Know What You See

8/2/2019 Know What You See

1/17


2/17

Fair at Warmond, by


3/17

KNOW WHAT YOU SEE

An exhibition organized by Louis Pomerant z fo r TheRenaissance Soc iety at t he University of Chi cago,October 1970 .The Renaissance Society, founded in 1915, has brougthe University of Chicago and the city, distingu ished aorigina l art of various periods.The exhibition w ill be circulated by th e Il l inois Arts Coan agency of t he stat e, established in 1965 t o bri ng " arthe peopl e." It was made possible by grants f rom the Cand from Ciba Corporation.


4/17

Acknowledgements:Th is exhibition owes its existence to the splendid cooperation of many individuals and organi zations. I am deeplyindebted to the following lenders of original works of art :Mrs. James R. Anderson, EI Paso, Texas ; Thomas G. Harris,Chicago; The Art Institute of Chicago , The Brooklyn Museum,Phyllis Kind Gal lery, Chicago, the Estate o f Mrs. F lorence E.Dickerman, and to the .many wonderful anonymous lenders .I am deeply indebted to the following colleagues fo r th eirenthusiastic support and cooperation in supplying technicaldocuments : Mrs. Susanne P. Sack, Brooklyn, New York ;Charles C. Bridgman, Rochester, New York ; Alfred Jakstas,Chicago; Linton Godown , Chicago ; Sheldon Keck, Coopertown, New York ; Nathan Stolow, Ottawa, Canada ; DrHerbert Pollack, Chicago; Madame Madeleine Hours, Paris,France, ' I am very grateful fo r the assistance of t he manyindividual staff members of The Art Institute of Chicago,The Brooklyn Museum , The Nat iona l Gallery of Art , Washington, D. C., and the Louvre Museum.I am especially grateful to the anonymous donor of fundsto underwrite the cost of the color plate fo r the catalogue;to the CIBA Corporation, the General Manager of their P & IDivision, Mr. Peter Krause, and Mr. V. H. Link, RegionalTechnical Representative, fo r making available fo r thisexhibition, without cost, the " Cibachrome" color processused in producing the color transparencies on view, and fo rthe concern th ey showed fo r quality control in the wo rkinvolved ; to Messrs. Stanley Fairweather and Ben AmiDresdner of General Exhibits and Displays who demon-

strated an understanding and con cern fo r the gothe show ; to Mr . Sidney Lewis of Signature Press andCollins, Miller & Hutchings fo r their splendid cooperain producing the catalogue and co lo r plate; to GammLabs Inc ., Chicago, fo r their production of th e colorparencies and the black and wh ite photographic mateDr . Fritz Rothbart, Chicago fo r the gift of X-ray viewscreens; and to Mr . Norman Nelson, St . Charles, Illinhis support and enthusiastic cooperation .My sincere thanks to the I l linois Arts Council , Mr . SLeonard Pas, Jr ., Director, and Mr. Don Baum, DirecExhibitions , fo r their co-sponsorship of the exhibitioThrough their support and planning, the exhibition wIllinois fo r t he next year. My sincere thanks to theRenaissance Soc iety and the Un iversit y of Chicago foenthusiastic reception and support. I know tha t MaLangsdorf , President of The Renaissance Society andRosenberg, Director of Exhibitions, join me wholehein these expressions of gratitude. Credit f or t he ideasuch an exhibition goes to Martyl Langsdorf. To themexpress my own thanks fo r their he lp and enthusiasMrs. Rosenberg's creative labors in preparation of theTo their respective husbands and to my wife I expretude fo r the understanding they have shown.In writing the t ex t f or the exhibition I have borrowefr eely f rom the published works listed in the bibliogHowever, responsibility fo r the statements made is malone.


