Unintended contamination? A selection of Munch’s paintings with non-original zinc white Tine Frøysaker Conservation Studies, Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History (IAKH), University of Oslo
Background Among the paintings by Munch owned by public institutions in Oslo, there are two well-documented cases of the presence of non-original zinc white (ZnO): the university’s Aula painting entitled Chemistry (1914-16,1 Fig. 1) and the Munch Museum’s version of Puberty (1894,2 Fig. 2).3 Zinc-containing applications were introduced by a small group of Norwegian restorers and conservators, who applied zinc white (in spite of its ‘seeding’4 effect) to the versos of sever- al paintings during a period of more than 50 years. Zinc white was probably used as an antiseptic additive, although never referred to as such. The first known example is Munch’s Chemistry and ZnO was also applied to the reverse side of the other 10 Aula paintings during the mid 1920s while the paintings (c. 220 m2 in total) were lying on the Aula floor.5 The last reported application was in 1977 to Munch’s History,6 a painted Aula sketch in the Stenersen Collec- tion.7 Conservation records for the Munch paintings at the Munch Museum, the Stenersen Collection and the Bergen Art Museum hold information on two paste-lined paintings each and where zinc white is mentioned as part of the lining-adhesive recipes.8 This poster will consider the phenomenon of non-original ZnO in Munch’s paintings, which undoubtedly points to less-thoroughly reported examples of zinc-contaminated paintings in Norwegian museums.9
Metal soaps and oxalates The presence of zinc across the surface of some of Munch’s paintings was first detected in 2008 and 2009 when the EU- Ac- cess, Research and Technology for the conservation of the European Culture Heritage (EU-ARTECH MOLAB) research team examined Chemistry and Puberty. Metal soaps (Pb/Zn) (Chemistry only) and zinc oxalates (on both) were suggested with the aid of MOLAB’s fiber-optic Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy.10 Although still invisible to the naked eye and by mi- croscopy, a possible future development of these materials ‒ which might also turn visible ‒ became an unexpected concern.11 Visible metal soaps are soluble and can be removed,12 but this is not the case for visible oxalate patinas,13 which are highly insoluble crusts (i.e., on red lake, ultramarine and copper green in easel paintings).14 In a worst case scenario, many additional works by Munch (and by other artists) might develop similar crusts, which pose serious challenges for their long-term care.
Fig. 3 Clearly visible white spots of the ZnO containing verso coating from 1925-26 which have been pushed through the canvas and ground to form bumps and speckles on the surface of Harvesting Women (1915-16, Woll 1228) in the Oslo University Aula. DinoLite photo by Karen Mengshoel, December 2010.
To design a new and enhanced regime for storage, handling, display and transport of Munch’s zinc white containing paintings, preventive conservation seems to be the only option. The possible growth of metal soaps can be delayed by improved control of relative humidity (RH). Moreover, metal oxalates may be discouraged by elimination of pollutive gasses in the air surrounding these works. In museums, this is quite feasible for easel paintings of ordinary sizes. For monumental works in a listed building, such as Munch’s Aula paintings, periods of high RH values as well as air-born pollution must still be regarded as unavoidable.
Table 1. Zn O candidate paintings by Edvard Munch: 1) Reliable 2) Probable 3) Possible.
