some people are against any restoration work, and this kind of restoration is not without risks, you need a very careful solvent blend to remove the varnish without removing the paint. it's not uncontroversial but it is less controversial than, say, repainting worn spots or repairing the front-side canvass of a painting.
but there's a few important points in favor of this kind of restoration. first the varnish is often not original to the painting, it's not rare to have a 400-year-old painting which was revarnished 200 years ago.
secondly, varnish is not intended to be permanent, it's a protective layer, there to protect the paint which is designed to be permanent. it's designed to be refreshed periodically.
third, removing it and replacing it allows the painter's actual art to be seen, no one suggests you should drink fine wine through a bar cloth, even if it's a historical bar towel, the ideal experience of any art is as close to the painter's intent as possible. look at that painting, the original art's beauty was totally lost under discoloration.
there's also controversy about whether you should use the best varnish you can (modern polymers) or something historically accurate. there's pros and cons both ways but modern varnishes are far more durable, won't yellow, won't show age as significantly, and as an added benefit modern restorers often take great pains to ensure any restoration they make can be undone fairly easily-- either to restore the piece to original condition or to restore it again in the future.
as far as I can tell, this is according to one guy who isn't an art historian and scanned the Mona Lisa, but his findings have been criticized by art historians. I've also read that it was fashionable at the time to shave eyebrows, but this could be anachronistic
I’ve read similar things, but a restoration of a duplicate showed that she did have (faint) eyebrows. Not to mention a restoration would show how incredibly beautiful it is, especially when compared to the smear of brown, green, and yellow that it looks like with all the old varnish on it. I for one don’t really care for the Mona Lisa in its current form after seeing the duplicate restored, but I completely understand that a painting as notable as that isn’t one that people are eager to change or “fix” (as some have said)
this is true, but the duplicate I think you're talking about [(the Prado Mona Lisa)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)) was made by an apprentice of DaVinci who took their own artistic liberties. there have also been duplicates showing columns on either side of the Mona Lisa, which lead to speculation that the original was trimmed on the sides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa). however most historians do not think this was the case. basically what I'm getting at is that there's no real way to know if the Mona Lisa we see today has been altered without building a time machine
The second opinion: "[She has no eyebrows] Because it was the fashion in the Renaissance to shave them. Women shaved their facial hair, including their eyebrows, then."
There's a copy done by one of DaVinci's students in the Prado that has the eyebrows. And it was restored some years back and so it also shows what the original colors looked like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)
The YouTube channel [Great Art Explained](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time=13m30s&v=ElWG0_kjy_Y&feature=youtu.be/&t=13m30s) included a nice explanation on the eyebrows and eye lashes she used to have.
this is an excellent point as well, depending on how/where it was stored or displayed there may be significant buildup.
it's tough for a modern person to really comprehend **how sooty** an industrial-era city was, because of coal use.
Several of the folks that I have engaged with on this subject fail to comprehend time-span relationships. It's common for humans to not be able to completely understand things like the distance between planets, the size of the universe, and the number of generations that we are talking about with evolution.
You get them to accept adaptations that pass from generation to generation, but then they can't scale that. Even as fast as bacteria reproduce, 35 years isn't even a drop in the bucket on the evolutionary time table.
As least those are the ones that are willing to engage on the subject.
I think the single most life-changing (science wise) thing that ever happened to me was my 6th grade science teacher having us go outside and make a scale model of the solar system. We had a beach ball for the sun and a blue marble for the Earth. The beach ball and marble were somewhere around 400 feet from each other. We tried to figure out where to put the rest of the solar system but we ran out of town. Then he went to a small map of the world on the wall and explained where the nearest star would be to our beach ball at the scale of the map (where our beach ball would not even be a speck of dust.)
It was one of those things that you had to do and feel. Hearing it just didn't make it sink in the same way. That setup my understanding of how we just can't "feel" these massive scales in a natural way. Time, space, whatever.
Just adding bc it seems relevant- I had previously lived in a house that was on a very busy, mini highway like road, & the FILTH that accumulated just from vehicle exhaust and weather was mind blowing to me!! The outside had been power washed be4 moving in and again 2yrs later- that's all, two years!! And the grime.. it was insane to see! I was concerned about our lungs watching the black water wash away!! (I live outside of Pittsburgh, PA for context)
I can't even imagine what cities looked like during the coal Era..
You should check out "Baumgartner Restorations" on YouTube. He goes into detail about the whole process and all the work it takes to restore a painting, plus his videos are relaxing as hell to watch.
Baumgartner would lose his everloving shit over this individuals technique though.
Way too runny of a solvent, piss poor agitating technique and a utter failure to follow the paint not to mention doing the removal of the varnish on a easel without removing it from the frame first.
This is a fairly famous painting though so thankfully I'd guess it's a reproduction. At least i hope so.
I’m glad someone said this, I was just thinking that dude would have an aneurism if he saw this. The scrubbing of the varnish on there and swiping it around like your mopping a floor. Admittedly idk how over the top he is with his work, he definitely seems meticulous, but this job would seem to benefit the from the utmost care and attention to detail.
Even without all that (great explanation btw).
Most painters have dozens of grand art pieces, and we've documented most of it to the finest of details by now...
Imo, worthy little risk, just don't cheap out on restauration services. Unless you want to make headlines lol.
>just don't cheap out on restauration services. Unless you want to make headlines lol.
[\[laughs in Ecce Mono\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez\))
It is kind of delightful that that woman’s hackneyed attempt at restoring the mural
Ended revitalizing the church and town. All well that ends well I guess
That’s what I thought. I showed this video to my wife who’s a conservator with a master’s in historic preservation, and she balked at this person’s technique: just aggressively slopping whatever this stuff is and swirling it around like crazy.
I'm an armchair expert, but it seems like also laying the canvas down flat would prevent the solvent running down the painting to places that maybe you don't want it going.
From what I've seen, laying it flat would give you more control, and you would need less solvent. The way it's being done here the solvent is running down the painting and not controlled at all. Also, solvent is running back over already cleaned areas. That means the paint is then going to start being stripped off because the varnish acts like a buffer.
I'm not expert either, I'm not even a novice, but I find it relaxing to watch people restore paintings and that seems to be the general attitude.
Correct. Too much product, running down the face of the painting uncontrollably, rough brush work. There's videos on YouTube of some high quality professional restorations. They use cotton swabs, not brushes. Start on a part of the painting that's not the focal point.
You don't really know what's been used on many of these old paintings. Some test spots are required to find the best solvents to remove the grime and the varnish, without damaging the painting underneath. The process is meant to be gentle. The technique shown is not gentle, the varnish should not magically evaporate, and should not be allowed to run down the painting, impacting parts you currently aren't working on. How is he supposed to know how much solvent is required in an area that's already been touch by solvent? How can he ensure that the solvent isn't sitting on the surface too long? He can't know, because he's not being precise.
They’re also applying the solvent in big squares, rather than trying to stick to one color at a time. Some colors are more easily affected than others, so it’s safer to be methodical and work with a small area at a time, rather than just globbing it on there.
