Thanks to museums that publicize our projects and the growing acceptance of on-site treatments, conservation is increasingly in the public eye. But these efforts can only reach so many people, and they tend to be temporary events or installations. Nowadays, we have a way to spread information to the interested reader, however far away they might be, and to archive information for far longer than is usually possible in the physical world. Thus, the question becomes: since knowledge can be disseminated and stored this way, if it can’t be accessed that way, does that research really exist?
Hence, the growing importance of a conservation project website.
First to be discussed is the Kress Technical Art History website (artcons.udel.edu/about/kress). The site approaches a discussion of conservation by focusing on an in-depth exploration of methods and techniques, built around the painting reconstructions completed by Kristin and Brian. Each reconstruction has a section of the website, with a different page for each layer of the painting, but they also have a physical life that also educates: The originals are distributed to museums along with pigment kits, to be used as didactic tools in museum galleries. The website has additional informational pages that cover historical materials and techniques, examination and scientific methods, a vocabulary primer, and links to other resources, including painting reconstructions done by other people. The depth of the website is frankly astounding, as every page seems to link to more detail and further research: from the Historical Methods/Techniques, you can click “inorganic pigments” and find a slideshow of the raw materials being prepared, a PDF of a chronological list of pigment usage, and a link to a video showing the extraction of lapis lazuli. Not only is this a valuable resource for anyone diving into historical painting techniques, but interested pre-programmers will find its resources invaluable for Winterthur’s “copy, reproduction or reconstruction” portfolio requirement.
The second project to be covered was the two-year conservation of the monumental Triumph of David at Villanova. The project’s website (thetriumphofdavid.com) combines not only a timeline of the treatment but a walkthrough of its restoration steps, in-depth reporting on the scientific analysis done, and the ability to view different stages of work and analysis as segments of the whole image. Kristin pointed out that while many institutions are wary of publicizing such sensitive information about the state of their artwork, the Triumph had literally no reputation to uphold: its original assessment had marked it as an insurance loss. The transparency of the Triumph project is refreshing: discussing the decision-making process behind each step and explaining current methodologies. The website is an experiment in laying out a painting’s history on the table, pointing out where there’s room for more research, and inviting the next participants to the table.
Kristin closed the talk with the introduction of MITRA (Materials Information and Technical Resource for Artists). Conceived as a revival of the much-missed AMIEN forum, it will connect artists, conservators, scientists, and educators to discuss best practices. As an interactive forum, hopefully it will become a well of expertise to draw upon when confronted with the misinformation that plagues much of the internet. Though the forum will initially focus on paintings, it will expand as it grows to cover a wide range of topics—wider than its predecessor—including contemporary art materials and concerns, textiles, sculpture, storage, murals, photography, and whatever else the public clamors for, I expect. It will be hosted by the University of Delaware when it is launched, hopefully in the Fall of 2016.
Category: Paintings Conservation
44th Annual Meeting – Research and Technical Studies Session, May 16, "Looking Closer, Seeing More: Recent Developments in the Technical Documentation of Paintings", by Ron Spronk
In the morning session on May 16th, Ron Spronk, Professor of Art History in the Art Conservation Program at Queen’s University, shared his experiences with several recent endeavors to standardize the technical documentation of paintings and to make the resulting information both accessible and user-friendly.
Followers of the Rembrandt Research Project will be familiar with the missions of the projects Spronk describes in that they each generally aim to comprehensively study the oeuvre of a single artist. However, the crucial difference is that the more recent ventures are web-based, open-access, and shareable, and they are highly reliant on the compilation and comparison of images obtained using consistent methods across institutional boundaries.
Spronk spoke first about Closer to Van Eyck: Rediscovering the Ghent Altarpiece, an initiative made possible through the partnership of many organizations, including the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK/IRPA), the Getty Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. During the presentation, Spronk briefly toured the audience through the website, which is beautifully user-friendly and self-explanatory. Definitions are available for each of the analytical techniques used, and it is also possible to download condition, materials research, and dendrochronology reports.