5/17

IntroductionThe exhibition "Know What You See" pays homage to anideal shared by the artist, the scholar and the conserv ator :the revelation and preservation of the genuine in art. Hope-fully, it will serve to remind us that reaching fo r this goalrequires an open and inquiring mind.The uninitiated should note that by carefully selecting casehistor ies, th e exhibition reflects only posit ive results, whenin reality negative results are all too common. He shouldalso bear in mind that equipment and techniques, nomatter how sophisticated, only provide informat ion, notanswers . Often the information is unclear and requires in -terpretation. The validity of the results depends upon theaccuracy of the interpretation. The techniques demonstrated in the show complement esthetic and historical cri-teria in the study and appreciation of paintings.For those who view an exhibition of this kind fo r the firsttime, be forewarned: you may never again look at paintingsin quite the same way. You may become aware of manyreasons why a work of art possibly misrepresents the artist .You may understand more fully the many things thataffect the appearance of paintings. You may begin to appre-ciate the limitations of the unaided, untrained eye, com-pared to the enlightened vision made possible with the aidof science and specialized photo-optical techniques . Youmay begin to quest ion what you see, and in questioningreach ou t more often to touch th e t ru th , to "know whatyou see."No doubt there will be those who feel unhappy about such

an exhibition, fearing the information revealed will cloumore minds than it will clear; will undermine publ ic codence in authority; will dangerously over-simplify thingscomplicated fo r the general public to grasp; and will spthe simple joy of seeing. 'To those who entertain such fears I admit some risk exBut will our ideals be further advanced by maintainingof silence and islands of ignorance, or by building bridgand sharing knowledge?By combining forces and pooling knowledge, the art historian and conservator can enhance the chances fo r sucin separating facts from fancy . Hopefully, by preservinthe integrity and natural continuity of art history, we ccontinue to learn from and build upon the past.Louis PomerantzConservator


6/17


7/17

- = -:....:.::.=::"_:.Edgar Degas, S tudy of Dancer , before t reatment .

~ - - _ . Edgar Degas, S tudy of Dancer, afte r treatment .


8/17

Felice Ficherelli ( Italian, 1605-1669)Judith , c. 1650Oil on canvas, 38 3/4 x 39 3 /4Art Inst itut e of Chi cago , Charles H. and Mary F . S.Worceste r Collection1. Test cleaned areas reveal changes in composition indicated

during pre liminary examinatio n.2. Detail of heads, test cleaned.3. Hal f -cleaned , reveali ng f igure formerly overpain ted .4 . Before treatment , ultravio let photograph. The

fluorescence pattern ind icates t he presence of repain tin the right-hand section.

5. Before t reatment, infrared photograph : Thi s reveals t hef igure of a woman belo w th e d iscolored varnish.

(T reatment and pho to graphs by A lfred Jakstas,A rt Insti t ut e of Chicago)Jean-Honore Fragonard, (F rench, 1732-1806 )Portrai t of Mlle. Mar ie-Cat her ine Colom beOi l on canvas, 22 1/8 x 18 1/8Th e Broo klyn Museum, lent by th e esta t e of Mr s. FlorenceE. Di ckerman.Anonymous forger, (20th Century )Cop v o f Frago nard Por trai t of M l le. Marie-Catherine Co lomb eOil on canvas, 22 7/8 x 20 3/4Th e Broo klyn Museum , lent by the estate of Mrs. FlorenceE. Dickerman.

On th e lef t , th e or iginal ; on t he ri ght , th e fake. Exaconf irmed the contemporary nature of th e fake. Thf i lm showed no signs of age cracks or dr y ing cracksacted readi ly t o very mi ld solvents which an old painwou ld have resisted . The ground and pain t f ilm wasposed of zinc-white, not yet used in Fragonard 's li f eTh e canvas showed no natura l signs of aging and t hewas stai ned to look o ld .1. Radi ograph of or iginal painting. This shows th e fo

the design clearl y indi cating t he use of whit e lead,fo r the peri od . Age crack s, damages, and irregularweave are visible, common to the 18th century .

2. Radiograph of f ake . Th is reveals on ly very faint t rth e painti ng's design; no cracks, no reto uches and af ine and evenly woven canvas.

