Page 1

UNIVERSITY BAPTIST STUDENT UNION CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Hannah Lise Simonson Fall 2016 | Prof. Fran Gale


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

UNIVERSITY BAPTIST STUDENT UNION 405 W. 22nd Street, Austin, TX 78705 INTRODUCTION The University Baptist Student Union building was proposed in 1948 and designed by local architect Carlton Brush and his associate J. Robert Buffler. Construction began in 1949 and was completed by early 1950. The building was necessitated by a growing UT Austin student population during the post-World War II years, which created a demand for more space and resources. The flat roof, minimal detailing, large swaths of uninterrupted brick surface, and clean lines emphasized by the thin, horizontal cantilevered projections give the building its distinctly Modernist aesthetic. In addition to being an early example of Modernist architecture in Austin institutional buildings, the Student Union is unique for its integration of art and architecture. The building features artworks by two nationally recognized Modernist artist—both of whom were UT Austin art professors at the time—Seymour Fogel and Charles Umlauf. Fogel’s mural, Creation, was a pioneering work in the ethyl silicate medium as well as one of the first examples of abstract painting on a religious building. Umlauf’s sculpture, Prayer, was also one of the first of its kind in the region. Additions and alterations over the years are part of the building’s living tradition. Through addition and adaptation, the building has retained its value and relevance to the Baptist and UT Austin communities. These alterations have created a palimpsest of styles, materials and massing; the major additions has occurred on the rear facade and are not visible from W. 22nd Street. However, the rounded windows with decorative concrete surrounds on the third floor of the north elevation have dramatically impacted the building’s integrity as a Modernist resource. Originally the building would have had steel-framed ribbon windows complementing the other extant windows; ribbon windows are characteristic of Modernist stripped-down aesthetic. The loss of this character-defining feature is unfortunate given the significance of the building as an early example of Modernist architecture in the UT campus neighborhood, and a significant regional example of Modernists art integrated into architecture. The building is suffering from some visible deterioration—particularly biological growth, efflorescence, applied graffiti, and corrosion—but most of the deterioration is minor or cosmetic, rather than structural. However, the mural and sculptural relief are both vulnerable and would benefit greatly from a maintenance plan and perhaps small interventions such as cleaning, monitoring, and stabilization. The large crack on the northeast corner and the displacement of the large granite tiles on the third floor north elevation are both also concerning.

1


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

BUILDING HISTORY The University Baptist Student Union—also know as the Student Center, Youth Center, or Education Building—was constructed during the post-World War II period that saw a wave of people going to university courtesy of the GI Bill. With the influx of students at the University of Texas at Austin after the war, many of the churches and faithbased student groups in the surrounding neighborhoods also experienced increasing membership numbers. The Austin American reported in early 1948 that “Austin began a new year on the threshold of the great year in church life in its 108 years of existence” with demand for new and bigger facilities by all denominations.1 By November of 1948, the University Baptist Church had announced its proposal to build a student center at the corner of W. 22nd and San Antonio Streets.2 The lot had been purchased many years earlier by one of the original members of the University Baptist Church, Roberta Lavender, anticipating the future growth of the congregation.3 In order to serve the 3,400 Baptist students at UT Austin, the proposed student center had a chapel as well as meeting rooms, a stage for performances, a broadcasting-music studio, a darkroom, a kitchen, and lounge areas. The Student Union was a joint venture between the University Baptist Church and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which contributed $100,000 to the $285,000 project. Construction of the building began in March of 1949 by contractor J.M. Odom Company - who would be the contractor on a number of church expansion projects in the neighborhood - and the Student Union was opened after Sunday service on February 26, 1950.4 Carlton Brush, a prominent member of the Austin Baptist community and Central Texas AIA chapter, designed the Student Union with the help of associate architect, J. Robert Buffler; Buffler, who was an architecture professor at UT Austin, collaborated with Brush on a number of projects in Austin. In July 1949, Brush helped lay the cornerstone, which is inscribed with the date 1949 and contains a copper time capsule with recordings of then-reverend, Rev. Smith, among other dated materials.5 The University Baptist Church also commissioned two UT art professors—and national recognized Modernist artists—painter Seymour Fogel and sculptor Charles Umlauf to create pieces for the new Student Union. The design of the three-story building is modest in form and material, which to the contemporary eye might betray its rather progressive architectural style. Modernist architecture was only just becoming popular in the postwar years, and was not the norm for institutional buildings until the mid- and late-1950s. The flat roofed, stripped down aesthetic, clean lines, and undecorated design of the building expressed the underlying optimism of the postwar years—modernity and the promise of the new generation. The concrete frame building features a running bond brick veneer—large swaths of which are uninterrupted by opening or other details. Thin, cantilevered concrete projections emphasize the horizontality of the building over door and window openings. Simple steel-framed windows contain horizontal glazing panels. The third-story windows were likely originally steel-framed ribbon windows of the same form, but were replaced with vertically oriented aluminum-framed, arched windows in the early 1990s.6 The original door to the chapel was a simple, undecorated panel door which has been replaced by a wooden door with ornamental paneling and stained glass. The metal pipe column in front of the 1 William J. Weeg, “Austin churches plan expansion,” The Austin American, January 11, 1948, 1. 2 Now 405 W. 22nd Street, the address of the building at the time of construction was 415 W. 22nd Street. “Proposed Baptist center is home away from home,” The Daily Texan, November, 12, 1948. 3 “Construction of Baptist student center begun,” The Austin Statesman, March 25, 1949, 5. 4 “University Baptist Student Center to be opened Sunday,” The Austin Statesman, February 24, 1950, 1. 5 “Work on Baptists’ new student center started,” The Austin Statesman, July 18, 1949, 6. 6 Construction drawings and correspondences indicate that the extant aluminum-frame windows were installed during the addition and renovation that took place from 19891991. However, I have not been able to find an historic photograph that shows the original third floor windows. Based on the extant details and original design drawings, I think that we can confidently guess that the same windows would have also been used on the third floor.

