I’m am extremely excited that I signed up to write a blog post for this Paintings Group Session at the 41st Annual Meeting for AIC: The Contemporary in Conservation this week in Indianapolis. As an emerging conservator specializing in the conservation of paintings, I found this discussion very important for our field and I was so pleased that Matthew Cushman gathered this renowned group of conservators together for the discussion. The discussion (Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation) was well attended and the four presentations provoked important questions and topics for group discussion. This post isn’t intended for solely paintings conservators, but for all fine art conservators, restorers, and any people looking to find out more about the preservation and future of fine art.
Fair warning: this post is going to be a long one. I found so much relevant and notable topics were mentioned and I think they all deserve to brought up. This post is a little less personal opinion and a little more regurgitation of the facts – which is great for anyone who was not able to attend the discussion. The discussion panel consisted of mediator Tiarna Doherty from the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian Art Museum, and panelists: Rustin Levenson private conservator and owner of Rustin Levenson Art Conservation Associates; Alan Phenix conservation scientist from the Getty Conservation Institute; Joyce Hill Stoner educator in paintings conservation at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation; and Rob Proctor Co-Director and private conservator at Whitten & Proctor Fine Art Conservation.
Tiarna started the discussion with an introduction to each panelist, which was followed by a 10 minute slide-show presentation by each panelist discussing key points and topics each thought related to current trends and upcoming challenges in paintings conservation. This format acted as a starting point for the group discussion which followed. All the panelists came from different backgrounds which consisted of private, educational, institutional, and scientific positions, so different perspectives for the field of paintings conservation could be properly represented.
Continue reading “41st Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, Friday May 31, "Panel Discussion: Current Challenges and Opportunities in Paintings Conservation" by Levenson, Phenix, Hill Stoner, Proctor”
Category: Paintings Conservation
Artists’ Colourmen Database
Paintings conservators at the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), Australia, have compiled a database of Artists’ Colourmen stamps, stencils, labels and marks found on artworks in the NGV Collection as a resource for study and interest.
The database can be viewed online at: http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/conservation/artists-colourmen
Companies manufacturing and supplying artist’s materials, from the late Eighteenth Century onward, are known as Artists’ Colourmen. They marked their products, canvases, stretchers, and boards, for instance, with individual and characteristic stamps, stencils, labels and embossed marks. These often carry the company name and address, which can be used to indicate the source and general date of manufacture of the canvas, board or stretcher associated with an artwork.
This online resource has been made possible by the generous support of the Telematics Course Development Fund. We are also indebted to Jacob Simon for allowing us to reference the rich on-line archive of historical information on artist’s colourmen provided by the National Portrait Gallery, London.
AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Frederick Hammersley: An Artist’s Documentation of His Painting Practice” by Alan Phenix
Pacific Standard Time is not just a time zone. It is also the title of a Getty-funded initiative, jointly launched by the Getty Foundation and Getty Research Institute, that enabled more than sixty cultural institutions across Southern California to tell the story of the art scene in Los Angeles, California. The initiative focuses on archives, research, exhibitions, publications, and other programs to record the region’s artistic history. A substantial part of the project is dedicated to Los Angeles art from post-World War II through the 1970s. In 2011/2012 The Getty Center held an exhibition entitled Crosscurrents in L.A. Painting and Sculpture, 1950-1970. One of the artists in the show was the painter Frederick Hammersley, who died in 2009. After Hammersley’s death a artist-endowed Foundation was established to preserve and maintain his artistic legacy. Getty researchers first encountered the extensive archive of materials held by the Hammersley Foundation during preparations for the Crosscurrents show. Alan Phenix presented to the Paintings Specialty Group some introductory observations on the wealth of that information.