Painting Dimensions Past 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 3a O Woll S Morning 96,5x103,5 undated cm treatment MOLAB + Reported Reported Non-‐ XRF hits: Zn Non-‐reported w no. i wax/resin x both? BAM 110 yes other ZnO with ZnO yet to reported can be both ZnO yet to be n g lining analyses XRF hits be ZnO but original and measured e n Summer Night. 126,5x161,5 1980 measured with XRF non-‐original with XRF r e Inger on the wax/resin x both? BAM 182 yes with XRF hits or only d Beach lining original Seated Young 54,5x72,5 1956 Puberty 149x112 1951 glue-‐ Woman wax/resin x both? BAM 295 yes paste lining x MM 346 no lining Jealousy 66,8x100 1955 glue-‐ Woman 91,5x72,5 1956 paste lining x BAM 379 yes Combing her wax/resin x both? BAM 269 yes Moonlight 70x95,5 1955 glue-‐ Hair lining paste lining x BAM 323 yes At the 90x120,5 1954 glue-‐ The Sun 450x772 1973 glue-‐ Deathbed paste lining x both? BAM 376 yes paste lining x MM 958 no Woman 164,5x251 1964 glue-‐ The Researchers 480x1100 1973 glue-‐ paste lining x both? BAM 362 yes paste lining x MM 969 no Children Playing 74,6x89,2 1969 glue-‐ Venus 40x79 1973 glue-‐ in the Street in paste lining x both? BAM 491 yes padte lining x SC 595 yes Åsgårdstrand History 89x200 1977 glue-‐ The Day After 115x152 undated glue-‐ paste lining x SC 1099 yes paste lining + x only original NM 348 yes Chemistry 450x225 1925/26 1956 glue-‐ Zn? verso coating x x both UiO 1227 no paste lining History 455x1160 1925/26 Karen Bjølstad 29x22,5 undated glue-‐ verso coating x both UiO 968 no paste x only original BAM 125 no New Rays 455 1925/26 marouflage Zn? verso coating x both UiO 1225 no Walter 220x110 no past verso Women Turned 455x165 1925/26 Rathenau treatment x only original BAM 745 yes towards the Sun verso coating x both UiO 1223 no Zn Awakening Men 455x305 1925/26 Weeping 63x60 no past verso only original in Lightstream verso coating x both UiO 1222 no Woman treatment x Zn BAM 775 yes The Sun 455x780 1925/26 Olga and Rosa 70x80 no past verso only original verso coating x both UiO 970 no Meissner treatment x Zn BAM 779 yes Geniuses in 450x305 1925/26 Standing Naked 145x90 undated Lightstream verso coating x both UiO 1221 no African verso coating x SC 1219 yes Men Turned 455x165 1925/26 Jacob 45,5x33,5 undated towards the Sun verso coating x both UiO 1224 no Torkildsen marouflage x SC 146 yes Harvesting 455x225 1925/26 Rose and 78x109 pre 1950 Women verso coating x both UiO 1228 no Amelie glue-‐paste x SC 313 yes Alma Mater 455x1160 1925/26 lining verso coating x both UiO 1220 no Standing 60x33 undated The Source 455x225 1925/26 Female Nude lining x SC 187 yes verso coating x both UiO 1226 no Study of an Old 31,5x22 undated Kneeling Nude 66x44 undated Man’s Head (on lining x SC 120 no lining x both? SC 1450 no carboard) (canvas) Summer 54x39 undated The Seine at 35x27 undated Evening lining x both? SC 184 yes Saint-‐Cloud lining x SC 197 yes Ashes 120,5x141 1950 glue-‐ (on c arboard) (canvas) paste lining x both? NM 378 yes Hans Jæger 109x84 1954-‐56 glue-‐ The Girls on the 136x125 1956 glue-‐ paste lining x NM 174 yes Bridge paste lining x both? NM 483 yes Inger in Black 172,5x122,5 1949 glue-‐ Morning Yawn 108x98 undated wax and Violet paste x NM 294 yes lining x both? BAM 1085 yes marouflage Summer Night 70,5x96 1954 glue-‐ (masonite) paste lining x both? BAM 315 yes Puberty 151,5x110 1950 glue-‐ Spring Day on 80x100 pre 1949 paste lining x NM 347 yes Karl Johan glue-‐paste x both? BAM 209 yes Dance of Life 125x191 1958 glue-‐ lining paste lining x NM 464 yes The Women on 184x2005 1952 glue-‐ Veierland near 66,5x44 undated the Bridge paste lining x both? BAM 541 yes Tønsberg marouflage x NM 148 no Summer on Karl 54x62,5 undated (cardboard) Johan lining x both? BAM 1689 yes The Fairytale 79x106,5 undated Landscape 35x31,5 1969 Forest verso coating x NM 495 yes wax/resin x both? BAM 213 yes Study of a Head 60,5x46,5 undated glue-‐ lining paste lining x NM 98 yes Bathing Boys 70x91 1952 glue-‐ paste lining x both? BAM 593 yes
Fig. 1 Edvard Munch’s Chemistry (1914-16) in the Aula of Oslo University. Table 1. ZnO candidate paintings by Edvard Munch: 1) Reliable, 2) Probable and 3) Possible. Photographer: Terje Heiestad, December 2012. © Munch Museum / Munch-Ellingsen Gruppen / BONO, Oslo 2013.
