New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 • smithsonian contributions to museum conservation et al., 2005) and natural resins; the behavior of these systems on subsequent oxidation and deterioration (Erhardt and Tsang, 1990) and how all this affects the swelling of paint by solvents (Hedley et al., 1990) and water (Michalski, 1990). Alternatives to solvents have been championed by Wolbers (1988), who has proposed a new approach to cleaning paint surfaces and has put into place a theoretical framework to give his suggestions credibility. The careful selection of appropriate surface active agents in water- based systems can be effective in removing oxidized varnishes and oil varnishes as well as dirt. Initial concern was centered on doubts about the effective clearance of nonevaporating high molecular weight material, but these concerns have largely been addressed (Khandekar, 2000). Wolbers’ formulations have provided new tools to remove stubborn material more controllably. Unvarnished paintings are a relatively new challenge to conservators. During the 1970s a group of unfinished Turner oil sketches were cleaned at Tate (Williams, 1989). An interesting group, they had over 120 years of dirt accumulation since they left the artist’s dirty studio (Phenix and Burnstock, 1990). In some cases the tentative sketches could not be seen through the dirt. Various water- based cleaning methods were tried, such as saliva, dilute ammonium hydroxide, and nonionic detergents. All removed much of the dirt layer but left an uneven gray on the predominant white absorbent ground. The problem was how to pick up the residual gray layer. The solution chosen was to use a plasticized polyvinylchloride eraser (Mars Staedtler) through a water- wetted surface. The dirt was incorporated into the eraser and removed from the absorbent surface (Hackney, 1990). Later, triammonium citrate was tried on similar material and found to produce the same result. It acted as a chelating agent, latching onto molecules associated with the dirt particles (Carlyle et al., 1990). Wolbers (2000) explains why lead was detectable on cleaning swabs. Textile and paper elements are frequently exposed on modern works of art. These are absorbent surfaces with hydroxyl groups that readily attach to particles, drawing dirt in with capillary forces and trapping it mechanically in its open fibrous structure. Wet cleaning methods can be effective at dirt removal but can dramatically change the surface texture and appearance. Dry cleaning with powders is less effective, even with bread, where some moisture is present and largely bound to the bread. A combination of gentle abrasion and dirt pick up leaves the overall surface cleaner and intact but is not sufficient to deal with localized stains. Various suction systems devised for paper and textile conservation can be applied locally. Whether removing dirt or varnish, there are many examples of conservators using ingenuity, borrowing from other disciplines, extrapolating from traditional methods, or just intelligently employing a repertoire of established techniques. But when working on individual paintings, assessing the results can be difficult and rarely allows true comparison with alternative methods. Scientific studies can better do this job of explaining observed successes and analyzing mechanisms. More detailed examination using cross sections or increasingly sophisticated analysis can reveal the construction of the paint and varnish layers (Mills and White, 1987). This can tell a conservator how much dirt is on the surface or under the varnish and where any original glazes sit in the paint layer and reveal evidence of retouching. It may also identify a very thin layer of glair varnish (Peres, 1990) or one that gives the paint film a patina (Philipott, 1966). Ultraviolet fluorescence identifies the extent of varnish and earlier retouching, and local cleaning tests reveal the varnish solubility and localized response of the paint to solvents. A knowledge of artists’ methods derived from the study of other paintings as well as an interpretation (Brandi, 1949) of the painting being cleaned is important prior knowledge, a mental model of what is expected, allowing a more detailed investigation of the work in question. Materials analysis can reveal the pigments and main medium, and increasingly, it is possible to detect minor components, such as the all- important additives to the medium, which can change its properties significantly. CURRENT SITUATION In recent years there have been many studies of artists’ materials and techniques, in part to understand an artist’s intention but also to assist with a conservation treatment. It is essential to know how consistent an artist is in the use of materials, for example, the addition of varnish or wax to paint to improve its handling