Month: June 2012

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Print or Painting? The Treatment of a Penschilderij by Willem van de Velde the Elder” by Kristin deGhetaldi

Penschilderijn*, also known as “penpaintings“, involve drawing an image in black ink on top of a substrate prepared with a white lead oil ground.  The technique originated in seventeenth century Holland and was popularized by one of its most skilled practitioners, Willem van de Velde the Elder.  The artist’s painting, Dutch Ships Near the Coast, became the first penschilderij in an American public collection when it was gifted to the National Gallery of Art in 1994.  Treatment of the painting began in 2010, which gave conservators the rare opportunity to conduct an in-depth study of the materials and techniques utilized in its creation.  Kristin deGhetaldi headed the treatment of the painting and presented the current study findings and treatment results to the Paintings Specialty Group.

Willem van de Velde the Elder built his career on pen paintings but his beginnings were much more humble.  He was born in 1611 as the son of a skipper and spent most of his early years on ships, giving him a natural familiarity with navigation and the sea.  He was also an excellent draughtsman and became skilled at sketching maritime scenes.  As his skill improved he was sought for victory images and his clientele of wealthy patrons increased.  He gained significant notoriety with his penpaintings as early as the end of the 1630s and it was said that his penschilderij were considered more popular and valuable than his other works.

Penpaintings were often done on panel or vellum primed with oil.  Working atop these surfaces with pen and ink made it difficult to make corrections to the composition.  Van de Velde was a perfectionist who was easily dissatisfied with the quality of his work.  If he did not like a sketch he would go over the basic outline in wet ink and quickly press the image to another substrate and begin again.  He also utilized both fine line drawing and washes to create his images, with washes becoming more prominent in his work by the 1650s.  Washes provided the advantage of covering large areas quickly without the need for intricate underdrawings.  This allowed the van de Velde workshop to generate larger penpaintings at a faster rate in order to meet teh demands of the market.

A visual analysis of Dutch Ships Near the Coast was conducted in comparison to van de Veldes other known works and some characteristics stood out.  Although it is dated to the 1650s, the work is smaller than his other penpaintings and it lacks the expected fluid washes in favor of fine linear strokes.  The penpainting does have an underdrawing, though it remains unclear whether it was sketched in silverpoint or graphite.  In addition, the ground layer composed of calcium carbonate instead of the slightly darker ground that is common in his similar works.  Finally, unique raised lines are present where the ink is applied and in other areas of the white ground.

Scientific analysis was conducted in an attempt to clarify some of these discrepancies.  Cross-sectional microscopy revealed two layers of lead white, with the topmost layer containing particles that were more finely ground.  The presence of only carbon black in the ink design confirmed that iron gall ink or bone black was not used by the artist.  Analysis using GCMS was conducted in an attempt to identify the binding medium of the ink, though the tests were inconclusive.

Conservators decided to create a reconstruction of the penpainting to gain insight into the identity of the oil binder and find possible causes for the raised lines.  Linseed oil was used in the reconstruction but it yellowed quickly, leading conservators to believe a slower drying oil was used in order to avoid the discoloration.  Next conservators tested reed and quill pens dipped in gum based ink to determine how the ink was likely applied.  Reed seemed like a good candidate but they produced broader and less precise lines than the sharp, fine lines created with quills.  Goose quills were ideal but quills from raven and crow feathers were also acceptable.  It was hypothesized that the sharp quills may have scratched the ground before it was totally dry and created the fine lines.  However, that did not account for the raised nature of the lines or the fact that they existed in areas where ink was not applied.  At that point conservators wondered if the lines could be the result of engraving techniques.

The Dutch artist Experiens Sillemans was a contemporary of van de Velde and also created penschilderijn.  Sillemans was known to use printmaking practices such as engraving in the creation of his works.  The technique involved pressing a freshly inked engraving on to a primed support.  To create raised lines, however, van de Velde would have had to press his inked copper plate into the soft preparatory ground of the support.  Given the art historical evidence, it still seems unlikely that van de Velde used this practice as no two of his penschilderij are alike.  In addition, there are no prints in his oeuvre to suggest he was a practiced engraver.

Ultimately the technical study of Dutch Ships Near the Coast left more questions than answers and conservators are hopeful that future study will lead to greater understanding.  At that point it was time to address the treatment of the piece.

