 Hello, I'm speaking today as part of the Objects Conservation Team at the Cooper Hewitt-Smithsonian Design Museum, and this talk is co-authored by my colleague Jessica Walfew. As the National Design Museum, we collect across the spectrum of media and cultures. Our interest in the design process leads our curatorial colleagues to acquire both what we might consider to be process materials, such as sketches, prototypes, and similar, as well as finished products. The collections might be classified into many areas, such as traditional decorative arts, consumer electronics, industrial design, textiles, data visualization, as well as material examples of designer-led bespoke research projects, and of course much more. When considering contemporary media, 3D printing features prominently and touches on all these areas. Our holdings range from objects to files, and they've entered the collection consistently over more than a decade. The one-shot MDX collapsible stool, which you see on the bottom row here, on the right, the white stool with the twisting legs, was the first printed object to enter the collection in 2008, while Michael Eden's vase, tall green bloom, holds the distinction of being the museum's first 3D digital print file accessioned in 2013, and the print you see here was also acquired but separately. Other items include traditional media, such as glass with neary oxen's light fixtures on the upper right, or metal with Jojuset's servers on the lower right, all collected without any corresponding digital file, and most recently we acquired the CDC's coronavirus printed model. Discussions have also circled around acquiring 3D printed digital files without the print itself, and we are establishing precedent in our collection for this type of collecting. For instance, our collections committee just approved adding Paul Cox's just digital instructions for constructing his socially distancing blanket, here comes the sun, without a physical example of the actual piece, and you see the picture in the top there. As our collecting in this area has grown, our approach has also matured so that pre-acquisition discussions center on the significance of the object to our collections, allowing us to choose with intention if a print or file best expresses that vision. These conversations also touch on future display and audience engagement, such that consideration of how the piece might be shown is factored directly into what we hope to acquire. As with fine arts institutions who are active in the contemporary sphere, we seek to incorporate the voice of the designer or design team when possible through interviews and informal conversations. So the parameters of the acquisition vary, both depending on the object in question and the museum's impetus in collecting the piece. This in turn impacts preservation planning for these pieces. As you see in the schema here, a bespoke custom print may present as an entirely unique physical form. Conversely, commercial examples may have many iterations out in the world and were of course produced within specific guidelines and tolerances. Digital files may or may not be associated with a material version and their entry into our collections is managed through an entirely different process as they make their way to the dams for permanent storage. Of course, the original concept operates closely within these collections and this may be a vision straight from an experimental studio or one built via multi-layered corporate teams. As mentioned, we try to respect and record this within our institutional context as best as possible. However, certain confines exist once an object enters a museum. Not only are we bound to care for through very prescribed processes, which in the case of the Smithsonian are codified within official documents, but we also need to understand it in order for this work to proceed. As noted with variable media, including TBM, it is vital to identify the core priorities of these pieces, which in turn guide both conservation and display and the gray area where both actions allied into one, where preservation is preservation. Excuse me for presentation is preservation. We're going to address three case studies today in which the boundaries of printed pieces shifted as the pieces moved from the galleries to storage. We hope to explore albeit briefly what decisions were made in order to allow for best practices in caring for these objects, while also allowing audience engagement and access. And our first case study will focus on redrawing boundaries. Studio Royale San Fratello, founded by Virginia San Fratello and Ronald Royale, works to push the boundaries and functionality of 3D printing, often adapting non-traditional media to create objects and models. The Cooper Hewitt featured the studio in our exhibition, The Senses, designed beyond vision, and you see pictures of the exhibition here on the screen. This show presented designs that probe the various ways in which we receive and perceive information about the world around us and challenged audiences to move beyond simply seeing items to experiencing them in a broader way. Virginia and Ronald created five small collections of binder jet printed objects featuring various rindalent media, including curry, coffee, tea, sugar, and grape skin, all housed within separate glass cloches