Paper Conservation: Decisions & Compromises

Fig. 3
and poor brushwork that were so disfiguring
to the appearance of the painting in its present
condition.
Method
A damage map of both the paintings was made
to record all the original and infilled areas, and
group discussions between conservation and
curatorial staff were held to reach a consensus
of agreement. It was decided to remove the majority
of background area in the infills, but to
retain repainted sections where the brushwork
was acceptable in terms of execution and worked
successfully to hold the composition together.
These areas were marked out and recorded.
The artworks had been stored rolled for some
time before their temporary display once in 1966
and again in the early 1990’s. For this purpose,
they were treated remedially to put down flaking
paper fragments and flatten planar distortions.
Subsequent to their display they were put back
into storage between large sheets of Plexiglas.
Prior to this, their most recent treatment,
the paintings were in an embrittled condition,
with flakes of paper lifting from the surface,
delamination of the lining papers, and heavy
creasing from previous rolling and unrolling.
The decision was made to separate the paintings
into their individual sections and remount them
onto wooden lattice cores with paper sub-linings
in a style similar to that of their first mounting
format as sliding door panels. This would return
them to their original appearance and allow
them to be exhibited and stored in a stable and
safe manner.
There was overall discolouration and degradation
of the support paper, probably a result in
part of the heavy sizing that had been applied
to allow for the generous application of ink that
the artist employed. It was expected that some
of the discoloration in the paper would be watersoluble
and, if so, should be removed before
any later wet treatments, such as re-lining and
re-pasting onto a support panel where it might
leach or migrate to other areas. The paintings
were separated into single sections, each approximately
165.6 cm high and 135.0 cm wide,
sprayed with water to relax and allow the paper
and its linings to be brushed out flat. Sheets of
thin rayon paper were dampened and applied to
the face of the artwork to protect the surface and
hold any lifting fragments in place. Lightweight
blotting paper was dampened and applied to
both sides of the artwork, turning the stack and
replacing the blotting paper until no further
discolouration was removed. The two layers of
heavy Japanese lining paper were removed from
the back of the painting and it was given a temporary
lining of thick rayon paper, then medium
weight Sekishu paper to support the embrittled
artwork.
After drying, it was possible to assess the slightly
lighter colour of the paper and prepare infill
papers of a corresponding and suitable tone.
The original paper support used for both paintings
was a heavy gampi (Diplomorpha sikokiana)
fibre furnish with a kaolin clay loading, known
as maniaishi. Produced in the Najio district near
Kobe, it was a popular choice for wall and door
paintings in castles and temples from the late
15 th century onwards. A similar paper, currently
made by the Tanino family, was selected for the
infillings. A lighter weight of paper was chosen,
then lined with medium weight Mino paper, to
allow for easier control during the shaping and
handling of the infills. The lined repair paper
was dampened and pasted by its outer edges to
drying boards in preparation for sizing and toning.
Sizing was made with a solution of animal
glue, (nikawa), 2.5% and alum 0.5% and brushed
evenly over the paper surface in both directions
and two applications. Colour for toning was prepared
from sticks of colour pigments, (boenogu),
and carbon ink sticks, (sumi), ground down with
water and the addition of a little animal glue
for stability. The colour was applied with a wide,
soft brush similar to that used for the sizing, in
ICOM-CC Graphic Documents Working Group Interim Meeting | Vienna 17 – 19 April 2013
85