Category: Conservation
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 - 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.
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.
Brueghel the Elder discovery at the Prado
November 29 2011
Picture: NY Times
Further to Lawrence's post yesterday about the latest issue of the Burlington Magazine, here's an image of the Prado's recently acquired and newly discovered The Wine of St Martin's Day by Pieter Brueghel the Elder. The picture seems not to be on the Prado's own website (question; why do museum website take so long to change?) , but is available at the NY Times, where you can zoom in on the details.
Newly restored something at Dulwich Picture Gallery
November 25 2011
Picture: Dulwich Picture Gallery
A curious example of poor websitery over at Dulwich Picture Gallery. Announcing the 'stunning restoration' of a 17th Century work Saint Cecilia, they've illustrated it with the most tiny of images (above). The picture was previously thought to have been by Annibale Carracci, but has now been 'de-attributed' (tho' we are not told why). Don't you find it odd when museums assume visitors to their site only want the most trivial of details, or the smallest of images? If Dulwich put a better image up, they might find someone to help them with the attribution...
You know an exhibition is important when...
November 12 2011
...Brian Sewell reviews it in two parts, over two days! Part one here, and part two here. Sewell is always at his best when he doesn't like something, which is often. So the review of 'Leonardo' is a little... loose. Obviously, he likes it, and for its curator, Luke Syson would:
...honour him with a life peerage; his impending departure for New York is a loss to the nation.
Hear hear to that. Inevitably, Sewell finds something not to like in the show, and it is, you guessed it, the Salvator Mundi:
In what is essentially a scholarly and didactic exhibition that encourages the visitor to make comparisons and study the relationship of paintings with preliminary drawings, I am not entirely happy to see included and supported the newly rediscovered and identified Salvator Mundi. The cracking of the panel with associated losses of paint, aggressive over-cleaning and abrasion over the whole surface are all acknowledged, and I must ask at what point does a ruined painting heavily restored cease to be original? This is a wreck now so ill-defined, so smudged and fudged that glutinous gravy seems to have been the medium of its restoration. The hand raised in blessing, the associated drapery and some residuary details of hair and clothing, all suggest that this may once have been by Leonardo, but what we see now was formerly subcutaneous. That there is no revision or reinvention of the iconography also rouses my suspicion.
Can this ghostly, ghastly and blind-eyed face really be the invention of the same aesthetic mind as the melancholy Christ of the Last Supper? It would have been extremely useful to have had at hand a severe technical examination of this panel so that we know precisely the extent of past damage and present restoration; without this, its gushing acceptance as genuine must seem gullible.
He's over-egging it here - the condition is not that bad. It's interesting to note that Salvator Mundi has found immeasurably less favour amongst journalists than art historians. Barely a review has been published in England in which a journalist has not cast doubt on the picture. What is it about the discovery that the hacks don't like?
Cleaning tests
November 8 2011
Picture: BG
The first cleaning test on a picture is often the moment of revelation - is the picture beneath the grime and yellowed varnish a beauty, or a beast? Cleaning, we say in the trade, is the friend of a good picture, and the enemy of a bad one. The filtering effects of old varnish can not only hide the virtues of a masterpiece, but also the weaknesses of a copy.
Here are the remains of a little cleaning test we did on a picture last night. The various potions include acetone for removing the layers of old varnish, and white spirit, for 'wetting out' the surface. We occasionally also have to use scalpels for really stubborn areas of over-paint. The yellow gunk on the cotton wool swabs is the removed old varnish and surface dirt.
National Gallery Leonardo technical bulletin
October 27 2011
Picture: National Gallery, Leonardo's 'Virgin of the Rocks' (detail) in Infra-Red.
The latest National Gallery Technical Bulletin is out, and, wonderfully, freely available online with zoomable high-res images. Art History nirvana doesn't get much better than this. Essays include:
- Leonardo in Verrocchio’s Workshop: Re-examining the Technical Evidence by Jill Dunkerton
- Leonardo da Vinci’s 'Virgin of the Rocks': Treatment, Technique and Display by Larry Keith, Ashok Roy, Rachel Morrison and Peter Schade
- Altered Angels: Two Panels from the Immaculate Conception Altarpiece once in San Francesco Grande, Milan by Rachel Billinge, Luke Syson and Marika Spring
- Painting Practice in Milan in the 1490s: The Influence of Leonardo, by Marika Spring, Antonio Mazzotta, Ashok Roy, Rachel Billinge and David Peggie