2


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

chapel door and Fogel mural has since been replaced or covered by a square concrete column. The main facade, the north facade, and the west facade both feature concrete hardscaping which surrounds a window well - providing light to the partially underground first floor. Another modern feature of the building—air conditioning—was not yet a standard amenity, and was frequently emphasized in listings for events at the Student Union. Some original ribbon windows and catilevered overhangs have been lost on the south facade due to additions and renovations between 1989 and 1991; the addition on the rear of the building is in a Neo-Spanish Colonial Revival style with a pitched, terra cotta tile roof, that was designed to “turn the church around” toward a courtyard on San Antonio Street.7 The geometric and abstracted artworks by Seymour Fogel and Charles Umlauf are also distinctly modern.

Figure 1 | University Baptist Center (1954), courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History. Source: UT Texas Student Publications, Inc. Photographs, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin, Box 3Z136.

7 Carlyle B. Joy, “House of the Lord: A history of the Buildings of the University Baptist Church of Austin, Texas.” http://ubcaustin.org/buildings/

3


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Figure 2 | Drawing of the proposed University Baptist Church student center by architect, Carlton Brush (1948). Source: “Proposed Baptist center is home away from home,” The Daily Texan, November 12, 1948, 3.

Figure 3 | Original entry details and Seymor Fogel mural, Creation (1950). Source: Ralph M. Pearson, “Modern Art in a Texas Church,” The Art Digest 24 (October 15, 1950): 14.

4


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Figure 4 | Concrete frame construction, 1948. Source: University Baptist Church.

5


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Figures 5–9 | Interior details of the University Baptist Student Union (c. 1952/1953), courtesy of Longhorn Baptist Student Missions. Source: University Baptist Student Union scrapbooks.

6


University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

Fogel’s abstracted mural and Umlauf’s brick relief were both unprecedented and widely lauded as firsts of their kind in Texas, if not the south.8 Seymour Fogel (August 24, 1911 – December 4, 1984) was born in New York City and apprenticed under Mexican muralist Diego Rivera and was awarded a number of mural commissions from the Federal Arts Project and Works Progress Administration. After this period of engagement with the socialist realist tradition, Fogel moved toward abstraction and expressionism. He moved to Austin to take a position as a professor of art at UT Austin from 1946 to 1954. In addition to murals, Fogel created paintings, drawings, collages, and sculptures in a variety of media. Fogel is know for pioneering the use of ethyl silicate in murals.9 Unlike a true fresco, in which pigments are applied to wet substrate, Fogel’s murals are applied dry. Ethyl silicate, which is commonly used in materials conservation practice as a consolidant, was mixed with marble dust, pigment, and enough water to create a gel that could be applied to the wall. This innovative use of ethyl silicate promised to be “impervious to atmospheric damage” and to retain “brilliant”colors.10 The ethyl silicate becomes very hard and dries quickly, which lead to the idealist notion that the murals would be “indestructible.” Fogel reflected on working with ethyl silicate, “You make a mistake and you can’t erase and start over. You have to chisel a piece of the wall out and fill it in with more marble dust.”11 Fogel’s mural for the University Baptist Student Union, entitled Creation, was completed in early 1950. The mural combines abstracted, overlapping geometric shapes with naturalist shapes; above the door is a pair of hands in prayer below a dove, and at the bottom of the mural Fogel depicted plants, fish, single-celled organisms, and bivalves. The naturalistic depictions and the abstract evocations of light, comets, and other elements of the earth illustrate the opening verse of Genesis, which is painted on the perpendicular wall, “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.”

Figure 10 | Seymour Fogel in front of his mural, Creation. Source: The Abstract Art of Seymour Fogel: An Atavistic Vision, Hilton Head Island, SC: Time Again Publications (199-?).

Figure 11 | Seymour Fogel, Creation (1950). Ethyl silicate, marble dust, pigment, on cementious stucco. Photo: Hannah Simonson, 2016.

8 “Work on Baptists’ new student center started,” The Austin Statesman, July 18, 1949, 6; Ralph M. Pearson, “Modern Art in a Texas Church,” The Art Digest 24 (October 15, 1950): 14; “Fogel completes murals for club,” The Austin Statesman, November 6, 1951, 11; Bill Brammer, “Artist Fogel fights wall of white with colors,” The Austin American, February 7, 1954, B1. 9 Ethyl silicate “is a clear, volatile liquid with a mild, ethereal odor, resembling some of the volatile solvents. When it is diluted with alcohol to the proper degree and mixed with small amounts of water, a chemical reaction (hydrolysis) occurs, producing alcohol and hydrated silica; the latter is thrown out of solution in the form of a gel or of fine colloidal particles. [...] Only enough water is added to start the reaction and cause partial hydrolysis; at this stage the material is a finished painting medium. When it is mixed with pigments and brushed out, the reaction is completed by the action of the moisture in the atmosphere and the internal changes of the silicon compounds. The alcohol evaporates and the colloidal silica soon sets to a tenacious gel, which, in thin films, becomes dry in a half-hour or less, after which can be touched and handled with ordinary care.” Ralph Mayer, The Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques (New York: The Viking Press, 1950): 278-288. 10 Ralph M. Pearson, “Modern Art in a Texas Church,” The Art Digest 24 (October 15, 1950): 14. 11 Bill Brammer, “Artist Fogel fights wall of white with colors,” The Austin American, February 7, 1954, B1.

