 I'm Emily Hamilton, and this session will introduce the acquisition of 3D printed objects. As we shift from the technology of these works to their lives and collections, we'll begin to unpack some of the issues and questions surrounding their preservation. I'm speaking today from Buffalo, New York, on the campus of Buffalo State College. The college would like to acknowledge that our campus is situated within the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, including the Seneca, Tuscarora, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk, and of their ancestors, the Neutral, the Erie, and the Wenrel. We wholeheartedly pledge to work in the spirit of collaboration with our current Indigenous neighbors, the Seneca and the Tuscarora, who continue to maintain a cultural and spiritual connection to the region. 3D printed objects entering museum collections include works of design, architectural models, and artworks, which present varying needs and challenges. Prototypes or models may not have been intended to be preserved when first made, while highly sophisticated artworks may have a complex conceptual or technical underpinning. Considerations for these works include the varying potential scope of acquisition, the processes necessary to facilitate their entry into collections, and understanding their material needs and anticipated behavior. I will elaborate on each of these points, as well as introduce some considerations related to reprinting and exhibition possibilities, drawing from my past experience as an Objects Conservator at SF MoMA. You may notice several points of overlap in the next several sessions, and we hope that hearing these topics discussed from the context of different institutions, perspectives, and artworks underscores the nuance of these issues. The scope of acquisition varies, depending both on the work and the capacity or the interest of a collection. An acquisition may consist solely of a physical print, or it could also include preliminary drawings or renderings, digital files, or photographic or video documentation, particularly if the work is interactive or related to a performance. In some cases, it may consist of only a digital file. Some acquisitions may focus on an end product, while others have a broader interest in the process. Prior to acquisition, it is essential to clarify the scope of acquisition, both in terms of what the work is and what the institution can manage. Material samples may also be considered if the work is related to technical innovation, as with this work by Neri Oxman, that explores the potential of sustainable biopolymers. In this example, extensive material explorations were created prior to making the large-scale pavilion that was acquired by the museum. These samples were not officially part of SFMOMA's acquisition, but they were used to represent the work in an exhibition at MOMA. Preserving material samples such as these presents an interesting option for works that are challenging to transport or are intended to degrade, though they represent an additional commitment of resources and consideration of what a collection can reasonably support. It is just these kinds of questions that emerge in the pre-accession process. This is a key time to learn more about the works and engage with creators or fabricators. While every institution manages this process differently, collaborative dialogue is a key component. At SFMOMA, interdepartmental conversations surrounding 3D-printed works are nurtured within a framework referred to as Team Architecture and Design, or Team A&D, as that is the primary collecting department of these works. This group consists of collections, exhibitions, and curatorial staff, with differing perspectives and knowledge of the works, promoting a less hierarchical structure than is often found in museums. This discussion structure also provides the important space to revisit previous discussions and build from them as works are loaned, exhibited, or conserved. Acquisition processes evolve in response to the works being acquired and the issues they surface, and it's interesting to note that the pre-accession documentation process at SFMOMA has evolved three times in the past 10 years. To go into this a little further, questions for the artists could relate to both the understanding, the concept, and the materiality of the work. An open-ended, non-technical conversation is a good opportunity to learn more about the work and the artist's practice. For the print, basic questions could include the make and the model, the printer, the material used, post-processing techniques such as sanding or painting, and assembly methods. Specifications for display may also be helpful to discuss, as well as the details of the digital process and related decision making that Peter Alexek will address in the next talk. This is also a chance to ask about any changes in appearance since printing, the artist's thoughts about them, and whether any intervention might be desired. There are different ways to track this kind of information. At SFMOMA, conservators use this checklist as guidance for remembering to ask about these kinds of details and also to keep information organized. A first draft was made in 2011 and was then revised in 2018 to include an additional field specifically about reprinting. In the time between these versions, a few instances arose where reprinting was discussed. In some cases there were varying recollections of an artist's opinion or directive with surrounding documentation captured in personal correspondence or files with limited access. We added this space in the checklist to track whether reprinting was discussed at the time of accession or perhaps considered unfeasible or not