In the October issue of The Artist's Magazine, a letter from James Caldwell presented an amateur's procedure, derived from an old set of Encyclopedia Brittanica, for repairing a tear in a painting. Mr. Caldwell was responding to an Ask the Experts column I'd written for the March 07 issue; in answering a question about repairing an oil painting that had been cut, I'd advised the reader to consult a professional conservator. The editor of The Artist's Magazine asked me to respond to Mr. Caldwell; here is my response (a slightly shorter version will be printed in the December issue of The Artist's Magazine).

I am reminded of the attention-catching idea used to advertise a popular chain of motels that touts the main character in the commercial as one who has received a jolt of expert knowledge because he/she experienced an overnight stay in one of the advertiser’s facilities. In the end the obvious is revealed and the viewer can laugh at the creative effort of the author of the commercial.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with the advice given on the conservation of works of art as described in the letter to the editor. I shudder to think of all of the unfortunate readers who might be foolish enough to embark on following this advice and ruin a painting that could have been repaired by skilled hands.

This “one size fits all” form of advice ignores the fact that problems with works of art are filled with variables that influence the method of treatment selected. For example, a painting with heavy impasto is treated one way while a canvas with a smooth surface is handled another way. Obviously, accidentally torn canvas will not take place in a uniform way and the method used to attack each type of puncture and cut made to a painting can be different. The position of the tear, the frayed ends of the canvas, the loss of paint, etc., all play a part in formulating a treatment plan. Specialized knowledge and experience is needed to sort out the important factors and customize the treatment based on the variables encountered.

The central point that is most disturbing about this letter on repairing a tear is the assumption that little to no knowledge of conservation is required in order to make complex repairs to works of art.  This is an antiquated idea dating back to when conservation was simply an artist who repaired works of art by means that would make modern conservators cringe. Today, conservators start their careers with an undergraduate degree in art history and studio art with a concentration in chemistry. Then they spend a year or two of apprentice training with an experienced conservator learning about the methods and materials used to treat works of art. After that, they apply to graduate programs in conservation where they spend two years studying conservation. This is followed by a one-year internship at a museum or other institution where they are assigned practical treatments that perfect their skills. Most conservators go on to spend 3 years in post-graduate study via fellowship opportunities at museums.

It is absurd to think that an encyclopedia article can replace 5 to 7 years of intense training followed by a career of work experience. This is especially frustrating when the advice is filled with errors.  For those curious to know, beeswax alone is not the answer to repairing a tear. At best, the repair will undo itself shortly and, at worst, the patch will show through. As a bonus, if enough beeswax is applied to make the patch firmly stick to the back of the painting, the heat applied can allow the wax to seep through the tear and disfigure the front of the painting, as well as adhere the painting to the table used for the treatment. If this home repair is attempted, an artist may face the headache and expense of both repair of the original tear and the removal of wax from the surface of the painting. The lesson that should be learned is do not work beyond your level of skill and understanding. Things can go horribly wrong when following generalized instructions, especially if the instructions are wrong from the start.

Reading the formula for amateur repairing of tear in oil paintings begs the analogy to the medical world. What if your doctor told you that you needed a fairly simple operation but that the procedure would cost you a lot of money? Ignoring the academic training and experience of a skilled surgeon, if you could obtain instructions for the operation from a surgical textbook, would you ask a family member who was “good with their hands” to perform the surgery to save the cost of the treatment?  The same holds true for conservation of works of art.  Do-it-yourself surgery and conservation both come to the same bad end.

Part of my absence in July has been my attention to many projects at work.  Plans for a series of lectures and a demonstration in October at the Savannah College of Art and Design have taken up large parts of my workday. Another exciting opportunity to contribute to the art world has developed over the last month.

Mark Gottsegen has become more involved in his venture to provide lectures and educational opportunity for the art community through his organization AMIEN; he asked me to take over his previous position as Chair of the American Society for Testing and Materials for Artists’ Materials (ASTM).

This will be a great personal challenge for me. In recent years, participation by manufacturer members has been slipping. While this may be a part of a natural cycle of interest in ASTM as the Artists’ Materials group moves from creating standards for some of the high visibility, large volume art materials to the smaller-revenue generators in a manufacturer’s product line. Regardless, a lot of work will need to be done to bring back some of the old familiar participants and attract a new generation of enthusiastic manufacturers. Exciting new products are coming into the marketplace, and both the consumer and manufacturer stand to benefit from participation in ASTM.

Education of the public is lacking. Many artists I contact do not know the work of ASTM. Others see it as “that group that does the health and safety thing.”  This “health and safety thing” is more commonly referred to in ASTM parlance as D4236.  This standard was a major undertaking by both ASTM and the Congress of the United States when they decided that art materials needed to have some point of official contact so that— if by some reason an art material was ingested or came into accidental contact with sensitive parts of the human body—a source of authority on the composition of the product could communicate with health care professionals to provide vital information on the composition and toxicity of the material in question. Other standards familiar to artists relate to the lightfastness of art materials. ASTM has provided manufacturers with a forum to come together to evaluate the durability of pigments. While many pigments remain unchanged when exposed to light over long periods of time, other pigments fade and pose problems for the artist. ASTM provided the means to test and evaluate the major pigments used for making art materials, and ASTM came up with a rating system that’s easy for an artist to understand.

My task, and the task of those who wish to help, will be to educate artists as to the importance of ASTM and how their involvement as smart consumers can influence the art materials industry. If the public desired new standards, ASTM could provide them.  This would forge a partnership—between the consumer who wants quality art materials and the manufacturer who could provide them.  In my time as an observer of the art materials industry, I’ve impressed overall with the genuine care and concern that manufacturers have toward their customers. I believe they want to sell good materials because it makes good business sense, and it’s the right thing to do.  Many manufacturers are artists as well; they accordingly feel a sense of responsibility to produce good quality art materials.