Art Restoration

I think you misread me, LW....the owners of the paintings I restore would not have paid much for them. They would never consider paying for professional restoration or appraisal which is why they come to me. This doesn't mean that some of these paintings aren't wonderful. It is also by
no means my occupation.

What is disturbing is the condition of some of these paintings....I had one which had been kept too close to a lamp....It had many concentric cracks in one area!!! aaaargh!!! However the owners liked it and just wanted a small tear repaired.

The 1921 painting has thick dust along the edges of the canvas and the back is grimy. It has probably been stored in adverse conditions....possibly in a barn or warehouse somewhere. Its surface is patchy, some areas of gloss, some matte.

Since the original owner probably used dammar
varnish, as you say, I am just wondering whether dust could have penetrated the dammar resin over the course of its 84 years, especially if it had been
kept in the heat? It's surface is somewhat grimy. I don't know whether it has the 'orange peel" effect that you describe, but it is somewhat fly-specked
under a magnifying glass.



This sounds ghastly! It is actually a stunning painting, with a wonderful frame. I would have bought it if I had had the chance.

I like your solution to creating age and many thanks for the technical tips. With your restoration
experience, were you ever tempted to turn it into
a career? It is fascinating work.

I've done it when the opportunity presented itself by referral. I have used it most recently in the one year consultant client who owned the largest gallery in Orange County. They had a lot of originals and prints that the owner would buy from other galleries, art publishers, brokers and print studios where he could get an exceptional price. Often they would require minor restoration that I could quickly handle but anything major we sent to a professional restorer in Los Angles as we didn't have the proper facility to work on them.

Heat would have softened Damar varnish and that could cause dust or other contaminants to penetrate the varnish. The safest way to remove most of this is not with solvents but with 000 steel wool. Like all restoring, the steel wool rubbed in a clockwise then counter-clockwise motion will very gradually remove the varnish. Most of the contaminants will burnish off and you have to check to make sure you're still just taking off the varnish, of course! One solvent that will remove old Damar varnish is MEK. Just barely dampen a soft cotton cloth with the solvent and again rub a small area at a time with the clockwise and counterclock wise motion without apply a lot of pressure. Again, you have to check the cloth to make sure it is still taking off varnish and not beginning to remove the actual oils. As a matter of fact, I'd switch to the steel wool once the embeded contaminants are mostly removed. Test on a the lightest part of the painting and see if it increased the brilliance of the color when removing the top layer of varnish. If the varnish is cracked, it should be okay as long as your cloth is only damp with the MEK.

Thanks for the advice LW. It sounds fairly
labour intensive for the purposes of this repair,
though I would like to try it out on a painting that
I purchase.

The 1921 painting is about 24 x 36". The
area that I need to paint is about the size of 3
quarters in an upper corner. It is in the middle of a dark night sky....in a reasonably thickly painted area of cloud which should be easy to replicate.

Bear in mind that this painting would have been
purchased for less than $500.00.(it was a steal) I am reluctant to mess with the surface to any great degree, since there are some areas of flaking.

Basically, in the small area I am talking about
painting, I am attempting trompe l'oeil. It
interests me to use some degree of
historical accuracy and consistency with the art materials.

In looking at the surface of this painting, and playing detective, it wouldn't surprise me to find that it had been stored in a shed or warehouse for some years, possibly after it had been damaged. Since we live in the Toronto area, humidity and heat is high in the summer and of course plunges in the winter. I know oil paintings like consistency in light and temperature. Under a magnifying glass, I can see some new cracking on the surface,
particularly where the oil is thick, but overall, it does not have a high degree of craquelure.

This is not a painting that is destined for the
walls of a high-end gallery. Most likely it will go into
a rather dark living or dining room with Victorian
type decor and furnishings.

Restoration is painstaking and very labor intensive. Likely the reason I never persued it -- one can paint a new painting in less time than one can be fully restored. Basicallly, you're talking about a minor repair as a full restoration would cost upwards of $2,000.00.

Your illumination is, as always, superlative, LW....
Many thanks.

This topic for me raises the question of authenticity.
While I may wish viewers to see this painting as intact once it is repaired, I have no wish to hide its repair from the back of the canvas. To me that would be ..."a lie"!

There has been much controversy regarding
restoration. Part of the appeal for me, in looking some of the artworks of antiquity, IS the passage of time and its effects. Restoring an ancient art work to look as if it was painted yesterday, is not something that appeals to me.

shepaints, perhaps steel wool or fine sandpaper could also be used to remove the sheen and make it look older rather than using vacuum cleaner dust

no dust bunnies, stuh505? Okay then!!!

The steel wool is the best solution to dulling a glossy finish. Using it correctly, the finish will be uniform and that, of course, belies aging. But restoration is not an intent at any fakery and many things besides environmental damage has been done to some great masterpieces. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel had been altered significantly from his original conception, moreso by the hands of other artists than the environmental damage (which was also extensive). Dirty looking, shadowy glazes had been applied to dull the color and provide an entirely different technique of modeling than Michaelangelo's technique. He was an unabashed colorist and the restoration is magnificent. The controversy over just fixing the crazing (cracking) of the varnishes in old masterpieces goes on. Basically unless one gets close the artwork or it is over illuminated (which is possible to do according to what light the artist himself painted it under), these imperfections aren't overtly visible. Artists never intend their work to be viewed from twelve inches away. I like the Getty's skylighted galleries with subtle augmentation of artificial halogen lighting.

