Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:38:33.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Condition and Cleaning of Acrylic Emulsion Paintings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Alison Murray ,
Celina Contreras de Berenfeld ,
S.Y. Sue Chang ,
Elizabeth Jablonski ,
Tracey Klein ,
Marion C. Riggs ,
Elizabeth C. Robertson  and
W.M. Anthony Tse
Alison Murray
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Celina Contreras de Berenfeld
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
S.Y. Sue Chang
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Elizabeth Jablonski
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Tracey Klein
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Marion C. Riggs
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Elizabeth C. Robertson
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
W.M. Anthony Tse
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Department of Art, Queen's UniversityKingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6
Get access

Abstract

Cleaning acrylic emulsion paintings is challenging because of the material properties of the paint films, including their solubility. The goal of this work was to learn more about the effect of aqueous treatments on acrylic paints. Paint manufacturers were asked for their recommendations for cleaning these paintings and conservators were asked to comment on the damage observed in them and on the treatments applied. Responses showed that aqueous cleaning treatments are used, despite the associated risks, and that more technical information is needed about the effects of cleaning. The experimental section of this paper evaluated the changes in physical and mechanical properties of aged cobalt blue paint as a result of exposure to aqueous cleaning solutions. The results indicated that short immersions in these solutions caused a drop in most mechanical properties, but longer immersions did not; the drop after the short immersions was mostly due to the great increase in dimensional thickness of the paint films. Longer conservation treatment times are not being advocated.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 712: Symposium II – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology VI , 2002 , II1.4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.S. Aziz (private communication); Crook, J. and Learner, T. The Impact of Modern Paints(Tate Gallery, London, United Kingdon, 2000); C. Stringari and E. Pratt in Saving the Twentieth Century: The Conservation of Modern Materials, edited by D.W. Grattan (Communications Canada, Ottawa, 1993) pp. 411–440.Google Scholar
2. Lamb, C. Conservation of Modern Paintings (UKIC and Tate Gallery, London, 1982); D. Siommert, Zeitschreift 9 (1), 78–102 (1995); E. Jablonski and Golden, M. in Deterioration of Artists' Paints: Effects and Analysis (UKIC and British Museum, London, 2001) pp. 92–95.Google Scholar
3. Marontate, J.L.A., PhD Dissertation, Université de Montréal, Canada, 1996; J. Crook and T. Learner, 2000.Google Scholar
4. , Rohm and , Haas representative (private communication).Google Scholar
5. Bondy, C. JOCCA, 51 409 (1968).Google Scholar
6. , Stringari and , Pratt, 1993.Google Scholar
7. Sonoda, N. Studies in Conservation 35 189 (1990); Stringari and Pratt, 1993; T. Learner Spectroscopy Europe, 8 (4), 14–19 (1996).Google Scholar
8. Lemaire, J. in Saving the Twentieth Century (1993) 123£134; R. Howells, A. Burnstock, G. Hedley, and S. Hackney in Measured Opinions, edited by C. Villers (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation [UKIC], London, 1993) pp. 27£34; P.M. Whitmore and V.G. Colaluca Studies in Conservation, 40, 51 (1995).Google Scholar
9. Erlebacher, J.D. Brown, E. Mecklenburg, M.F. Tumosa, C.S. in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 267, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992) pp.359–370.Google Scholar
10. Whitmore, P.M. Moran, D. and Bailie, C. JAIC, 38 429 (1999).Google Scholar
11. Whitmore, P.M. and Bailie, C. in Cleaning, Retouching and Coatings, edited by Mills, J.S. and Smith, P. (UKIC, London, 1990) 144–149.Google Scholar
12. Hamm, J. Gavett, B. Golden, M. Hayes, J. Kelly, C. Messinger, J. Contompasis, M. and Suffield, B., in Saving the Twentieth Century (1993) 381–392; P.M. Whitmore, V.G. Colaluca, and E. Farrell, Studies in Conservation 41, 250 (1996).Google Scholar
13. Klein, T. Master's Project, Queen's University, 2000.Google Scholar
14. Tumosa, C.S. Millard, J. Erhardt, D. and Mecklenburg, M.F. ICOM Committee for Conservation, 12th Triennial Meeting, Lyon (James & James, London, 1999).Google Scholar
15. Mecklenburg, M.F. PhD. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1984.Google Scholar