This talk presented the recent work done by Sandra Webster-Cook on a painting by the Parisian artist Jean-Siméon Chardin (1699 – 1779). The author treated Jar of Apricots (1758), an oval oil painting on canvas in the collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario. The project also included a thorough study on the painting’s materials and Chardin’s working techniques.
Jar of Apricots traveled to Europe in 2010 to be exhibited next to its pendant, Cut Melon (which remains in a private collection and has reportedly never been restored) at the exhibition “Chardin: Painter of Silence”, shown at the Palazzo dei Diamanti, in Ferrara and at the Museo Nacional del Prado, in Madrid. Here Webster-Cook was able to study the two paintings together, aiding in her future treatment decisions.
Once the painting returned to Canada analytical work was done at CCI, including XRF, Raman and the collection of a small paint sample. The cross section of this sample revealed a double ground layer which Chardin typically used in his paintings: a red layer directly on the canvas and a grey imprimatura layer above it.
The pigments found in this painting were also typical of Chardin’s palette from 1730 to 1766. The ground layers contained carbon black, Prussian blue, iron oxide red, chalk and lead white. The reds were identified as vermillion and red lake. The lemon in the composition was found to contain vermillion and orpiment. Some lead tin yellow was also found in the bread loaves. The blues were a mixture of Prussian and ultramarine, a pigment combination characteristic of Chardin’s work. In areas of modern overpaint cadmium was found.
Examination of the painting revealed some pentimenti. Additionally, on the ceramics some of the flower decorations appear to be wiped or smudged, perhaps with solvent. On Cut Melon a similar technique was observed, and some solvent drips were even found.
Jar of Apricots had been treated previously, perhaps more than once, it was lined and had a synthetic resin varnish. The drying cracks had been filled and there was extensive old overpaint. Also, some modern blue-green paint was found, emerging through the cracks in the paint layer from behind; it appeared unrelated and extraneous to the previous treatment campaign and its presence could not be explained.
Webster-Cook’s treatment consisted of removing the varnish and reducing the overpaint and fills. The varnish and most of the overpaint were easily reduced with organic solvent but the fills (made of a pink waxy material) were more tenacious and required mechanical action. Some of the fills were not completely removed, but rather mechanically reduced to level with the painting’s surface. The painting was re-varnished with dammar and retouching was done with Paraloid B-72. The drying cracks were not re-filled but some inpainting was done to reduce their appearance. The treatment resulted in significant aesthetic improvements to the painting.
The project was a collaborative effort between curators, scientists and conservators. A video about the project is being made for museum patrons, highlighting the complex decision making process and collaborative nature of the conservation of paintings.
Month: July 2013
Meet the new ECPN officers
The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) is very excited to welcome our new officers as of the 41st AIC Annual Meeting. Following is a brief introduction to each new officer.
Eliza Spaulding – Chair
Eliza Spaulding is the current Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Paper Conservation at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. In 2010, she graduated from the Conservation Center, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University with an Advanced Certificate in Conservation and a Master’s Degree in Art History. From 2011-2013, she served as the ECPN Vice Chair, and is thrilled to be serving as the Chair this year. She is passionate about advocacy for conservation and the arts.
Megan Salazar-Walsh – Vice Chair
Megan Salazar-Walsh is a third year student specializing in paintings at the Buffalo State College graduate program in Art Conservation. She will be dividing her third-year internship between the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore and The Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, in The Hague. Megan served as ECPN’s Co-Outreach Officer from 2011-2013 and as the new Vice Chair she is looking forward to working with both emerging and established conservation professionals to create more resources for career development.
Saira Haqqi – Outreach
Saira Haqqi is a second-year student in the New York University graduate program in Art History and Conservation, where she is an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Library and Archives Conservation. She received her pre-program training at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., and Quarto Conservation of Books and Paper, Maryland. Having served as a student liaison for ECPN over the past year, Saira is excited to begin serving as Co-Outreach Officer.
Carrie McNeal – Outreach
Carrie McNeal will complete her Masters in Conservation of Library and Archival Materials from the Winterhtur/ University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation in August 2013. She is currently completing her third year internship at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. After graduation, Carrie will return to her hometown of St. Louis, MO, to serve the area as a private conservator. Carrie is excited to serve as ECPN Co-Outreach Officer.