(Photo graph s and radi ographs by Mrs. Susanne Sack , TBrooklyn Museum .)

P. L. Harris (American, 19t h Cent ury);; Three Patten Daughters, 186 4

Oil on canvas, 41 3/4 x 34 1 /8Collection of Mrs . James R. Anderson, EI Paso, Texasof t he late Frank H. Phil brick1. Partially cleaned , norma l pho tog raph2. Same state, in frared photog raph3. Signature on rear , inf rared photog raph


9/17

Thi s group portrait painting was wax -lined and cleaned in1961 . A prel iminary examinati on revealed t he presence ofanother painting below th e visib le design. Some of the sefo rmsare seen in t he present painting as pentimenti.Dam iano Mazza (Italian , late 16th Century )Al legoryOiloncanvas,513 /6x611 /8Art Institute of Chicago, Charles H. and Mary F. S.Worcester Coll ection1. Before t reatment: Note changes in co lo r relat ionshipswhere yello wed varni sh is removed in test cleaning.

2. Detail, part l y cleaned : Th e white areas along lower edgeat le ft represent fillin gs of an old repa ir t reatment.

3. Detail , part ly cleaned.4. After cleaning, before any inpa int ing. Compare wi t h no. 1.5. Detail , head of figure at left, half-cleaned.6. Detai l, normal light . Compare with no. 7.7. Detai l, infrared photograph : Reveals artist 's preliminaryd rawing .

(Cleaning t reatment performed by Louis Pomer antz. Photographs by Anton Konrad and L. P.)"M . P." MonogramMary Magdalen and a DonorOil on canvas mounted on wood panel, 18 1/4 x 15 1/4Private coll ect ion

1. Master of Moulins (French, active c. 1480-99)S te . Marie Madeleine et une donatricePainting on wood panelOriginal in Louvre Museum, Paris

2. Detail, Master of Moulins pain t ing, normal l ight3. Detail, Master of Moulins pain t ing, radiographic du

print : Reveals characteristic brushwork of th e art islack of overall density in the radiograph is typical oglazing technique rather than direct painting. (Phocourtesy Laboratory of the Louvre Museum)

4. Radiograph of pain t ing by "M . P." : Compare w it hgraphi c print of the original for styl istic differences(Radiograph by Dr . Herbert Poll ack, Chicago)

5-6. Details, painti ng by " M. P." showing false crack paThe presence of the artist 's in it ials, " M. P.", in th e lowcorner removes this paint ing from th e realm of mi schintent t o deceive. However , th e extensive false crackpatterns, made with stylus, paint, or by rolling, misrepthe painting 's modern origins.


10/17

Harry Roseland (American)The Blessing, 1905Oil on canvas, 30 x 48The Brooklyn Museum, g if t o f Mrs. Charles D. Ruwe1. After treatment : wax-lining and cleaning .2. Specular reflecting light photograph shows human figure.3. Radiograph of entire painting shows head and racket of

young man under figure of elderly man at left.4. Deta il of radiograph, lower section, viewed bottom edge up.

Note head, flowers, drapery and hand, unrelated tovisible painting.

5. Photomicrograph of cross-section of paint film embeddedin a plast ic medium which shows the many layers of paintIn this structure, photographed through the microscope at100x magnification. There are probably two complete andtwo incomplete paintings on this canvas. Only when it hasbeen proven that the under paint ing is historically or monetarily more valuable is the visible paint ing ever removed.Radiograph, courtesy Charles F. Bridgman, Eastman KodakCompany. Treatment and photographs by Mrs. Susanne P.Sack, The Brooklyn Museum .

Jan Steen (Dutch,1626 -79).. Fair at WarmondOil on canvas, 44 x 71Private collection1-4. Progressive stagesof cleaning .