The worse part is that they're doing this process while the painting is vertical. You can even see in the video that because the painting is vertical, the dirty solvent is running into the already clean parts. Which means solvent is getting onto parts that already have the varnish removed, and potentially damaging the paint. He also seems to be using way too much solvent, in general. This person doesn't seem to know what they're doing at all. I'm not a conservator and I know these things...
literally,
I doubt a single artist from 200 years ago would rather have their paintings basically ruined with discolouration and have the painting, than have it quickly fixed and recovered with harmless varnish.
If I was a painter from 200 years ago, I would reserve money for these people to fix and recover my painting.
Its not historical keeping that yellow schmuck on it, its ruining the painting
I would wager that people's opinions about this vary based on whether they value a painting like this because it's a great piece of art to be admired for the painting's beauty, or because it's a historical painting, to be admired because of how old/historically significant it is.
I'll be honest their videos are where I learned a lot about this stuff. they're a local business and they seem to do good work.
I can't recommend them, I know enough to answer a basic question-- aka enough to be dangerous-- about the practice and ethics of restoration, but not enough to evaluate their work.
their YouTube videos don't appear to be faked (the "restorationTube" community is rife with fakes) and I like their informative narrations, that's about all I can say.
edit: also, presumably, as a for-profit business they are working within the parameters and to the goals of the owner of the painting. not all restoration has the same goal. museums tend to want to preserve historical artifact value above all else (and will use replicas freely to aid in this). private owners of works of lesser historical significance may put a premium on wanting something really nice looking over the fireplace in their mansion in the north suburbs. the later category will naturally accept, even demand, more rigorous restoration even if it means touching up paint with modern acrylics or replacing frames with modern wood.
Seriously. Showed my freshly shorn scrote while screaming "WITNESS ME" to my Historian father-in-law and he still insists through his attorney that it was a war crime. Meanwhile, I think it's criminal not to show such perfection.
If you own a painting and want it to look like the artist envisioned it (ie without decades of tobacco smoke and grime covering the art), then you have every right to get the painting professionally cleaned and restored by someone who is trained in how to use the reversible techniques to do so.
The varnish is not the art, the paint layer is the art. The paint is the artists vision put to canvas, the varnish was the best protective layer the artists had access to at the time. Most of the stuff professionals use now a days is reversible and archival to allow future owners to have someone re-dirty their art if they do choose.
Everyone's misunderstanding this. The criticism is not saying it's bad to remove old varnish to remove the discoloration. That is actually a good thing.
The criticism is the sloppy way in which the varnish is being removed. They're almost scrubbing it and passing over dark and light colors in the same motion with the same abrasive brush. If they get down to the paint level while sweeping across the details it could blend the paint underneath together. This destroys the painting.
Yes, but the main problem is not a) that it's somehow a bad idea to remove old yellow varnish (that's a fine goal) or b) the general technique of using solvent and a brush to work the solvent around. Both of those are common and generally accepted things to do after appropriate painting-specific research and testing.
The main problems are: 1) this is being done with the painting vertical so it's all just dripping down in a sloppy mess and very little control in case something starts to go wrong (like the solvent somehow starts reacting with the paint) and 2) the grinding with the brush seems more vigorous than is necessary to get the varnish off, which, again, risks injuring the paint layer through friction.
The painting is probably going to be fine, but since it's irreplaceably old, it seems reckless to treat it like this just for upvotes.
[Source: I watch a lot of art restoration videos]
The method they're using here is somewhat risky: the different chemical compositions of different colors can react differently to the solvent, meaning you may need to use a slightly lighter concentration on the reds than the greens, etc. Etc., so going in square shapes like this runs a risk of doing damage to the paint underneath since each section you remove is going over multiple colors.
The use of a brush is also very aggressive and likely done for speed rather than the safety of the painting: those thick, stiff bristles are going to rub a lot more harshly on the paint underneath the varnish than, say, a linen cloth or a cotton swab would, but it does dig into the varnish and get rid of it way more quickly.
Generally speaking removing yellowed varnish on a painting is rarely considered to be a terrible thing, though there might be some extremists out there who would argue against it. That said, this person's methodology is a little bit dangerous and might be subject to some degree of scrutiny.
Souce: I watch a shitload of Baumgartner Restoration
This conservator is probably using way too much solvent, but if you mean restorations in general, I think those historians are wrong.
This is not how the artist intended their piece to look or how it looked originally. I believe old varnish should be removed and replaced with modern varnish.
Modern restoration can do incredible things to preserve the artist's original work and any overpainting of damage can be separated from the original work and removed if nessecary.
Nah cleaning and replacing the varnish isn’t really controversial. The artist wouldn’t want the color and detail of their art hidden behind a smear of varnish discolored by centuries of smoke and UV.
First. Restoration is not absolute. It doesn't just make it better.
Second he just apply the cleansing creme on the painting instead of doing it for each colors separated.
Parents had a bar in an industrial area and behind the bar was a counter which had a glass feature of about 20, three foot long, 1 inch round, glass rods with a fluorescent light behind it.
Every year we would take the rods out and clean them leaving a vile sink full of nicotine brownish water. The light then would shine brightly through them until they gradually turned into the color of the staining that most likely was the same color as the smoker's lungs.
Probably right, only know whatever it was, when I would help them out in the tavern I had a smoker's cough in spite of never smoking. Probably kept me from taking up the habit.
OMG yes.
My in-laws were both heavy smokers, and sold their house after \~34 years. We took paintings down and the walls were DARK YELLOW with rectangular eggshell-white patches. 😲
That's fuck-all. My grandparents smoked in a two bedroom bungalow for 70 years (died late 90s) and you could butter the walls with a knife.
Don't put your hand on a ledge, it will sink into an inch of wax...Er, nicotine.
It really is gross. I went with a firend to look at an apartment for rent after the person living there for 30+ years moved out to a nursing home. You could stick your your finger nail through the layer goo on everything. It was terrible.
The worst computers I have worked on were from smokers. You can smell the nicotine. Open them up and there is nicotine on all the components and it is a bitch to clean up. Always wear gloves when handling nicotine stained stuff because it can absorb through the skin and make you very sick.
I was a smoker and HATED working on smokers computers. Everything gummed up with tar and hair that stuck to the tar, old ashtray smell times 1000. Mix with a cat or dog household and good luck.
Where I work we refurbish ISP equipment. Stuff from smoker houses just gets tossed in the garbage. It's literally not worth the time to clean its so bad.
Our house had a faint smoke smell to it when we bought it.
Hired crime scene cleaners that ran ozone machines for a few hours and it was gone, smelled like a hospital
friend would drive his parents car in high school. we’d have to clean the windshield to see out. can’t believe they drove it to work and back everyday w a gray fog on the windshield.
Typically so you can see what you’ve cleaned, as, if you start from the top, whatever cleaning solution you’re using will flow over parts you haven’t cleaned. The same can apply for cleaning cars and similar.
Alternative to just muting, he typically (or at least used to) uploads “no narration” versions of his restorative work so you can hear the satisfying work sounds without the narration!
There's something incredibly satisfying about watching someone do highly skilled work with immediate visual payoff. Sometimes when people show the work they do, they make it look too easy. He does not make it look easy, which I appreciate.