Frederick Hammersley was a leading abstract painter in Southern California in the postwar period. He first gained widespread notoriety in 1956 when he was included with artists Karl Benjamin, Lorser Feitelson, and John McLaughlin in an exhibition entitled Four Abstract Classicists. The show led to the coining of the painting movement known as “West Coast Hard-Edge”. Hammersley was born in 1919 and studied art in the 1940s at the Chouinard and Jepson Art Institutes in Los Angeles. He stayed on at the Jepson Institute in a teaching capacity after he finished his studies. He also held subsequent teaching positions at Pomona College (1953-62), Pasadena Art Museum (1956-61), and Chouinard (1964-68). In 1968 he took a teaching position at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, which he kept until 1971 when he stopped teaching to concentrate on his painting. He continued to work at his home studio until six months before his death and his space remained essentially untouched after his death, serving as final documentation of his life and work. Hammersley had also fastidiously documented his artistic process in series of notebooks for a period of more than 50 years with few interruptions. Among the most notable of these were four “Painting Books” that consist of cumulative and descriptive chronological lists of works completed. The project being undertaken by the Getty Conservation Institute aims to examine and interpret that archive of materials for what it may reveal about Hammersley’s process, materials and techniques, and what it might mean for the preservation and conservation of his work.
Hammersley’s painting had a strong psychological element, which is illustrated in the evolution of his work. From 1954 to 1959 he worked on a series he called “Hunch” paintings, which developed without preparation as the artist relied on “hunches” coming from reflection and intuition to guide his work. In 1963 until 1965 he worked on series defined as “Organics” and “Cut Ups” that expanded upon his intuitive painting with more organic processes. In several periods throughout his career he also worked on more hard-edged geometric paintings. An early instance of his documentation and creative evolution was found in a set of notes on labels on the back of a 1956 “Hunch” painting entitled In Front Of, in which he recorded dates for the addition of specific shapes in the composition.
The artist began keeping his “Painting Books” in 1959, wherein he kept lists of his work, information about his process, when and to whom each work was sold, and other related information. The details of his records continued to increase and by 1966 he’d expanded his notes to include additional items, such as information on specific paints.
It was interesting to hear that Hammersley’s documentation was not limited to formal records and itemized lists; his notebooks were also works of art in their own way. Some of his books contained visual composition ideas in thumbnail sketches. When he liked a composition he would execute it in a slightly larger (ca. 3″ x 3″) format. Eventually he began including sequential breakdowns of the development of particular artworks. On occasion he would revisit past artworks and those changes were also documented in his notebooks. The artistic process was not limited to the works themselves. Hammersley kept a “Titles” folder that contained lists of words written by free association. When he came across words he liked he would underline them and then retrofit them to create titles for particular works.
This presentation just scratched the surface of the available information in Hammersley’s personal documentation. The goal of the Getty Conservation Institute’s work is to make the mass of information of Hammersley’s archive available to a wider audience, including conservators who may have cause to work on his paintings in the future. A searchable database is envisaged once the material is transcribed, collated, and interpreted.
This year’s annual meeting was focused on connecting to conservation through outreach and advocacy. A searchable database of artists’ materials and techniques certainly has potential to assist with that effort.
AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting – Paintings Session, May 9, “Relating Artist Technique and Materials to Condition in Richard Diebenkorn’s ‘Ocean Park’ Series” by Ana Alba
When Ana Alba was working at the Hirshhorn Museum she undertook a research project on four paintings from Richard Diebenkorn’s “Ocean Park” series. Her study compared the materials used in each of the paintings and assessed how that tied in to their current condition. She presented her findings at the 2010 annual meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Two of the paintings had severe cracking while the other two were in good condition; the paintings with the cracking had an acrylic preparatory layer. At this year’s annual meeting she presented research conducted at the National Gallery of Art that expanded upon her intial study.
Ana’s current research involved the examination of more than 45 paintings and samples for analysis were collected from approximately 15 paintings. All of the information gathered was compiled into an extensive chronological database. An additional list of travel histories with photographic references was completed. The results of this study showed changes in the artists materials both between paintings and within individual works.
Diebenkorn worked for weeks to years on some of his paintings. He painted consistently on unsized cotton duck but his choice of preparatory materials fluctuated over time. Between 1968 and 1973 he used white acrylic gesso and toned it with diluted acrylic. In some cases he added alkyd. From 1973 to 1978 he transitioned from white to clear preparatory layers, presumably in order to maintain the raw canvas color and achieve transparencies in his paint layers. Scientific analysis suggested the clear material was synthetic and consistent with Rhoplex AC-33. This was more or less confirmed by photographic evidence of showing large jugs labeled as Rhoplex located in the artist’s studio. By 1979 Diebenkorn had returned to using acrylic gesso almost exclusively.