7


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Charles Umlauf (July 17, 1911 – 1994) was born in South Haven, Michigan. Like Fogel, some of Umlauf’s early commissions came from the WPA. In 1941, Umlauf moved to Austin and taught art at UT Austin for 40 years. In 1985, he donated his home, studio, and many sculptural works to the City of Austin; this site, near Zilker Park, and collection were opened to the public as the Umlauf Sculpture Garden. The University Baptist Church commissioned Umlauf to create a sculptural relief for installation above the entry at the northwest corner of the building. Umlauf began the sculpture, Prayer, in his studio in 1948; the piece, which is ten feet high and nine feet wide, monopolized about half of his studio space. Umlauf first modeled the sculpture in clay, then molded it in plaster, then cast it in terra cotta; finally, the bricks are cut and fired.12 A simple line graphic of the relief was used as a logo for the University Baptist News; one issue of the newsletter explains the meaning of the design, “It depicts the basic article in our Baptist belief—the authority and power of the Scriptures. At the bottom is an open Bible, the Old and New Testaments. Above it are two young people. Lines flowing from the Bible and passing through and above these youths picture the inspiring power of the Word of God, and the closed circle of hands above them portrays completion and perfection, both of which are the work of the Word of God.”13 Umlauf is primarily known for his freestanding bronze sculptures, but has also worked in marble, clay, onyx, and stoneware. Although the medium and form of the brick relief are unique in his body of work, the religious theme was one that he explored widely.

Figure 12 | Charles Umlauf at work on Prayer, bas relief for University Baptist Student Center, 10’ high, 9’ long. Source: Gibson A. Danes, The Sculpture and Drawing of Charles Umlauf (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980): 29.

Figure 13 | Charles Umlauf brick sculptural relief, Prayer. Photo: Hannah Simonson, 2016.

12 Gibson A. Danes, The Sculpture and Drawing of Charles Umlauf (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980): 29, 119. 13 University Baptist News 6:21 (July 16, 1954):1.

8


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Character-Defining Features As part of a living institution, the University Baptist Student Union building has experience a number of physical and programmatic changes. As the Baptist Student Union continued to grow throughout the 1950s, they outgrew their building and moved into a new location at 2204 San Antonio Street, the opposite corner of W. 22nd and San Antonio Streets. The University Baptist Church (UBC) bought out the Baptist Student Union and began to use the building as an education center. Currently, the building is owned by UBC and various spaces are leased out to student religious organizations. In 1989, the UBC initiated a construction project that involved an addition to the south elevation old student union building, as well as a number of interior and exterior renovations. Most notably, the third story steel-framed ribbon windows (modernist in their simplicity), were replaced with arched aluminumframed windows and decorative concrete surrounds. While the addition is not visible from the primary elevation on W. 22nd Street, the 1949 details of the south elevation have been removed largely obscured. Although this building can be understood as a palimpsest—embodying a layered history, adapting to changing needs, demographics, and aesthetic tastes—the character-defining features of the building correspond with its 1949-1950 period of significance. The character-defining features of the building reflect the holistic Modernist project—the geometric massing and simple material details of the architecture, as well as the incorporation of Modernist, abstract artwork into the fabric of the building.

•• Flat roof with parapet •• Multiple roof heights •• Rectangular massing, emphasizing horizontality •• Unarticulated, square concrete columns •• Concrete hardscaping and geometric hedges surrounding an areaway •• Horizontal cantilevered concrete overhangs •• Brise-soleil structure adjacent to mural, with semi-opaque side lites •• Horizontal pane, steel-framed windows in multiple configurations

•• Large, uninterrupted swaths of running bond brick veneer •• Square, blue glazed tile detailing •• Black and red-colored granite around second story windows •• Recessed entryways •• Steel-framed ribbon windows with cantilevered overhangs on south facade •• Sculptural brick relief on north facade by Charles Umlauf •• Ethyl silicate and marble dust mural, Creation, on north facade by Seymour Fogel

9


University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

Building Materials The concrete frame building is primarily clad in a running bond brick veneer. Polished, black and red colored granite frames the third story windows. Original windows are steel-framed. Later windows from 1991 are aluminum-framed and have decorative concrete surrounds. Most of the windows have translucent glazing, but some of the glazing on the east facade is semi-opaque. Structural concrete columns, concrete cantilevered overhangs, concrete parapet caps, concrete hardscaping on the north elevation has been painted. Primary entry stairs and the hardscaping on the west elevation is exposed, unpainted concrete. Steel and canvas awnings have been added to second story windows and entryway of the north elevation. The replacement chapel door is wood with stained glass detailing. Blue glazed ceramic tiles surround the door to the chapel. Cementious stucco has been used to cover the southwest mass of the building and is the likely substrate for the mural, Creation. Ethyl silicate was the medium for the marble dust and pigment used to create the mural.