Conservation reports Acknowledgements The Munch Museum database for conservation suggests that more than 350 past structural reinforcements have been under- Many thanks to Yngve Magnussen and Janine Wardius (BAM), Mirjam Liu (NM) and Inger Grimstad (MM and SC), for access to the museum taken.15 The conservators’ use of ZnO additives, and various types of adhesives for lining, marouflage as well as new support, paintings, to Ingjerd Kleiva (IAKH), Mirjam Liu and Duncan Slarke (IAKH) for XRFs and to Noëlle Streeton (IAKH) for editing. The study is however, have not been recorded in the database. A recent review of the much smaller Munch conservation report archives at funded by IAKH’s småforsk, UiO. the Stenersen Collection, the Bergen Art Museum and the National Museum revealed that these three museums have sever- al paintings with scarce information on their non-original, glue-paste verso applications.16 Another common feature of treated Notes paintings is that the majority has been lined or marouflaged by the same conservators who have reported the use of zinc white 1 Woll 1227.The Woll numbers are from Gerd Woll, 2008. Edvard Munch samlede malerier. Catalogue Raissonné. Vol. 1-4, Cappelen Damm, in other structural treatments of Munch’s artworks. Interestingly, during the first cross-institutional lining seminar in Oslo in Oslo. 2 17 Woll 346. 1974, zinc white was not listed among the usual lining material additives. In all likelihood, the inclusion of ZnO to a new layer 3 on the reverse side of the canvas never was discussed in a larger forum outside low-staffed museum workshops. Chemistry also has an original ZnO containing ground, but this is not the case for Puberty. 4 Ursula Baumer, Florian Schwemer and Johann Koller, 2004. Ghostly transferred images of modern paintings: Distracting accretions or severe damage? Modern Art, New Museums. Contributions to the IIC Bilbao Congress 13-17 September 2004: 217. Non-invasive Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorecence (XRF)18 5 Woll 968, 970, 120-128. Restorer Ole Dørje Haug (1888-1952) was responsible for this treatment.Tine Frøysaker, 2007. The paintings of A few preliminary XRF measurements indicate the presence of Zn (not previously reported) on the lined tacking edges of three Edvard Munch in the Assembly Hall of Oslo University. Their treatment history and the Aula-project. Restauro 4: 246-257, esp. p. 249; Karen of Munch’s canvases (primarily on the new textile support, but often on both): the Stenersen Collection’s Kneeling Nude and Mengshoel, Mirjam Liu and Tine Frøysaker, 2011. Shocking a mock-up: Recreating the damages and historical treatments found in Edvard Summer Evening,19 and the National Museum’s Ashes.20 In three other cases, XRF also gave Zn peaks when performed on Munch’s monumental Aula paintings to test materials and procedures for marouflaging a marouflage. In Artists’ Footsteps. The Reconstruction 21 of Pigments and Paintings. Archetype Publications Ltd. London: 129-140, esp. p. 130. unlined Munch paintings with no verso coatings, which suggest that they are examples of Munch’s own use of zinc white 6 22 Woll 1099. grounds. This encouraged additional XRF testing, and for more than 20 paintings examined in the same way (plus the Aula 7 Stenersen Collection: Conservation report by Jan Thurmann-Moe in 1977 for History (Woll 1099). paintings already measured), it was possible to point out three different groups (See Table 1): 8 Munch Museum: Conservation reports by Jan Thurmann-Moe in 1973 for The Sun (Woll 958) and The Researchers (Woll 958). This museum probably has an unknown number of additional Munch paintings with reported ZnO containing treatments; Stenersen Collection: Conservation 1) Reliable ZnO candidates: those of MOLAB’s findings and other report by Vivi Dørje Berg in 1973 for Venus (Woll 595) and by Jan Thurmann-Moe in 1977 (see note 3); Bergen Art Museum: Conservation analyses, as well as reported verso treatments with reported reports by Bjørn Kaland in 1955 for Jelousy (Woll 379) and Moonlight (Woll 323). ZnO including XRF hits (and the reported use of ZnO but yet 9 When zinc is detected everywhere in