Diebenkorn primarily painted with acrylics and alkyds. He added oils sparingly and extended his paints as far as possible. He also used charcoal, graphite, and colored pencil to define his images. Infrared reflectography of his paintings show numerous alterations in his compositions, which is unsurprising given his appreciation of layering and the amount of time he spent working on each piece. Once a painting was finished he applied matte fixative to the surface. In his early works he applied this in 6 or 8 consecutive layers that left a glassy, heavy surface. Eventually he shifted his process and masked out the painting to limit application to the charcoal areas.
The condition assessment of this larger group of paintings seem to support the findings of Ana’s initial study. Paintings executed between 1960 and 1973 vary and some show some cracking. The cracks follow drawn lines, compositional changes, and are greatest on the paintings with heavy layers. Paintings completed after 1973 and before 1980 have heavier, more pronounced cracking with broad and isolated areas of cupping. These paintings follow the same trend as the earlier works with the greatest cracking located in the layered areas. Diebenkorn’s paintings after 1980 are in much more pristine condition with less cracks. The trend of this condition timeline show that the paintings in the poorest condition are located in the middle of the Ocean Park series. This supports previous findings by showing that paintings with Rhoplex and acrylic exhibit the worst cracking, especially when they are painted thickly with numerous layers.
This study highlights concerns regarding some of Diebenkorn’s selection of materials. Alkyds are brittle so putting them over flexible preparatory films and unsized canvas makes them susceptible to cracking from impacts and physical movement of the substrate. Fortunately, they do not seem prone to delamination so the cracking does not lead to significant paint loss. In addition, when Diebenkorn diluted his materials he reduced their strength. That left them with a greater chance of deformation in response to physical and environmental factors.
Ana pointed out that there are some limiting and extenuating factors to consider in this research. The are as follows:
- No samples were taken from privately owned paintings.
- His assistants did not see him working so they could not provide information about his process
- Diebenkorn did not keep detailed records of his work or do preparatory drawings.
- The study compares paintings in good and poor condition only.
- The artist destroyed some works, painted over others, and skipped #5 when creating the series.
- One large painting from Brooklyn was an outlier in the study; it was completed prior to 1973 but it shows significant cracking across large ares of the surface.
During the question and answer session following the presentation it was also noted that areas with Rhoplex on raw canvas showed discoloration.
I have a personal appreciation for Diebenkorn’s work and have enjoyed following the progression of Ana’s research project. By coincidence, I had the opportunity to realize that interest in person this week when the exhibition, Richard Diebenkorn: The Ocean Park Series, was deinstalled at the Orange County Museum of Art in California. I conducted outgoing condition assessments of some of the paintings and was able to see exactly what Ana had discussed in her presentation. The exhibition will open at its final destination, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, on June 30th. I encourage all of you to check out the show if possible to see the subjects of Ana’s research side by side for the first time on such a large scale.
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 – Paintings Session, May 9, “Challenges and Choices in Conserving an Early Abstract Expressionist Painting by Clyfford Still” by Barbara Ramsay
American painter Clyfford Still (1904-1980) was a leading Abstract Expressionist artist. In November of 2011 the new Clyfford Still Museum opened in Denver, Colorado. For more than seven years prior to the opening conservators in the ARTEX Conservation Laboratory worked to prepare Still’s paintings for travel and exhibition. One of those paintings was the oil on canvas, 1943 (PH-286). Barbara Ramsay carried out the treatment of the painting and kept coming back to the question, “Should we hold the artist accountable for the materials and techniques that he has used, or should we attempt to reintroduce aspects of his original intent as we perceive them?” As one might expect, the answer is often complicated and open to interpretation.
1943 (PH-286) is a key early painting in Still’s oeuvre that serves as an excellent documentation of his artistic process. The painting represents his transition from abstracted figurative work to the complete abstraction for which he is known. It is understood that Still considered the painting to be an important work and he exhibited it more often than most of his other works. The painting also important because it has the inscription “White and Black” on the verso, which may be an early title because he did not completely abandon titling his work until some time in the 1940s.
