Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:20:08.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Humidity on Gessoes for Easel Paintings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2014

Michael Doutre
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6
Alison Murray
Affiliation:
Art Conservation Program, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6
Laura Fuster-López
Affiliation:
Instituto Universitario de Restauracion del Patrimonio, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 46022
Get access

Abstract

Gessoes are widely used in easel painting as grounds or preparatory layers; in art conservation, gessoes are employed as infill materials to level a loss in the paint surface in preparation for inpainting. The goal of this investigation was to establish the relationship between the mechanical behavior of various gessoes when exposed to different relative humidities (25%, 50%, and 100%) and to compare modern commercial gesso products with a traditional gesso. The materials included two commercial artists’ acrylic gessoes (composed of largely titanium dioxide and aqueous dispersions of acrylic polymers), two commercial spackling compounds frequently used in the conservation of easel paintings, and a traditional gesso (calcium carbonate and rabbit skin glue). Uniaxial tensile testing was used to characterize the elastic modulus, strain at failure, and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the materials. By understanding the physical limits of these materials under different conditions, damage to artworks and the failure of conservation treatments containing these types of materials may be prevented or reduced.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

Jablonski, E., Learner, T., Hayes, J., and Golden, M., Conservation Concerns for Acrylic Emulsion Paints: A Literature Review, Tate Papers (2004).Google Scholar
Fuster-López, L., Filling Materials for Canvas Paintings: Technical Evolution and Physico-Mechanical Analysis, Ph. D. diss., Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain (2006).Google Scholar
Smith, H., An Investigation of the Suitability of Modostuc® as a Fill Material. Unpublished Report. Queen’s University, Kingston (2004).Google Scholar
Fuster-López, L., Mecklenburg, M.F., Castell-Agustí, M., and Guerola-Blay, V., Filling Materials for Easel Paintings: When the Ground Reintegration Becomes a Structural Concern, ICOM-CC Working Group Paintings: Scientific Study, Conservation, and Restoration, p.180186 (2008).Google Scholar
Hagan, E., A Comparison of Age, Climate, and Aqueous Immersion Effects on the Mechanical Properties of Artist’s Acrylic Paints, Master’s thesis, Queens University, Canada (2004).Google Scholar
Hagan, E., and Young, C., Cold Temperature Effects of Modern Paints Used for Priming Flexible Supports, ICOMCC (2009).Google Scholar
Erlebacher, J.D., Mecklenburg, M.F., and Tumosa, S.J., The Mechanical Properties of Artists’ Acrylic Paints with Changing Temperature and Relative Humidity, Polymer Preprints 33(2): 646–7 (1992).Google Scholar