a painting, i.e. by multiple, non-invasive ED-XRF measurements, it is highly likely that the Zn element to be measured with XRF) originates from a layer which covers the entire support, either as a non-original reverse-side coating or as an original ground. A possible third reason, that the original colours (or the canvas itself) contain some original Zn, cannot be ruled out, but will not be discussed here. 2) Probable: the reported treatments without ZnO mentioned 10 http://www.eu-artech.org/files/REPORT_MOLAB_5/REPORT_MAP.pdf and http://www.eu-artech.org/files/REPORT_MOLAB_5/REPORT_ ANGST_2009.pdf but with XRF hits, although these XRF suggestions also might 11 indicate the artist’s own use of zinc oxide grounds Tine Frøysaker, Costanza Miliani and Mirjam Liu, 2011. Non-invasive evaluation of cleaning tests performed on Chemistry (1909-1916). A large and unvarnished oil painting on canvas by Edvard Munch. Restauro 4: 53-63, esp. pp. 57-61. 12 3) Possible: the lined/marouflaged paintings yet to be measured J. van der Weerd, M. Geldof, L.S. van der Loeff, R.M.A. Heeren and J.J. Boon, 2003. Zinc soap aggregate formation in ‘Falling Leaves (Les Alyscamps)’ by Vincent van Gogh. Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung 17(3): 407-416. Further measurements are planned at Stenersen Collection and 13 Catherine Higgitt and Raymon White, 2005. Analyses of paint media: New studies on Italian paintings of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Vol. 26, National Gallery Company Limited, London: 88-104; A. Nevin, J.L. Melia, I. Osticioli, G. Gautier National Museum on the remaining paintings that have been paste th lined or marouflaged.23 Non-invasive analyses will precede any and M.P. Colombini, 2008. The identification of copper oxalates in a 16 century Cypriot exterior wall painting using micro FTIR, micro Raman spectroscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Journal of Cultural Heritage 9 (2): 154-161. possible micro-invasive sampling and further analysis. 14 Marika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, 2006. Analyses reconsidered: The importance of the pigment content of paint in the interpretation of the results of examination of binding media. Medieval Painting in Northern Europe. Archetype Publications Ltd. London: 223-229, esp. pp. Precautions for ZnO candidate paintings with 226-227. 15 non-original (as well as original) zinc white Oslo Kommunes Kunstsamling database; Mille Stein, 2005. Konserveringsplan for Munch-maleriene i Oslo kommune Kunstsamlingene. In most cases, and unless the adhesion between the original and NIKU Sluttrapport 15. april 2005: 14. 16 Archival studies performed by the author during 2012. secondary support is very poor, ZnO-glue-paste removals from a 17 Dublering av lerretsmalerier. Rapport fra konserveringsseminaret 6.-10. mai 1974 i Nasjonalgalleriet. I.e. see Bjørn Kaland’s recipes for lined or a marouflaged canvas cannot be recommended. Even if glue-paste, only oxgall, formalin and phenol are mentioned as preserving agents (pp. 43-45). the verso coating is accessible, removals can be unsuccessful due 18 Other advantages: XRF is fairly quick, provides a preliminary overview and invites no discussions about micro sampling (yet). Drawbacks: to the texture of the canvas and/or if the coating has partly pene- the XRF-spectrum is accumulative, it gives the total amount of elements within the test area from MG (12) to U (92). trated into the canvas and all the way through the ground, as seen 19 Woll 1450 and 184. at the surface of some of the Aula paintings (Fig. 3). 20 Woll 378. 21 Woll 745, 775 and 779, all at Bergen Art Museum. 22 Munch also used zinc white colours as well as many other colours with ZnO additives. Hartmut Kutzke has kindly shared this list of zinc white Fig. 2 Munch’s Puberty (1894) at the Munch Museum, Oslo. suppliers found among the Ekely paint tube collection: Ambor, Herman Neisch & Co, LEFRANC, Lusk & Holtz and Winsor & Newton. © Munch Museum / Munch-Ellingsen Gruppen / BONO, Oslo 2013 23 The three remaining lined or marouflaged paintings at Bergen Art Museum gave no peaks for Zn (Woll 145, 230 and 543).