Concrete

Brick

Ceramic Tile

Granite

Granite

Glass

Aluminum

Steel

Wood

Canvas

Cementious Stucco

Ethyl Silicate

What’s changed? rear addition

windows renovated awnings added

pipe column covered

signage changes periodically

new door 10


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

DETERIORATION AND RESULTING CONDITIONS Overall Conditions Due primarily to the design of the roof and water drainage systems, the primary cause of deterioration on the University Baptist Student Union building is water damage. The flat roof is vulnerable to leaks as the slightly sloped roof behind the parapet does not shed water quickly; there are many opportunities for pooling water, infiltration through cracks, and blocked downspouts. Additionally, because there are no overhanging eaves on the north, east, or west elevations, rainwater catches on the window sills and drips down the walls resulting in concentrations of biological growth on the widow sills and right below the windows. The canvas awnings on the north elevation have alleviated this problem to some degree; arguably at the expense of the building’s Modernist aesthetic, which was defined by minimal detailing and large, uninterpreted planar surfaces. Biological growth is also present on the exposed concrete surrounds of the third story windows; this concrete detailing projects out from the wall and is curved with nooks and crannies. A downspout on the east elevation has been disconnected close to the roof-line, causing water to travel the length of the exterior wall down to the ground; biological growth is present along the length of the wall. On the north elevation, an electrical cable (not original) runs along the edge of the third story windows and the entryway on the northeast corner. The parapet is very shallow at this section of the roof and it is clear that water is traveling down the side of the building along the cable because biological growth is present. Fogel Mural Craze cracking is occurring throughout the cementious stucco substrate of the mural. These hairline cracks range from approximately 0.002 - 0.009 inches wide and spread consistently across the mural. The ethyl silicate application of the pigment is largely in good condition. The colors are quite bright; likely protected by the ethyl silicate and the mural’s recessed location. There are small areas of chipping in which pieces of the mural have been lost; the hard ethyl silicate coating with the pigment has chipped away with the cementitious substrate, leaving an uncolored shallow pit. On the west wall of the recessed entry on the north elevation, a crack between 0.0625 and 0.125in runs the height of the mural where it comes into contact with the brick veneer. Brick Deterioration & Umlauf Relief Spalling is only evident in the bricks of the parapet. A major crack on the north elevation at the northeast concrete structural column runs vertically through the brick veneer - the crack runs in approximately 3 foot intervals through the bricks (as opposed to running along the mortar joints). Mortar loss and detachment occur between the brick and the concrete cap of the parapet. The brick of the Umlauf sculpture is particularly susceptible to biological growth and efflorescence because there are many irregular surfaces that are vulnerable to water penetration and pooling. Concrete Deterioration Minor cracks - less than 0.0625in - are evident throughout the concrete foundation, concrete hardscaping, and concrete stairs. Spalling is evident in one location of the foundation on the east elevation. Exposed edges of the concrete are subject to chipping, particularly around the hardscaping and edge of the foundation. The concrete hardscaping is detaching along original construction joints (where the hardscaping meets the ground or the wall of the building). 11


University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

Paints and Coatings Deterioration The paint coatings on the window frames, exposing the steel to corrosion. The window sealants are also painted, but as the sealant becomes embrittled, the paint is flaking off. Concrete elements such as the brise-soleil, columns, and cantilevered overhangs have been repainted (evidenced by paint splatters) and these coatings are in good condition other than minor soiling. The clear protective coating on the replacement chapel door appears to be wearing away from daily use and contact; the coating is missing on the bottom portion of the door and has exposed the wood to UV bleaching. Corrosion Pitted steel corrosion occurs throughout the building on the steel-framed windows and the steel strip lintels. Corrosion is also evident on the downspouts on the east elevation, and is likely the cause of the missing downspout. Soiling Atmospheric soiling is present on the canvas awnings and some of the granite surrounding the third story windows. White paint drips and smudges, the result of a careless maintenance intervention, are present on glass, ceramic tiles, brick and concrete. Applied graffiti is present on the lower windows of the east elevation and on the Fogel mural. The hardscaping has been stained a reddish color from color transfer from the red mulch being used.

Figures 14 | Downspouts on east

facade are disconnected, causing water to drain down the side of the building and creating ample opportunity for biological growth.

Figures 15 | Brick relief sculpture

Figures 16 | Cantilevered concrete

exhibit signs of efflorescence and biological growth.

details exhibit black discoloration and cause water damage where they join the wall.

12


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Figures 17 | Coating on steel window frame is peeling,

Figures 18 | Graffiti damage on east facade windows.

exposing sealant to decay and steel to corrosion.

White paint drips and smudges are evidence of careless repainting.

Figures 19 | Brick spalling is localized to the parapet

Figures 20 | Biological growth on brick along the path of

area. Detachment of the concrete cap and mortar deterioration occurs along the lenght of th parapet.

an electrical cable.

Figures 21 | Concrete foundation is exhibiting spalling,

Figures 22 | Reddish discoloration of white, painted

biological growth, cracking, and chipping.

concrete hardscaping due to staining from mulch.

13


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Figures 23 | Rust and corrosion of steel frame windows.

Figures 24 | Biological growth is evident on exposed

Biological growth is present on the window sill and below the window opening.

concrete surrounds of the third story windows.

Figures 25 | Rusting metal on lights and cobwebs are

Figures 26 | Biological growth where the cantilever meets

evident on the ceiling of the recessed entry.

the wall is a result of water drainage as water flows back toward the building due to the slight upturn of the cantilever.

Figures 27 | Concrete wall of the mural exhibits extensive

Figures 28 | Detachment of joint between concrete

craze cracking. Small pieces of paint and concrete have chipped off. Graffiti has also damaged the mural.

planter, wall, and sidewalk.