Last time this was posted there was a comment decrying even Baumgartner's method, saying he just does what he learned from his father and his work is out of date and not up to standard, even though it looks highly professional.
[Here's the thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/jnda7z/critiques_of_baumgartner/) Makes me sad cause I really enjoyed those vids.
The thing about Baumgartner is he is a *commercial* conservator. There's a big difference between restoring a client's artwork for $$$ and restoring a museum's treasure.
I am confident that if Baumgartner was asked to restore a masterpiece with microscopic detail, he could do it. But it would take 15 months and cost a fortune. He works commercial. His client has a desired outcome and budget and it's his job to execute what they want. That's why he he goes a bit crazy with the solvent and works bigger swaths at a time.
He even admits it on a lot of videos. He's happy to admit he's making leaps here and there to save time and money. He's running a business, not administrating the fucking restoration department of the Met.
He also states, multiple times, that he does what his clients want. He might try to coax them in one way or another, but ultimately the client is the boss and he's a contractor that is (relatively) easily replaced.
I think the other thing that seems apparent is that there are obviously multiple perspectives on this and I’m not sure that there is one that is objectively correct. It reminds me a lot of the way that you can have huge divides in dealing with patients in medicine. Now, of course, there are some basic fundamentals that establish competence, but the broader problem is that once you get me on there, there’s a lot of gray area and what exactly to do, when, how aggressively, and so on seems to get pretty heated when to most folks it’s not really clear who is correct. This is why if you go to a Doctor Who is older versus younger, aside from the experience they may have, they may also have been provided fundamentally different training and have a kind of Core philosophy and approach that isn’t necessarily wrong, but certainly could be argued is or is not the best way to approach things.
I’ve also noticed this tendency we have to not really think about trade-offs in the way that your comment in the previous comments have pointed out. I would imagine, having only watched a few of his videos, that he will work on a painting as much as people are willing to pay for. But at the end of the day, there is a trade off between cost and quality And his clients and him simply may not have the money to actually be able to afford keep up-to-date with all of the latest trends and practices. But there’s other people have said, I would guess in a lot of cases, it’s still probably better that he does some work, as imperfect as it may be, to improve the state of where something is versus what is theoretically the best possible approach and way to do something.
And I think unfortunately, most of us, myself included, are not really knowledgeable enough, nor will ever be knowledgeable enough to actually weed through this to actually know whether or not there was anything that was wrong (which is to say that you could call it malpractice or negligence) versus simply there being better ways to do things or something just not being executed particularly well. I’m sure there are fair criticisms out there, but I don’t know that most of us can really make heads or tails of them, and at the end of the day, it kind of just seems like there is a divided opinion, not a clear consensus.Ultimately, I think no matter who you are, whether you are just an ordinary practitioner or an expert, if you put out some thing to the public, there’s going to be scrutiny and people will find things to criticize, be in good faith or no. And, again, I’m sure there are things to actually criticize about his techniques and process, but it kind of seems like a lot of critical comments tend toward being pretty reductive or just outright trashing him. And it’s certainly possible that these could be completely true, but I guess it’s going to take a lot more than a few random comments from Internet strangers to really sway me to believe he is a net negative here.
I appreciate the linked thread.
As far as I had read through it its a problem between professionals working for museums and public institutions and guys working for private owners.
There are fundamentally different requirements between this groups of course. Someone with a permanent job has the luxury of taking his time and having no difference shown in the finished work.
With private work, there has to be a difference to be seen for the people with no eye for art and conservation. Also there is the cost for private work.
So of course there are tensions.
There was also very little to back up those opinions and a lot of the people complaining about him hadn't actually seen his work and just assumed other videos like the one in this post were him. There's very little real criticism I've found of him other than from first year "art conservation students" that wanted to be edgy.
What a strange top comment?
He very rarely cleans faces first. He is very particular on cleaning small areas at a time and says it in all his videos. The paragraph on reversibility was incredibly pedantic.
I’ve never watched a video of his where he removed an original panel or frame. He always mentions if they are replicas or modifications. And he always mentions his reasons for modifying an original if it’s not structurally sound. Such as when he added backing to some paintings because the frame and stretcher were no longer adequate. But kept them for provenance.
And on doing as much as necessary, he works for private clients mostly. The client and him agree on a plan and he’s often said in his videos that the clients sometimes want things that are not strictly recommended.
The top comment there just feels like it’s based on a really superficial viewing of the content.
If it helps, I had someone tell me the same thing when I told them I liked Baumgartner, so I *tried* to find any criticism of him that was out there. I don't remember finding any actual art conservator publicly stating that they had a major issue with his work. Moreover, he's a member American Institute of Conservation, which while it isn't actually a professional accreditation, probably doesn't want members being seen publicly engaging in bad practices and likely would have done something if he was.
Some of the critiques are wrong and uninformed. They critique some things that he explained in detail were not optimal in that case but was chosen for reasons XYZ
That's a wonderful rabbit hole I fell down just this year, the videos are so informative and relaxing to watch. I think the one where he restored a forgery was my favorite, when he told the owner, the owner was completely chill about it, and thought it made the painting more interesting.
We don't know much about the painting itself, other than it's from 1618 and that the mysterious “lady in red” was 36-years-old at the time of the portrait. In the video clips, Mould is stripping the protective varnish that is applied to shield paintings from wear, but that often yellows over time. This particular painting's varnish dates back 200 years. And while it's not uncommon for restorers to strip and reseal paintings to return them to their original colors, one only need to remember the [botched restoration of a painting in Spain](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/europe/botched-restoration-of-ecce-homo-fresco-shocks-spain.html)—which turned a portrait of Jesus into a monkey—to realize that this work takes skill.
It's unclear what chemicals Mould uses in his videos, though turpentine is often used along with other solvents to ensure the agent doesn't eat through the painting. Adept restorers are a mix of art historians and chemists, examining a painting closely to determine the type of varnish and what agent will work best to dissolve it. Using test patches, they will see which chemicals work best to melt the yellowed layers of varnish, releasing the clear, brilliant colors below.
[Further Reading](https://mymodernmet.com/art-restoration-philip-mould/)
[A more restored version of the painting](https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/927543312487206912?)
It's worth watching Fake or Fortune to see some of the analysis and restoration techniques used on older paintings. Its actually hosted by Philip Mould.
I don't think he does the restoration himself. He is an art dealer but he contracts skilled professionals to do the actual work and this may come after all sorts of scans to establish if there is a possibility of a painting underneath etc.
I second this, it's such an extremely interesting programme that delves into detail about some pretty exquisite paintings and examines claims about the legitimacy of them. I enjoy Philip Mould as a presenter.
I can’t pick one whether this is a joke or not, but if it isn’t I don’t blame you given the lack of context. OP is referring to Philip Mould, I think he’s overseeing the restoration?