The follow-up website, Even Closer to Van Eyck, is set to launch shortly and will focus more on the treatment of the altarpiece. As the Getty Foundation website pronounces, “This second phase of the Van Eyck project will incorporate high-resolution images produced during and after the full conservation of the altarpiece, which is currently underway. The web application is expected to set new standards for digital projects related to art history and conservation by providing access to the decision-making process for the treatment of the altarpiece and by disseminating the open-source technology behind the website to the museum community.” Another extension of the Closer to Van Eyck website is VERONA, or Van Eyck Research in OpeN Access, which has aimed to study and document all paintings securely attributed to Van Eyck in a standardized manner. The resulting scholarship will be published online.
The Bosch Research and Conservation Project similarly attempts to consistently document the entire oeuvre of Hieronymus Bosch and includes restoration of nine works. Several structural treatments were supported by the Getty Panel Painting Initiative. The Bosch website shows three works represented by high-resolution photographs in normal light, infrared images, and X-radiographs, with a three-pane slider moving between them. Spronk described the method by which all of the images were obtained using a window frame, which lets the camera remain completely parallel, and showed a video demonstrating the documentation process. A larger website application is set to be launched at an indeterminate date.
Although not covered during the presentation, the abstract also lists the “Hand of the Master on panels by Pieter Bruegel the Elder,” a comprehensive workshop on Bruegel that took place at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna from November 24-25, 2015. The workshop program and a presentation by Angela Cerasuolo on The Parable of the Blind and The Misanthrope in the Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples may be found on Academia.edu.
In searching for these websites after Spronk’s presentation, it became clear that these projects are all very much in progress, and only partial information is, as of yet, available. However, these endeavors appear to be extremely promising. The Even Closer to Van Eyck website in particular is eagerly anticipated because it will share the methodology used to treat the altarpiece. Much as the altarpiece during treatment is itself on display, this website should set a new precedent for transparency and should further raise public awareness of conservation activities. The founding concept of comprehensive, standardized, and open-access documentation on which these projects are based presents an encouraging model that will hopefully one day become more common practice, providing greater opportunities for interdisciplinary research and collaboration.
44th Annual Meeting – Paintings Specialty Group Tips Session, May 17
This year’s Paintings Tips session focused predominantly on a range of commercial products that can be adapted for specific uses in paintings conservation.
Gordon A. Lewis, Jr. recommended powerful LED and UV flashlights for examination of paintings in-situ, which are available from Amazon.com. In addition to other uses, he demonstrated the suitability of these lights for transmitting a strong light through the back of a canvas to reveal tears and other structural issues.
Dina Anchin introduced the audience to the ProScope Micro Mobile, a hand-held, high-resolution microscope that attaches to one’s phone and allows the capture of photomicrographs. This is particularly useful when examining paintings in-situ or on research visits.
Alexa Beller presented on behalf of herself and Joyce Hill Stoner on miniature “Humidification Chambers,” using a moistened blotter placed within the lid of a pigment capsule (such as used for a palette of dry pigments) and positioned over the area of the painting requiring humidification.
Josh Summer recommended miniature hand mixers or milk frothers as a helpful and inexpensive tool for preparing emulsions and gels.
Erin Stephenson presented on behalf of Sarah Gowen, who has researched and tested a number of materials potentially suitable for filling cradled panel paintings prior to obtaining an X-radiograph. These fillers include Elvacite 2045, Elavacite 2044, Elvacite 2046, Poly(vinyl alcohol), Butvar B-76, Paraloid B-72, and wood flour. Of this list, Sarah recommends Elvacite 2045, as other materials tend to clump, are too visible in the X-radiograph, or produce slippery residues.
Claire Winfield described the recipe for a “milkshake” paintable fill (1 part Modostuc or spackle, 1 part acrylic gesso, dry pigment and water to taste), so-named because it is mixed to the consistency of a milkshake. This fill material can then be brush-applied within areas of loss and is particularly useful in retaining some canvas texture.
Gwen Manthey pointed out that many websites including Pinterest show helpful flat-lay pack methods when packing tools for on-site conservation work. She also mentioned that shaving brushes are often made of badger hair, and shaving product companies can be a useful source for these brushes.