The stretched painting was executed on unsized cotton duck canvas with a white ground. The canvas showed signs of being unstretched and restretched more than once. It was slightly stained but otherwise it was generally stable. Examination of the paint layers revealed mingling of matte and glossy areas and a discolored surface coating. The areas of highest gloss appeared bluish white under ultraviolet irradiation but whether there was a local or overall surface coating remained unclear. There were also areas of marked drying cracks in the black paint layers but all of the cracks appeared to be stable.
After minor consolidation, the structure of the painting was stable so the focus of treatment was on the aesthetic qualities. Barbara’s approach was to open up a dialogue between curators, the representatives of the Still estate, and conservators to discuss the interpretation of the condition and determine a course of action that prioritized minimal intervention. Unfortunately, such conversations are often complicated and this case was no exception. Some of the stakeholders felt the painting should be left as is. Others wanted the drying cracks to be inpainted. Still others wanted a complete aesthetic treatment to remove and replace the discolored varnish, saturate the matte areas, and inpaint the drying cracks. Barbara wanted to do more research before determining her ideal course of action. The critical questions: could it be done safely and should it be done at all?
To answer those questions Barbara focused on Still’s working process. GCI analysis suggested that he used titanium white ground, zinc white, carbon black, organic colorants, and some commercial tube colors on his paintings. Many of Still’s paints are known to be particularly sensitive to water and organic solvents. The variable gloss in the paint surface posed several other issues for consideration. The matte areas could have indicated an original difference in leanness in the paint. It was possible that Still applied an overall surface coating that soaked into areas of underbound paint over time and left an unexpected variable gloss. There was also a chance that Still applied the coating to specific areas of the painting. So, did Still apply a coating? Was it local or overall? Did he intend or like the uneven surface? Research turned up examples where Still did both localized and overall surface coating applications. It was documented that paint that appeared “too dry” was not his original intention. However, what did he mean by “too dry”? Was this an “overly matte” surface or did it describe a surface that had traces of efflorescence?
Additional study by the GCI identified a drying oil on the surface and it was determined that Still likely coated the painting with the oil in the 1970s. Examination under ultraviolet irradiation supported the theory that the oil coating was absorbed by leaner areas of paint, resulting in localized matte patches. Although the oil was applied by the artist there was no documentation to indicate what effect he was trying to achieve. Since the discolored coating was very disfiguring and misleading, it was decided that it should be removed. But could it be removed?
As expected, solvent sensitivities in the paint layers complicated the removal of the surface coating. As a result, it was determined that selective and partial cleaning was the most viable option. Using solvent compresses the coating was reduced in the whites, grays and colored areas, but was left untouched over the black paint. A varnish was not applied either to the cleaned areas or to the matte black paint passages.
The last step in the treatment was inpainting of the craquelure. Barbara preferred to leave the craquelure as evidence of the artist’s materials and working methods but finally agreed to inpaint the most distracting craquelure with a reversible medium. At that point the treated painting was ready for exhibition.
This was a complicated project full of the difficult questions that seem inherent in the treatment of modern and contemporary art. As a result, the conclusion of Barbara’s presentation was followed by a very interesting question and answer session. I was unable to keep a written record of the various dialogues that occurred but I can recall one question and answer that I thought was interesting and could lead to additional discussion: One conservator asked Barbara why she decided to inpaint the craquelure when Still had chosen to exhibit it for so many years in that condition. Barbara replied that she had considered this factor and believed it was a valid reason not to inpaint. She did not want to inpaint the craquelure but she feared the other alternative was that the painting would not go on exhibit. She felt it was necessary to compromise on inpainting the cracks to ensure that such an important painting would be included in the inaugural installation in the new museum. She noted also that Still had not intended that the drying craquelure would form. She felt the museum’s desire to show Still’s work to the public for the first time looking its very best was also a valid concern. What do you think?
AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting-Outreach in Paintings Session: The Dessemination of Information Outside and the Field and Within, May 10, “Conservation, Engineering and Materials — Reinventing the Wheel?” by William Wei
William Wei, Senior Conservation Scientist at the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, gave a compelling and entertaining presentation about how art conservators and historians and the scientific community: scientists, chemists and material engineers communicate with each other. Bill used a very personal style (walking onto the floor and just talking to us rather than standing at the podium) and humor (like the hysterically screaming man graphic) to make the point that, many times, by not doing a little research into the mechanism that we are describing and the proper terminology used we end up unnecessarily reinventing the wheel, that is, wasting a lot of time.
