New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings

More documents

Recommendations

Info

176 • smithsonian contributions to museum conservation FIGURE 2. Detail showing the agar cleaning effects (upper part of the photo) on painting H3010. Painting size: 125.2 × 75.2 cm. FIGURE 1. Detail showing the deterioration present on painting H3077. Painting size: 75 × 75 cm. is considerable. For the surface method, the pH values are almost two points more acidic than those obtained by the cold extraction technique, and although both methods of measurement are considered suitable, it would seem that the cold extraction method is the more reliable of the two (Saverwyns et al., 2002; Stirlič et al., 2004). Cleaning of the paintings was carried out using a combination of dry systems (eraser dust lightly spread over the paint surface and gently suctioned off) in the areas where the material has good cohesion and a wet system applying rigid agar gel to all the paint surface. So as not to ionize the proteins during the cleaning process the agar gel was prepared with water buffered to a pH of 5.5 (Figure 2). Agar was chosen after taking into consideration the components of both the dirt on the paint surface and the paint layer itself, both of which were water soluble. Agar’s rigid structure allows the water needed in the cleaning process to be in contact with the dirt on the surface while being retained within a gelatinous structure, thus ensuring the paint layers are not impregnated. It has the additional advantage of not needing to be rinsed afterward as its rigid structure does not leave any residues. It has been impossible to remove all of the soiling adhered to the paintings by the applied cleaning process because of the degree to which dirt had been absorbed into the strata and the fragility of the ground and paint layers, which does not allow a differentiated treatment of grime, as this could mean risking the integrity of the original components. It must be accepted that some of the dirt embedded in the paintings over the years has become part of its composition. Given the fragility of certain areas that have suffered the direct impact of degrading elements, a consolidation of the paint layer was chosen after cleaning. Tests were carried out with 1.5% (w/v) of Jun- Funori in distilled water and with 2% (w/v) of Klucel E (hydroxypropyl cellulose) in absolute ethanol. The latter option was selected because applying a consolidant with an alcoholic vehicle appeared to be a better means of avoiding new fungus colony proliferations.
number 3 • 177 Acknowledgments The authors thank the artist for his availability, the Museum of Hospitalet for the facilities offered in researching works from its collections, the Generalitat de Catalunya for the financing provided in its 2008 official funding for the restoration of heritage, and the University of Barcelona for granting a precompetition research project in 2009. Our gratitude also goes to Iris Bautista, Carmen López, and Teresa Sánchez, grant- funded students for this project. REFERENCES Nualart, A., M. Oriola, and M. Mascarella. 2010. “The Challenge of a Non- invasive Restoration of 9 of Francesc Artigau’s Paintings on Plywood Supports.” In XII Reunió Tècnica: Vers una conservació- restauració sostenible, pp. 185–199. Barcelona: Grup Tècnic, Associació Professional de Conservadors- Restauradors. Saverwyns, S., V. Sizaire, and J. Wouters. 2002. “The Acidity of Paper: Evaluation of Methods to Measure the pH of Paper Samples.” In Preprints ICOM- CC 13th Triennial Meeting, Rio de Janeiro, ed. R. Vontobel, Volume 2, pp. 628–634. London: James & James. Stirlič, M., J. Kolar, D. Kočar, T. Drnovšek, V. S. Šelih, R. Susič, and B. Pihlar. 2004. What Is the pH of Alkaline Paper? e- Preservation Science, 1:35–47. Wolbers, R. 2000. Cleaning Painted Surfaces: Aqueous Methods. London: Archetype Publications.
Page 1 and 2:
Smithsonian Institution Scholarly P
Page 3 and 4:
smithsonian contributions to museum