or dried properties; reworking an area; scraping down paint; overpainting; painting wet on wet; leaving the work for a long period during painting; using novel application methods, such as palette knife, spray gun, collage, or frottage techniques; creating texture by the addition of coarse material or the extraction of oil medium to form an absorbent surface; combining different media either in layers on the painting or premixed on the palette; or using poorly bound pigments. The possibilities are endless, and knowledge of the existence and location of all such potential problems is important to the conservator, helping to prevent misreading of the artist’s intention and to distinguish between original and later material. It is the conservator’s duty to understand the artist’s normal range of practices and to examine the painting to develop a model of what the artist might have done. If the resources are available, and increasingly they are being demanded, some analysis can be made to address the questions raised by the conservator’s examination (Hagan, 2007). Informed with this knowledge the conservator makes predictions on how the varnish and paint will respond to the chosen cleaning method and can gradually explore the painting surface. REFERENCES Brandi, C. 1949. The Cleaning of Paintings in Relation to Patina, Varnish and Glazes. Burlington Magazine, 91:183–188. Caley, T. 1990. “Aspects of Varnish and the Cleaning of Oil Paintings before 1700.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Con-
number 3 • 15 gress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 70–72. London: International Institute for Conservation. Carlyle, L. 1990. “British Nineteenth Century Oil Painting Instruction Books: A Survey of Their Recommendations for Vehicles, Varnishes and Methods of Paint Application.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 76–80. London: International Institute for Conservation. Carlyle, L., J. H. Townsend, and S. Hackney. 1990. “Triammonium Citrate: An Investigation into Its Application for Surface Cleaning.” In Dirt and Pictures Separated, ed. V. Todd, pp. 44–48. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Doerner, M. 1934. The Materials of the Artist and Their Use in Painting. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Dunkerton, J., J. Kirby, and R. White. 1990. “Varnish and Early Italian Tempera Paintings.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 63–69. London: International Institute for Conservation. Erhardt, D., and J. Tsang. 1990. “The Extractable Components of Oil Paint Films.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings. Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 93–97. London: International Institute for Conservation. Feller, R. L., N. Stolow, and E. H. Jones. 1959. On Picture Varnishes and Their Solvents. Oberlin, Ohio: Intermuseum Conservation Association. Gombrich, E. 1962. Dark Varnishes: Variations on a Theme from Pliny. Burlington Magazine, 104:51–55. Hackney, S. 1990. “The Removal of Dirt from Turner’s Unvarnished Oil Sketches.” In Dirt and Pictures Separated, ed. V. Todd, pp. 35–39. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Hagan, E., M. Charalambides, T. Learner, A. Murray, and C. Young. 2007. “Factors Affecting the Mechanical Properties of Modern Paints.” In Modern Paints Uncovered: Proceedings from the Modern Paints Uncovered Symposium, ed. T. Learner, P. Smithen, J. Kreuger, and M. Schilling, pp. 227–235. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Hedley, G. 1980. “Solubility Parameters and Varnish Removal: A Survey.” The Conservator, 4:12–18. Reprinted in Measured Opinions: Collected Papers on the Conservation of Paintings, ed. C. Villers, pp. 128–134. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. ———. 1993. “On Humanism, Aesthetics and the Cleaning of Paintings.” In Measured Opinions: Collected Papers on the Conservation of Paintings, ed. C. Villers, pp. 167–171. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Hedley, G., M. Odlyha, A. Burnstock, J. Tillinghast, and C. Husband. 1990. “A Study of the Mechanical and Surface Properties of Oil Paint Films Treated with Organic Solvents and Water.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 98– 105. London: International Institute for Conservation. Keune, K., E. Ferreira, and J. Boon. 2005. “Characterization and Localization of the Oil Binding Medium in Paint Cross- Sections Using Imaging Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry.” In Preprints 14th ICOM- CC Triennial Meeting, The Hague, ed. I. Verger, pp. 796–802. London: James and James. Khandekar, N. 2000. A Survey of the Literature Relating to the Development of Aqueous Gel Cleaning on Painted and Varnished Surfaces. Reviews in Conservation, 1:10–20. Learner, T. 2000. A Review of Synthetic Binding Media in Twentieth- Century Paints. The Conservator, 24:96–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01410096 .2000.9995156. Mancusi- Ungaro, C. 1990. “The Rothko Chapel: Treatment of the Black- Form Triptychs.