Judy Dion presented a number of product recommendations, including washer head screws for attaching backing boards (such as Teks Lath Screws), a muffin cooling fan for low solvent extraction from studio spaces, and small LED spotlights with flexible necks for microscope work . Judy also demonstrated the use of a T-track for clamping, easel construction, or a height-adjustable armrest for working on large paintings.
Rustin Levinson spoke about the recent construction at ArtCare Inc. of a mobile paintings storage rack consisting of marine ply and PVC with clear vinyl flooring. The entire rack can be covered and moved around the studio.
Rob Proctor recommended a number of tools, including 1 mL calibrated glass droppers and vacuum nozzles adapted as handles for burnishers. To minimize shock to a painting during structural treatments, he also demonstrated using a nail pusher to insert tacks and using a clamp to gently push in keys.
A few attendees volunteered last-minute tips, including a portable Miroir projector for on-the-go presentations, and the brand Muji for black Q-tips, useful for testing sensitivity of light-colored paint passages.
The session ended with an update from Elise Clifford about the Reverse of Paintings Database being developed at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. The completed database will allow users with a login to upload and search information related to the reverse of painting such as labels, canvas stamps, and stencils. If you are interested in participating in beta-testing of the website, you are invited to email Elise.
Thank you to all of the presenters for such valuable tips!
AIC 44th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 15, “The Painting Materials and Techniques of J.E.H. MacDonald: Oil Sketches from 1909-1922” presented by Kate Helwig, Senior Conservation Scientist at CCI, and Alison Douglas, Conservator at the McMichael Canadian Art Collection
Conservation scientists at the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) continue to examine artists’ works and contribute each year to the growing database of information on Canadian artists’ working methods and materials.
One of their latest projects is the characterization of the materials used by painter J.E.H. MacDonald (1873-1932). The study looks at the supports, grounds and paint formulations MacDonald used during the period 1909-1922. This study compliments an important retrospective of the artist’s work planned for 2018 at the McMichael Collection of Canadian Art.
MacDonald was a founding member of the famed cohort of Canadian landscape painters known as the Group of Seven, and was closely associated with the celebrated painters, Lawren Harris and Tom Thomson
In all, 32 works from Ontario museum collections were examined, comprising 11 oil paintings and 21 oil sketches. The goal of this study is to gain a better understanding of the artist’s working methods and materials, and to assemble some reference data to help attribute works of uncertain date or origin. This particular presentation focused on observations and results from 13 of these works.
Throughout the period under study, MacDonald used a variety of rigid painting supports, including fiberboard, pulpboard, laminated pulpboard, and thin bookbinder’s board, which may have been his preferred support.
The study reveals that there was a shift in the size of the support he favoured through this period. Early works before 1914 were varied in size, often small, less than 7 x 9 inches. Through the years 1914-1917, he often chose a standard 8 x 10 inch format, and after 1918 he chose a slightly larger size, 8.5 x 10.5 inches, which was also the size favoured by his friend Tom Thomson, who died mysteriously in 1917.
This change in size of the support was also paralleled by a gradual change in his preparatory layers and painting technique. A variety of materials were found in the grounds of his early works. Sometimes he employed coloured double grounds. After 1918, he abandoned traditional grounds, preferring simply to seal the board surfaces with shellac. It was noted that this layer could prove to be solvent-sensitive during future varnish removal operations.
There was a gradual shift in his painting technique as well: his palette changed from muted colours, layered wet into wet, to a bolder paint application. By 1918 in his Algoma paintings, the brushstrokes are more confident and vigorous, often applied using complimentary-coloured paint strokes. An interesting feature of these works is the fact he often left the support or underlayers visible at the edges of his brushstrokes. Bold outlines of oil paint underdrawing are also sometimes seen through the brush strokes of the upper layers of paint.
Paint pigments and fillers were also characterized for the paintings and sketches studied. MacDonald’s paints were generally complex mixtures made of multiple colours, composed of 2 or 3 main colours, adjusted by the presence of small amounts of 2 or 3 more colours. A distinguishing element of his favoured palette include a characteristic mixture of lead sulfate and zinc oxide for his whites – a mixture that was commonly used by Tom Thomson and members of the Group of Seven. This particular white is likely the new “Flake White” paint manufactured by the renowned British colourmen, Madderton & Co. (founded by A.P. Laurie) used for its Cambridge Colours paints that were sold worldwide in the first three decades of the 20th century. Viridian was the only truly green pigment the artist used, while various blues and yellows were also combined to make other shades of green. Yellows, blacks, reds and blues were also characterized. Of interest is the bright yellow paint, likely a Winsor and Newton tube paint, since it contained chrome yellow and a magnesium carbonate filler, materials not found together in the Cambridge paints line.