Michelle Sullivan – Professional Education and Training
Michelle Sullivan is a second-year fellow at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation (WUDPAC) specializing in the conservation of works on paper. She has completed internships with the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Prior to her current position as ECPN Professional Education and Training Co-officer, she served as Regional Liaison to Southern California and Graduate Program Liaison to WUDPAC. Michelle is enthusiastic about conservation outreach and working collaboratively with allied fields.
Ayesha Fuentes – Professional Education and Training
Ayesha Fuentes is finishing her second year at the UCLA/Getty MA Program in the Conservation of Archeaological and Ethnographic Materials. Next year she will be working at internships in Bhutan and Cambodia. Ayesha has a BA from Williams College and an MA from Tufts University. Her research interests include the management of cultural heritage in disaster-relief and post-conflict situations, and the conservation of ritual objects from Buddhist and other South Asian traditions. Last year, Ayesha co-founded the Graduate Symposium for Students of Conservation and Preservation (GSSCP) and, in collaboration with Indigo Arts Alliance, established the Denese L. Easterly Conservation Training Pre-Program Grant.
Kendall Trotter – Communications
Kendall Trotter is pre-program with a BA in Art History from Tufts University and a BFA in studio arts from the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. She has completed pre-program training at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, MA and is currently a pre-program intern at the Cincinnati Art Museum in Cincinnati, OH. Kendall is preparing to apply to graduate programs for Fall 2014. She is excited to serve as Co-Communications officer this year.
Fran Ritchie – Communications
Fran Ritchie completes her MA and CAS degree in Art Conservation from Buffalo State College in the fall of 2013. She has been a Third Year Intern at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University, and after graduation will be relocating to Washington, D.C. to be an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Objects Conservation at the Smithsonian National Museum of American Indian. In addition to her focus on Native American objects (especially organic materials), Fran also has a strong interest in natural science and is on the Conservation Committee of the Society for Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC).
Anisha Gupta – Webinars
Anisha Gupta starts her first year at the Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation in the fall of 2013. She has completed her pre-program training at the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art, University of Illinois Library Conservation Unit, and Indianapolis Museum of Art. She served as ECPN Co-Outreach Officer from 2011-2013. Anisha is passionate about conservation outreach and plans to draw on that enthusiasm as the ECPN Webinar Coordinator.
This post is just a brief introduction to who we are, but you can also follow ECPN’s ongoing projects right here on the AIC blog and on our Facebook page.
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting – Textile Session, May 30, "“Merging Disciplines: Designing a Mount for a Matisse Serigraph,” Yadin Larochette
Yadine Larochette presented her treatment and mounting of one of Henri Matisse’s large silkscreen prints, Oceanie, le ciel, printed in 1948 by Zika Ascher. The print, made with oil-bound pigments on dyed linen, measures about 65″ by 144″. Unlike other prints in this series, for which some treatments have been published (see, for example: Vuori, Jan, et al, “Local stain removal from Océanie, la mer by Henri Matisse: the development of a reducing bleach technique using a suction disk, ultrasonic mister, and airbrush, “ in Conservation combinations: preprints of a conference: North American Textile Conservation Conference 2000, Asheville, North Carolina, U.S.A., March 29 to 31, 2000), this print had never been mounted. Its owners wanted to display it, which presented Yadin with the challenge of mounting it securely while still retaining the qualities and stability of the silk-screened surface.
To do this, she used what paintings conservators call a “loose lining.” She had a fine woodworker, Robert Espinoza, make a strainer with a slightly rounded edge. On top of the strainer she secured Coroplast and polyester felt. After experimenting and testing different fabrics for the support, or lining, she selected a wide, heavy scenery muslin from Dharma Trading Company that she then brushed to give it a bit of nap. (I’ve used this fabric as well and have found it has a tendency to become “nappy” even with just machine-washing. For some uses this is a disadvantage, but for this project, it was an advantage.) This nap would help to hold the print in place. She stapled the muslin to the strainer and then stitched the perimeter of the print to the muslin. After covering the edges of the print with a sheer polyester fabric for protection from the frame, she installed the piece in a frame with acrylic glazing. Before coming to the Annual Meeting, Yadin checked with the owners and was happy to report that they are still pleased with its appearance after three years.
Yadin briefly discussed the surface cleaning and humidification techniques she used for this treatment. She also discussed how the prints came to be made, emphasizing the role of the printer. Her description of this part of the story showed her fondness for the print.
During Yadin’s talk, we also learned that Patsy Orlofsky and Mary Kaldany of the Textile Conservation Workshop, South Salem, NY are preparing an article for JAIC on their treatments of five of these prints. It will be interesting to learn how another lab has treated these wonderful pieces.
