Category: Conservation
More on the Tate archive debacle
February 28 2012
Picture: KHI
Dr Costanza Caraffa, the director of the Photo Library at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz (founded in 1897, one of oldest research institutions on art and architecture in Italy) has been in touch about the Tate's disposal of their photographic archive. She writes:
As director of the Photo Library of an art historical research institute (a German institution with seat in Florence) working also theoretically on photo archives, I would like to draw your attention to the "Florence Declaration - Recommendations for the Preservation of Analogue Photo Archives".
To the many reasons that were mentioned in the article and in your blog, why throwing away such photographic holdings is an unforgivable crime against the scientific community and the entire society, I would like to add some new research perspectives on photographs and photo archives as material objects that cannot be substituted by digital surrogates. These new studies go beyond the disciplinary borders of art history and see photographs and archives as research objects on their on.
The "Florence Declaration" aims at an integration between the analogue format and the digital format, which only can guarantee the correct conservation of the photographic heritage for future studies and at the same time the implementation of digital instruments.
Quite. Indeed, these points were considered so important that there was a conference on them in 2009 attended by, amongst others, the Courtauld, the Getty, and Holland's RKD, all of which have large photographic archives. Their premise was that:
[Photographic] archives are valuable both as active research tools and as historical entities. They contain images that are records within the history of art, but are in themselves objects of study as historical photographs (for example as parts of bequests by major art historians, collectors, or photographers) and also as documents of art historical practices over time.
Photographic archives not only support but they generate research. Each archive has its historical and conceptual logic, which often raises as well as resolve research questions.
Additionally the mounts hold information about the photographs and the objects they represent.
There, in a nutshell, are several valid reasons as to why the Tate should not have disposed of their photographic archive. The mystery to me is this; if institutions such as the RKD and the Getty thought keeping the actual photos was so important, why didn't the Tate?
And here is the preamble from the Florence Declaration, which goes into more detail on why simply keeping a digital record of the photos is not the same as keeping the photos themselves:
The main role of photo archives, like that of every archive, is to guarantee the conservation and future accessibility of documents from the past for their possible future use for research purposes.
The introduction of digital technologies has made new, powerful tools available for conservation and access requirements. Almost all photo archives are currently involved in electronic cataloguing and photographic print and negative digitization projects and new methods of online consultation have been developed. The digital technologies applied to the archive have thus undisputed advantages.
However, for this very reason, there is a tendency to consider the consequences of these processes too superficially. In particular, the debates on digitalization imply that once digitally reproduced, the original artefacts can be removed from consultation or even dispensed with altogether. The Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz – Max-Planck-Institut on the other hand, supported by the other subscribers to these recommendations, believes that it is essential for the future of studies in historic, human and social sciences to generate a greater understanding of the inescapable value of photographs and analogue archives.
The conviction that it is useful and necessary to preserve the analogue photo archives is based on two simple considerations:
- the technologies not only condition the methods of transmission, conservation and enjoyment of the documents, but they also shape its content;
- the photographs are not simply images independent from their mount, but rather objects endowed with materiality that exist in time and space.
A hidden Benjamin West
February 27 2012
Picture: BG
An illness in the family means I'm spending a lot of time around Harley Street in central London. So I was pleased to find yesterday hidden in a corner of Marylebone Church this Holy Family by Benjamin West, painted in 1818. It is listed in Allen Staley's catalogue raisonne of West's works, which reveals that it used to be the main alterpiece, but was later moved. It was also vandalised in 1859, which may account for its poor condition. But to me it mainly looks dirty, and it has been rather badly restored by a recent hand in the faces. I wonder how much it would cost to clean the picture. It's a fine thing - West at his best.
Doing the dusting
February 27 2012
Picture: BG
The Wallace Collection is marvellous. But why do they never dust their picture frames? The problem is more noticeable now that they've redecorated many of the upstairs galleries. The rows of greying frames detract from the newly hung, bright fabrics. It wouldn't really matter if frames became dusty consistently - but the dust settles only on the lower horizontal part of the frame, so you get three shiny sides, and one dusty one. Give me an hour with a feather duster, and I'd transform the place.