Examination of the painting revealed fills and overpaint, discoloration, flaking, and crumbling around the fills.  The abraded surface was almost ghost-like in some areas and the face of one man in the foreground was completely lost.  The painting was stabilized using sturgeon glue.  During removal of the varnish layers, Kristin did not have to worry about solubility issues.**  Once the painting was given an isolation layer of MS2A varnish, losses were filled using a mixture of Aquazol 200 and Modostuc.  To begin the inpainting process Kristin  isolated the painting with MS2A and then used pigmented micropens under magnification to conduct a painstaking recreation of the abraded areas.  The damaged background was reinforced with thin HB micro graphite sticks.

A question and answer session followed Kristin’s presentation and someone asked what additional theories she may have regarding the cause of the fine lines.  Kristin said she has a few weak theories.  One theory is that the penpainting was put in the sun to bleach and dry, during which time the black ink may have absorbed more heat and created the lines.  Her second theory was that a slower drying oil like walnut or poppy may have left the grounds soft and created uneven drying which could have led to the raised lines.  She stressed that more study is necessary.

I thought this was a very interesting presentation and look forward to hearing about future developments in the study of Willem van de Velde’s penschilderij.

 

 

* A past study by David Freedberg, Aviva Burnstock, and Alan Phenix refer to these works as penschilderijen.  Since I am not fluent in dutch, nor an expert on penpainting, I deferred to the spelling used by Kristin deGhetaldi.

** The question of solubility was raised during the question and answer session, to which Kristin replied she detected absolutely no solubility issues in the materials of the penpainting, especially since the painting had already been subjected to harsh overcleaning in the past.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Treatment of Izhar Patkin’s ‘The Black Paintings’–Collaboration and Compromise” by Jennifer Hickey

Israeli-American artist Izhar Patkin’s work combines traditional painting and sculpture with nontraditional techniques.  In 1986 he completed his work, The Black Paintings, a series of twenty-two pleated neoprene panels painted with images based on Jean Genet’s play, “The Blacks: A clown show.”  The 14′ long panels hang side by side to create a 28′ x 22′ installation.  Recently, the sculpture and painting conservation departments at the Museum of Modern Art in New York collaborated to address the treatment of this work.  Jennifer Hickey presented the challenges, philosophy, and compromises of the project to the Paintings Specialty Group.

When conservators took on The Black Paintings they were met with a host of interesting challenges.  The first set of issues had to do with the materials.  Neoprene is a stable synthetic rubber that maintains its flexibility over time and wide temperature variations.  It is not an ideal substrate for painting because of its flexibility and the size and weight of each panel exacerbated that problem.  The artist was aware of those issues and used spray paint and vinyl paint under the assumption that the spray paint would crack while the vinyl paint would remain flexible.  Unfortunately, the expected interactions of the materials proved false as the entire painted surface cracked and flaked with the stretch of the neoprene.  The cracking and losses were compounded by the handling required to deinstall and reinstall the panels each time they were exhibited.

The physical incompatibility of the neoprene and paint media was not the only problem.  Neoprene is often coated with a talcum-based release agent to keep it from being sticky.  The application of the talc leaves a hazy gray surface that the artist liked so he painted on it without removing the coating or preparing the surface with another material.  Therefore, the release agent that kept the neoprene from being sticky also acted as a release agent for the paint media.

Conservators were also faced with challenges that went beyond the materials.  Izhar Patkin is a living, working artist so conservators were able to consult him during the assessment and planning stages of the project.  This may sound like a blessing if we consider all the times we’ve wished for input on a complicated project from its creator.  However, it can be a double-edged sword and that was the case with The Black Paintings.

As previously mentioned, Patkin was aware that the painted surfaces would deteriorate and enjoyed the nonstatic idea it presented.  He chose his materials to encourage that deterioration and scratched into the paint to initiate the process.  He also appreciated how the heat of the installation space intensified the smell of the neoprene.  Perhaps it was serendipitous that such heat adds to the risk of instability in paint films.  Conversations with the artist allowed conservators to understand where he’d intended damage and deterioration, which guided their treatment decisions.  At the same time they ran into complications during their discussions.  For example, the artist and conservators used the word “craquelure” to describe different phenomena and the conservators had to contend with impractical suggestions from the artist.

In the end the treatment of The Black Paintings was limited to triage with the understanding that maintenance treatment will be required each time the panels are unrolled.  Conservators designed a cleaning system that accounted for the sensitivities of the solvent based paints and avoided heat, which could have compromised the rubber.  The panels were hung and then gradually lowered to a table for access, at which point they were cautiously dry cleaned and a very time consuming consolidation was undertaken using an acrylic emulsion adhesive.  An old interleaving was replaced with finely woven undyed cotton and permanent cleats were secured to the tops of each panel.  At that point the panels were rerolled and stored.  A manual was prepared to instruct all individuals on the proper handling during all future installations and deinstallations.