Wei, a mechanical engineer with a PhD in metals with 15 years of experience in conservation science focused on the perceptions, myths and misconceptions that arise in that age-old, left brain vs. right brain breakdown in communication between the scientific and artistic communities, “What are they talking about?” While a conservator may be choosing a fabric for a loose liner he/she might consider weight or weave while an engineer will be considering factors such as the thermal expansion coefficient, that is, using mechanical properties terminology. The conservator may not distinguish the difference between stress and strain, tension and stiffness or have an understanding of what level of vibration is allowable. The engineer comes to the table, however, with a clear understanding of engineering facts regarding mechanical properties: stress is not the same as force, stress & strain are related, tension is not stiffness and the effects of vibration are cumulative.
The author was not so much chiding the conservation community for ignorance of material science and testing as pleading with us to do enough homework to formulate the right question. He used several examples to make his point. Two metal rods: the microphone stand and a pen…which is stronger? The answer depends on mechanical properties. Stress = Force/area. Size doesn’t matter! The force required to break the stand might be less than that required to break the pen. When testing adhesives, how does the application method affect the results? Are there bubbles, for example? Can you simply sew the slashed Barnett Newman painting, CATHEDRA back together? No. You need the stiffness of a lining and the lining fabrics have to have similar stiffness: Stiffness=Stress/strain. Tension does not equal stiffness.
Although most painting conservators have an intuitive sense of these principles, I believe the author’s point was that we often do not articulate our needs using the correct terminology. We may even use elaborate mechanisms or equipment to measure vibration or dust accumulation when simpler, more straightforward and practical models would suffice.
We need to talk, the author emphasized, reinvent as we learn and redefine words. He stated some guidelines to accomplish these goals.
1) Nothing is simple but it can be simply be explained and understood
2) Conservators must be willing to learn and read about problem
3) Engineers & Material Scientists must be willing to translate
4) We all must be aware of language; we must be bilingual
How does the wheel work? Do we really need a new wheel?
Wei went on to describe some of the pitfalls in terminology misuse of abuse. In some cases nano is relevant. However in his example of climate change, is
a change of 1-2 degrees over 50 years relevant to artwork as it is definitely is relevant to an increase in climatic disasters?
Finally, Wei pondered whether in the fields of conservation, engineering & materials, are we creating value? I might take slight exception to the author’s notion that restoration is recreating art, as it is but, as most of us learned, early on, the reason we call our field conservation is to emphasize the preservative nature of our work, not the remaking of art. I agree that, clearly, we do create value by increasing our understanding of objects cultural significance through scientific research. Wei’s call to arms was inspirational. There are solutions looking for problems, we just need to ask the right questions. In so doing, we need to have awareness of different professional backgrounds; communication and understanding leads to better solutions. Outreach, he said, “is not just broadcasting, it’s receiving too [there needs to be] a Socratic dialog.”
40th Annual Meeting: Outreach in Paintings Session: The Dissemination of Information Outside the Field and Within, May 10, “Bridging the Divide–Conversing with Allied Professionals” by Michael O’Malley
Michael O’Malley gave a fascinating talk about describing the investigation he undertook on a painting he had treated in 1998, which resulted in an attribution. His determination to uncover the mysteries of the posthumous Portrait of Mére Catherine de Saint-Augustin, a 17th Century Carmelite nun beatified in 1989 was piqued by hints given by materials analysis undertaken during the treatment of the painting; it suggested a good opportunity to the conservator to open a conservation dialog with art historians. As no interest was evident in the subject in the years since the treatment, Michael later took it upon himself to do a little digging of his own, “I’m not an art historian but I can read”, he humorously, if modestly, stated!
Michael began his talk with an overview of the Conservation Center of Quebec which sounds like a superb facility which appears to have a great community outreach and interaction with allied professionals including training, tours and bilingual publications.
Michael described the treatment of the painting, the article he wrote for the
Journal of Canadian Art History, the analysis that was conducted at CCI and the
additional research he completed to arrive at his attribution.