Van Eyck in ultra-high resolution
February 27 2012
Picture: Universum Digitalis
A reader has alerted me to this excellent site on Van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece. You can even zoom in on the infra-red images.
Prado reveals evidence behind 'earliest Mona Lisa copy' claim
February 22 2012
Picture: Museo Prado
A few weeks ago the Prado unveiled a newly-cleaned copy of the Mona Lisa, and claimed that not only was it the earliest known copy of the original, but that it was made in Leonardo's studio alongside the master by one of his pupils. And today they released an excellent series of images and videos setting out the evidence behind the claim, in a first-class presentation that should be the model for all future museum discoveries.
The main evidence behind the claim is the infra-red imagery. Briefly, the Prado say that the infra-red image of their picture matches the infra-red image of the original, including in areas where Leonardo subsequently changed his mind. So, for example, in the infra-red images of both the original and the Prado copy we can see a line of under-drawing to the right of the Mona Lisa's veil at about the level of her neck. But in both the finished original and the copy this change is not visible on the final painted surface. This must mean, say the Prado, that the copy was drawn alongside the original, and when Leonardo made a change, so did the copyist. There is other quite convincing evidence to put the picture in Leonardo's studio, such as the walnut panel, and the type of ground layer used.
[more below]
Save Battersea Power Station
February 15 2012
Picture: 'Battersea Power Station' by Robert Lowry, Wandsworth Museum
Have you noticed? It seems there has been a quiet campaign in the press recently to demolish Battersea power station, the iconic building designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott (he of the red telephone box). The campaign would appear to have has the hallmarks of a cunning PR operation by someone. You don't normally get spontaneous op-ed pieces and calls from influential voices like the Daily Telegraph's City Editor, Richard Fletcher, in favour of demolishing heritage sites. Fletcher's piece was even accompanied by an online poll cunningly devised to make it look like a majority of people wanted to demolish the Station (by splitting the no votes into three options, with the single 'yes' vote in the lead at 41%).
What's going on? Well today we find out: a report has concluded that the site will be worth almost an extra £470m without the station. Permission to knock the station down would make it easier for the site's owners (largely banks such as government-owned Lloyds) to sell to a developer.
At the moment the site is Grade II listed, and English Heritage would no doubt object to the station's demolition. But, sadly, that doesn't mean very much these days. Recently, the heritage minister John Penrose over-ruled (in my opinion, shamefully) English Heritage's call to protect the concourse buildings at Waterloo Station, and now the fine early 20th Century arches and columns are being covered by hideous steel and glass 'retail spaces'.
So will the government be able to resist calls from 'business', and their friends in the press, to demolish Battersea power station? I doubt it, on the evidence so far. But let's hope so. Someone should see what the London mayoral candidates, Boris and Ken, want to do with the station. Remember, if the similarly sited and designed Bankside station had been demolished, we'd have no Tate Modern. In the meantime, I urge you to at least click your way over to the Telegraph Poll, and vote 'no' to the station's destruction.
Update: There's a new poll here. Vote no!
The best art charity you've never heard of?
February 9 2012
Picture: Shakespeare's Birthplace Trust/Public Catalogue Foundation
A giant round of applause please for the Woodmansterne Art Conservation Awards, an independent fund that supports the restoration of oil paintings in British public collections. The award is operated by Woodmansterne greetings cards, which have long printed cards with fine art reproductions. Since 1995, 60 paintings have been conserved at a total cost of £357,000. Last year, Woodmansterne funded the restoration of the above portrait by Pickenoy at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.
If you work in a museum which has a painting which needs restoring, then you have until 21st February to apply for this year's award.
Restoration programme at the Courtauld announced
February 2 2012
Picture: Courtauld
Yesterday the Courtauld unveiled their newly restored Cain Slaying Abel by Rubens (1608-9). It looks very nice. They also announced a new series of restorations of 20 works, including Tintorett's Il Paradiso. The restorations will be funded by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Good for them. You can see 18 of the works here.
The Mona Lisa's curious new face
February 2 2012
Picture: TAN/Museo Prado
There was much excitement in the press yesterday about the Prado's newly restored copy of the Mona Lisa. To recap, the Prado have cleaned what they thought was a not-very-important copy of the Mona Lisa, only to discover that the black background was over-paint, revealing a landscape background underneath. The Prado say that their version is the 'earliest known' copy of the Mona Lisa, and that it was painted in Leonardo's studio at the same time as the original by one of his pupils.
