Very thorough examinations and technical studies of the painting using different types of lighting, stereomicroscopy, ultraviolet (visible) fluorescence, infrared reflectography, and X-rays revealed that the painting has been badly damaged.
Technical Examination Photos:
Decay of the Panel…
The altarpiece was painted on poplar, a wood prone to woodworm infestations and tending to warp. Insects tunneled through the wood, leading to major damage to the altarpiece’s support and painted surface. A very heavy mahogany frame glued to the back with the intention of preventing further deterioration caused more damage by restricting the natural response of the wood.
Want to know more?
Poplar is a particularly soft and weak wood, prone to woodworm infestations and tending to warp with changes in humidity. Centuries of display in a church under poor conditions caused the boards of the panel to warp, crack, split and rot. Insects bored tunnels through the wood, making it spongy. Decay of the panel led directly to major damage to the painted surface. The insect-tunneled, cracked and warped wood panel support was then poorly restored several times. The once very thick poplar planks were thinned down to approximately 3/8 inch and the panel was flattened in a press. In addition, rotten wood (including all 4 corners) was cut away and replaced with a different and incompatible type of wood. A very heavy mahogany cradle glued to the back with the intention of preventing further deterioration actually caused more damage by restricting the natural response of the wood to environmental changes. The result was even more serious warping, cracking and splitting of the painting, creating an uneven undulating effect on the surface of the picture.
Panel Decay Photos:
Buckling, Blistering, Cleaving and Flaking…
Due to the expansion and contraction of the wood from temperature and humidity variations, the paint and ground layers were poorly attached to the wood panel, and many areas were actively buckling, blistering, cleaving and flaking away. The Indianapolis Museum of Art received the fragile work in this condition in 1951. A decade later, a visiting conservator reported that “the painting was in extremely hazardous condition.” In 1969, a well-intentioned, but badly executed restoration effort was attempted but was abandoned mid-stream.
Want to know more?
Early conservation treatment records are incomplete. In 1952, shortly after the painting was donated to the museum, “consolidation treatment of the paint with glue size was performed on some larger cleavage packets,” yet the painting continued to deteriorate. In 1961 it was noted that “the painting was in extremely hazardous condition.” In 1965, records noted that the painting was “now in storage, RH (relative humidity) 15% on this day. Damage increased with scattered flaking. No use treating until proper humidity conditions can be provided.” At that time the painting was housed at the John Herron Art Museum, the precursor to the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Even after the museum’s move to a new building in 1970, the paint continued to actively flake off from stresses within the wood caused by the cradle despite the new museum’s stable environment.
The painting remained at very great risk for further damage and loss unless the cracked and loose paint and ground could be successfully consolidated and reattached with an appropriate adhesive. Temporary local adhesive stabilization of the paint and ground might have been achieved without full treatment of the panel, but it is likely that recurring problems with flaking paint and ground would require periodic, repetitive restorations. A better and more lasting solution would be to treat the sensitive wooden panel to reduce the tensions within its structure. The IMA conservator consulted with specialists in wood panel painting treatment about the possible removal of the heavy mahogany cradle and alternate methods of wood stabilization in an attempt to provide an appropriate long-term solution to the problem.
Paint Deterioration Photos:
Cleaning and Repainting…
Thick oil repainting done in earlier restorations to cover up the true condition of the picture were unevenly removed using harsh methods that most likely further damaged the delicate original paint. The painting looks “raw” where it has been over-cleaned. It is possible that centuries of cleanings removed any thin topmost layers of paint and/or destroyed colors of mixed media technique, yet old repaint still remains.
Want to know more?
A well-intentioned, but badly executed, restoration attempt in 1969 of the surface was abandoned mid-stream, leaving the painting too fragile to be exhibited. The only record of this treatment is an index card with a hand-written note that the painting was “cleaned, reattached (wax), and filled with wax June/July 1969.” A group of black-and-white photographs in the historical file show the framed painting before the 1969 cleaning (the date of the photograph is unknown) and a photograph of the half-cleaned painting taken in 1969 by C.H. Traub. Thus, the painting remained partially and poorly cleaned with extensive remains of old repainting, residues of dirt and discolored old varnishes, and damage to the original paint from the chemicals used in cleaning.
Copious amounts of old repaint remain on the surface, notably the trees on either side of the saints. The upper third of the picture, mostly the sky, is seriously damaged by cracking, loss, abrasion and staining. This part of the painting will be difficult to reintegrate and will require study and comparisons with other works by this artist. The Virgin’s blue robe is mostly lost, and the remaining original ultramarine color appears to suffer from ultramarine disease. There is also some irreversible darkening of pigment in her vermillion blouse. The bottom right corner of the painting is a modern fabrication but with little, if any, original paint still existing in this area. The mordant gold is in fairly good condition on Saint Justus’ robe and the architectural niche, but it is mostly gone on the Virgin’s robe. The gold leaf of the staff, cross, book edge, and the haloes is somewhat worn and damaged. It is unclear whether the haloes were ever regilded in earlier restorations.
Some areas of damage and loss were partially and shoddily filled in 1969 with a gesso-like material prior to incomplete and poorly matched retouching . A sprayed-on synthetic varnish is aesthetically inappropriate, adding more visual confusion to the already seriously compromised surface of the painting. When the 1969 treatment was abandoned, many areas of damage and loss had not been treated, and they remain tenuous and raw. All of the 1969 restorations and as much of the remaining old repainting should be removed and be redone where it can be done safely.
Cleaning and Repainting Photos:
The Good News…
Fortunately, the most important parts of the picture—the flesh tones, architecture, inscription, signature and date, along with the drapery of the two saints—are fairly well preserved, making it possible to achieve a very successful conservation and restoration result on this significant painting with careful and patient treatment. Areas of major damage can be sensitively reconstructed or suggested in the inpainting phase of the treatment by careful study of other works by this artist and an understanding of his materials and painting methods.