University of Glasgow History of Art Honours Dissertation March 2017 The Future of Remedial Painting Conservation in the Public Sector of the UK: Learning from Italy and Applying New Technology in the Form of 3D Scanning and Printing. Madeleine Frances White 2070881 Word Length: 11,931 1 Acknowledgements Writing this dissertation would not have been possible without the following people who provided invaluable support: • Mark Richter, my dissertation supervisor who kindly provided help and guidance throughout this project. • Aileen Nisbet, Jacqueline Ridge, Suzanne Ross, Polly Smith and Chris Miller for their generosity in finding the time in their busy schedules to talk with me. 2 Contents Title page p. 1. Acknowledgements p. 2. Contents p. 3. Image Index p. 5. Abstract p. 15. Introduction p. 16. Chapter 1: Support Strengthening p. 18. o Minimal Intervention p. 18. o The Greenwich Conference p. 21. o An Italian Approach p. 22. o Similarities to the UK’s Approach p. 23. o Looking Towards the Future of Support Strengthening p. 25. Chapter 2: Cleaning p. 27. o The UK’s Approach to Cleaning p. 27. o Italy’s Approach to Cleaning p. 28. o The Cleaning of The Last Supper p. 29. o Looking Towards the Future of Cleaning p. 31. Chapter 3: Retouching p. 32. o Changing Attitudes Surrounding Conservation p. 33. o Deceptive Restoration p. 35. o Visible Restoration p. 37. o Looking Towards the Future of Retouching p. 40. 3 Chapter 4: The Future of Conservation p. 42. o 3D Scanning p. 43. o 3D Printing p. 45. Conclusion p. 48. Bibliography p. 50. Appendix p. 58. 4 Image Index Figure 1: Image A: Cimabue, Crucifixion, 1280s, tempera on wood, 3.36 x 2.67 m, Museo di Santa Croce, Florence, pictured before the flood. Sourced from Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza, The Cimabue Crucifix, (Florence: Olivetti, 1982) p. 83. Image B: Cimabue, Crucifixion, 1280s, tempera on wood, 3.36 x 2.67 m, Museo di Santa Croce, Florence, after the flood, before restoration, detail. Sourced from Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza, The Cimabue Crucifix, (Florence: Olivetti, 1982) p. 104. 5 Image C: Cimabue, Crucifixion, 1280s, tempera on wood, 3.36 x 2.67 m, Museo di Santa Croce, after restoration. Sourced from Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza, The Cimabue Crucifix, (Florence: Olivetti, 1982) p. 115. Images D & E: Cimabue, Crucifixion, 1280s, tempera on wood, 3.36 x 2.67 m, Museo di Santa Croce, after restoration, details. Sourced from Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza, The Cimabue Crucifix, (Florence: Olivetti, 1982) pp. 117 – 118. 6 Figure 2: Image A: Isaac Messina, Re-restoration of Cimabue’s Crucifixion, after Cimabue, c. 2014, tempera on panel, dimensions unknown, Messina’s private collection, after panel preparation. Sourced from Isaac Messina, “A New Approach to the Restoration of Cimabue’s Santa Croce Crucifix”, (BA diss., Syracuse University, 2014). Image B: Isaac Messina, Re-restoration of Cimabue’s Crucifixion, after Cimabue, c. 2014, tempera on panel, dimensions unknown, Messina’s private collection, detail in progress. Sourced from Isaac Messina, “A New Approach to the Restoration of Cimabue’s Santa Croce Crucifix”, (BA diss., Syracuse University, 2014). 7 Image C: Isaac Messina, Re-restoration of Cimabue’s Crucifixion, after Cimabue, c. 2014, tempera on panel, dimensions unknown, Messina’s private collection, finished panel. Sourced from Isaac Messina, “A New Approach to the Restoration of Cimabue’s Santa Croce Crucifix”, (BA diss., Syracuse University, 2014). Images D & E: Isaac Messina, Re-restoration of Cimabue’s Crucifixion, after Cimabue, c. 2014, tempera on panel, dimensions unknown, Messina’s private collection, details from finished panel. Sourced from Isaac Messina, “A New Approach to the Restoration of Cimabue’s Santa Croce Crucifix”, (BA diss., Syracuse University, 2014). 8 Figure 3: Image A: Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, c. 1495 - 97/98, tempera and oil on plaster, 4.6 x 8.8 m, Refectory of S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan, the figure of Christ much altered by previous restorations, the same during the cleaning process, the same after the completion of the restoration. Sourced from Brambilla Barcilon, Pinin, and Pietro C. Marani. Leonardo: The Last Supper (Figure 6). (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001) p. 355. Image B: Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, c. 1495 - 97/98, tempera and oil on plaster, 4.6 x 8.8 m, Refectory of S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan, after restoration. Sourced from Brambilla Barcilon, Pinin, and Pietro C. Marani. Leonardo: The Last Supper (Figure 6). (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001) pp. 152. 9 Figure 4: Image A: Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, aprox. c. 1503-4, oil on synthetic panel, transferred from poplar, 2.94 x 1.99 m, National Gallery, London, after restoration. Sourced from The National Gallery, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/giovanni-battista-cima-da-conegliano-the-incredulity-of-saint- thomas, [Accessed: 08/03/2017]. 