Now this is some claim: a copy of the most famous painting in the world, painted under Leonardo's own supervision? But hang on - where is the evidence? Apparently the copy is painted on walnut, which was used as a support in Italy at the time Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. But it was also used in France in the later 16th Century, and cannot be dated by dendrochronology. So we cannot rely on the panel for a date. Has there been any paint analysis? Is there any documentary evidence to support its creation in Leonardo's studio? Have the Prado analysed all the other early copies, and proved they post-date the Prado's copy? We are not told. The only compelling evidence we have so far relates to the under-drawing in the copy, and comes from The Art Newspaper article by Martin Bailey (who broke the story):
There was an even greater surprise: infrared reflectography images of the Prado replica were compared with those obtained in 2004 from the original of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. This process enables conservators to peer beneath the surface of the paint, to see underdrawing and changes which evolved in the composition.
The underdrawing of the Madrid replica was similar to that of the Mona Lisa before it was finished. This suggests that the original and the copy were begun at the same time and painted next to each other, as the work evolved.
This is a curious claim, for we know that Leonardo took many years to complete the Mona Lisa. So at what stage was the copy made? If the under-drawing in the copy was made before the original was finished, then why does the painted surface of the copy look like the original after it was finished? Perhaps the copy was completed alongside the original at each stage of its execution. Or perhaps the different nature of the under-drawing in the copy could suggest that it is not as sophisticated or complete as that in the original - which is inevitably the case with a copy.
I'm sorry to sound unneccessarily sceptical, but presenting conclusions without the evidence to back them up is bad practice, in any discipline. It only gives rise to peevish questions from people like me. And in the meantime, the conclusions get exaggerated by the press: in the Washington Post the copy is now described as 'painted with help from Da Vinci'. It is of course entirely up to the Prado to announce their findings when they want. But I bet there's a whole load of art historians out there who are as frustrated as I am by the delay. For if the Prado is right, then this is indeed a great discovery, one which can really advance Leonardo studies. So why not release the evidence now? I asked the Prado if they had any more details, and received the following:
There will be an official press release coinciding with the presentation of the work once the restoration has ended. We will do a press conference in the week of the 20th of February to announce the final works of conservation and all the information regarding the research done on the painting.
Maybe I should just be more patient. So - until 20th February we have only the various photographs released to the media to go on. Is anybody else puzzled by this? Or am I just being cantankerous?
More on the Poussin attack
January 30 2012
There was an intriguing nugget of information buried in a recent Guardian piece on yet another strike by room warders at the National Gallery:
The PCS [Public & Commercial Services Union] claims that last year, when a man walked into the gallery and threw red paint over Poussin's The Adoration of the Golden Calf, the assistant on duty was in the adjoining room. Had he been there, the union says, the attack "would not have happened".
The National disputes this version of events: it insists the assistant was shown on CCTV to have been in the doorway of the room during the attack.
I wonder which account is correct, the union's or the Gallery's. Given the layout of the galleries where the Poussin hangs, I presume the doorway in question was that between room 19 and room 20 (click here for the NG floorplan). The other possible doorway opens onto a much larger central gallery, 18, which would, one expects, have its own guard. If this scenario is correct, then it means a warder was practically adjacent to the painting when it was attacked.
Hollywood meets art history
January 26 2012
Video: Sullivan Entertainment
A new film has been released which explores the scientific analysis of hidden masterpieces. There's a review by Judith Dobrzynski here, and more on the film's website here. Looks like it's worth ordering - not least to hear the great Donald Sutherland, who narrates the film, make nerdy terms like 'multi-spectral photography' and 'pigment analysis' sound enticingly exciting.
Van Gogh's house to be saved
January 13 2012
Picture: TAN
The Art Newspaper reports that a house in Belgium where Van Gogh lived (and which, by the look of it, he also painted) is to be saved from dereliction by the local council. More details here.
To clean or not to clean?