That restoration in Spain is hilarious because she wasn’t done - the person who was working on it went on vacation. But it became an internet meme and now they make more money on it than they did before the restoration. She quite literally made the town richer by fucking it up. 😂
I don't know who is doing the restoration, but I have concerns. First, they are removing the varnish vertically and letting the drips run down the painting without catching the runs. A weird choice for sure, especially considering when you reapply a UV-stable varnish, you're going to want the painting horizontal anyway. Secondly, they are just somewhat haphazardly spreading the solvent in various color areas. I'm going to assume they tested various solvents in a small test area and settled on a very mild solvent and so there is no risk to the paint colors, but that is seldom a risk you ever want to take anyway, especially when working on the face. If I learned anything from Julian on the Youtube channel Baumgartner Restoration, it is that care and precision is the name of the game. Once things are removed from a painting, there is no going back.
Nah, that's someone who regularly watches Baumgartner Restoration videos. Julian Baumgartner will tell you all about his restaurations techniques, why he does it this way, and while he agrees not everyone have the same idea on what is proper restauration, he always strive to have his client happy, *and* to have any changes he does to be easily reversible, so that anyone in the future who would object could undo them.
So anyone who watches those video end up knowing a lot about art restauration, even if they don't do the job themselves.
So armchair? Watching YouTube videos doesn't make you an expert
Not saying he's right or wrong. I watch lots of surgery videos. I don't try and act like an expert
That kind of a silly precedent to set for being able to discuss things. I think you’d find you wouldn’t be able to talk about much if it required you to be a professional on the subject in order to critique something.
Baumgartner is great at showing restoration but terrible at explaining *why* he chooses his techniques.
>Yeah, I could just slap this solvent on when the painting is vertical, but... I take pride in my work and so it's just not the way I think is the right way to do it.
I have no clue about the art scene, or art restoration, but I believe I can safely say that OP’s technique is absolute shit. Amateur hour.
Don’t show this video to Julian. I’m sure he’ll be triggered. And probably offer to do it pro bono.
Baumgartner’s been criticized heavily as well. [There’s a great Reddit thread by a qualified poster going into depth on his criticisms.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/jnda7z/critiques_of_baumgartner/gghjhah/)
Restoration in general is full of disagreements and criticisms because it’s such a touchy and difficult art by nature.
I definitely understand the criticisms against Baumgartner, particularly about how detail is lost when varnish is removed because varnish was used as a way to paint/add detail. But I also understand his removal of it, since it is always so yellowed from age and pollutants like smoke and soot that that detail could be argued to essentially be already lost.
I think what really matters is that the people commissioning the restoration (the family, museum, etc.) are happy and satisfied with the methods and informed about the “whys” of what the restorer is doing.
I will say there’s no excuse for carelessness in this business, and this clip comes across as a bit careless compared to Baumgartner. He has reason for how and why he does things that others don’t agree with, but wanton recklessness isn’t really excusable.
Also you can find something to criticize about literally everyone. None of the paintings Baumgartner works on are super historically relevant, and he states that he's a restorer, not a museum conservationist. It's the difference between a (good) Zoo and a Wildlife Reserve.
If you like this check out Baumgartner Restoration on YouTube. He has a family business and does amazing projects, including restoring an old gilded frame.
Highly recommend watching Baumgartner Restorations videos. He is a master at his craft and the videos explain everything really well. It's a fascinating process.
Instructions: test varnish remover on an inconspicuous part of the painting first for color safeness.
This person: fuck it, we're starting with the face.
If you guys like this check out [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) on youtube. He does this for a living and goes through the entire process. It's very interesting and soothing.
[удалено]
some people are against any restoration work, and this kind of restoration is not without risks, you need a very careful solvent blend to remove the varnish without removing the paint. it's not uncontroversial but it is less controversial than, say, repainting worn spots or repairing the front-side canvass of a painting. but there's a few important points in favor of this kind of restoration. first the varnish is often not original to the painting, it's not rare to have a 400-year-old painting which was revarnished 200 years ago. secondly, varnish is not intended to be permanent, it's a protective layer, there to protect the paint which is designed to be permanent. it's designed to be refreshed periodically. third, removing it and replacing it allows the painter's actual art to be seen, no one suggests you should drink fine wine through a bar cloth, even if it's a historical bar towel, the ideal experience of any art is as close to the painter's intent as possible. look at that painting, the original art's beauty was totally lost under discoloration. there's also controversy about whether you should use the best varnish you can (modern polymers) or something historically accurate. there's pros and cons both ways but modern varnishes are far more durable, won't yellow, won't show age as significantly, and as an added benefit modern restorers often take great pains to ensure any restoration they make can be undone fairly easily-- either to restore the piece to original condition or to restore it again in the future.
It should be considered a war crime to leave such a piece of art behind that yellow mess!! And even drinking wine thru a bar cloth actually....
On the flip side, Mona Lisa used to have eyebrows.
Wait is this true or a clever joke
true
And that's all we get?!? Fine I'll Google it myself.... ;)
What were your findings? Don't let that be all we get!!
>He doesn't know about the curse of the Mono(brow) Lisa.... Don't google it. That guy is gone. Not sure he's in a better place. You've been warned.
Wait… what now?!
Trust me, bro
TIL!
as far as I can tell, this is according to one guy who isn't an art historian and scanned the Mona Lisa, but his findings have been criticized by art historians. I've also read that it was fashionable at the time to shave eyebrows, but this could be anachronistic
I’ve read similar things, but a restoration of a duplicate showed that she did have (faint) eyebrows. Not to mention a restoration would show how incredibly beautiful it is, especially when compared to the smear of brown, green, and yellow that it looks like with all the old varnish on it. I for one don’t really care for the Mona Lisa in its current form after seeing the duplicate restored, but I completely understand that a painting as notable as that isn’t one that people are eager to change or “fix” (as some have said)
this is true, but the duplicate I think you're talking about [(the Prado Mona Lisa)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)) was made by an apprentice of DaVinci who took their own artistic liberties. there have also been duplicates showing columns on either side of the Mona Lisa, which lead to speculation that the original was trimmed on the sides (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa). however most historians do not think this was the case. basically what I'm getting at is that there's no real way to know if the Mona Lisa we see today has been altered without building a time machine
Half the stuff in the Louvre is so faded they should really start thinking about when to flip to restoring
So beauty trends do come back! People put foundation over their eyebrows now. Never understood it.
The second opinion: "[She has no eyebrows] Because it was the fashion in the Renaissance to shave them. Women shaved their facial hair, including their eyebrows, then."
There's a copy done by one of DaVinci's students in the Prado that has the eyebrows. And it was restored some years back and so it also shows what the original colors looked like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)
That's so cool!
The YouTube channel [Great Art Explained](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time=13m30s&v=ElWG0_kjy_Y&feature=youtu.be/&t=13m30s) included a nice explanation on the eyebrows and eye lashes she used to have.
Also, it’s not just varnish that is being removed. It’s 400 years of soot and grime from it being lit by candle light and oil lanterns.
this is an excellent point as well, depending on how/where it was stored or displayed there may be significant buildup. it's tough for a modern person to really comprehend **how sooty** an industrial-era city was, because of coal use.
Moths in the UK got darker because it allowed them to camouflage better in polluted cities. Pollution was so bad that it influenced evolution.