The publication of this information on MacDonald’s materials will be a welcome contribution to the advancement of our knowledge of the artist’s working methods. This information will also be essential as scientists begin to examine and ponder the materials used in a controversial group of small oil sketches that were purportedly buried for decades on the artist’s estate, before they finally entered (in recent months) the collection of a major Canadian institution. Tip of the iceberg indeed…
43rd Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 15, "Rediscovering Renoir: Materials and technique in the paintings of Pierre-Auguste Renoir at the Art Institute of Chicago" by Kelly Keegan
Renoir is one of those art historical giants that I’m sometimes guilty of overlooking, simply because of how frequently his imagery appears in contemporary culture. An upcoming treatment of a Renoir painting at work, though, meant that it was high time to take a closer look. Fortunately, Kelly Keegan of the Art Institute of Chicago gave a fantastic presentation on “Rediscovering Renoir” at the 2015 AIC conference, which was brimming with details about the artist’s materials and techniques, and beautiful photomicrographs and graphics.
The presentation was a summary of findings from the in-depth technical study of Renoir’s 15 paintings at the Art Institute of Chicago, conducted as part of the Online Scholarly Catalog Initiative. Examination techniques included x-radiography; infrared, transmitted light, and ultraviolet imaging; x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy; scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy; polarized light microscopy, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy; thread counting; and, of course, lots and lots of looking under the microscope.
Renoir was both less and more methodical than I expected. For example of the former, he didn’t have a reliable art supply merchant. His canvases ranged in fineness, and thread counting demonstrated that they never came from the same bolt of cloth. Although most of the paintings are now lined and on non-original stretchers, seven canvas stamps from four different suppliers were found. His ground layers were usually white or off-white, with dragged inclusions and palette knife marks indicating application by the artist. The use of the palette knife often exposed the tops of the canvas weave.
Renoir’s compositional planning shows his meticulous side. Even the highly impressionistic work Chrysanthemums includes a graphite underdrawing with individual petals. The artist varied his preparatory drawing medium, using dry media, blue or brown paint, or red lake washes. Slight adjustments were common, and a dramatic change was discovered in Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise, the catalog cover image: an isolated two-person encounter was initially depicted, but the final product has three figures. Later in Renoir’s career, infrared examination shows the debilitating effect that rheumatoid arthritis had on his once-confident draftsman’s hand.
Renoir’s color palette included vivid pigments, including emerald green, cobalt blue, various bright yellows (see image above), vermilion, and red lakes, in addition to iron oxides. One color he considered an “unnecessary purchase” was yellow ochre, which he ironically preferred to mix himself using much more expensive pigments. Although he did a lot of blending on the painting, he kept his brush clean to prevent muddying of the colors. In contrast to most other Impressionists, Renoir’s paint layers are quite thin relative to the ground layer. The influence of his teenage training as a porcelain painter is evident in his use of thin glazes, especially with luminescent red lakes over white ground. He used a palette knife at times to scrape away layers and create texture in the interstices of the canvas weave.
This presentation was chock full of technical information and interesting quirks about Renoir that not only make me feel more prepared to approach a Renoir treatment, but also give me a much better appreciation for an artist that deserves a close look. His work shines under the microscope and when considering the individual behind the paintings. The Online Scholarly Catalogs are a wonderful resource, and I’m grateful to have gotten Keegan’s dynamic overview of the Renoir content.
43rd Annual Meeting – Joint Painting Specialty Group and Research and Technical Studies Session, May 14, “Franz Kline’s Paintings: Black and White?“ by Zahira Veliz Bomford, Corina Rogge, and Maite Leal
Three works by Franz Kline in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston were discussed with regard to their condition and construction: Wotan (1950), Orange and Black Wall (1959), and Corinthian II (1961). While the first two paintings exhibit alarming craquelure and flaking, the latter is in good condition. Rogge details the Museum’s investigation into the circumstances which lead to such differing states of preservation, presenting a clear, thoughtful look at Kline’s working methods and legacy.