January 6 2012
Picture: Louvre
Here's a belated notice about the row in France over the cleaning of Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St Anne [Louvre]. I hadn't commented on it till now largely because there seem to be few tangible facts - and certainly no images of the cleaned work. But essentially it seems someone has resigned from the Louvre's conservation board in a huff, saying the picture has been over-cleaned. Predictably, it is all the fault of Les Anglais. From The Guardian:
The Louvre source said that Keith and Syson [of the National Gallery, London] were particularly keen on this restoration: "The English were very pushing, saying they know Leonardo is extremely delicate but 'we can move without any danger to the work'. There was a row a year ago about solvents because they said they were safe and Bergeon Langle said they're not safe. It took a long time before the committee really had explanations on the chemicals used on the picture. Details were asked for [by the critics on the committee], but didn't come for months …
"There are people who are very much for bright hues and strong cleaning. Those people are in charge."
For what it's worth, Leonardo was quite keen on bright hues too. Anyway, we can make no judgement till we see the cleaned work. In the meantime, feast your eyes on this super high-resolution image of the picture before cleaning, to which I was alerted by the ever-invaluable Three Pipe Problem. He has even spotted what appear to be a couple of finger-prints in the top left of the painting. Are they Leonardo's? Who knows - but it'll be interesting to see if they are still there in the cleaned painting...
Vandal of the week
January 5 2012
Picture: Denver Post
This is Carmen Tisch, who, according to the Denver Post:
[when] apparently drunk, leaned against an iconic Clyfford Still painting worth more than $30 million last week, punched it, slid down it and urinated on herself, according to a criminal case filed against Carmen Lucette Tisch.
"It doesn't appear she urinated on the painting or that the urine damaged it, so she's not being charged with that," Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office, said Wednesday. "You have to wonder where her friends were."
Tisch is being charged with criminal mischief in the incident that happened at the Clyf ford Still Museum at 3:30 p.m. on Dec. 29. Damage to the painting — "1957-J-No. 2." — is estimated at $10,000. [...]
Tisch allegedly committed the offense with her pants pulled down, according to the police report, and struck the painting repeatedly with her fist.
Nice.
Newly found Rubens for sale at Sotheby's New York
December 23 2011
Picture: Sotheby's
Hats off to Sotheby's New York for amassing one of the most impressive line ups of Old Masters I've seen at auction for a long time. Available for you to buy on January 26th are works by Guardi, Cranach, Van Dyck, Canaletto, Tintoretto, and Fra Bartolomeo. It seems consignors are taking up the opportunities of the growing momentum behind Old Masters sales. It'll be insteresting to see how well things sell - I expect strong prices.
A highlight of the sale will be the above newly discovered study by Rubens for The Adoration of the Magi, estimated at $2-3m. It surfaced last year at Koller auction in Switzerland, where it was catalogued as 'Workshop of Rubens', and sold for CHF 140,000. There, the attribution was presumably complicated by the existence of another study of the same subject by Rubens, and some rather awkward passages. Some of these, it transpires, were the result of later over-paint, and have been removed. You can zoom in on the Koller picture and play spot the difference. Full details here.
Wedgwood museum - a rescue emerges (via Twitter)?
December 22 2011
Picture: lgfl.org.uk
John Caudwell, the founder of Phones4U, has said on Twitter that he would be prepared to buy the Wedgwood museum's collection to prevent its being broken up.* Good for him. He said:
I passionately believe that the collection should remain intact and in place, and available for public viewing. If the Trustees don’t find any other way of solving the issue, then I will attempt to buy the entire collection and keep it n situ for the foreseeable future, and continue with public access. This would be subject, of course, to the outcome of any discussions with Administrators, and input of the Trustees.
No numbers have been mentioned yet as to how much it would cost him to buy the collection. The pension pot hole is £134m. Maybe (but I don't know) the collection is worth more than this (the paintings alone are worth a handy sum), so perhaps not all of it needs to be sold off.
* as I learnt via Twitter's antiques king, Steven Moore.
Hepworth theft
December 22 2011
Picture: AFP
A curious article in The Guardian today from Zoe Williams, who, it seems, struggled when her editor said 'give me 800 words on what the Hepworth theft means'. She thinks it points to a wider malaise in society, and blames, in part, the free market:
When you throw someone into the mix who doesn't care that a statue's true value is £500,000, and cares still less about its emotional value to the community, and will trash all that for £1,500, that person has a lot of power. It's caring that makes you weak.