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 126–130. London: International Institute for Conservation. Mecklenburg, M .F. and S. T. Tumosa. 1991. “An Introduction to the Mechanical Behavior of Paintings under Rapid loading Conditions,” in Art in Transit: Studies in the Transport of Paintings, ed. M. F. Mecklenburg, pp. 137–173. Washington, D. C.: National Gallery of Art. Michalski, S. 1990. “A Physical Model of Varnish Removal from Oil Paint.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 85–92. London: International Institute for Conservation. Mills, J., and R. White. 1987. The Organic Chemistry of Objects. London: Butterworths. Ormsby, B., and T. Learner. 2009. The Effects of Wet Surface Cleaning Treatments on Acrylic Artists’ Paints—A Review of Recent Scientific Research. Reviews in Conservation, 10:29–42. Ormsby, B., P. Smithen, and T. Learner. 2007. “Translating Research into Practice—Evaluating the Surface Cleaning Treatment of an Acrylic Emulsion Painting by Jeremy Moon.” In Contemporary Collections: Preprints of the AICCM National Conference Brisbane, ed. A. Pagliarino and G. Osmond, pp. 97–109, Canberra: Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Materials. Percival- Prescott, W. 1990. “Eastlake Revisited: Some Milestones on the Road to Ruin.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings. Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 73–75. London: International Institute for Conservation. Peres, C. 1990. “Vincent van Gogh’s Triptych of Trees in Blossom, Arles (1888). Part II. On Egg White Varnishes.” In Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings: Preprints of the IIC Brussels Congress, ed. J. S. Mills and P. Smith, pp. 131–133. London: International Institute for Conservation. Phenix, A. 2002. The Swelling of Artists’ Paints by Organic Solvents and the Cleaning of Paintings: Recent Perspectives, Future Direction. Postprints (American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. Paintings Specialty Group), 15:71–86. Phenix, A., and A. Burnstock, 1990. “The Deposition of Dirt: A Review of the Literature with Scanning Electron Microscope Studies of Dirt on Selected Paintings.” In Dirt and Pictures Separated, ed. V. Todd. pp. 11–18. London: United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Phenix, A., and K. Sutherland. 2001. The Cleaning of Paintings: Effects of Organic Solvents on Oil Paint Films. Reviews in Conservation, 2:47–60. Philipott, P. 1966. La notion de patine et nettoyage des peintures. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, 9:138. Rees Jones, S. 1962. Science and the Art of Picture Cleaning. The Burlington Magazine, 104:61. Ruhemann, H. 1968. The Cleaning of Paintings. London: Faber and Faber. Sitwell, C., and S. Staniforth, eds.1998. Studies in the History of Painting Restoration. London: Archetype Press in association with the National Trust. Stolow, N. 1956. Some Investigations of the Action of Solvents on Drying Oil Films. Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London, U. K. Swicklik, M. 1993. “French Painting and the Use of Varnish, 1750–1900.” In Conservation Research, pp. 157–176. Studies in the History of Art Monograph Series II, No. 41. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art. Teas, J. P. 1968. The Graphic Analysis of Resin Solubilities. Journal of Paint Technology, 40(516):19–25. Veliz, Z. 1986. Artists’ Techniques in Golden Age Spain. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Walden, S. 1985. The Ravished Image. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson. Williams, R. S. 1989. “Blooms, Blushes, Transferred Images and Mouldy Surfaces: What Are These Distracting Accretions on Art Works?” In Proceedings of the 14th Annual IIC- CG Conference, ed. J. G. Wellheiser, pp. 65–84. Ottawa: IIC- Canadian Group. Wolbers, R. 1988. Notes for Workshop on New Methods in the Cleaning of Paintings. Marina del Rey, Calif.: The Getty Conservation Institute. ———. 2000. Cleaning Painted Surfaces: Aqueous Methods. London: Archetype.
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 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 43 and 44: Extended Abstract—A New Documenta
Page 45: number 3 • 33 FIGURE 2. Recording
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:
70 • smithsonian contributions to
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:
Page 194 and 195:
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 214 and 215:
Page 217 and 218:
Extended Abstract—Use of Agar Cyc
Page 219:
number 3 • 207 FIGURE 4. The FTIR
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
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?