blown with inverted necks to allow visitors to lean in and sift, like you see on the upper left. In order to make sure that the odors were sufficiently intense, conservators added loose powder to the interior of each piece during installation. Following the exhibition, the curators chose to acquire one example from this set, furry curry, which you see here. The original installation included the loose curry inside the piece, which was extremely fragrant. However, we were concerned not simply for the ephemeral nature of this scent, which indeed did wane over the course of the exhibition, but also that the curry and other items within the print, including maltodextrin and sugar, would prove delicious to uninvited pests. We brought these concerns to Virginia, and she agreed to come and apply an epoxy sealant, which you see here in these photos. This application clearly modified the appearance of the piece and darkened the surface, though of course the images you see here are while it's still wet and a bit darker. This approach felt very comfortable to us, given that the designer was performing the work, and it also sanctioned the metamorphosis of the piece itself, moving from an object meant to be experienced, not only by sight, but also by smell. The innovation expressed by the piece persists, and its inclusion and senses is well documented, as is this change. Still, we consider this to be an example of how accessioning and related conservation activity forces certain discussions that directly impact the definition of the piece. We must be able to understand it, contain it, and comfortably control it in order to preserve it, and if we can't do this, we must surrender to the discomfort that arises, and allow that acknowledgement to contribute to the identity of the collection. My second case study will focus on shifting status. Our triennial exhibitions highlight cutting-edge design under a changing theme per iteration. The last exhibit, which closed in the winter of 2020, focused on nature, how designers take inspiration from, work with, and also work to modify the natural world. This exhibition proved challenging for conservators, as it included various displays with live elements, and which had required thoughtful care and maintenance. The case you see here includes Agilab, and that's on the right in the front there, a series of 3D printed elegant translucent forms, which were printed with a bioplastic derived from algae. The pioneering team behind the pieces, designers Eric, Clarenbeek, and Marcia Dros, along with Atelier Luma, have focused their research on renewable resources such as algae, which they hope will eventually make a positive impact on our shared environmental crisis. Following the exhibition in a manner similar to furry curry, the museum acquired algae vessels, understanding well that the media was not intended nor expected to be durable or long lived. Certainly the quote, usable life expectancy, if we consider this to be defined, as being able to handle and exhibit safely, is extended through the carefully controlled museum environment. Still, our understanding of the aging of the media led us to take advantage of some of the more flexible elements of our accessioning process. We successfully acquired the group under varying classification status. Several pieces entered the conservation department's technical study collection, and the rest under the curatorial department product design and decorative arts, but as so-called SA objects, meaning supplemental acquisitions. This identification means that while the pieces are in the museum collection and housed and cared for as such, it is easier to, for instance, deaccession if and when they are deemed too compromised to display or represent the studio's research. Of course, that conversation is complicated and we have not reached that point thankfully. It is worth noting that we have many other SA objects in the collection, so this classification is known to the museum. In this way, we were able to respond to the designer's intention behind the pieces, so-called design decay, as well as provide useful research through studies within the conservation department's mini collection. In a sense, this approach brought order to what would otherwise feel chaotic or at least reduce unpredictability. These decisions were all made with intention and followed educated discussions about the pieces and why they should enter the collection. Our final case study will focus on surrogates and copies. This particular case study focuses on the free universal construction kit designed by Golan Levin in collaboration with his student, Sean Sims, in 2012. It consists of 80 connector bricks for 20 discrete commercial toys like Legos or Tinker toys, which would not be able to otherwise connect, and we have a selection of these. The kit was freely available as CAD files to download and they are still being developed. The museum included a selection of the kit in the beautiful users exhibition in 2014 to 2015, and you see a little bit, it's a little hard to discern, but it's in the front of the case you see on the right. The focus of the show explored the users of design objects and activated their engagement with objects as impactful on contemporary makers. And as with the other two examples, it was acquired after exhibition, but only