appropriate. Though opinions around this may always change, we found it helpful to have a record of the initial thoughts. The accession documentation has evolved further since then. Efforts to understand whose work is represented in the collection led to the creation of a questionnaire for artists who wish to self-identify in terms of race, gender, origin, and other identities. This is being developed in tandem with an adaptive object questionnaire for artists that relates to the work's conception, fabrication, and installation, as well as a curatorial questionnaire that captures their reasons for bringing a work into the collection and their understanding of its significance. The questionnaires have now been used by museums for some time and are not without their complexities. This process is novel for the use of adaptive technology that it's responsive to varying answers and becomes tailored to an individual artwork. Overall, these efforts represent a major rethinking of the accession process for SF MoMA and will encourage greater information access and transparency. On a very practical level, the cataloging of the medium description for 3D printed works is also important. Since there are so many different printing processes and materials, it can be difficult to find works and collections databases if there isn't consistent terminology. Deciding on a consistent approach for cataloging will help researchers and visitors to learn what's in a collection and promote further study. As an example, in the 2018 survey of SF MoMA's collection with Caitlin Richardson, we were interested to see that gaps in cataloging practices over time made it difficult to find 3D printed works and know what materials and techniques were represented. Though we were able to identify most of them through curatorial guidance, archival documentation, or visual examination, we were not able to confirm the printing techniques for 10% of the works that we examined. Conversations with colleagues and other institutions suggests that this is fairly common and it's something to be aware of as works enter a collection. When receiving a 3D printed object, shipping is a primary moment where works may be damaged and it's a main cause of reprinting. 3D printed plastics are often brittle and these works are often coming from non-museum sources where professional packing and shipping services may not be used. As Peter will highlight, the digital files related to a work may be very useful for creating custom housing that can support complex shapes. At a minimum, a conversation with a shipper about potential vulnerabilities and packing options would be helpful and it's generally a good idea to use a barrier layer between the object and materials such as packing peanuts. The material behavior and care of these works will be covered in greater detail on day 3 by Caroline Kuhn but I'll mention just some of the common issues very briefly as they relate to making an initial condition assessment and connect to the discussion of reprinting. Plastics are currently the most commonly acquired 3D printed works and are often observed to yellow, shift in color, and delaminate between layers. Some may appear to sweat liquid components while others may be very brittle. They tend to show handling marks and can be challenging to clean, especially for architectural models or prototypes not necessarily intended to be kept. Unstable adhesive such as super glue are commonly used and these may yellow or fail. Finally, the support material used in the printing process may not be stable and it can create stains or areas of weakness in the print if it's not removed completely. If the condition of a print is thought to be problematic, the question of reprinting will not be far behind. As this comes up in several case studies of this conference, I'll introduce some of the considerations. First, there is some level of expected variation. Over time, materials and techniques will evolve and the many variables in print settings mean that the chances of creating a precise replica are low. This is especially true if there's complex post-processing that directly involve the artist. Navigating these discussions requires technical understanding to truly be in dialogue with the printers which we hope this conference will help address. Cost is not an insignificant factor either as high-end processes may cost tens of thousands of dollars. Beyond the practicalities, the core of the discussion for conservators comes down to the ethics of refabrication to which we may look for precedence in the conservation of other media. In some cases, collecting institutions may wish to support reprinting to address a specific issue such as shipping damage but with limitations such as within a certain period after initial manufacture or only with the direct participation of the artist given concerns around intellectual property. For other works such as the Josh Klein case study that we'll hear about from the Whitney, reprinting is part of the artist's conception and this is a very different conversation. Finally, what happens to the old prints? Are they returned to the artist, destroyed or retained for study? While we won't resolve all of these questions here, this case study of an architectural model that Martina and I referred to in the opening session provides a chance to see how these considerations surfaced in a real-world example. As we shared earlier, pre-accession dialogue around this model raised the question of whether we could simply acquire the digital files and I should say here that these conversations are ongoing and I'm not showing the full model or the name of the architect since it hasn't formally been acquired yet. In this case, a print made 10 years