This was a very complicated project that illustrated many of the issues that arise when dealing with modern and contemporary artworks and the involvement of a living artist.  A question and answer session following the presentation continued to highlight the gray areas surrounding these kinds of treatments.

One conservator asked Ms. Hickey why they chose to roll the panels with the paint side facing inward rather than out because of the added risk it posed to the already unstable paint.  Ms. Hickey explained that the size and weight of the panels necessitated this compromise because they were too large and heavy to flip over once the panel was unrolled.  Rolling them in this way may risk the paint but significantly reduced the level of handling and resulting unavoidable losses.

A second question posed to Ms. Hickey was whether or not they thought of alternatives to the permanent cleats because rolling the paintings with the cleats creates a risk.  When Ms. Hickey explained that the budget of the project would not allow other preferable but more expensive alternatives she was asked if they considered the fact that additional costs at present could maintain value in the piece and curtail future treatment costs.  Ms. Hickey addressed this question with great poise by reminding us all that conservators do not always have the final say when it comes to the cost of a treatment and sometimes we must find the best compromise available within our limitations.

This was an excellent presentation and I hope it will lead to continued discussions regarding the issues that arise in these kinds of complicated projects.

AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting (2012): The Great Debate – Part II

If you read the previous Great Debate Part I post feel free to skip this introduction and jump down to the meat of the post, the team’s statements below,…

Kudos go to Richard McCoy, Conservator of Objects & Variable Art at the Indianapolis Museum of Art for instigating and moderating the first Great Debate at the AIC 2012 Annual Meeting.  This session consisted of two Oxford-Style Debate sessions of 30 minutes each on a chosen topic.  Each debate session consisted of initial presentations from each team, then members of the audience were allowed to ask questions and each debate team was given time to respond, followed by closing arguments.  Before the debate the audience was polled by a show of hands on who agreed or disagreed with the statement.  After the debate the audience was asked whose opinions were swayed so that a winning team could be chosen.  This method for choosing a winner elicited some amusing debate in and of itself with Richard exclaiming in mock exasperation “You are supposed to debate each other – not me!”

This dry introduction doesn’t represent the fun and excitement that ensued during the actual debate.  I can’t remember any sessions at previous AIC meetings that elicited raucous laughter, huge applause, and cheers and boos from the crowded room.  Richard projected a huge stopwatch on the screen to time the statements and I can only imagine how nervous it made the debaters because it got my pulse racing just watching it!  Richard was very clear that debaters were chosen for their willingness to participate and were not necessarily representing their personal views on the topics.  This was notably pointed out in a “gotcha” moment when the Affirmative team asked Negative Team member Hugh Shockey if he would be willing to go without the fabulous microscope stand donated by a tour visitor!

The participants must be complemented on their willingness to put themselves forward and get into the spirit with a bit of trash talking and theatrics (Hugh’s dark glasses and Richard’s big (read geeky) floppy bow tie.  I think this exemplified that it is possible to debate topics of real importance within our profession and professional society without rancor or taking ourselves too seriously. This session was clearly a crowd favorite and I hope it will be repeated at future meetings.    Below is the statement for the second debate topic and text or talking points from the two teams.  The second debate will be included in a separate post.  Please feel free to weigh in yourself by commenting here on the blog.

TOPIC #2: Having conservators perform treatments in the gallery is the most successful way to generate funding for museums and raise awareness about the profession

For the affirmative:

  • Vanessa Muros
  • Camille Breeze
  • Kristen Adsit

 Opening Statement:

Obviously having conservators perform treatments in the public eye is the best way to raise awareness of the profession and funds for an institution.

These exhibitions cause more people to visit the institution.  In 2006 before they started performing in-gallery treatments, the UK conservation nonprofit National Trust had 35,000 annual visitors.  6 years into a campaign to prioritize in-gallery treatments whenever possible, they now average 72,000, an over 50% increase in visitorship.

In-gallery treatment gets the undivided attention of visitors, and engage people more fully than is possible with other outreach methods. The interpersonal interaction with a conservator is also more impactful than a more mediated method of outreach, such as videos or publications.

In-gallery treatments demystify the role of the professional conservator and the process of caring for our cultural heritage. Even other workers inside the institution can understand the role of the conservator in a new way when they are able to witness a treatment in process, as paintings conservators at the Indianapolis Museum of Art pointed out after their 2009 in-gallery treatment of Sebastiano Mainardi’s 1507 altarpiece.