Prior to this study, it was suspected that condition issues stemmed at least in part from the presence of zinc white, which Kline is known to have used; however, the causes of instability were not quite so “black and white.” The three aforementioned paintings were examined using a range of analytical methods, and an array of inherent vices were identified, including underbound paint, zinc/lead soaps, interaction with the gelatin sizing in the canvas, the thickness of paint layers, and the use of poor quality canvas. Kline also seems to have modified commercial paints.
It was found that Kline’s methods of layering paint and use of various materials was crucial to each painting’s relative (in)stability. It was suggested additionally that Woton’s integrity was compromised due at least in part to transportation. In the presentation, an animated map charted the painting’s transit, making the point of how excessively well traveled the work has been during its somewhat brief lifetime.
While treatment options for the paintings discussed were and are limited by inherent vice, the work undertaken to specify the various forces at play was remarkable: this talk above all highlighted the incredible ability we have today to begin to unravel the complexity of intertwined degradation mechanisms.
43rd Annual Meeting – Painting Specialty Group, May 15, “The Treatment of Dr. William Hartigan by Gilbert Stuart or the Treatment of Gilbert Stuart by Dr. William Hartigan,” by Joanna Dunn
Joanna Dunn presented an engaging paper centered on the treatment, history, and analysis of a painting by Gilbert Stuart at the National Gallery of Art. I was particularly interested in hearing about this treatment in detail, having seen the portrait in the late stages of inpainting in the fall of 2014.
The work’s label tentatively proposes the identity of the sitter as Dr. William Hartigan(?), a doctor who apocryphally saved Stuart’s dominant arm after the artist sustained an injury. According to the narrative, after his recovery, Stuart painted the doctor’s portrait out of gratitude. Thereafter follows an entertaining history of the painting’s subsequent owners, ending with the work entering the collection of the National Gallery of Art in 1942.
During varnish and overpaint removal, an object resembling a large apothecary jar was partially revealed behind the sitter: the presence of the jar supports the identification of the subject as a man of medicine. This discovery prompted cross sectional analysis of paint samples from the work and sparked Dunn’s investigation into the nature of multiple copies after the painting. The analysis showed that the artist had partially painted over the apothecary jar, but it was unclear to what extent he would have intended the object to be completely hidden and whether its visibility would have been affected by past treatments or the increased translucency of the paint over time. Additional questions centered on whether the original format of the composition was oval or rectangular. The clues offered by three extant copies towards answering these lines of inquiry were unfortunately largely circumstantial.
In the end, the treatment needed to be completed, and Dunn chose the most logical and likely path in light of the gathered evidence: the apothecary jar was left partially visible, and the composition remained in an oval format. Given the number of options deliberated during the treatment of the portrait, this presentation fit most aptly within the theme of “Making Conservation Work.” The wordplay in the title of this talk and Dunn’s humorous tone when reflecting about the sheer number of factors to consider in carrying out this treatment complimented her content and underscored the oftentimes futility of efforts to determine an ideal or concrete solution in conservation.
43rd Annual Meeting – “Investigating Softening and Dripping Paints in Oil Paintings Made Between 1952 and 2007” by Ida Antonia Tank Bronken and Jaap J. Boon, May 14
Issues encountered during analysis and treatment of contemporary artworks by conservation scientists, conservators, and other professionals have been brought into the limelight during recent years. Both in the United States and throughout the world, contemporary art collections have introduced new concerns regarding the use of modern materials, artists’ intent, and so on. Even the modern use of materials such as oil paints have demonstrated conservation issues. During this presentation, Bronken described her team’s research into oil paintings (created after 1950) which have exhibited softening and dripping media. The team’s research was conducted on works produced by Jean-Paul Riopelle (Canadian, 1923-2002), Pierre Soulages (French, b. 1919), Georges Matthieu (French, 1921-2012), Paul-Émile Borduas (Canadian, 1905-1960), Frank Van Hemert (Dutch, b. 1956), Paul Walls (Irish, b. 1965), Jonathan Meese (German, b. 1970), and Tal R (Danish, b. 1967).