14


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

CONCLUSION Some problems—biological growth, efflorescence, soiling, and coating failures—are minor cosmetic problems. The condition of the parapets is most concerning; the spalling brick and detachment of the concrete cap could pose safety concerns and more serious problems with leaking and water drainage later down the road. Additionally concerning is the granite veneer around the third floor windows; without knowing more about how the granite is attached to the facade, is hard to know how serious the condition is. The top right granite unit exhibits slight displacement and the soft joints throughout the granite veneer appears to be embrittled. The steel-frame windows are in poor condition and are likely to be the subject of interventions; it is important that these windows are repaired to combat corrosion. If replacement is determined to be necessary, replacement in kind is of utmost importance. The replacement windows on the rear elevation—fortunately not visible from the public right-of-way—do not match the originals in profile or scale and greatly diminish the Modernist aesthetic of the building. New and replacement downspouts have been extremely successful in diverting water away from the building envelope and into surrounding landscaping; a new downspout on the east elevation would be an easy and effective intervention. The University Baptist Student Union is part of a living tradition and exhibits this fact very clearly in the layers of additions and alterations. Although most of the major changes have occurred on the rear elevation, the notable exception is the renovation of the third story windows on the main elevation. The 1990s arched aluminum windows with concrete surrounds, as well as the awnings on the second floor have diminished the architectural integrity of this Modernist building. However, the Seymour Fogel mural, Creation, and Charles Umlauf sculptural relief, Prayer, are each of individual significance. As a total work of art and architecture, the building, mural, and sculptural relief are a unique and rare expression of Modernist art and architecture in Austin. Fogel’s later mural for the American National Bank building in Austin would build upon the precedent of Creation, receiving national acclaim; unlike the mural for the American National Bank, though, Creation is outdoors and publicly visible. In a 1952 treatise with Winston Weisman, Fogel wrote of the Modernist vision art integrated with architecture: “One aspect of contemporary art which has not received the amount of attention it deserves from artists, historians and critics alike is the problem of integrating painting, sculpture and architecture into a modern symphony of creative form. [...] Certainly there has been no widespread and concerted effort in America to bring he arts together since WPA days. [...] Painters and sculptors must learn to conceive in architectonic terms. They must think in terms of space and materials. Their works must be truly integrated with architecture in the sense that they should be thought of as a permanent part of the structure. Murlas should not be enlarged ease paintings. Nor should they be executed in the artist’s studio; but in situ in order to produce the closes possible relationship between wall and mural. [...] What is needed now is to get [artists and architects] to work together not only for their mutual good; but for the benefit of all mankind.”14 The Fogel mural and Umlauf sculpture are more vulnerable to environmental and human threats and should be considered in any future maintenance plan. The Fogel mural is at street level and has suffered from applied graffiti. The mural is somewhat sheltered from wind and rain because it is in a covered and recessed entryway, but water, temperature, soiling can still cause damage. The biggest concern for the mural is the craze cracking of the cementious substrate; this cracking should be monitored to determine whether the cracking is stable or worsening. 14 Weisman, Winston and Seymour Fogel. “Architecture and Modern Art.” College Art Journal 11:4 (Summer 1952): 240-244. DOI:

10.2307/773455

15


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

An art conservator should be consulted to determine a course of action for the chipped areas of the mural; repair or stabilization are options. The Umlauf sculpture, although high enough to be out of reach to vandals, is exposed to rain and pollutants. The biological growth and efflorescence on the sculpture are cosmetic problems, but cleaning could bring awareness to the sculpture and encourage greater stewardship and celebration of the resource. The cut brick of the sculpture could be monitored to determine whether any deterioration is occurring. Education of the Baptist congregation and surrounding UT Austin community could help renew interest in the history of Texas Modernist art and foster greater stewardship of these public-facing artworks. It is likely that the building will continue to grow and change over time, but the Modernist composition of the artworks in relation to the simple building form is worthy of preservation.

Figures 29 & 30 | University Baptist Church Student Union in context. Photos: Hannah Simonson, 2016. (above) Northeast corner from W. 22nd Street (below) Southwest corner from San Antonio Street; 1989-91 addition visible.

16


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

References “Artists in Action.” Sunday American-Statesman. February 12, 1950. “Baptist Student Union goes into new home.” The Austin American. January 6, 1957, C14. Brammer, Bill. “Artist Fogel fights wall of white with colors.” The Austin American, February 7, 1954, B1. Brewer, Anita. [No Title]. The Austin Statesman. August 14, 1963. (Discusses Umlauf’s brick relief, Prayer.) “Construction of Baptist student center begun,” The Austin Statesman, March 25, 1949, 5. Danes,Gibson A. The Sculpture and Drawing of Charles Umlauf. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980. Edwards, Katie Robinson. Midcentury Modern Art in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press: 2014. Felix Marin, Tahinee M. Modern Architecture + Art: an analysis of preservation strategies for installed art. Masters of Science in Historic Preservation Thesis. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 2011. “Fogel completes murals for club,” The Austin Statesman, November 6, 1951, 11. Fogel, Seymour. “Art and the Church.” Liturgical Arts (November 1960): 3-5. Joy, Carlyle B. “House of the Lord: A history of the Buildings of the University Baptist Church of Austin, Texas.” http://ubcaustin.org/buildings/ Mayer, Ralph. The Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques. New York: The Viking Press, 1950. Pearson, Ralph M. “Modern Art in a Texas Church.” The Art Digest 24 (October 15, 1950): 14. “Proposed Baptist center is home away from home,” The Daily Texan, November, 12, 1948. Seymour Fogel. Exhibition catalog. New York City: Graham Modern, 1984. The Abstract Art of Seymour Fogel: An Atavistic Vision, Hilton Head Island, SC: Time Again Publications (199-?). University Baptist News 6:21 (July 16, 1954):1. “University Baptist Student Center to be opened Sunday,” The Austin Statesman, February 24, 1950, 1. William J. Weeg, “Austin churches plan expansion,” The Austin American, January 11, 1948, 1. Weisman, Winston and Seymour Fogel. “Architecture and Modern Art.” College Art Journal 11:4 (Summer 1952): 240-244. DOI: 10.2307/773455 “Work on Baptists’ new student center started,” The Austin Statesman, July 18, 1949, 6. Masten House, Zone Change Review Sheet. Case Number C14H-2010-0012. HLC Date: April 26, 2010. PC Date: June 22, 2010. Austin, Texas. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=138628