The unsigned and undated portrait of the nun, according to oral tradition, had been painted at her deathbed and had been attributed to Hugh Pommier (1636- 1686) a priest and artist that lived in the colony at the time. Mére Catherine de Saint-Augustin (1632-1688) was revered figure in New France and was considered to be the founder of the Catholic Church there. She was first a nurse then the keeper and director general of the hospital of the French colony.
The painting had undergone at least two restorations in the past, one by a nun who had been charged with the task of making Catherine look, “younger with a more cheerful appearance”! The painting had been glue lined, heavily overpainted and coated with a natural resin varnish. The treatment included lining reversal and relining, varnish and overpaint removal and loss compensation. After cleaning, the face had renewed subtlety; evident cracquelure, the original greyish-blue tone.
Stylistically the painting appeared to be of European origin. Eminent art historian Gerard Morisset Gerard Morisset (1898-1973) placed painting in an inventory of paintings in Quebec parishes and churches. As early as 1936 he had noted a stylistic resemblance to works by Claude Francois aka, Frère Luc (1614-1685), a student of Simon Vouet and an influential artist in New France. The artist had returned to his mother country, however by the date of the nun’s death. Morisset saw the painting in the 1950’s at which time the background had already been overpainted. In 1960 Morisset had made a connection with a painting of St. Claire in an altarpiece by Frère Luc. He saw similarities with paintings of the two nuns and other similarities in the naturalistic qualities of other faces by Frère Luc as well as similarities in the treatment of the landscape elements.
Cross section and pigment analysis conducted at CCI by scientists Marie Claude Corbiel and Elizabeth Moffatt revealed a double ground layer, consistent with grounds used in France in the 17th Century (The author referred to Elaine Du Val’s publication on red grounds in 17 C France.) and lead tin yellow which placed the painting prior to 1750.
O’Malley did further study of 17th C Carmelite portraits. He learned that Catherine’s death was described in the annuals of the day. Because the date of
her death was not consistent with Frère Luc having been documented as being in
New France, he hypothesize that the painting was not, in fact, a true portrait but a commemoration; his attribution, when published, was well received.
Michael O’Malley’s work nicely demonstrates a situation when a professional must “cross the aisle” to an allied profession when information gleaned in our work demands to be researched and shared to the benefit of all.
AIC’s 40th Annual Meeting, Paintings Session, Thursday May 10, “A Chastened Splendor: The Study and Treatment of Works by H. Siddons Mowbray” by Cynthia Schwarz.
Schwarz paper outlined the extensive and complex treatment, carried out over four years, of 9 40 x 80” lunettes painted by Mowbray for Collis Huntington’s mansion in New York. After a thorough biography and outline of Mowbray’s artistic development, she moved into a description of the nine, brightly colored allegorical female muses depicted on the lunettes, which were originally adhered to Huntington’s walls with a thick layer of white lead paint.
In the 1920s when the mansion was demolished, the lunettes were removed from the walls (quite hastily) and given to Yale University Art Museum. Unfortunately they were rolled directly around stretcher bars and stored in a less than perfect environment, which, in combination with previous water damage and some mold, left the paintings in dire condition.
Technical analysis of the paint revealed other possible causes of paint loss. In his search for an absorbent yet flexible ground, Mowbray apparently added an aluminosilicate component (kaolin) to his ground layer, which has likely contributed to the current adhesion failure between the ground and paint layers.
One of the more interesting phenomena Schwarz discussed was the occurrence of bright orange fluorescence under UV radiation in some of the areas painted a mossy green color (but not everywhere). No varnish was present, and cross sections showed the fluorescence occuring only on the surface. SEM-EDS proved the paint layer to be a combination of viridian and cadmium, and Schwarz suggested that the fluorescence might be due to a reaction between cadmium sulfide and air, resulting in a cadmium sulfate. Apparently Aviva Burnstock has conducted research on this phenomenon at the Courtauld.
Questions following Scharz presentation focused on her strappo-inspired method of removing the lead white paint from the reverse of the canvases, which involved two layers of fabric strips and Beva 371 film. The paintings were lined onto aluminum honeycomb panels, to better mimic their originally presentation. The lining involved several layers, including a sacrificial layer to aid in reversing the lining. A nice diagram explained the lining stratigraphy, though I was not quick enough to note it. The paintings are currently on view in the galleries at Yale.