Geneva, 15 january 2013
Art Media Agency met with Dr Kilian Anhauser, who gracefully answered our questions about conservation and restoration problems.
Art Media Agency: Could you tell us of your career so far? What led you to study the ageing processes of artworks?
Dr Kilian Anhauser: As a Chemistry student, I was already interested in art history and the materiality of the works. As a consequence, I chose to study gilding and silvering on metal techniques for my dissertation. In this work, I combined historical study of ancient techniques and scientific analysis of archaeological and historical items, along with an actual work of recreation of ancient gilding and silvering. After a post-doctorate at the Berlin Museums’ scientific laboratory, I was appointed lecturer in Conservation Science at the Cardiff University in 1998. I taught the variety of materials present in cultural objects, and the physical and chemical mechanisms responsible for their deterioration. This course was intended for students in conservation/restoration and archaeology. In 2003 I was appointed curator of the scientific lab and restoration ateliers at the Geneva Museum of Art and History; there I had to face every day practical problems of deterioration, to which I had to find practical solutions, in direct collaboration with the curators. Since 2010 I work for the Geneva Museum of Ethnography as curator in charge of preventive conservation of the collections, and for the independent laboratory FAEI – Fine Art Expert Institute – as head of laboratory. Studying the artworks changes through time fascinates me, for we experience direct contact with the history of the piece – its origin, use and environment. The conservation and restoration of works is indeed a challenge, and we must find specific solutions for each case, each piece.
What is your job as curator in a Museum of ethnography?
I am in charge of preventive conservation: I undertake all measures to guarantee good conservation conditions for our collections, and for works lent by other institutions for our temporary exhibitions. For instance, we have to define and create appropriate climate conditions (relative humidity and temperature) for each kind of materials, to insure good lighting conditions and the use of suitable materials for the construction of the showcases, to negotiate loans outside the museum. Also in charge of prevention against insects (an important threat for a collection that includes feathers, textile, furs and wood), I undertake pest control when necessary. Moreover, I work in collaboration with the restorers and curators in the scientific study of works, for instance to reveal elements hidden inside certain sculptures by radiography or by chemical analysis of residue indicating older restorations.
The materials used by contemporary art (organic materials, new alloys, plastics, patinas…) have strikingly evolved these last years. What is your view on this evolution? Do you recall anecdotes?
Most of the objects of our ethnographic collections were made in the 20th century, and were extracted from the everyday life of various cultures all over the world. The problem of contemporary materials is raised directly. There is a strong link with contemporary art, which I meet regularly in my second activity at the Fine Art Expert Institute. Collaboration with restorers proves particularly interesting and enlightening, for they have to find concrete and practical solutions to treat their objects. Once I was called to advise the curator of the Museum of the Red Cross in Geneva. While visiting his collection, we discussed the conservation of various plastic contemporary objects, and even of blood transfusion bags full of liquid anticoagulant! I have other examples in mind. A few years ago, in 1995, the London Tate Gallery focused on the issue of new materials in 20th century art, on occasion of a scientific symposium for restorers titled “From Mar ble to Chocolate”, referring to the evolution of materials used by contemporary artists. Polyurethane chairs for instance raise real problems. Generally, we can say the “crafts” element, emblematic of traditional academic artists, is slowly disappearing, along with the artist’s desire for permanence.
What are the stakes for curators and restorers?
Society entrusts the curator with a collection of cultural objects, a part of public heritage, in order to curate, present and interpret it, to enrich it, and eventually to leave it safe and sound to future generations. It is an important responsibility. New materials, chemically instable, make this complex task even more difficult. However, ancient art is damaged by time as well. Magnificent tapestries of the 16th and 17th century lost their original vivid colours, as well as coloured marquetry furniture. The works of masters sometimes suffered major alterations, notably when it comes to organic pigments.
Archaeology can give only a very partial account of the lifestyle of ancient cultures, for organic objects (textile, wood, leather) disappeared for the major part, unless in exceptional circumstances. Beyond the mere conservation of collections, what is at stake for the curator is to understand this incomplete aspect of our collections, and to search for additional information, for instance through written sources. And obviously, when it comes to enriching the collection with new objects, he must anticipate the conservation of these works. If the instable composition of a contemporary work predicts inevitable conservation problems, an intelligent curator will take precautions as soon as on purchase, for instance a thorough description of the work while it is still in a good state. He may also undertake specific storage conditions , for instance in air-conditioned and suitably lighted spaces.
Do you personally focus on those issues?
Those issues interest me not only for my work on objects, but also as a matter of science, in order to update my knowledge. The materials evolve, but so do analysis and characterisation techniques, our knowledge of deterioration, as well as our experiences, positive and negative, in search for solutions. Deterioration and conservation/restoration of contemporary objects have become important issues for scientific research in conservation/restoration. For instance, AXA Art, in collaboration with a great contemporary furniture brand, funded an important research project on the deterioration of plastic furniture in the second half of the 20th century. Another project, in collaboration with the London Tate Gallery, inquired into the conservation/restoration of acrylic paint, used in many modern and contemporary artworks. We follow closely the results of these researches, in order to make profit for our own work.