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting – Architecture Session, May 30, “Bringing Modern Back: restoring 1930s Aluminum Finishes,” by Helen M. Thomas-Haney and Xsusha Flandro
Helen M. Thomas-Haney and Xsusha Flandro discussed their research and investigation of restoring aluminum finishes at a train station. Discovered in 1825 by Hans Christian Oersted, aluminum was used in jewelry and decorations into the mid-nineteenth century. The first architectural use of aluminum in the United States was for the cap of the Washington Monument in 1884. As production increased and price decreased, aluminum began to be more widely used in commercially available products. By the 1920s, aluminum was being used on many buildings in Vienna, in modernist movement buildings, and on the Empire State Building. Companies such as ALCOA Aluminum advertised aluminum as weather resistant and structurally sound. It’s ease of being manipulated made aluminum popular as decorative ornamentation on exteriors, but also in Art Deco interiors.
Built in 1932, the train station was constructed of a copper roof, pine ceiling, and aluminum arch spandrels. The station had alterations over the years, including lead paint, the addition of billboards that pierced the aluminum panels, and graffiti. The conservation project began with research into project specifications, original drawings, and original finish specifications. Through research and material evidence, it was clear that the aluminum spandrels had three different types of mechanical finishes. Based on the historical terminology, these were identified as “satin”, “sand-blasted”, and “sand-blasted deplated”. The station remained in service during the restoration, so precautions were taken during paint removal and repair work. After the paint was removed, two different types of corrosion were revealed. Corrosion was especially significant in areas where the differing materials joined. Based on the containment issues caused by sandblasting to remove corrosion, other means of removal were necessary. Some corroded areas were patched and repaired, while other panels were taken offsite for restoration.
After surface preparation, the finishes were recreated in-situ. The “satin” finish was recreated by hand sanding with a coating to prevent corrosion. Initially, a bristle-blaster was used for the “sand-blasted” finish, but it did not complete the desired effect. The team later used aluminum oxide blasting for the finish. The “sand-blasted deplated” finish was completed with an aluminum patination process with a black patina buffed to gray.
41st Annual Meeting – Architecture Session, May 30, Panel: "Collaboration in Design: Working with Architects at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA)” with Craig Dykers, Sam Anderson, Ruth Berson, and Jill Sterrett
With just a day between the ground breaking ceremony at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) and the 2013 AIC conference, panelists Ruth Berson, Craig Dykers, Jill Sterett, and Sam Anderson once again came together to discuss the debates and collaborations that resulted in the “generous, magnetic, and transformative” design for the SFMOMA expansion. Each of the panelists were representative of the variety of programs and interests that had to be addressed in a project of this scale. This project began with generosity of the Fisher family of San Francisco. The institutional history of the SFMOMA was an important consideration before beginning to search for project architects. The SFMOMA had humble beginnings on the fourth floor of the War Memorial Veterans building. As it developed its own collection, the SFMOMA out grew the 1935 beaux arts building and needed it own dedicated building. In 1988 Mario Botta was selected to design the new building. Within fifteen years, the museum had brought in the Fisher collection and expanded its own holdings leading to the need for additional space. The new building on Third Street opened in 1995, marking the 60th anniversary of the museum.
Due to open in 2016, the expansion will add 235,000 square feet to the SFMOMA complex and will “seamlessly join the existing Mario Botta-designed building with a new addition.” The project will more add more than 6 times the current public space. There is also offsite storage for the museums expanded collection.
See: http://www.sfmoma.org/our_expansion
Ruth Berson, SFMOMA staff member and Deputy Museum Director for Curatorial Affairs, began the discussion with “Why expand-‘Why Between the What'”. Ruth participated in the design by contributing to the space planning and design development process. The planning process included an international search for architects,capital campaign, and the identification of the design intent. First priorities were Magnetic, Transformative, and Generous. Secondary words were added as guiding principles: Open, Distinctive, and Passionate. All of the priorities and principles led to a design that was artist centric, collection driven, and civic minded. In efforts to remain artist centric, artists were sometimes contacted to discuss the space. The new design used the guiding principles by expanding the program to include white space for events, performance art, and meetings. Technological advances were made to enhance the visitor experience, while also being mindful of the uniqueness of the collection and its unique holdings. Another goal was to meet LEED expectations and expanding the museums education programs. After the SnOhetta was selected as the architect a collaborative conversation took place between Craig Dykers and Mario Bota. Bota stated that “I had my moment with the building, now it is SnoHetta’s turn………I will withhold my opinions until after it is finished.”
