statements/aic-positionstatement-contested-monuments-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e83c0b20_12