Softened paint shows decreased surface gloss in normal light and drip material fluoresces in ultraviolet light (sometimes misinterpreted as fluorescing varnish). Softening/dripping impasto and thickly applied paints are easier to identify, but analysis has demonstrated the presence of softening in thinner paint layers as well. Possible causes of this phenomenon are the use of semi-drying oils in recent decades and the development of fatty acids in paint. In their abstract, the authors mention: “There is ample evidence from a number of paints studied by mass spectrometry that the exudates are rich in polar fractions with triglycerides with moieties of mid-chain oxygen-functionalised stearic acids and azelaic acids . . . observations led to the hypothesis that exudation is caused by a loss or absence of anchor sites for the acidic fractions that develop over time.”1
Lead II acetate and europium II acetate were tested by brush and gel application. These compounds treated the softening and dripping oil paint at the molecular level by penetrating into the sample to create carboxylates and forming a hard crust on the paint surface. Brush application was determined to be the most effective method. At this time, the only disadvantage appears to be the lack of reversibility.
About the Speakers
Ida Antonia Tank Bronken, Touring Exhibitions Coordinator, The National Museum, Norway
Bronken graduated from the University of Oslo with a Candidata Magisterii in Fine Art Conservation (2002) and a Masters in Conservation (2009). Bronken has been working for the Touring Exhibitions Department at the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design in Norway since 2011. Her main interests are collection management and chemical change in modern paint. Bronken has cooperated with Boon since 2007 on different studies on softening and dripping paint, and has contributed to four papers since 2013 about dripping paint (currently at different stages of publication and review).2
Jaap J. Boon, JAAP Enterprise for Art Scientific Studies
Boon, PhD was trained in Geology and Chemistry at the Universities of Amsterdam, Utrecht and Delft Technical University (1978). He became Head of Molecular Physics at the FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics (1987) and Professor of Molecular Palaeobotany at the University of Amsterdam (1988). His first survey studies on painting materials and traditional paints were performed in 1991, which resulted in collaborative research with Tate Gallery London, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Limburg Conservation Studio (SRAL) in Maastricht and EU supported development projects. His research focus changed gradually from identification of constituents towards chemical microscopy and spectroscopic imaging of pigments, binding media and their interactions in paintings. Boon was Professor of Analytical Mass Spectrometry in the University of Amsterdam (2003-2009) and is presently author/coauthor of about 400 research papers and supervised 33 PhD theses. Boon received the KNAW Gilles Holst Gold Medal for his innovative work at the cross roads of chemistry and physics in 2007.3
1 Bronken, I., & Boon J. J. (2015). Investigating Softening and Dripping Paints in Oil Paintings Made Between 1952 and 2007 [Abstract]. AIC Annual Meeting 2015 Abstracts, 81-82.
2 Bronken, I. (2015). Ida Bronken – AIC’s 43rd Annual Meeting [SCHED Speakers]. Retrieved from https://aics43rdannualmeeting2015.sched.org/speaker/ida_antonia_tank_bronken.1t1j0ku0
3 Boon, J. J. (2015). Jaap J. Boon – AIC’s 43rd Annual Meeting [SCHED Speakers]. Retrieved from https://aics43rdannualmeeting2015.sched.org/artist/boon1
AIC 43rd Annual Meeting Paintings Specialty Group Session, Friday, May 15, 2015 “Fracture or Facture: Interpreting Intent During the Treatment and Analysis of Georges Braque’s AJAX” by Allison Langley
mixed media on paper mounted on canvas,
180 x 72 cm, Bequest of Florene May Schoenborn,
Art Institute of Chicago
Allison Langley gave a fascinating and comprehensive presentation on how the research and technical analysis conducted by she and her colleagues, Francesca Casadio and Ken Sutherland led to treatment decisions on a mixed media painting done by Georges Braque late in his career, AJAX. Allison’s description of Braque’s use of materials on this and other of his paintings, his working methods and evidence gleaned from pigment analysis and period photos wove a wonderful tapestry that provided the audience with a rich and intimate understanding of the creative process of this modern master.