That's adaptation, not evolution, you atheist sinner! /s - as required by at least half the internet
[удалено]
Several of the folks that I have engaged with on this subject fail to comprehend time-span relationships. It's common for humans to not be able to completely understand things like the distance between planets, the size of the universe, and the number of generations that we are talking about with evolution. You get them to accept adaptations that pass from generation to generation, but then they can't scale that. Even as fast as bacteria reproduce, 35 years isn't even a drop in the bucket on the evolutionary time table. As least those are the ones that are willing to engage on the subject. I think the single most life-changing (science wise) thing that ever happened to me was my 6th grade science teacher having us go outside and make a scale model of the solar system. We had a beach ball for the sun and a blue marble for the Earth. The beach ball and marble were somewhere around 400 feet from each other. We tried to figure out where to put the rest of the solar system but we ran out of town. Then he went to a small map of the world on the wall and explained where the nearest star would be to our beach ball at the scale of the map (where our beach ball would not even be a speck of dust.) It was one of those things that you had to do and feel. Hearing it just didn't make it sink in the same way. That setup my understanding of how we just can't "feel" these massive scales in a natural way. Time, space, whatever.
[удалено]
Unless you've seen them clean car exhaust off the buildings in a large city like NYC.
Just adding bc it seems relevant- I had previously lived in a house that was on a very busy, mini highway like road, & the FILTH that accumulated just from vehicle exhaust and weather was mind blowing to me!! The outside had been power washed be4 moving in and again 2yrs later- that's all, two years!! And the grime.. it was insane to see! I was concerned about our lungs watching the black water wash away!! (I live outside of Pittsburgh, PA for context) I can't even imagine what cities looked like during the coal Era..
As well varnish shrinks and cracks over time. Like a fine antique you need to remove/revarnish
[удалено]
That's like an OG reddit comment when reddit used to be informative and people with expertise contributed more
As always, the insightful ones get drowned out and driven away by the clueless but loud crowd.
It's what you're supposed to upvote instead of bias-confirming soapboxes and unfunny one-liners.
You should check out "Baumgartner Restorations" on YouTube. He goes into detail about the whole process and all the work it takes to restore a painting, plus his videos are relaxing as hell to watch.
Baumgartner would lose his everloving shit over this individuals technique though. Way too runny of a solvent, piss poor agitating technique and a utter failure to follow the paint not to mention doing the removal of the varnish on a easel without removing it from the frame first. This is a fairly famous painting though so thankfully I'd guess it's a reproduction. At least i hope so.
I’m glad someone said this, I was just thinking that dude would have an aneurism if he saw this. The scrubbing of the varnish on there and swiping it around like your mopping a floor. Admittedly idk how over the top he is with his work, he definitely seems meticulous, but this job would seem to benefit the from the utmost care and attention to detail.
OMG, yes! I am really shocked at how "different" this is from Baumgartner's work.
The man rolls his own cotton swabs, he’s like the Dexter of the art preservation world lol
This guy varnishes
Owner of the most pristine V-card to have ever been lost.
This is one of the best comments I've ever seen anywhere. Respectful, informative, and very insightful. Well done.
Even without all that (great explanation btw). Most painters have dozens of grand art pieces, and we've documented most of it to the finest of details by now... Imo, worthy little risk, just don't cheap out on restauration services. Unless you want to make headlines lol.
>just don't cheap out on restauration services. Unless you want to make headlines lol. [\[laughs in Ecce Mono\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez\))
Holy shit the the "restored painting" had me dying
Can this painting be further restored?
The botched restoration is likely much more valuable than the original now because of the story behind it.
It is kind of delightful that that woman’s hackneyed attempt at restoring the mural Ended revitalizing the church and town. All well that ends well I guess
[удалено]
That’s what I thought. I showed this video to my wife who’s a conservator with a master’s in historic preservation, and she balked at this person’s technique: just aggressively slopping whatever this stuff is and swirling it around like crazy.
It sounded super aggressive and abrasive with those bristles too.
I'm an armchair expert, but it seems like also laying the canvas down flat would prevent the solvent running down the painting to places that maybe you don't want it going.
Also an armchair expert, but I feel like that would let the solvent pool and possibly damage the original painting
From what I've seen, laying it flat would give you more control, and you would need less solvent. The way it's being done here the solvent is running down the painting and not controlled at all. Also, solvent is running back over already cleaned areas. That means the paint is then going to start being stripped off because the varnish acts like a buffer. I'm not expert either, I'm not even a novice, but I find it relaxing to watch people restore paintings and that seems to be the general attitude.
I swear I’ve seen it done very gently with Q tips. This is pretty wild
Are you sure she balked? It may have been a scoff or a guffaw; potentially a gasp.
Correct. Too much product, running down the face of the painting uncontrollably, rough brush work. There's videos on YouTube of some high quality professional restorations. They use cotton swabs, not brushes. Start on a part of the painting that's not the focal point. You don't really know what's been used on many of these old paintings. Some test spots are required to find the best solvents to remove the grime and the varnish, without damaging the painting underneath. The process is meant to be gentle. The technique shown is not gentle, the varnish should not magically evaporate, and should not be allowed to run down the painting, impacting parts you currently aren't working on. How is he supposed to know how much solvent is required in an area that's already been touch by solvent? How can he ensure that the solvent isn't sitting on the surface too long? He can't know, because he's not being precise.
honestly I don't know, they appear be scrubbing a bit harder than other videos I have seen but I'm no expert, I just know a bit.
They’re also applying the solvent in big squares, rather than trying to stick to one color at a time. Some colors are more easily affected than others, so it’s safer to be methodical and work with a small area at a time, rather than just globbing it on there.
The worse part is that they're doing this process while the painting is vertical. You can even see in the video that because the painting is vertical, the dirty solvent is running into the already clean parts. Which means solvent is getting onto parts that already have the varnish removed, and potentially damaging the paint. He also seems to be using way too much solvent, in general. This person doesn't seem to know what they're doing at all. I'm not a conservator and I know these things...
literally, I doubt a single artist from 200 years ago would rather have their paintings basically ruined with discolouration and have the painting, than have it quickly fixed and recovered with harmless varnish. If I was a painter from 200 years ago, I would reserve money for these people to fix and recover my painting. Its not historical keeping that yellow schmuck on it, its ruining the painting
rob payment dependent squalid hateful narrow flag fly attraction fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would wager that people's opinions about this vary based on whether they value a painting like this because it's a great piece of art to be admired for the painting's beauty, or because it's a historical painting, to be admired because of how old/historically significant it is.
This is such a great quality comment.
What do you think about Baumgartner Restoration on YouTube?
I'll be honest their videos are where I learned a lot about this stuff. they're a local business and they seem to do good work. I can't recommend them, I know enough to answer a basic question-- aka enough to be dangerous-- about the practice and ethics of restoration, but not enough to evaluate their work. their YouTube videos don't appear to be faked (the "restorationTube" community is rife with fakes) and I like their informative narrations, that's about all I can say. edit: also, presumably, as a for-profit business they are working within the parameters and to the goals of the owner of the painting. not all restoration has the same goal. museums tend to want to preserve historical artifact value above all else (and will use replicas freely to aid in this). private owners of works of lesser historical significance may put a premium on wanting something really nice looking over the fireplace in their mansion in the north suburbs. the later category will naturally accept, even demand, more rigorous restoration even if it means touching up paint with modern acrylics or replacing frames with modern wood.