Craig Dykers, Principal of SnOhetta Architects, continued the discussion with the “SnOhetta Response”. Craig reiterated the importance of the institutional history to the design process and added that architects were not selected based off of a proposed design. It was a selection process based on the architects knowledge of the SFMOMA. The building is surrounded by six to seven streets with turn of the century buildings. Based on the design priorities, SnOhetta wished to activate these areas with new entrances and to add a public collection space with an open area for free public access. This new “art court” will also serve as a transition space between neighborhood and the building. It was important to the design team to balance the traditional and new buildings that surround the SFMOMA. Machines and daylighting systems were integrated into the design to protect and enhance the museum collection. The facades of the new building were modeled off of the quality of light and rippling water that is unique to San Francisco. With each step in the design process, SnOhetta remained mindful of the priorities and guiding principles to establish continuity to the overall design.
Jill Sterett, SFMOMA staff member and Director of Collections and Conservation, discussed the use of “Collections as a Directive” in the design process. Jill explained that the team took cues from the Public, Education, and San Francisco itself in order to inform their decisions. The artists and the relationships that they keep with them are the center of the SFMOMA. It was important that the new offsite storage facility is a dynamic space. The new space will have capacity for collection study, research, photography, carpentry, packing/crating, and big sculpture conservation. These stipulations required the team to reframe the question of how to activate the collection in two different spaces. The expansion/new building will be divided into storage, public space, conservation, and staff areas. The lower levels will hold the support and collection areas-this is conceived as a dynamic storage area and not static. It will be viewed as a n operating set of suites. Throughout the new zones, the initiatives and priorities will act as directives for accomplishing the project goals.
Sam Anderson, Principal of Samuel Anderson Architects, wrapped up the discussion with “Engagement of Specialized Areas Integrated into the Overall Plan”. Sam added that the mechanical systems had to respond to the climate and the program. It was important that these strategies were specifically designed for each circumstance. With such dynamic spaces, it became a question of how to fit multiple and growing functions into one program design. The permanent photography collection will be stored on-site, but the lower levels of the building will also serve as transient art storage. In addition to addressing the on-site storage needs, it was important to plan for areas for staging and mounting. In response to the climatic considerations, it was a priority to address the potential for seismic activity. The solution for the concerns had to also be functional within the program of the building. Each individual off-stage space was is therefore integrated with the next, for instance the conservation labs are integrated through a vertical visual connection.
In all aspects of the design, it was important to maintain collaboration between the architects, designers, and museum staff in order to address the clearly identified priorities and guiding principles of the museum. As the work progresses towards a completion goal of 2016, the two year preparation and planning period was integral to the success of the SFMOMA expansion.
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Wooden Artifacts Session, May 31st, “We Can Fix It, But Should We? Take 2: Contemporary Art Comes Knocking” By Tad Fallon
In addition to Rose Cull’s presentation on contacting the contemporary artist, or not, is a single case study by Tad Fallon. The object in question is a “Kosode” form cabinet titled “Meet Mr. Chips” by the California furniture maker, John Cederquist. I encourage everyone to check the website for images of other Kosode cabinets.
The cabinet is one of a series made of mixed woods, aniline dyes and epoxy resin and was completed in 2006. The owner had purchased it directly from a gallery exhibition. Displayed in a bright and sunny room in Connecticut, the highly decorated façade of the cabinet had faded dramatically, and the owner contacted Fallon and Wilkinson to have them treat it. The owner did not want to send it back to the artist for restoration.
Tad began the project with background research and then contacted John Cederquist directly. John was interested and friendly, and the conversation led to a visit by Tad to the artist’s studio. During the visit, Tad was given an in-depth tour by the artists assistant Chris Labont, and was able to take extensive notes and photographs of the artists materials, techniques and tools, enough to completely recreate the work from scratch.
However, the take-away was more complicated then that.
-From a conservators point of view, the materials and techniques were inherently problematic and prone to light damage.
-The large Kosode series techniques evolved over time and the techniques used at the end of the series were somewhat different from those used at the start.
-The range of materials available to the artist had changed over time, due to California VOC compliance.
-From the artist’s point of view, he had moved on, this was old work, and he was looking forward rather than back.