The paintings primary support is paper mounted to two canvases on a stretcher. The subject, a mythological figure, is an example of the artist’s fascination with the subject in this period of his career and is related to a group of etchings by Braque of mythological figures in black and white. Ajax is depicted in profile in black against a white background. The white ground layer, identified as lead is intentionally exposed on some areas of the design. The painting demonstrates Braque’s interest in surface variations which, in this case, resulted from the artist’s reworking of the painting over a number of years, between 1948 and 1953. Photos of the artist’s studio showed AJAX among other works and illustrate the fact that the artist was known to work on several paintings at once, perhaps every day and would return to work on some paintings months and years later often reworking his compositions. An anecdote to this scenario was the fact that GCMS of a burnt umber paint showed nicotine in the paint!
The original delineation of AJAX was executed in a thin, black paint identified as carbon black. Its gouache appearance was confirmed as containing pine resin and gum. Original reworkings of the composition over old losses demonstrate that the painting had insecurities early on, while in the artist’s studio. Reworkings, often in the form of drips and splatters cover large losses, some on the figure. The authors were able to identify older and newer losses and cracking in the paint film.
Analysis of reworkings over losses show changes to Braque’s palette in his late career. Visible brushwork and drips that were later additions were identified using GCMS: he added mars red with impasto, the addition of a light green passage in the upper right which wrinkled upon drying contains ochre and Prussian blue, added loops of white were identified as containing zinc and titanium and Hansa yellow was found in highlights. A dark grey showed iron with black.
These technical insights contributed to the notion that Braque played arbitrary games with the image as it evolved. Loops, wet drips and other passages show an idiosyncratic application of paint with varying surface characteristics. The figure “8” was added later as it is not visible in older photos and he painted over the word “AJAX” in the lower right. The additions added ever greater variations in the surface sheen. These variations are preserved by the artist by avoiding a final, overall varnish layer. Braque even left a warning to future conservators with his inscription on the reverse: “Ne Pas Varnis”.
Critical to the development of the treatment protocol for the painting was the need to consolidate insecurities without disturbing the delicate balance of varied sheen and texture on the surface. Braque accepted some losses as adding texture. High resolution scans were overlapped provided a map where losses could be compared. The old photos aided in the interpretation. A 4% solution of ethulose (ethylhydroxyethylcellulose) in water and ethanol, 1:1, was used with a hot air tool to consolidate loose paint without adding shininess. Gamblin conservation colors were used on early losses and repaints in a blue area were left untouched. Losses were not filled. Losses in the head were compensated with inpainting.
This unique work testifies to Braque’s diverse palette late in his career. The used of drying oil, linseed oil, pine resin and stand oil, identified during analysis lead to the varied texture he created on the surface. These experimentations highlight ideas Braque was contemplating with his contemporary, Manet.
AJAX was included in an exhibition of Braque’s work at the Grand Palais in Paris in 2014.
AIC 43rd Annual Meeting- Practical Philosophy General Session May 15th: “Suspended Rules for Suspended Worlds: Conserving Historic Stage Scenery” (Mary Jo (MJ) Davis)
I was interested in this talk because it seemed an interesting intersection between textiles and objects together with the complications of working on objects that are still in use.
MJ discussed the set of challenges of working with historic stage scenery: climate, use, lack of funds, space to do treatments, ect. The “Curtains Without Borders” team (started 15 years ago in the state of Vermont) of conservators came up with a standard method of treatment that could be applied, with some differences as need, to the stage curtains. The typical treatment consists of: on-site technical examination, cleaning (vacuuming and dry sponging), mending tears with patches of muslin w/B72, inserts to areas of loss, consolidation of edges (all sides reinforced with muslin w/B72), structural support at top edge if necessary and reattachment of bottom roller, paint consolidation (sprayed B72), in-painting of losses and reinstallation with volunteers or professional riggers as needed. All work is done onsite by conservators and a team of local volunteers (with at least 2 at all times). Many conserved curtains have been revisited over the years and additional issues have been attended to. Issues have mostly come from handling of curtains once they were re-installed.
The project has been a success all over New England- with more requests coming in from all over the country for help. There are plans to continue the project and expand territory.