Archival Repositories Austin History Center Dolph Briscoe Center for American History University Baptist Student Union (scrapbooks and drawings)

17


18


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

ILLUSTRATED GLOSSARY OF CONDITIONS Biological Growth | Micro-organisms Colonization of brick and stone by plants and micro-organisms such as bacteria, cyanobacteria, algae, fungi and lichen (symbioses of the latter three). Biological colonization also includes influences by other organisms such as animals nesting on and in stone. Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_biological growth_102316

Cracking | Craze Cracking Crack—a complete or incomplete separation, of either concrete or masonry, into two or more parts produced by breaking or fracturing. Craze cracks—fine random cracks or fissures in a surface of plaster, cement paste, mortar, or concrete. Source: American Concrete Institute Guide for Conducting a Visual Inspection of Concrete in Service UBC_n_craze cracking_102316

Cracking | Pattern Cracking Cracking on concrete surfaces in the form of a repeated sequence; resulting from a decrease in volume of the material near the surface, or an increase in volume of the material below the surface, or both. Source: American Concrete Institute Guide for Conducting a Visual Inspection of Concrete in Service UBC_n_pattern cracking_102316

19


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Corrosion | Pitting The chemical or electrochemical reaction between a material, usually a metal, and its environment that produces a deterioration of the material and its properties; the corrosive product for ferrous metals like steel and iron consists primarily of hydrated iron oxide. Source: Corrosion Doctors Glossary http://corrosion-doctors.org/GlossaryLetters/Glossary-C.htm UBC_n_corrosion_102316

Detachment The result of a complete break (or failure of an original construction joint) in which the detached portion of masonry survives intact.

Source: Anne E. Grimmer A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems & Preservation UBC_n_detachment_102316

Downspout | Disconnected Original downspout has been disconnected. This condition causes water to run down the side of the building, creating opportunities for biological growth.

UBC_e_downspout_102316

20


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Downspout | Retrofit New downspouts have been installed on some facades of the building.

UBC_w_downspout_102316

Fragmentation | Chipping The complete or partial breaking up of a stone, into portions of variable dimensions that are irregular in form, thickness and volume. Chipping—breaking off of pieces, called chips, from the edges of a block. Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_chipping_111516

Efflorescence Generally whitish, powdery or whisker-like crystals on the surface. Efflorescences are generally poorly cohesive and commonly made of soluble salt crystals. Efflorescence is commonly the result of evaporation of saline water present in the porous structure of the stone. Efflorescences are often constituted of soluble salts such ass odium chloride (halite : NaCl) or sulphate (thenardite : Na2SO4), magnesium sulphate (epsomite : MgSO4 . 7H2O), but they may also be made of less soluble minerals such as calcite (CaCO3), barium sulphate (BaSO4) and amorphous silica (SiO2 . nH2O). Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_efflorescence_102316

21


University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

Inappropriate Maintenance Inappropriate maintenance can be caused by inappropriate materials - such as the use of hard mortar to repoint joints between soft masonry units or application of impervious coatings to prevent stone deterioration. Alternatively, inappropriate cleaning or techniques - such as harsh cleaning and coating removal.

UBC_n_maintenance_111516

Graffiti | Applied Engraving, scratching, cutting or application of paint, ink or similar matter on the stone surface. Graffiti is generally the result of an act of vandalism. However, some graffiti may have aesthetic, historical, or cultural values and should be conserved.

Source: UBC_e_applied graffiti_102316

Graffiti | Incised Engraving, scratching, cutting or application of paint, ink or similar matter on the stone surface. Graffiti is generally the result of an act of vandalism. However, some graffiti may have aesthetic, historical, or cultural values and should be conserved. Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_incised graffiti_102316

22


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Sealant Embrittlement Decay is chemical or physical modification of the intrinsic material properties leading to a loss of value or to the impairment of use. Embrittlement is a typical deterioration condition of sealants and caulks; brittleness is the condition whereby the sealant becomes hardened and liable to crack and fall apart. Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_e_sealant embrittlement_102316

Soiling Deposit of a very thin layer of exogenous particles (eg. soot) giving a dirty appearance to the substrate surface. With soiling, the substrate structure is not considered as affected. Soiling may have different degrees of adhesion to the substrate. Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_soiling_102316

Spalling A condition of masonry in which the other layer or layers begin to break off (unevenly) or peel away in parallel layers from the larger block of masonry. Unlike exofliation and delamintation, spalling is not confined to natural stone, but is also common to brick, and other fabricated masonry materials such as cement products and terra cotta. Spalling is usually caused by the pressure of salts and freeze-thaw cycles of moisture trapped under the surface (subflorescence) which forces off the outer surface or layers of masonry. Source: Anne E. Grimmer A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems & Preservation Treatments UBC_w_spalling_102316

23


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Paint | Bleeding Paint has bleed onto neighboring substrate. Likely due to moisture intrusion before the paint was fully dry.