10 Image B & (detail) C: Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, aprox. c. 1503-4, oil on synthetic panel, transferred from poplar, 2.94 x 1.99 m, National Gallery, London, after cleaning, before restoration, with detail. • Image sourced from Jill Dunkerton and Ashok Roy, “The Technique and Restoration of Cima’s ‘The Incredulity of S. Thomas’”, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, vol. 10, (1986): 59. • Detail sourced from David Bomford, with Jill Dunkerton and Martin Wyld, A Closer Look: Conservation of Paintings, (London: National Gallery Limited, 2009). p. 76. 11 Figure 5: Camille Pissarro, Fox Hill, c. 1870, oil on canvas, 35 x 46 cm, National Gallery, London. Sourced from The National Gallery, Fox Hill, Upper Norwood, https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/camille-pissarro- fox-hill-upper-norwood, [Accessed: 08/03/2017]. Figure 6: Image A: Master of the Story of Griselda, The Story of Griselda, Part I: Marriage, c. 1494, oil and tempera on wood, 61.6 x 154.3 cm, National Gallery, London. Sourced from David Bomford, with Jill Dunkerton and Martin Wyld, A Closer Look: Conservation of Paintings, (London: National Gallery Limited, 2009). p. 66. 12 Image B: Master of the Story of Griselda, The Story of Griselda, Part I: Marriage, c. 1494, oil and tempera on wood, 61.6 x 154.3 cm, National Gallery, London, detail before restoration. Sourced from David Bomford, with Jill Dunkerton and Martin Wyld, A Closer Look: Conservation of Paintings, (London: National Gallery Limited, 2009). p. 66. Image C: Master of the Story of Griselda, The Story of Griselda, Part I: Marriage, c. 1494, oil and tempera on wood, 61.6 x 154.3 cm, National Gallery, London, detail after restoration. Sourced from David Bomford, with Jill Dunkerton and Martin Wyld, A Closer Look: Conservation of Paintings, (London: National Gallery Limited, 2009) p. 67. 13 Figure 7: Mark Rothko, The Harvard Triptych Murals, c. 1962, oil on canvas, Distemper, egg tempera, and acrylic copolymer on canvas, 2.67 x 2.99 cm, 2.67 x 4.59 cm, 2.67 x 2.44 cm, Harvard University, Harvard. Sourced from Harvard Art Museums, Mark Rothko's Harvard Murals, http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/visit/exhibitions/4768/mark-rothkos-harvard-murals, [Accessed: 08/03/2017]. Figure 8: Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, c. 1503-16, oil on panel, 77 x 53 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris. Sourced from BBC, The Mona Lisa (La Gioconda), http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/gallery/monalisa.shtml, [Accessed: 08/03/2017]. 14 Abstract This thesis will examine the remedial conservation methods seen in both Italy and the United Kingdom (UK). Through the examination of the remedial conservation seen in the Italian conservation methods implemented in the restoration of Cimabue's Crucifixion (figure 1) and Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper (figure 3) and parallel British conservation efforts as seen in Giovanni Battista Cima da Conegliano’s The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (figure 4), one can reflect upon the similarities and differences in the UK’s and Italy's approach to conservation. The approach towards the strengthening of a painting’s support through applying the attitude of minimal intervention is seen in both Italy and the UK, thus with this consensus, this minimalist approach to support strengthening should be upheld in the UK to avoid unnecessary alterations to the foundations of a painting. However, disparities in the approach to restoration between the UK and Italy are seen in the cleaning and retouching of paintings. Considering these conflicting approaches, I propound that the UK maintains its approach to the cleaning of paintings and the removal of non-original additions, whilst adopting the technique of chromatic abstraction seen in Italian retouching. I further suggest that the UK looks toward how 3D scanning and printing might help this practice through increased accuracy, true reversibility through programming and the reduction of human error. 15 Introduction In this thesis, I will examine three main aspects of remedial conservation:1 cleaning, support strengthening and retouching. I will argue that the current methods of minimalist support strengthening and the removal of all non-original paint layers and dirty varnishes seen in the United Kingdom (UK) are advantageous to the artwork. However, the process of retouching could be improved so as to distinguish the hand of the artist from the hand of the conservator through the use of visible restoration2 in the areas of lacunae3. This thesis will argue that the current practice of deceptive retouching4 in the UK is detrimental to the artwork as it hides the original amongst the hand of the conservator. I advocate that the process of visible restoration used in Italian conservation is preferable due to allowing for a cohesion of composition maintained through methods such as chromatic abstraction,5 whilst differentiating the original from later interventions.