The reason this is such a blow at this peculiar time is that the free market – the fundamental understanding of society where we exchange time for money and money for stuff and everybody wins – isn't working out. There is a full spectrum of explanations for the failure. On the right, it's because governments interfered, over-regulated, overdid the handouts and overspent. On the left, it's because government privatised, outsourced, didn't regulate, and created a corporate plutocracy by failing to protect wages, grouting the gaps with benefits and ultimately subsidising super-profits. There are centrist arguments that blame the legerdemain of financial instruments – just one giant, apolitical "oops".
Sadly, people have been stealing and vandalising art since the year dot, and will continue to do so. Probably the same section of society that does not care whether something is beautiful or historically important is the same as that which cannot empathise with their fellow man. Call it cultural pyschopathy. It has taken many forms throughout history; one is iconoclasm.
Meanwhile, a reader writes with a further suggestion on how to deal with the current problem of melting sculptures for scrap:
Re your point about scrap metal thieves, I agree entirely with everything you write. Here's one additional point, though, not least because you clearly have plenty of experience of the policy world, and the importance of framing these things properly from the start.
The theft of scrap metal or indeed 'architectural salvage' items from a listed property - something which, perforce, would include not only lead from church roofs, but also lots of things which do end up stolen and sold - e.g. pews, lecterns, statues, light fixtures, door handles, sinks, fire surrounds, you name it - ought to be considered an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing in criminal court. This is both (a) easily defined and (b) covers a lot of serious problems currently afflicting heritage properties, both ecclesiastical and secular, at least some of these involving what might reasonably be regarded as works of art.
Sounds eminently sensible to me.
Wedgwood museum collection will be sold
December 19 2011
Picture: Wedgwood Museum
The incomparable Wedgwood Museum, the country's pre-eminent pottery museum, will now almost certainly be closed down and its collection sold off. The High Court has ruled that the collection is an asset that effectively belongs to the Wedgwood company pension fund, which has a £134 million deficit.
The collection was never intended to be used as an asset this way. But a balls-up when drafting the original legal framework for the museum meant that the collection would potentially be at risk if the Wedgwood company went bust, which it did in 2009. The whole situation might have been avoided if someone had hired a good lawyer at the time.
It's not just pottery that will be sold. The museum has a fine collection of paintings, including a group portrait of the Wedgwood family by George Stubbs.
British art destroyed in Tehran - another failure by the GAC?
December 3 2011
Pictures: ITV
It seems my hope that our art at the British embassy in Tehran could be protected was in vain. The pictures, on loan from the Government Art Collection (GAC), have been destroyed by a mob of rampaging Iranian pillocks. A portrait of Queen Victoria by George Hayter (above), and a portrait of Edward VII after George Fildes (below), have been damaged beyond repair (unless someone can find the missing fragments). The Hayter would have been worth anything between £50,000 - £100,000, depending on which of the versions it was. We do not know the fate of the much more valuable eighteenth century Persian portrait of Fath 'Ali Shah.
After the damage to British embassies in both Damascus and Tripoli, where several works of art were destroyed, I suggested that:
There should be a policy in place to remove the art long before there's any chance of trouble.
The threat to these works on loan from the GAC in Tehran was entirely predictable. It's a shame the GAC, who have a woeful track record of looking after their art, did nothing to prevent it. Shouldn't there be a policy of replacing valuable works with copies in embassies where there is a potential for trouble? I doubt most visitors to the Iranian embassy would be able to tell the difference between the real thing and a copy anyway...
Don't forget the paintings!
November 30 2011
Picture: GAC
After another spat with the Iranian government, Britain is to close its embassy in Tehran. Last time we left an embassay in a hurry (Tripoli) the staff took the computers, but left all the pictures. They've since disappeared. So let's hope that this time they remember the art, which is on loan to the embassy from the Government Art Collection. Above is a highly valuable oil portrait of Fath 'Ali Shah, the 2nd Qajar Shah of Iran, dated 1813. Also listed as being in Tehran is a portrait of Queen Victoria by George Hayter, dated 1863. A quick call to the Government Art Collection was met with... an answerphone.