5-8. Details of repainted female figure during cleaningThe painting is documented here fo r the f irst t ime in istate . The squatting f igure in central foreground hadrepainted to show her empty ing a large jug of water.the repainting was over varnish covering age cracks, itobviously not done by Jan Steen, but probably execusuit the taste of a former owner.(Inside cover photograph by EPSStudios, Evanston)Hendrik van Balen (Flemish, 1575-1632)

" Triumph of Neptune and AmphitriteOil on wood panel , 21 1/2 x 30 1/16Private collection1. Half-cleaned2. Detai l, center, half-cleaned3. Test-cleaned, normal photograph4. Test -cleaned, infrared photograph5. Detail, center test-cleaned, normal photograph. ,6. Detail, center test -cleaned, infrared photographThis paint ing, by a contemporary of Rubens , represenexcellent subject fo r study by infrared photography ,the technique of painting is one of thin layers of oil gover a strong preliminary drawing.(Photographs by EPS Studios and L . P.)


11/17

Hendrik van Balen, Nep tune and Amphitrite, center section,norma l photograph, before t reat ment.

Hendrik van Balen, Nep tune and Amphitrite, cent einfrared pho tograph, before tre atment .


12/17

* George Washington on a White Charger (Jack)1. Unknown Artist, New York, c. 1830 '

George Washington on a White Charger (Jack)Oil on wood panel, 381/8 x 293/8Original in National Gallery of Art, Washington D. C., giftof Edgar William and Bernice Chrysler Garbisch(Scaleapproximately 1:2)

2. Before treatment : A dense layer of grime and discoloredvarnish obscures the brilliance of the original colors belowand hides darkened repaint in the waistl ine at left.(Scale 1:2) '

3. Half-cleaned: The overpainted waistline is now visible atleft . The oil paint film once matched the surroundingareas, bu t has gone through a normal darkening with age,one of a number of reasonswhy oil paint is considered undesirable asa retouching medium.' (Scale 1:2)

4 . Cleaned except fo r overpaint in waistl ine atleft : Note .the 'alligatoring' type of paint cracks in r ight foreground..In f inal .treatment these were inpainted to minimize theirdistracting effect. (Scale 1:2)

5. Detail, macrophotograph of partly removed overpaint:The darkened overpaint has fi lled in the agecracks.It was removed mechanically with sharp knives by fracturingthe layer of overpaint while observing the work throughthe microscope. (Scale 2 :1)

Transfer Treatment of a 15th Century Wood Panel Paint1. Alvise Vivar in i ( Ital ian, 15th century)

Portrait of a ManOil on cradled wood panel, 17 7/8 x 12 7/8Original in The Brooklyn Museum, gift of Mrs. WatsoDickermanDetail of head before treatment shows buckling and fpaint due to shrinking of wood support .

2. After completion of treatment. (Scale 1:2)3. Reverseof paint film after removal of all material exc

the paint layers. Vivarini's preliminary drawing can bseen on the reverse of paint film (Scale 1:2)

4. Reverse of wood panel after removal of cradle (Scale5. Detail of preliminary drawing of nose and mouth on rside of paint film. (Scale 1:1)(Treatment and photographs by Professor Sheldon Kecksultant Conservator, The Brooklyn Museum)


13/17

Crack Patterns and Their Meanings1. Drying Cracks : A form of 'al l igator ing' created by i ~ t e r -

nal stress when drying rates d iffer in a multi-layeredstructure. The top layer or layers only are affected.This is a form of inherent vice or faulty craftsmanship .(Detail, 19th centu ry American , oil on canvas,scale 3. 5 :1)

2. Cleavage Cracks: The flexing of the canvas support, withchanges in relative hum lditv, cannot be followed by a dryand brittle paint film , causing cleavage cracks . Thesecracks resulted in the eventual flak ing of paint due toloss of adhesion . (Detail , Wil lem de Kooning, oi l oncanvas, scale 1.75:1)

3. 'Mud Cracks' : Another form of paint cleavage. This oilpain t film shows extensive cupping and flaking conditioncaused by the dimensional instability of an excessivelythick layer of glue sizing reacting to extreme seasonalchanges in relative humid it y . The small rectangle atr ight ind icates an area already treated with an adhesive.(Detail , A lexei Jawlensky, oi l on paper board,scale 2:1)