earlier had yellowed and the architect requested a new print prior to exhibition. Since the timeline of future exhibition was then unclear, we decided not to print until that timeline was established so new prints would not also yellow before they would be shown. Additionally, the size of this work was variable and could also be printed at furniture scale so the idea of acquiring the digital files would leave that option open. Before committing to this plan, we worked with Fathom Studios in Oakland to make a test print of a small section shown here to learn more about how this would work. Though there had been several previous conversations about potentially reprinting, this was the first time that SF MoMA had pursued it and there were several informative lessons. Unsurprisingly, there was directional variation in the surface texture because of how the print was oriented. For SLS prints, there may be multiple projects made at once by the printer and these fine lines reveal how the parts were oriented. If this were deemed important, it might be possible to work with the printer to match the orientation, though for this test print it wasn't a problem. What was surprising to us was that there were slight dimensional variations between the original and the reprint. Some of the thinnest parts were slightly thicker, though everything still fit together. At first, we thought there might be an issue with the scaling of the STL files. Dialogue with the architect clarified that the files they sent were a different version than the original print we had, probably to make these very thin areas stronger. After some discussion, they decided to send files that corresponded to the print with thinner walls. It can be difficult to see these kinds of variations by looking only at the digital files, so we elected to make a test proof in a less expensive printing material to confirm that the second batch of files matched the old print. This proved very helpful in visualizing the shapes and the cost difference was significant. The FDM print made by Mark Heller was less than a dollar, while the partial test print in SLS was approximately $800 and printing the entire model would cost upwards of $30,000 US dollars. The FDM print would never be exhibited, but it was very effective as a confirmation that we had the right files. The question of what will happen to old prints will vary depending on the institution and the artist. At SFMOMA, the most likely outcome would be for the print to become part of the Engelisa-Eckman Lane Artist Materials Tower. As working with living artists as the central tenant of SFMOMA's conservation practice, this tower was built in the conservation studio to house and display the material traces of these interactions. This collection holds many different kinds of objects, including material mockups, samples, artist tools, and works that have required refabrication, such as this yellowed soap component of Janine Antoni's lick and lather. These materials are accessible to visitors, school groups, and researchers with the goal of providing transparency about museum practices and telling the stories of caring for the collection. While refabrication is the exception and not the rule in the conservation of contemporary art, this is not the first time it's come up. Examples in other media may help us navigate the decision-making and ethics of these choices by lending an understanding of precedents within an institution and the field. The test prints that we made for the architectural model were retained in this collection. They join other material samples of differing 3D printing materials and processes, which create a reference for understanding the capacity of these techniques in different moments in time. The possibility of refabricating 3D printed works present interesting options for display, as well as some ramifications. If it's possible and appropriate to make exhibition copies, these may allow for more flexible installations with less need for barriers or light restrictions. They could promote interactivity, as will be discussed in the Cooper Hewitt presentation. Works that were created with the potential of reprinting at different scales would retain that flexibility, such as the architectural model discussed here. While encouraging a greater volume of plastics may give us pause, the development of more sustainable materials could encourage us to reprint locally for loan, reducing the need for travel. The financial and environmental impact of these possibilities merits thinking through, as these and future developments in technology may allow us to reduce the carbon load of global exhibitions, as well as the real burdens of storage. 3D printed works prompt many questions. As we go forward, it'll be interesting to learn how many institutions are acquiring 3D printed works and how the numbers of these acquisitions may change if the technology becomes even more commonly used by artists and designers. Printing costs for many techniques have declined significantly, though it remains to be seen if this continues to a point where refabrication becomes more financially feasible. We can expect that printing materials and techniques will evolve, possibly becoming more environmentally sustainable and more stable. As the technology evolves, earlier prints may be valued differently, with evidence of earlier manufacture considered more like a patina than a problem. These works encourage us to reflect on current museum practices and challenge the stewards of these works to match the level of ingenuity demonstrated by their creators. I'd like to acknowledge my colleagues who've been such wonderful partners in learning together about these works. Thank you very much for listening.