UBC_n_paint bleeding_102316

Paint | Flaking Flaking is an early stage of peeling, exfoliation, delamination or spalling, and is best explained as the detachment of small, flat, thin pieces of the outer layers of stone from a larger piece of building stone. Flaking is usually caused by capillary moisture or freezethaw cycles that occur within the masonry. The application of a water-repellent coating may result in flaking of the masonry when trapped moisture is forced to the surface. Flaking also commonly occurs in masonry coatings, such as paint, or stucco, and results from a loss of adhesion between the coating and the masonry substrate. Source: Anne E. Grimmer A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems & Preservation Treatments UBC_w_paint flaking_102316

Paint | Smudges Small paint smudges and drips from previous maintenance interventions.

UBC_n_paint smudges_102316

24


Materials Conservation | Field Methods Fall 2016

University Baptist Student Union Conditions Assessment

Paint | Staining Discoloration Change of the stone color in one to three of the color parameters : hue, value and chroma. Staining is a kind of discoloration of limited extent and generally of unattractive appearance.

Source: ICOMOS-ISCS Illustrated glossary on stone deterioration patterns UBC_n_paint staining_102316

UV Bleaching The bleaching, or lightening, of a substrate due to prolonged UV radiation exposure.

UBC_n_uv bleaching_102316

25


26


27

03.01.01

05.02.01

04.01.05

04.01.02

06.01.01 06.02.02

03.01.05 04.01.03

04.01.03

04.01 Brick 04.01.01 soiling 04.01.02 spalling 04.01.03 biological growth 04.01.04 efflorescence 04.01.05 cracking

03.01 Concrete 03.01.01 cracking 03.01.02 detachment 03.01.03 biological growth 03.01.04 soiling 03.01.05 applied graffiti * 03.01.06 chipping 03.01.07 delamination

Drawing not to scale

North Elevation

04.02.01

[03] Concrete structure, columns, cantilever overhangs, 3rd floor window surrounds, hardscaping, stuccoing [04] Brick wall veneer, window sills, brick sculptural relief [04] Ceramic Tile detailing around doorway [04] Granite wall veneer [04] Sandstone cornerstone [05] Aluminum 3rd floor window frames [05] Steel 1st and 2nd floor window frames, lintels, awning frame, overhead light frame [06] Wood door (not original) [07] Moisture Protection downspouts [08] Canvas window awnings (not original) [08] Glass window glazing, door glazing, overhead light covers [08] Openings windows, doors [09] Finishes paint on window frames and concrete [09] Ethyl Silicate mural

04.03.02

08.02 Glass 08.02.01 applied graffiti * 08.02.02 paint smudges

08.01 Canvas 08.01.01 soiling

04.01.03 Biological growth present on all window sills and below all window openings; biological growth also present along electrical cord. 03.01.02, 04.01.02 Brick spalling and concrete cap detachment present along length of parapet. 05.03.01, 08.04.01, 09.01.01 All steel-frame windows exhibit pitting steel corrosion, sealant embrittlement, and paint flaking. 03.01.01 Cementious stucco of the mural is cracking throughout. 03.01.01, 03.01.06, 03.01.04 Cracking, chipping and soiling from reddish mulch occurs throughout hardscaping.

04.01.04

04.01.03

* Not present on this elevation

09.01 Paint 09.01.01 flaking 09.01.02 staining 09.01.03 bleeding

08.04 Openings 08.04.01 sealant embrittlement

03.01.01 03.01.04

07.01 Moisture Protection 07.01.01 disconnected downspout * 07.01.02 corrosion 07.01.03 new downspout *

Conditions Present Throughout:

09.01.02 03.01.06

04.03.01

03.01.03

06.01 Wood 06.01.01 UV bleach

05.02 Steel 05.02.01 corrosion

04.03 Granite 04.03.01 soiling 04.03.02 displacement

04.02 Ceramic Tile 04.02.01 paint smudges

Existing Conditions

03.01.04 03.01.06

05.02.01 09.01.01

08.01.01

09.01.03

04.01.03 03.01.03

05.02.01 08.04.01

03.01.02

Fall 2016

Name: Course:

University Baptist Student Union

Carlton Brush Seymour Fogel Charles Umlauf 1949 - 1950 Original architect: Muralist: Sculptural Relief: Construction date:

Materials List Hannah Simonson ARC 385T Materials Conservation Field Methods Frances Gale Instructor:

405 W. 22nd Street Austin, TX 78705 Drawing by Hannah Simonson 4 November 2016


28


29

04.01 Brick 04.01.01 soiling * 04.01.02 spalling 04.01.03 biological growth 04.01.04 efflorescence * 04.01.05 cracking

03.01 Concrete 03.01.01 cracking 03.01.02 detachment 03.01.03 biological growth 03.01.04 soiling 03.01.05 applied graffiti 03.01.06 chipping 03.01.07 delamination