4. 'Mud Cracks ' : The extreme cupping and flaking condit ionof the paint film was caused by an excessive amount ofhoney mixed with the paint originally to prevent em-brittlement . Exposure to extreme fluctuations of relativehum idity caused dimensional changes in the support andpaint fi lm, resulting in f laking paint. (Deta il , Ben Shahn,tempera on paper on plywood, scale 5 :1)

5. Drying Cracks : A form of 'alligatoring ' with abranch pattern mostly in thick areas. The artisignored the rule of painting "fat on lean ." Thewere formed largely by shrinkage of underpaindrying, with subsequent fracturing of the lean,upper paint layer. (Deta il J.B.C: Carat, oi l onpanel, scale 3.5 :1)

6 . Sigmoidtype Cracks : These form a spider webeye pat tern, caused by spot pressure. The presis marked by a paint loss in the center. This isample of mechanical damage. (Detail, 19th cenAmerican , oi l on canvas, scale 3.5 :1)

7. Most often this pattern of cracks is due to a coof age, stress at each corner, as wel l as tensionsby the stretcher . (Detail, 19th century Americacanvas, scale 1.5 :1)

8. Varnish stains trace the cracked paint on the recanvas, indicating that cracks penetrate the enticluding ground layer . (Detail, rear of no. 7)


14/17

Some Things Affecting the Appearance of Paintings1. Ivan Albright, oil on canvas, detai l: before treatment . Un

varnished painting showing grayish background pattern unrelated to original design, caused by exposure of theexcessively lean paint film to high humidity and atmos pheric impurities .

2. Ivan Albright , oil on canvas, detai l: rear view of samearea before treatment . The extreme poros it y of the canvaspriming has allowed the paint ing to stain through rear ofcanvas.

3. Ivan Albright, oil on canvas, detai l: after treatment ofthe affected areas with a solution of diluted stand oil tocompensate fo r the lack of sufficient b inder in the paint .No inpa inting was performed .

4. Berthe Morisot, oil on canvas, detai l: blister-l ike texturesresulting from faulty restoration t reatment dur ing l iningprocedure.

5. Pablo Picasso, oi l and sand on canvas: grime removed inlower right.

6. Theodore Johnson, oil on canvas, detail : bloom on varnishfilm .

7. Theodore Johnson, oil on canvas, enlarged section of no. 68. Fernand Leger, oil on canvas, normal photograph.9. Fernand Leger, oi l on canvas, infrared photograph :

clearly documents working method of art ist, i . e. enlargement graph lines and brush stroke patterns. The

latter shows blue areas painted on either side of blacareas, rather than underneath .

10. Fernand Leger, oil on canvas, detail : white boraxcrystals can be seen growing ou t of blue paint .

11. Actual layer of disco lored varnish removed from 19thcentury oil paint ing. . The missing central area represean actual paint loss and the brown paint surroundingretouches applied by a restorer . The retouching shohave been confined to the area of loss alone .


15/17

Color Is How You L ight I tJordan Davies (American, born 1942)Untitled, 1970Acrylic on canvas, 22 x 22Phyllis Kind Gallery, ChicagoA different "white" f luorescent lamp is installed on each sideof the painting, top, bottom, left and right. As each in turnl ights up, i t causes visiblechanqes in the color relationships inthe painting which it frames."Different light producinq sources have different effects oncolors. Unless the color is in the l ight source, i t cannot beseen in the object." Color Is How You Light It, SylvaniaLighting Center, Danvers, Mass.The quality of illumination is an important factor to consider when viewing, judging or comparing works of art. Itraises an interesting question regarding the literature ofconnoisseurship and art criticism. Under what conditionsof l ight have these authors viewed and judged the worksdescribed? Was it by oi l lamp, candle light, daylight, incandescent or f luorescent lamp? Should contemporary criticsand scholars include a descriptive note on the qual it y oflight when commenting on the subject of color?