Page 5 and 6:
Contents PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page 7:
number 3 • v Extended Abstract—
Page 10 and 11:
viii • smithsonian contributions
Page 13 and 14:
The Removal of Patina Stephen Gritt
Page 15 and 16:
number 3 • 3 and conceals its bea
Page 17:
number 3 • 5 REFERENCES Algarotti
Page 20 and 21:
8 • smithsonian contributions to
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 29 and 30:
Surface Cleaning of Paintings and P
Page 31 and 32:
number 3 • 19 methods for cleanin
Page 33 and 34:
number 3 • 21 not the varnish its
Page 35 and 36:
Extended Abstract—A Preliminary I
Page 37:
number 3 • 25 FIGURE 3. Detail of
Page 40 and 41:
Page 43 and 44:
Extended Abstract—A New Documenta
Page 45:
number 3 • 33 FIGURE 2. Recording
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 63 and 64:
Oil Paints: The Chemistry of Drying
Page 65 and 66:
number 3 • 53 FIGURE 3. Weight ch
Page 67 and 68:
number 3 • 55 FIGURE 7. Formation
Page 69 and 70:
number 3 • 57 FIGURE 11. Differen
Page 71 and 72:
The Influence of Pigments and Ion M
Page 73 and 74:
number 3 • 61 FIGURE 3. Mechanica
Page 75 and 76:
number 3 • 63 FIGURE 7. Mechanica
Page 77 and 78:
number 3 • 65 observation that co
Page 79:
number 3 • 67 • Not all pigment
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 101 and 102:
Characterization and Stability Issu
Page 103 and 104:
number 3 • 91 FIGURE 2. Film form
Page 105 and 106:
number 3 • 93 (Saunders, 1973). T
Page 107:
number 3 • 95 allows identificati
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
100 • smithsonian contributions t
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 119 and 120:
Sensitivity of Oil Paint Surfaces t
Page 121 and 122:
number 3 • 109 Analytical Methods
Page 123 and 124:
number 3 • 111 The method for ass
Page 125 and 126:
number 3 • 113 FIGURE 6. Secondar
Page 127 and 128:
Extended Abstract—The Effect of C
Page 129:
number 3 • 117 Table 1. Surface m
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 137 and 138: Multitechnique Approach to Evaluate
Page 139 and 140: number 3 • 127 RESULTS AND DISCUS
Page 141 and 142: number 3 • 129 FIGURE 4. The SEM
Page 143 and 144: number 3 • 131 FIGURE 7. (top) St
Page 145 and 146: number 3 • 133 FIGURE 10. Stress-
Page 147 and 148: Extended Abstract—A Preliminary S
Page 149: number 3 • 137 Acknowledgments An
Page 152 and 153: 140 • smithsonian contributions t
Page 159 and 160: Cleaning of Acrylic Emulsion Paints
Page 161 and 162: number 3 • 149 advocates of publi
Page 163 and 164: number 3 • 151 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5
Page 165 and 166: number 3 • 153 ethoxylate units i
Page 167 and 168: number 3 • 155 FIGURE 5. Golden A
Page 169: number 3 • 157 alien und Methoden
Page 181 and 182: Extended Abstract—The Removal of
Page 183 and 184: number 3 • 171 RESULTS AND DISCUS
Page 185 and 186: number 3 • 173 FIGURE 3. The SEM
Page 187: Extended Abstract—Cleaning Issues
Page 197 and 198: Effects of Commercial Soaps on Unva
Page 199 and 200: number 3 • 187 The aqueous and or
Page 201 and 202: number 3 • 189 all tests. The res
Page 203 and 204: number 3 • 191 palmitic and stear
Page 205 and 206: FIGURE 5. Scanning electron microsc
Page 207 and 208: number 3 • 195 FIGURE 6. Confocal
Page 209 and 210: Extended Abstract—Tissue Gel Comp
Page 211: number 3 • 199 • The capillary
Page 217 and 218: Extended Abstract—Use of Agar Cyc
Page 219: number 3 • 207 FIGURE 4. The FTIR
Page 233 and 234: Extended Abstract—The Schlürfer:
Page 235 and 236: number 3 • 223 FIGURE 3. Removal
Page 237 and 238: Extended Abstract—Surface Cleanin
Page 239:
number 3 • 227 Table 3. Cleaning
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 249 and 250:
Extended Abstract—Laser Cleaning
Page 251 and 252:
Ending Note: Summary of Panel Discu
Page 253 and 254:
Index TABLES in BOLD; Figures in It
Page 255 and 256:
number 3 • 243 polyvinyl acetate
show all

New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?