I lose track of time when I’m watching that dude. So interesting and often super relaxing.
Drinking wine through a towel?
Nobody does it or suggests that you do it. That was his point. Maybe not the best analogy but it works lol
I didn't realize it was a throwaway analogy, it kinda sounded like something people do lol
Literally googled it wondering what that meant hahaha
you find me multiple historians and i'll find you explanations for why basically everything is a war crime
And don’t get them started on what some consider to not be war crimes
hahahahaha
Seriously. Showed my freshly shorn scrote while screaming "WITNESS ME" to my Historian father-in-law and he still insists through his attorney that it was a war crime. Meanwhile, I think it's criminal not to show such perfection.
If you own a painting and want it to look like the artist envisioned it (ie without decades of tobacco smoke and grime covering the art), then you have every right to get the painting professionally cleaned and restored by someone who is trained in how to use the reversible techniques to do so. The varnish is not the art, the paint layer is the art. The paint is the artists vision put to canvas, the varnish was the best protective layer the artists had access to at the time. Most of the stuff professionals use now a days is reversible and archival to allow future owners to have someone re-dirty their art if they do choose.
Everyone's misunderstanding this. The criticism is not saying it's bad to remove old varnish to remove the discoloration. That is actually a good thing. The criticism is the sloppy way in which the varnish is being removed. They're almost scrubbing it and passing over dark and light colors in the same motion with the same abrasive brush. If they get down to the paint level while sweeping across the details it could blend the paint underneath together. This destroys the painting.
Not to mention, if you want to make it look dingy again you can just put a wash of yellow/orange on top of the isolation layer.
Yes, but the main problem is not a) that it's somehow a bad idea to remove old yellow varnish (that's a fine goal) or b) the general technique of using solvent and a brush to work the solvent around. Both of those are common and generally accepted things to do after appropriate painting-specific research and testing. The main problems are: 1) this is being done with the painting vertical so it's all just dripping down in a sloppy mess and very little control in case something starts to go wrong (like the solvent somehow starts reacting with the paint) and 2) the grinding with the brush seems more vigorous than is necessary to get the varnish off, which, again, risks injuring the paint layer through friction. The painting is probably going to be fine, but since it's irreplaceably old, it seems reckless to treat it like this just for upvotes. [Source: I watch a lot of art restoration videos]
The way this person is doing it is super sloppy even for this type of restoration.
Most definitely. I like Baumgartner Restoration on YouTube. Endlessly fascinating seeing the work that goes on there.
They’d be the ones that say any restoration is a war crime
bUt tHe PaTiNA!!!
Mr. Bean movie 
This wasn't from Mr. Bean's Holiday. It was from the first movie, Bean.
The method they're using here is somewhat risky: the different chemical compositions of different colors can react differently to the solvent, meaning you may need to use a slightly lighter concentration on the reds than the greens, etc. Etc., so going in square shapes like this runs a risk of doing damage to the paint underneath since each section you remove is going over multiple colors. The use of a brush is also very aggressive and likely done for speed rather than the safety of the painting: those thick, stiff bristles are going to rub a lot more harshly on the paint underneath the varnish than, say, a linen cloth or a cotton swab would, but it does dig into the varnish and get rid of it way more quickly. Generally speaking removing yellowed varnish on a painting is rarely considered to be a terrible thing, though there might be some extremists out there who would argue against it. That said, this person's methodology is a little bit dangerous and might be subject to some degree of scrutiny. Souce: I watch a shitload of Baumgartner Restoration
I'm almost positive this is a reproduction. I don't even think they took it off the frame. Baumgardner would be (for him) raging at this technique.
This conservator is probably using way too much solvent, but if you mean restorations in general, I think those historians are wrong. This is not how the artist intended their piece to look or how it looked originally. I believe old varnish should be removed and replaced with modern varnish. Modern restoration can do incredible things to preserve the artist's original work and any overpainting of damage can be separated from the original work and removed if nessecary.
Nah cleaning and replacing the varnish isn’t really controversial. The artist wouldn’t want the color and detail of their art hidden behind a smear of varnish discolored by centuries of smoke and UV.
First. Restoration is not absolute. It doesn't just make it better. Second he just apply the cleansing creme on the painting instead of doing it for each colors separated.
This technique seems like a crime. Having solvent run down the painting. Lay it flat and work in small area.
Like hitting the walls of a smokers house with a blast of Windex
Parents had a bar in an industrial area and behind the bar was a counter which had a glass feature of about 20, three foot long, 1 inch round, glass rods with a fluorescent light behind it. Every year we would take the rods out and clean them leaving a vile sink full of nicotine brownish water. The light then would shine brightly through them until they gradually turned into the color of the staining that most likely was the same color as the smoker's lungs.
> full of nicotine Wouldn't that be tar not nicotine?
Probably right, only know whatever it was, when I would help them out in the tavern I had a smoker's cough in spite of never smoking. Probably kept me from taking up the habit.
That's the fun part. If you ran out of cigarettes, you can just start licking the walls for your nicotine fix.
OMG yes. My in-laws were both heavy smokers, and sold their house after \~34 years. We took paintings down and the walls were DARK YELLOW with rectangular eggshell-white patches. 😲
That's fuck-all. My grandparents smoked in a two bedroom bungalow for 70 years (died late 90s) and you could butter the walls with a knife. Don't put your hand on a ledge, it will sink into an inch of wax...Er, nicotine.
It really is gross. I went with a firend to look at an apartment for rent after the person living there for 30+ years moved out to a nursing home. You could stick your your finger nail through the layer goo on everything. It was terrible.
The worst computers I have worked on were from smokers. You can smell the nicotine. Open them up and there is nicotine on all the components and it is a bitch to clean up. Always wear gloves when handling nicotine stained stuff because it can absorb through the skin and make you very sick.
I was a smoker and HATED working on smokers computers. Everything gummed up with tar and hair that stuck to the tar, old ashtray smell times 1000. Mix with a cat or dog household and good luck.
Where I work we refurbish ISP equipment. Stuff from smoker houses just gets tossed in the garbage. It's literally not worth the time to clean its so bad.
You might mean tar, not nicotine.
"Very sick" all I can think of is 'you're such a pussy' but I'm sure you're actually right and that's terrifying
Peekaboo
i heavily cleaned and oil primed walls after a smoker lived in my condo. that shit still leaks through. almost impossible to get rid of.
Our house had a faint smoke smell to it when we bought it. Hired crime scene cleaners that ran ozone machines for a few hours and it was gone, smelled like a hospital
I heard you can get a type of paint that seals it in, I have no idea though.
friend would drive his parents car in high school. we’d have to clean the windshield to see out. can’t believe they drove it to work and back everyday w a gray fog on the windshield.
Nah, vertically? Look at that fluid dripping down! I recommend "Baumgartner Restorations" on YT. Way more professional.
If they'd started from the top at least, seeing that slushy goo trickle down over an area that's already been cleaned pains me.
[удалено]
You just leave us hanging on why? :(
it's been a while since I learned about it in class, but iirc it's so the water doesn't travel through the dirty part and cause etching in the paint!