Some Applications of Science in the Examinationof Art1. Chronology Chart (courtesy of the Inst itut Ro

Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels) This chart shosystematically arranged data regarding pigmentsworks of art f rom earliest times to the present.

2. Application of X-ray macroprobe fo r determ inielements, e. g. copper, lead, iron, in layers of cBluish-gray paint from Jan Lievens' Job in Mise3. Photomicrograph, ordinary light, Rembrandt's"The layered structure of the painting can be selayer can be identified to supply important datproblems in dat ing, art ist's technique, repaint,(Scale 160 :1)

4. X-ray diffraction studies of Rembrandt and Liegrounds.

5. Photomicrograph, ultraviolet light, Rembrandt'The absorpt ion and reflection characteristics ofcomponents found in the paint sample are a futo their identification in ultraviolet light.

6. X-ray spectographic laboratory, National Consesearch Laboratory, National Gallery of Canadaa) X-ray generator; b) X-ray diffraction camerameter; c) X-ray macroprobe and spectograph folayers of pigment in cross-sections; d) electroniand read-outs.

Photographs of paintings referred to are from theGallery of Canada and John Evans.


16/17

BibliographyBridgman , Charles, and Sheldon Keck, " The Radiographyof Paint ings", Medical Radiography and Photography,Vol. 37; no. 3. Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, New York.1961 .Burroughs, Alan, Art Criticism from a Laboratory. GeorgeAllen & Unwin, Ltd., London, England.Coremans, Paul, Van Meegeren's Faked vermeers and DeHooghs. J. M. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.1949.Eastman Kodak Co., Applied Infrared Photography.Rochester, New York . 1968.Eastman Kodak Co., Medical Division, Fundamentals ofR ~ d i o l o g y . Rochester, New York .Eastman Kodak Co., Medical Radiography and Photography,Vol. 27, no. 4. Rochester, New Y o r k ~ 1 9 5 1 . (Devoted.entirely to methods of making radiographic duplicates on filmand paper.)Eastman Kodak Co., Ultraviolet and Flourescence Photography. Rochester, New York. 1968.Feller, R. L., "Color Change In Oil Paintings", CarnegieMagazine, Oct., 1954.Feller , R. L., Stolow, N. and Jones, E., Picture Varnishesand Their Solvents. lnterrnuseurn Conservation Association,Oberlin, Ohio, 1959.Keck, Caroline, A Handbook on the Care of Paintings.American Association fo r State and Local History,Nashville, Tennessee. 1965.

Keck, Sheldon, "Mechanical Alterations of the Paint FilStudies in Conservation, Vol. 14, no. 1. 1969.Keck, Sheldon, "The Technical Examination of PaintingIts Uses and Limitat ions in Art Criticism", BrooklynMuseum Journal. 1942 .Magazine of Art, Vol. 41, no. 5. 1948. (Special issue onforgeries.)National Gallery, An Exhibition of Cleaned Pictures(1936-1947). London, England. 1947.Pomerantz, Louis, Is Your Contemporary Painting moreTemporary than You Think? International Book Co.,Chicago, Illinois. 1962.Robertson, Clements L., " The Visual and Optical Examtion of Works of Art ", Museum News, no. 20 . AmericaAssociation of Museums, Washington, D. C. Dec., 1967Ruhemann, Helmut, The Cleaning of Paintings, Problemand Potentialities. Frederick A. Praeger, New York,New York . 1968.Stolow, N., Hanlan, J. F., and Boyer, R., "Elementdistribution in cross-sections of paintings studied by theX-ray macroprobe", Studies In Conservation, Vol. 14,no. 4. 1969.Stout, George L., The Care of Pictures. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York, New York. 1948.Unesco, "Climatology and Conservation in Museums"Museum, Vol. III, no. 4. Parts I, II, III. 1955.de Wild, A. Martin, The Scientific Examination ofPaintings. G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., London, England. 1929


17/17

Know What You See

Documents

Transcript of Know What You See