the prints, not the digital files. Levin has expressed his motivation for this piece as related to the branded silos we find ourselves in when working with various technology platforms. His connectors bridge gaps, albeit in a playful way that is focused on children. However, the larger metaphor speaks to this isolation of our adult professional lives. The free and open access to the print file code allows the user to play an active role as well and become a maker of sorts. This work benefited from inclusion in a grant funded project called the Digital Materials Collections Project and was led by Ben Fino Radden. Part of this work focused on how the museum might create versions of the piece, for instance, to allow for interactive museum displays. He reviewed fused filament fabrication, stereolithography and selective laser centering to determine which print technology would be most successful. Realizing that certain specifications would need to be met to allow particular toys to connect. In fact, interestingly, Legos had the tightest tolerance, so that was sort of like the canary in the coal mines for the prints. The Levin suggested SLA. It came to light after various trials that SLS was actually a more successful printing technique for this piece. SLA produced a product that was too slick to properly stick to Legos, whereas SLS and the texture of deposited layers of resin created enough mechanical locking to better fit and hold the toy pieces. SLS was also more affordable, something that is important when considering several copies that would be placed in a gallery would likely become dirty and damaged over time. However, the print would ultimately be made, questions still circle around what exactly we think of this sort of surrogate display. There was certainly precedent at the Cooper Q it of placing a small printed sample in a gallery to create a touch display that complements objects on view. And in this slide, you see other gallery views from the Nature Triennial exhibition I mentioned earlier. MIT's Tangible Media Lab 3D Printed Project SILIA, which is featured on the mannequin in the upper right, explores the feasibility of essentially printing structures with a sort of hair. As part of the display, a series of touch samples were mounted for the visitor and you could see those boxes in the lower right. After installation, it rapidly became clear that the fragile nature of the textile made it not quite suited for this sort of interactive component. On the other hand, Autodesk and Airbus' collaborative project, Bionic Partition, featured the world's largest 3D printed metal component for airlines. And this strong but lightweight piece is composed of an aluminum and plastic composite. It is meant to serve as a divider wall in a cabin. It's currently undergoing testing. Like SILIA, a touchable sample accompanied the gallery exhibition. This type of inclusion both allows for wider audience engagement and also offers a dynamic exhibition experience. When we consider Levin's piece, the connectors only really become what they are meant to be through interaction. Without using them, they are in a sense interchangeable with their digital version, all potential but not active. By printing multiple versions to allow for engagement, we may sacrifice a specific example, but are perhaps ultimately restoring the true ethos of the piece. Our thoughts on this are still evolving, so we also throw this question out to the group today. How do you all think about this sort of surrogacy? As the museum's collecting practices in the 3D printed arena mature, our approaches to this media are continually considered and refined. The evolution is generated by and filtered through our cross-departmental team, the Digital Acquisitions Working Group, which we affectionately call the dog. The team includes representatives from curatorial registrar conservation and, when required, our audio, visual experts and digital media colleagues. Our conversations steer digital and hybrid collections through the acquisition process. As is probably clear, many objects come to us initially as loans for specific exhibitions. This group must disentangle the pieces from this context and evaluate the works as individual designs, with stories to tell that expand beyond their inaugural displays. Our recent efforts in rapid response collecting during the pandemic has also contributed to the museum's growth in thinking about and collecting 3D prints and files. The volume of objects reviewed and discussed has driven the dog to examine the current and future goals of the digital design collection itself, and we're excited about the prospects. Our ultimate priorities are to allow us to expand access to all collections across audiences, both local and far away, while also best caring for these objects so that future visitors can also enjoy them. When considering our digital files, we understand these objectives are often best achieved together. With each case examined today, we hope to have shown that effective collecting and display of 3D prints and files requires flexibility paired with intention. And of course, we as the conservators advise on all steps of these processes to ensure their success. Thank you for listening and we'd like to acknowledge and express our gratitude for the colleagues you see on the screen here.