New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings

More documents

Recommendations

Info

218 • smithsonian contributions to museum conservation FIGURE 9. Test performed on a cadmium red gouache sample with Absorene; SEM images (low- vacuum secondary electron mode). (left) Before testing and (right) after testing. Numerous Absorene particulate residues are present as dark (organic material) stains (a). flat, impasted, matte, glossy), and the type of dirt (impregnated, dry, fat, smooth, or grainy). In addition, different parameters, such as handling and structure, of the dry cleaning material, e.g., even or uneven, absorbent, or malleable, interfere with the cleaning process and influence the results. Considering this, the cleaning tests gave good insight into the working properties and potentially harmful side effects of cleaning materials, with some proving applicable in conservation. On the basis of these observations and considerations, every conservator has to achieve an optimal balance of acceptable results for each specific treatment, as there is no general, straightforward approach for cleaning surfaces with dry materials. To assist in this process, a gradual test approach is presented in the Practical Guidelines section. Practical Guidelines For all kinds of paint layers the following materials can be used: (1) polyurethane ether- based makeup sponges (rinsed with demineralized water), (2) yellow microfiber cloths, (3) Akapad white, and (4) smoke sponges (for semiglossy to glossy paint layers only). Additional precautions are as follows: • In case of granular dust, brush and vacuum clean before dry cleaning. • Use brand- new materials only to avoid abrasions caused by a degraded surface and unstable residues from old materials. • Brush surface thoroughly after using Akapad white (at least three times) to remove particulate residues. • For all sponges, use them only in precut small piece to reduce the amount of residue. • Rinse these small pieces of makeup sponges for 15 minutes in demineralized water and dry well before use (e.g., by pressing them between sheets of tissue paper). Acknowledgments The authors thank the following colleagues for their help: Marjolein Groot Wassink, Suzan de Groot, Luc Megens, Polly Saltmarsh, Maarten van Bommel, Beatriz Veríssimo Mendes, Bill Wei (RCE); Liesbeth Abraham (Frans Hals Museum); Lydia Beerkens (freelance conservator); Zeph Benders (RCE); Aviva Burnstock (Courtauld Institute of Art); Elisabeth Bracht, Rebecca Timmermans, and Louise Wijnberg (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam); Emilie Froment (Universiteit van Amsterdam); and Kathrin Kirsch (Restauratie Atelier Amsterdam). REFERENCES Brokerhof, A. W., S. de Groot, J. L. Pedersoli, H. van Keulen, B. Reissland, and F. Ligterink. 2002. Dry Cleaning: The Effects of New Wishab Spezialschwamm and Spezialpulver on Paper. Papierrestaurierung, 3(2):13–19. Burnstock, A., K. J. van den Berg, S. de Groot, and L. Wijnberg. 2006, “An Investigation of Water- Sensitive Oil Paints in 20th Century Paintings.” In Modern Paints Uncovered: Proceedings from the Modern Paints Uncovered Symposium, ed. T. Learner, P. Smithen, J. W. Krueger, and M. R. Schilling, pp. 177–188. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Estabrook, E. 1989. Consideration of the Effect of Erasers on Cotton Fabric. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 28(2):79–96. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/3179482. Mills, L., A. Burnstock, S. de Groot, L. Megens, M. Bisschoff, H. van Keulen, F. Duarte, and K. J. van den Berg. 2008. “Water Sensitivity of Modern Artists’ Oil Paints.” In Preprints ICOM- CC 15th Triennial Conference, New Delhi, Volume 2, ed. J. Bridgland, pp. 651–659. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
number 3 • 219 Morrison, R., A. Bagley- Young, A. Burnstock, K. J. van den Berg, and H. van Keulen. 2007. An Investigation of Parameters for the Use of Citrate Solutions for Surface Cleaning Unvarnished Paintings. Studies in Conservation, 52: 255–270. Noehles, M. 2002. Die Kunst des Radierens. Radiermittel im Überblick. [The Art of Erasing. An Overview of Erasers.] Papier Restaurierung, 3(1):22–28. Ormsby, B., T. Learner, M. Schilling, J. Druzik, H. Khanjian, D. Carson, G. Foster, and M. Sloan. 2006. The Effects of Surface Cleaning on Acrylic Emulsion Paintings—A Preliminary Investigation. In Oberflächenreinigung: Materialien und Methoden, ed. Cornelia Weyer, pp. 135–149. VDR Schriftenreihe 2. Stuttgart, Germany: Theiss Verlag. Schorbach, S. 2009. Reinigungsschwämme in der Restaurierung—Vergleichende Untersuchung zu Material, Wirkung und Rückständen. [Cleaning Sponges in Restoration—A Comparative Study with Regards to Material, Effectiveness and Conditions.] Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung, 23(1): 41–54. van den Berg, K. J., M. Daudin, I. Joosten, W. Wei, R. Morrison, and A. Burnstock. 2008. “A Comparison of Light Microscopy Techniques with Scanning Electron Microscopy for Imaging the Surface Cleaning of Paintings.” Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem, 25–30 May. http://www.ndt.net/article/art2008/papers/033VandenBerg.pdf (accessed 16 November 2012). van Keulen, H., S. de Groot, M. Groot Wassink, I. Joosten, K. J. Van den Berg, and M. Daudin. 2010. Dry Cleaning Products Analysed and Tested at the Netherlands Institute of Cultural Heritage. http://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/ default/files/documenten/drycleaning%20table- 26- jan- 2011.pdf (accessed 19 November 2012). Wehlte, K. 1971. Trockenreiniger für Tafelgemälde und Wandmalerein. [A Dry Cleaning Material for Panel and Wall Paintings.] Maltechnik, 77:10–13.
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:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
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 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
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 and 188: Extended Abstract—Cleaning Issues
Page 189: number 3 • 177 Acknowledgments Th
Page 192 and 193: 180 • smithsonian contributions t
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 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?