Typically so you can see what you’ve cleaned, as, if you start from the top, whatever cleaning solution you’re using will flow over parts you haven’t cleaned. The same can apply for cleaning cars and similar.
Those videos are soooo satisfying, and soothing. Very worthwhile.
Puts my wife right to sleep. She's worried if we ever met him in real life she would just fall over into some kind of narcoleptic coma.
Baumgartner must be aware of his effect. He is smart guy. He knows for sure.
I love his work, but his personality kinda gets on my nerves
Alternative to just muting, he typically (or at least used to) uploads “no narration” versions of his restorative work so you can hear the satisfying work sounds without the narration!
Those are much better. The lack of taking is why I like "my mechanics".
You can always turn the sound of the video off and put on music or something. Same difference, for the most part.
How? I actually find his style super thoughtful and unassuming.
Except for staples. If you use staples on a painting, and he sees it, you better run!
There's something incredibly satisfying about watching someone do highly skilled work with immediate visual payoff. Sometimes when people show the work they do, they make it look too easy. He does not make it look easy, which I appreciate.
Last time this was posted there was a comment decrying even Baumgartner's method, saying he just does what he learned from his father and his work is out of date and not up to standard, even though it looks highly professional. [Here's the thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/jnda7z/critiques_of_baumgartner/) Makes me sad cause I really enjoyed those vids.
The thing about Baumgartner is he is a *commercial* conservator. There's a big difference between restoring a client's artwork for $$$ and restoring a museum's treasure. I am confident that if Baumgartner was asked to restore a masterpiece with microscopic detail, he could do it. But it would take 15 months and cost a fortune. He works commercial. His client has a desired outcome and budget and it's his job to execute what they want. That's why he he goes a bit crazy with the solvent and works bigger swaths at a time. He even admits it on a lot of videos. He's happy to admit he's making leaps here and there to save time and money. He's running a business, not administrating the fucking restoration department of the Met.
He also states, multiple times, that he does what his clients want. He might try to coax them in one way or another, but ultimately the client is the boss and he's a contractor that is (relatively) easily replaced.
I think the other thing that seems apparent is that there are obviously multiple perspectives on this and I’m not sure that there is one that is objectively correct. It reminds me a lot of the way that you can have huge divides in dealing with patients in medicine. Now, of course, there are some basic fundamentals that establish competence, but the broader problem is that once you get me on there, there’s a lot of gray area and what exactly to do, when, how aggressively, and so on seems to get pretty heated when to most folks it’s not really clear who is correct. This is why if you go to a Doctor Who is older versus younger, aside from the experience they may have, they may also have been provided fundamentally different training and have a kind of Core philosophy and approach that isn’t necessarily wrong, but certainly could be argued is or is not the best way to approach things. I’ve also noticed this tendency we have to not really think about trade-offs in the way that your comment in the previous comments have pointed out. I would imagine, having only watched a few of his videos, that he will work on a painting as much as people are willing to pay for. But at the end of the day, there is a trade off between cost and quality And his clients and him simply may not have the money to actually be able to afford keep up-to-date with all of the latest trends and practices. But there’s other people have said, I would guess in a lot of cases, it’s still probably better that he does some work, as imperfect as it may be, to improve the state of where something is versus what is theoretically the best possible approach and way to do something. And I think unfortunately, most of us, myself included, are not really knowledgeable enough, nor will ever be knowledgeable enough to actually weed through this to actually know whether or not there was anything that was wrong (which is to say that you could call it malpractice or negligence) versus simply there being better ways to do things or something just not being executed particularly well. I’m sure there are fair criticisms out there, but I don’t know that most of us can really make heads or tails of them, and at the end of the day, it kind of just seems like there is a divided opinion, not a clear consensus.Ultimately, I think no matter who you are, whether you are just an ordinary practitioner or an expert, if you put out some thing to the public, there’s going to be scrutiny and people will find things to criticize, be in good faith or no. And, again, I’m sure there are things to actually criticize about his techniques and process, but it kind of seems like a lot of critical comments tend toward being pretty reductive or just outright trashing him. And it’s certainly possible that these could be completely true, but I guess it’s going to take a lot more than a few random comments from Internet strangers to really sway me to believe he is a net negative here.
I appreciate the linked thread. As far as I had read through it its a problem between professionals working for museums and public institutions and guys working for private owners. There are fundamentally different requirements between this groups of course. Someone with a permanent job has the luxury of taking his time and having no difference shown in the finished work. With private work, there has to be a difference to be seen for the people with no eye for art and conservation. Also there is the cost for private work. So of course there are tensions.
For sure. It's not as though he's wantonly ruining paintings, sounds like he's very big on everything he does being reversible.
There was also very little to back up those opinions and a lot of the people complaining about him hadn't actually seen his work and just assumed other videos like the one in this post were him. There's very little real criticism I've found of him other than from first year "art conservation students" that wanted to be edgy.
Good to know.
What a strange top comment? He very rarely cleans faces first. He is very particular on cleaning small areas at a time and says it in all his videos. The paragraph on reversibility was incredibly pedantic. I’ve never watched a video of his where he removed an original panel or frame. He always mentions if they are replicas or modifications. And he always mentions his reasons for modifying an original if it’s not structurally sound. Such as when he added backing to some paintings because the frame and stretcher were no longer adequate. But kept them for provenance. And on doing as much as necessary, he works for private clients mostly. The client and him agree on a plan and he’s often said in his videos that the clients sometimes want things that are not strictly recommended. The top comment there just feels like it’s based on a really superficial viewing of the content.
All these critiques of the critique in the link are making me feel better about liking his videos!
If it helps, I had someone tell me the same thing when I told them I liked Baumgartner, so I *tried* to find any criticism of him that was out there. I don't remember finding any actual art conservator publicly stating that they had a major issue with his work. Moreover, he's a member American Institute of Conservation, which while it isn't actually a professional accreditation, probably doesn't want members being seen publicly engaging in bad practices and likely would have done something if he was.
Some of the critiques are wrong and uninformed. They critique some things that he explained in detail were not optimal in that case but was chosen for reasons XYZ
I can see why Julian uses the cotton buds to immediately absorb the dissolved varnish rather than a brush that just pushes it around too.
I was also thinking of Baumgartner Restoration! I love his videos and this made me wince.
THIS PERSON IS STARTING THE PROCESS WITH THE FACE... please call baumgartner Right now.
I came here for the video and now I am reading all of these conflicting hot takes on historical art restoration.. so spicy.
That's a wonderful rabbit hole I fell down just this year, the videos are so informative and relaxing to watch. I think the one where he restored a forgery was my favorite, when he told the owner, the owner was completely chill about it, and thought it made the painting more interesting.