These interventions further generate public interest through increased press coverage of such treatments. According to Suzanne Thomassen-Krauss, the lead conservator of the National Museum of American History’s public treatment of the Star Spangled Banner, that project generated more than 1,500 clips in national and international newspapers, radio and TV.

This is a great way to showcase the complexity and centrality of the conservators role in the museum.  Once you have engaged an audience, you have the opportunity to create a complete and nuanced understanding of our work.  However you will only get that chance if you first have their attention, and the best way to get that attention is by performing in-gallery treatments.

Public conservation treatments directly generate funds for the museum.

  • A great example of this comes from this year’s Angels project at the San Miguel chapel in Santa Fe. The project manager Jake told me of a donor who both gave money and volunteered his time as a direct result of seeing the restoration work that was already taking place.
  • As our opponent Hugh Shockey should know, the first fellowship at the Lunder Center was funded by a donor who saw Amber Kerr-Allison treating a painting

Giving to support in-gallery treatments amounts to more bang for your buck.  It not only enables a specific conservation intervention to be performed, but it also amounts to funding for education and outreach.

This can generate goodwill within the conservator’s institution since other departments such as education and marketing also benefit from the in-gallery treatment project.  That kind of goodwill can help enable the Conservation department to achieve other goals.

In-gallery treatments demonstrate that funding for conservation is a good return on investment. By showing the painstaking process of treatment, documentation and outreach, it demonstrates to the viewer that we’re multifaceted professionals who much be resourceful, and why treatment can take so much time.

And the results of your donation are tangible, which further engages donor and allows some ownership of their donation and the project

Honestly, how can they argue against this? What else could be more effective at raising awareness of the profession than showing and talking to people about what we do?  What other means of giving benefits the donor and the institution more?

 

For the negative:

  • Suzanne Davis
  • Hugh Shockey
  • Sharra Grow

Opening Statement:

Having conservators perform treatments in the gallery is NOT the most successful way to generate funding for museums and raise awareness about the profession.

Because:

  • The quality of treatment done on site is never the same as that done in the lab, therefore, conservation is at a disadvantage at representing itself in the galleries.
  • What kind of awareness do we want the visiting audience to have?
  • By treating artwork in the gallery, visitors have a skewed understating of where/how conservation is done, taken out of the context of the studio/lab where all needed supplies and conditions are provided for the best treatment… for example, working away from the organization of the lab presents treatment as disorganized and haphazard as it requires frequent shuttling of tools and materials not originally anticipated for conducting treatment
  • The experience and perception of each visitor is dependent on interaction with the conservator leaving accurate understanding of the treatment outside the conservator’s control if the visitor chooses not to interact. Seeing a work mid-treatment denies the visitor the opportunity to experience it as intended by the maker. Without a full understanding of what they are seeing, they can question the stewardship of the museum in caring for its collection.
  • The stress of managing treatment and public interaction necessarily creates a distraction, which misrepresents treatment protocol, and neither treatment nor public interaction are done to the best of the conservator’s ability.

Further, we would ask; who is the target audience when doing treatment in the gallery?

  •  Conservation on display in the galleries cannot generate awareness on its own without addition publicity channels, as visitation to the museum is already limited to self-selected patrons, thus negating the idea that conservation in the galleries is what generates awareness.
  • In addition, the giving potential of the visiting public is limited and is therefore not an ideal source of fundraising, as it is widely understood that wealthy individual patrons are more capable of supporting the expensive endeavor of conservation. And public display minimizes the incentive for higher level donors seeking exclusive access and experience in the museum.

Today we are not debating whether or not treatment in the galleries may be a nice idea and possibly worth pursuing. We are arguing whether or not performing treatments in the gallery is the most successful way to (1) generate funding and (2) raise awareness about the profession. Our points clearly show above that it is NOT.

RESULTS…

As with the first topic, the majority of the room’s packed audience agreed with the Negative Team when polled before the debate.  Yet once again, the Affirmative Team won the debate as the “after” poll showed that they convinced more people to change their opinion.  I did ask a question of the debaters and and said that I personally am not sure whether in gallery treatments are the “best” way but every institution I’ve worked out brought their big ticket donors into the lab for VIP tours so it seems to me that Development Officers find what we do to be compelling at bringing in the funds!  The Negative team nimbly stepped around my question and answered the question that they wanted to answer!  But I must admit that I love working in the gallery and interacting with the public.  I find that some visitors are very insightful and knowledgeable and others ask questions that are completely inane.  It is a good reminder that we have lots of audiences at any given museum or site and that we have to figure out ways to serve them and the collections.   Have you worked in a visible conservation lab or done in gallery treatments? Let us know about your experiences!