So what’s a conservator to do? The original work has faded and no longer resembles the original appearance or intent of the artist. The color and appearance cannot be “brought back” through intervention. The options are largely limited to:
- Leaving it alone.
- Creating a complete overlay from original materials on a reversible ground. (only marginally feasible)
- Restoring the façade completely using the artist original materials and techniques as recorded directly from the artist and artist’s assistant.
- Recreating the façade completely using improved materials that remain true to the original intent and appearance of the artist.
Not easy choices, not one of them. What would you do? I for one truly hope that Tad will be able to present “Take 3” next year!
Even if it was by Michelangelo, is it really a Michelangelo if 60% of it is restoration?
According to an article in the July 1, 2013 issue of The New York Times (“Trumpeting a Michelangelo (Cue the Trills of Dissent)” by Elisabetta Povoledo), at a meeting in Florence organized by the Opificio delle Pietre Dure on June 24-25, 2013, the restored sculpture of the young St. John the Baptist that was housed in the Holy Chapel of the Savior in Ubeda, Spain where it was badly damaged during the Spanish Civil War, was presented as a work of Michelangelo. Assuming that this claim of authorship– which was first proposed and shot down in 1930—is correct, the sculpture as it exists today is 60% restoration. How much or little original material must a work of art contain for it to be considered from the hand of the named artist?
AIC's 41st Annual Meeting, Paintings and Research and Technical Studies Joint Session, May 31, "Water in Oil Microemulsions: A Novel Cleaning System for Acrylic Paints" by Tom Learner, et al
This presentation summarized the collaborative research of the cleaning of acrylic paint films by the authors representing the DOW Chemical Company, the Tate Gallery and the Getty Conservation Institute. The aim of the research is to develop and educate professionals in the cleaning of complex, contemporary synthetic painting media. Early findings of this research have been presented at the AIC Annual Meetings in Los Angeles (2009) and Milwaukee (2010) and at the Cleaning 2010 Conference in Valencia. The components of these systems have varying effects on the medium: acrylic paint films are easily swollen in an aqueous environment, hydrocarbons have poor cleaning efficacy and on large colored surfaces there is a risk of tidelines. The surface character can be changed if extracts are removed.
Dynamic mechanical analysis of potential cleaning materials was conducted; the procedural process was described as “clamping” system that would provide uniform tension across the test film as it was dipped in solution. The displacement of the grips is measured as the paint film contracts upon drying. Acetone and water produced significant swelling, mineral spirits resulting in a flat line. Analysis was conducted using FTIR-ATR (Fourier transform infrared-attenuated total reflectance) spectroscopy on cleaning swabs indicating the level of surfactant material at the surface.
Trial microemulsion cleaning formulations were prepared by DOW and the Tate which were tested by conservators at workshops, including four CAP’s (Cleaning Acrylic Paintings) seminars presented in different cities by Chris Stravroudis. Resulting evaluations have contributed to further refinement of formulations for better compliance with performance criteria desired by conservators. Three classes of microemulsions were produced. All have an aliphatic hydrocarbon in a continuous phase. They incorporate different surfactants. The presence/level of an alcohol as a co-solvent is sometimes incorporated, as an alcohol is required in some systems to enable a stable microemulsion structure. One class of potentially useful formulations of water-in-oil microemulsion systems that are thermodynamically stable is being tested. They incorporate deionized water, a non-miscible hydrocarbon solvent (one being tested is hexanol/butanol (?)) and a surfactant in an attempt to remove grime without removing original material, namely surfactants used in the manufacture of these painting materials, which are known to migrate to the surface as they age. They offer the possibility of exploiting cleaning efficacy associated with aqueous systems but in a predominantly solvent environment where the micelles formed has the surfactant on the outside and the water on the inside. The pH in these systems can be varied using sodium chloride. The ionic strength of the solution should be compatible with the paint film; conductivity should be adjusted, as needed. A stable microemulsion will be clear, while an unstable one will be milky. Other components of the three series included a “green” surfactant, Ecosurf®, a promising new Triton material, Triton GR7, which is soluble in Shell Sol solvents, and the introduction by Richard Wolbers of silicon based cleaners. The latter material was reviewed by Chris Stravroudis in his article, “More from CAPS3: Surfactants, silicone-based solvents, and microemulsions”, WAAC Newsletter 34/3 (Sept 2012), pp 24-27.
The series of microemulsions are being extensively tested including the issue of clearance. A new publication on the progress of this research is expected in 2014.