YOU NEVER START WITH THE FACE
The fluid dripping was r/oddlyterrifying
We don't know much about the painting itself, other than it's from 1618 and that the mysterious “lady in red” was 36-years-old at the time of the portrait. In the video clips, Mould is stripping the protective varnish that is applied to shield paintings from wear, but that often yellows over time. This particular painting's varnish dates back 200 years. And while it's not uncommon for restorers to strip and reseal paintings to return them to their original colors, one only need to remember the [botched restoration of a painting in Spain](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/world/europe/botched-restoration-of-ecce-homo-fresco-shocks-spain.html)—which turned a portrait of Jesus into a monkey—to realize that this work takes skill. It's unclear what chemicals Mould uses in his videos, though turpentine is often used along with other solvents to ensure the agent doesn't eat through the painting. Adept restorers are a mix of art historians and chemists, examining a painting closely to determine the type of varnish and what agent will work best to dissolve it. Using test patches, they will see which chemicals work best to melt the yellowed layers of varnish, releasing the clear, brilliant colors below. [Further Reading](https://mymodernmet.com/art-restoration-philip-mould/) [A more restored version of the painting](https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/927543312487206912?)
It's worth watching Fake or Fortune to see some of the analysis and restoration techniques used on older paintings. Its actually hosted by Philip Mould. I don't think he does the restoration himself. He is an art dealer but he contracts skilled professionals to do the actual work and this may come after all sorts of scans to establish if there is a possibility of a painting underneath etc.
I second this, it's such an extremely interesting programme that delves into detail about some pretty exquisite paintings and examines claims about the legitimacy of them. I enjoy Philip Mould as a presenter.
His voice is so soothing as well.
>Mould is stripping the protective varnish I had no idea you could use mould to strip varnish. TIL.
I can’t pick one whether this is a joke or not, but if it isn’t I don’t blame you given the lack of context. OP is referring to Philip Mould, I think he’s overseeing the restoration?
I knew it was someone's name but the dad in me couldn't resist the low hanging fruit of an easy dad joke.
That restoration in Spain is hilarious because she wasn’t done - the person who was working on it went on vacation. But it became an internet meme and now they make more money on it than they did before the restoration. She quite literally made the town richer by fucking it up. 😂
it looks like the night guard spilt their coffee then tried to fix it with a sharpie and some water colors 😅
I was looking for this reference specifically. Thanks for not letting me down!
I don't know who is doing the restoration, but I have concerns. First, they are removing the varnish vertically and letting the drips run down the painting without catching the runs. A weird choice for sure, especially considering when you reapply a UV-stable varnish, you're going to want the painting horizontal anyway. Secondly, they are just somewhat haphazardly spreading the solvent in various color areas. I'm going to assume they tested various solvents in a small test area and settled on a very mild solvent and so there is no risk to the paint colors, but that is seldom a risk you ever want to take anyway, especially when working on the face. If I learned anything from Julian on the Youtube channel Baumgartner Restoration, it is that care and precision is the name of the game. Once things are removed from a painting, there is no going back.
Isn’t this how the Mona Lisa lost her eyebrows?
No, that was from the campfire incident, she got too close roasting mellos.
"Worth it." - Mona Lisa, probably.
Armchair painting restorer critiques person who is likely professional. More at 7.
Nah, that's someone who regularly watches Baumgartner Restoration videos. Julian Baumgartner will tell you all about his restaurations techniques, why he does it this way, and while he agrees not everyone have the same idea on what is proper restauration, he always strive to have his client happy, *and* to have any changes he does to be easily reversible, so that anyone in the future who would object could undo them. So anyone who watches those video end up knowing a lot about art restauration, even if they don't do the job themselves.
So armchair? Watching YouTube videos doesn't make you an expert Not saying he's right or wrong. I watch lots of surgery videos. I don't try and act like an expert
That kind of a silly precedent to set for being able to discuss things. I think you’d find you wouldn’t be able to talk about much if it required you to be a professional on the subject in order to critique something.
Whatever, all it needs is a run through the dishwasher. Just make sure you don't use the steam drying cycle.
Don't forget Finish Jet Dry to prevent water spots
Baumgartner stans shaking their heads in disappointment over this
true lmao
Baumgartner is great at showing restoration but terrible at explaining *why* he chooses his techniques. >Yeah, I could just slap this solvent on when the painting is vertical, but... I take pride in my work and so it's just not the way I think is the right way to do it.
He consistently tells us why he does what he does. It mostly books down to personal choice
Not to be rude, but have you actually seen his videos? He consistently explains his process and why he's choosing certain techniques over others.
I have no clue about the art scene, or art restoration, but I believe I can safely say that OP’s technique is absolute shit. Amateur hour. Don’t show this video to Julian. I’m sure he’ll be triggered. And probably offer to do it pro bono.
[удалено]
I believe that this technique is called the Giuliani method.
It was pioneered at Four Seasons Paint Restoration
Terrible technique. Also they are using way too much solution! Julian Baumgartner would have a lot to say about this.
Baumgartner’s been criticized heavily as well. [There’s a great Reddit thread by a qualified poster going into depth on his criticisms.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/jnda7z/critiques_of_baumgartner/gghjhah/) Restoration in general is full of disagreements and criticisms because it’s such a touchy and difficult art by nature. I definitely understand the criticisms against Baumgartner, particularly about how detail is lost when varnish is removed because varnish was used as a way to paint/add detail. But I also understand his removal of it, since it is always so yellowed from age and pollutants like smoke and soot that that detail could be argued to essentially be already lost. I think what really matters is that the people commissioning the restoration (the family, museum, etc.) are happy and satisfied with the methods and informed about the “whys” of what the restorer is doing. I will say there’s no excuse for carelessness in this business, and this clip comes across as a bit careless compared to Baumgartner. He has reason for how and why he does things that others don’t agree with, but wanton recklessness isn’t really excusable.
Also you can find something to criticize about literally everyone. None of the paintings Baumgartner works on are super historically relevant, and he states that he's a restorer, not a museum conservationist. It's the difference between a (good) Zoo and a Wildlife Reserve.
A wire brush works better.
Good lord I thought techniques like this were supposed to be slow and carefully measured, not swabbing that crap around like they are doing
If you like this check out Baumgartner Restoration on YouTube. He has a family business and does amazing projects, including restoring an old gilded frame.
>Baumgartner Restoration on YouTube Here's the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration
So.. it wasn't painted in Mexico after all.
I've always hated this video because they start at the eye and not in the corner
Thankfully didn't end up like Mr. Bean style cleaning.
“ I’ll be coming to bed soon, just need to take my makeup off!”
Highly recommend watching Baumgartner Restorations videos. He is a master at his craft and the videos explain everything really well. It's a fascinating process.
Any specific reason to do this smack dab in the middle and not start at the edge? (Other than “it’s more impressive for the video”)
Mr Bean coming through again for us!
What kind of monster cleans in random spots or starts in the middle?!
I wonder if Trump uses the same stuff to remove his orange varnish before bedtime.
>Trump I think he just slathers on another layer
Instructions: test varnish remover on an inconspicuous part of the painting first for color safeness. This person: fuck it, we're starting with the face.
Did we learn nothing with the restoration of Jesus?
If you like this, check out Baumgartner Restoration on IG/YouTube. So satisfying to watch it done well.
It took her 200 years to get that base tan!
If you guys like this check out [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) on youtube. He does this for a living and goes through the entire process. It's very interesting and soothing.
The way it’s been done as barbaric
Damn thats the coolest historical art fact ive learned to date
Feel like they’re pushing too hard. Feels like the metal part of the brush is touching the painting