Treatment of a Weathered Portrait of the Ellen A. Read

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

CCI Newsletter, No. 29, June 2002

Treatment of a Weathered Portrait of the Ellen A. Read

by Peter Vogel, Senior Conservator, Treatment and Development Division - Fine Arts, and Carol MacIvor, Senior Communications Advisor, Information Services and Marketing

The Ellen A. Read was the largest vessel ever built in Yarmouth, NS. Launched in 1884, she was the first vessel with a spike bowsprit which projected 23 m (75 ft.) from the bow. She had an illustrious career sailing the Seven Seas, successfully weathering many a storm before being taken out of service in 1903. Unfortunately, once retired she was unable to withstand the elements and within a few years was broken up for scrap. She was commemorated by an unknown late 19th century marine artist who portrayed her at sea with full sails. This Portrait of a Ship "Ellen A. Read" is owned by the Yarmouth County Museum and Archives.

When the weathered painting came to CCI for treatment, the canvas was badly damaged. It had large tears and wrinkles, and previous exposure to water had caused it to shrink to an extreme degree. Paint losses had occurred along the tears, and there was also a significant accumulation of dirt embedded on the painting's surface. Fly specks had penetrated the unprotected paint, accelerating the aging process and obscuring the artist's craftsmanship along with many details of the ship's rigging.

Painting conservator Peter Vogel took on the treatment assignment. Along with the previously mentioned problems, he also had to deal with damage caused by earlier restorations — patches of linen and a variety of tapes which had been glued to the back of the painting meant to prevent the development of further tears.

The initial phase of treatment consisted of securing the fragile sections of paint along the edges of tears with an acrylic resin. Next, the back of the canvas was cleared and all tape removed, and then the painting had to be flattened. Because it was damp, it had to be treated damp. The first attempt was made using a wet blotter and weights applied to damaged areas, but this was not successful. Other conventional methods (e.g. the Dutch stretching technique normally used during moisture application to facilitate handling and control of the canvas) were not practical because damage to the canvas was too extensive and tears ran in all directions. Likewise "the Willard Table" — designed for dehumidification and drying processes — was not suitable for this canvas because the unrestrained painting had to be monitored on both sides during the flattening and realignment process. It became clear that traditional treatment approaches were not possible in this case. Peter says "it was obvious that each step in the treatment of this painting was going to be a challenge."

It was eventually decided that the best approach would be to position the painting face down on a pane of glass and spray it to the required saturation level with a mister containing a small amount of ethyl alcohol glycol. This returned the painting to its original size. It was then possible to realign the tears while monitoring the front of the canvas. Once aligned, the canvas was covered with PeCap (polyestermonofilament) and flattened with layers of weighted blotters.

Due to the extent and severity of the tears, it was necessary to adhere the painting to a rigid support. A soft foam-core support laminated with acid-free cardboard was chosen because it would not interfere with the weave of the canvas. Several layers of Liquitex acrylic gesso were applied to all sides of the support, and a wooden strainer was glued to the back to ensure that the panel remained flat.

The search for a suitable mounting adhesive also presented a challenge. The adhesive would have to handle well, have low viscosity and thermoplasticity, and be easily removable. Tests were carried out on didactic panels until a suitable mixture was obtained. This mixture (which contained starch paste, rabbit skin glue, and a small amount of Jade 403) was brushed evenly onto the foam-core board. While it set, the painting was removed from the glass and transferred to its new support. Final adjustments and realignment of threads were done before the adhesive had set fully. Then an electric tacking iron was used to flatten the painting under moderate heat and pressure.

To remove the embedded grime and oily deposits on the painting, a combination of different solvents and emulsions in varying concentrations was employed. The fly specks and paint splashes were removed with a scalpel under magnification. Special attention was paid to the areas around the ship's sails and rigging.

Paint losses along the tears were filled with acrylic gesso and then retouched with watercolour paint followed by thin glazes of dammar resin and powder pigment. Finally, a protective coating of dammar resin in toluene was sprayed over the painting's surface.

This ship portrait then rejoined its companion, the Charles Baker, which had been restored previously at CCI. As he worked on the Ellen A. Read, Peter says he acquired new information and became more familiar with "the erratic behaviour of torn canvas." As well, he says it was "a privilege to work on such a fine piece of maritime art which is contributing to the understanding and appreciation of marine history in Nova Scotia."