Drawing not to scale

East Elevation

03.01.02

05.02.01 09.01.01 08.04.01 08.04.02

04.01.03

04.01.03

05.02.01 07.01.01 07.01.02

03.01.02

[03] Concrete structure, columns, cantilever overhangs, 3rd floor window surrounds, hardscaping, stuccoing [04] Brick wall veneer, window sills, brick sculptural relief [04] Ceramic Tile detailing around doorway [04] Granite wall veneer [04] Sandstone cornerstone [05] Aluminum 3rd floor window frames [05] Steel 1st and 2nd floor window frames, lintels awning frame, overhead light frame [06] Wood door (not original) [07] Moisture Protection downspouts [08] Canvas window awnings (not original) [08] Glass window glazing, door glazing, overhead light covers [08] Openings windows, doors [09] Finishes paint on window frames and concrete [09] Ethyl Silicate mural 08.02 Glass 08.02.01 applied graffiti 08.02.02 paint smudges

08.01 Canvas 08.01.01 soiling *

07.01 Moisture Protection 07.01.01 disconnected downspout 07.01.02 corrosion 07.01.03 new downspout

03.01.07 03.01.01 03.01.03

03.01.06 09.01.01

08.02.01 08.02.02 08.04.02

03.01.04

03.01.03

04.01.02 04.01.03

* Not present on this elevation

09.01 Paint 09.01.01 flaking 09.01.02 staining * 09.01.03 bleeding *

08.04 Openings 08.04.01 sealant embrittlement

04.01.03 Biological growth present on all window sills and below all window openings; biological growth also present below downspout all the way to the ground. 03.01.02, 04.01.02 Brick spalling and concrete cap detachment present along length of parapet. 05.03.01, 08.04.01, 09.01.01 All steel-frame windows exhibit pitting steel corrosion, sealant embrittlement, and paint flaking. 03.01.01, 03.01.06 Concrete foundation has narrow cracks and chipping throughout.

Conditions Present Throughout:

06.01 Wood 06.01.01 UV bleaching *

05.02 Steel 05.02.01 corrosion

04.03 Granite 04.03.01 soiling * 04.03.02 displacement *

04.02 Ceramic Tile 04.02.01 paint smudges *

Existing Conditions Fall 2016

Name: Course:

University Baptist Student Union

Carlton Brush Seymour Fogel Charles Umlauf 1949 - 1950 Original architect: Muralist: Sculptural Relief: Construction date:

Materials List Hannah Simonson ARC 385T Materials Conservation Field Methods Frances Gale Instructor:

405 W. 22nd Street Austin, TX 78705 Drawing by Hannah Simonson 4 November 2016


30


31

03.01.01

04.01.03

05.02.01 08.04.01 08.04.02 09.01.01

04.01.02

03.01.02

04.01 Brick 04.01.01 soiling * 04.01.02 spalling 04.01.03 biological growth 04.01.04 efflorescence * 04.01.05 cracking

03.01 Concrete 03.01.01 cracking 03.01.02 detachment 03.01.03 biological growth * 03.01.04 soiling * 03.01.05 applied graffiti * 03.01.06 chipping * 03.01.07 delamination

Drawing not to scale

West Elevation

[03] Concrete structure, columns, cantilever overhangs, 3rd floor window surrounds, hardscaping, stuccoing [04] Brick wall veneer, window sills, brick sculptural relief [04] Ceramic Tile detailing around doorway [04] Granite wall veneer [04] Sandstone cornerstone [05] Aluminum 3rd floor window frames [05] Steel 1st and 2nd floor window frames, lintels awning frame, overhead light frame [06] Wood door (not original) [07] Moisture Protection downspouts [08] Canvas window awnings (not original) [08] Glass window glazing, door glazing, overhead light covers [08] Openings windows, doors [09] Finishes paint on window frames and concrete [09] Ethyl Silicate mural 08.02 Glass 08.02.01 applied graffiti * 08.02.02 paint smudges

08.01 Canvas 08.01.01 soiling *

* Not present on this elevation

09.01 Paint 09.01.01 flaking 09.01.02 staining * 09.01.03 bleeding *

08.04 Openings 08.04.01 sealant embrittlement

04.01.03 Biological growth present on all brick window sills and below all brick window openings. 03.01.02, 04.01.02 Brick spalling and concrete cap detachment present along length of parapet. 05.03.01, 08.04.01, 09.01.01 All steel-frame windows exhibit pitting steel corrosion, sealant embrittlement, and paint flaking. 03.01.01, 03.01.06 Concrete foundation has narrow cracks and chipping throughout.

05.02.01 08.04.01 08.04.02 09.01.01

03.01.01

07.01.03

07.01 Moisture Protection 07.01.01 disconnected downspout * 07.01.02 corrosion * 07.01.03 new downspout

Conditions Present Throughout:

06.01 Wood 06.01.01 UV bleaching *

05.02 Steel 05.02.01 corrosion

04.03 Granite 04.03.01 soiling * 04.03.02 displacement *

04.02 Ceramic Tile 04.02.01 paint smudges *

Fall 2016

Name: Course:

University Baptist Student Union

Existing Conditions

Instructor:

Materials List Hannah Simonson ARC 385T Materials Conservation Field Methods Frances Gale Original architect: Muralist: Sculptural Relief: Construction date:

Carlton Brush Seymour Fogel Charles Umlauf 1949 - 1950

405 W. 22nd Street Austin, TX 78705 Drawing by Hannah Simonson 4 November 2016


Profile for Hannah Simonson

University Baptist Student Union | Conditions Assessment  

Conditions Assessment. Field Methods, Fall 2016, Prof. Fran Gale.

University Baptist Student Union | Conditions Assessment  

Conditions Assessment. Field Methods, Fall 2016, Prof. Fran Gale.

Advertisement