"Artists never intended their work to be viewed from 12 inches away"

Sure they did! What a silly thing to say. Many artworks were devotional images, where a person would open a panel or curtain and stare (at close range) to try to transport themselves mentally to some other frame. Clearly in miniatures and manuscript illuminationit is also the case.

Many painting owners are unhappy after restoration. For example, one owner of a rembrant windmill had the varnish cleaned, and the dark, stormy sky and gloomy landscape turned into a bright sunny day - full of vibrant colors. The owner lamented his sullen Rembrandt.

Interesting discussion. I followed a lot of the restorations in italy. There are, of course, restoration wars.

Various pieces were meant to be seen from various paces away, or closer, at the time of painting. They were also not done under much day light or much light at all.

But there was joy in color.

lightwizard,

you obviously have more knowledge in art restoration than anyone else here, and I'm sure that your knowledge is appreciated...but lighten up! shepaints is not working on professional restoration of famous murals...shes retouching garage sale paintings done by nameless nobodies that are only valuable to the current owners!

stuh505, of the thousands of artists working today, only a few will end up as artstars.

I have a lot of admiration for the artists whose work I restore or to put it more accurately, repair. I would not describe them as "nameless nobodies", but rather as sincere artists whose work got
damaged through neglect, a move, or whatever. Most of these paintings are purchased at auction, many are signed, many are old. Those that are damaged usually do not command high prices since people want something perfect. (Perhaps that is why the commercial art print
business is so successful).This does not mean the paintings I work on are not good paintings. Again, I am not talking about a high profile auction house or the high-end of the art market.

I am most appreciative of LW's expertise. We might differ on philosophy since he is a professional who has worked on very valuable art works with a much higher level of financial risk.

I can afford to be more creative and less scientific in my solutions. I might restore this particular painting with a concoction of something that resembles the composition of the surrounding painted surface.... a little pigment, damar, turpentine, fly specks, dust and hocus pocus.

Perhaps we could all benefit by lightening up. This discussion was meant to be a friendly chat, not a competition.

If someone is willing to help to post my pictures, I have some available
of a restoration that people may be interested in seeing.

I am not intending to be competative, but I am concerned at your lack of concern about A. Skill/technique/preservation in repairing the original artwork and B. Caring about how long your personal work will last (I.e. your painting falling off the canvas in a couple months.)

Please understand that to me, as a fellow artist, this is akin to hearing a mechanic say he's fixed up people's cars with pieces of wood and sawdust. I don't care how old or unvalued the car was, the mechanic wouldn't be doing his job right. It's not so much a matter of competition, as one of pride in doing a job correctly.

Thank you for your concern Portal. Funny you should bring up the symbol of the car and the mechanic. My first car was a cute Triumph convertable. It had been through several hands before it came to me. One day I was T-boned by another vehicle. As I was under insurance, my car went in for repair. The door of the car was panel-beaten, and spray painted. Because the original colour of the car was weather beaten, the glossy new car door (matched to the exactly the same colour) looked ridiculous. No, the insurance company would not pay for spray painting the entire car.

You are not looking the painting I am restoring. You cannot see its imperfections. It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to do!

if you send the pictures to my email at [email protected] I will post them here for you

image is on its way stuh, thanks!

Well, of course, there are artworks that are the exception and demand viewing at close quarters. The vast majority of paintings are intended for view from a distance. The only reason I get serious about this is the aspect of misrepresenting exactly what one is doing when asked to restore a work. If the customer has a question as to value, I'd back entirely away from any restoration as you could be opening a can of worms. Yes, there was a case of having a Rembrandt cleaned (restored) and it turned out the painting was conceived as bright daylight. However, this is what Rembrandt intended to paint. Just like Michaelangelo intended on painting a richly hued vast image of religious images and it was covered over by lesser artists in glazes and aging had also dulled the colors.

No comparison to some garage sale painting where the odds that it is worth anything are pretty high. One might think it's as good a chance as being struck by lighting while being bitten by a shark. However, people are funny and it's up to the resorer if they want to proceed.

I'm just giving my opinion here and if someone asked me to restore something and they were concerned it might be worth something, I wouldn't get near that painting until they got it appraised. Even then, I would make them sign an agreement that they realize the cleaning will alter the painting to make it look newer and they will have to specifically authorize in writing any painting or other altering techniques.

Thanks for the enlightenment and wise counsel LW......Get it in writing, of course, excellent advice.

For those that are interested,( and who have the
energy to scour second hand book shops
and garage sales etc.) National Geographic
had an article on the restoration of the
Last Supper in Nov. 83. Stunningly beautiful,
close up photos.

Art Restoration
Portal Star / anyone..
I have always dreamed of working in art restoration, in oils mainly as that is the medium I use. I have read your last conversation with Shepaints and saw that you need to have a background in chemistry to be able to do this with some credence, however this is not a subject I am proficient in and wondered if there is a way of studying restoration at degree level without it? I have an A level in art, but just a gcse in the sciences!
Any advice would be greatly appreciated

My guess is that the chemistry is relatively constrained - that a person can understand it given some reasonable tutelage.
(I studied a fair amount of chemistry in college, became a painter later, but not a restorer. Have watched it though...)

I wouldn't be put off, if I were you..