What are the more complex materials, and why?
One must distinguish between the complexity of the treatment and the complexity of decision-making. Sometimes a very complex treatment must be undertaken, but there is no choice. On the contrary, other times the treatment is relatively simple, but controversial, for a choice must be made between various options, each having disadvantages. I think the most complex treatments are those requiring the previous definition of a coherent strategy, with priorities and sacrifices as well, for an uncertain result in the long term. On this regard we have much in common with surgery.
What about the little hindsight we have on the ageing of current methods? Is this a handicap? In terms of cost, what do these changes represent for museums and cultural institutions? And for individuals?
Restorers are used to working with contemporary materials, for they use every day adhesives and other products with synthetic resins. They have always been concerned with the ageing processes of these products. We have today at our disposal a broad range of “good” products, with resin soluble with time, allowing subsequent interventions if necessary. Reversibility or at least the possibility of altering the treatment are now considered a major point, indispensable for a professional curator/restorer. However, some products, formerly very popular, have now gone out of fashion for they proved much more instable than foreseen, such as for instance soluble nylon, much used by restorers in the 1960s. Who knows how the future generations will judge our work?
In great museums, restorers spend a major part of their time (about a third) to undo former restorations, for instance glue that became yellow and brittle, varnish encrusted with dust, or incorrect reconstitutions. In terms of cost, there are two points that unfortunately have not been accepted by everyone. First of all, preventive conservation is essential – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Respecting suitable storage and exhibition conditions often allows to avoid invasive treatments. No restoration can recreate the original work; damages done by bad environment conditions are irreversible, but not inevitable. Then it is a good thing to call on professionals, as soon as possible. An incident due to improvised transportation often generates serious damage that will require a long and expensive restoration treatment. If the quality of the first restoration was insufficient, it will be even more expensive and require additional restorations.
What solutions are being considered (intervention of the artist in the restoration work, notion of deterioration being part of a work’s existence…)? According to you, what is the best?
The recreation of the work by the artist himself when he is still alive has been done sometimes, when the original work had reached the point of no return. I personally object to this approach. As museums have experienced numerous times, the artists rarely just recreate an identical work. Their artistic vision has evolved, and they express their current positions and views, which leads to the creation of a new artwork, entirely different. In this regard, it is better to commission a new piece than pretend creating a second original of a pre-existing work. An artwork is always the result of precise, specific circumstances and conditions, impossible to recreate later. The remaining options are documentation, which will never reach the tangibility of a real artwork: it will be a mere copy, and never a “new” original. If the artist has foreseen the deterioration of his work with time, and integrated it in his artistic intention, is it legitimate for a restorer to intervene ? Must the artwork be considered a drama, a happening, with a beginning and an end? Restorers lead a deep reflection on those issues, close to philosophy. Each object leads to a new reflection, requiring an answer which is new and specific, as well as questionable. However, let us recall the option of making no decision is a decision as well, with the awareness of significant consequences to come.
Do you think those new conservation constraints curb the acquisition of artworks?
If a contemporary work is interesting on an aesthetic point of view, it has nothing to do with conservation issues. Major artistic trends are part of our cultural heritage and must therefore be represented in our collections for the future generations. The perishability of the artworks must lead to question the various forms of representation. It is different when the artwork is considered a financial investment. To invest in perishable raw materials (such as agricultural goods) means to be aware of the impossibility to keep them eternally as well. For those who invest in contemporary art, I always advise to previously get a professional document describing thoroughly the state of the work, the ideal storing conditions and a forecast of deterioration to come.
Today, the artists must be helped by other players, such as engineers, architects, city planners, to choose their materials. According to you, does this bring evolution to artistic creation? A positive evolution?
Artistic creativity is a complex phenomenon. I remember a symposium on conservation/restoration of contemporary artworks where the organisers had invited an artist to share her reflections on the issue of her works’ conservation. She was very open and stressed the fact that her one and only concern was to give her sculptures a very specific surface quality, to any cost, and before the deadline of the inauguration. Conservation issues had little interest for her. Obviously there are examples of the reverse, with works commissioned with a specific agenda, including materials and techniques. This is not a revolution; it was the same for ancient art: the commissioner provided the goldsmith with gold, the painter with pigments, the sculptor with marble. The work’s iconography was determined by the client as well. All these constraints did not prevent the creation of marvelous masterpieces.
Those issues raise also the question of time: is there a limit age for an artwork? Is the work defined by its material or concept? What do you think?
It would take a whole book to discuss this subject. The appreciation of artworks is conditioned by trends and fashion of course. I doubt many contemporary artworks will pass the “time test”. On the other hand, there are also artists whose work has been recognised only lately. There are different ways of admiring an artwork. Even if the concept is not brilliant, one can still admire the execution when it presents top qualities. Without these qualities, the loss of the concept’s revolutionary interest might soon unveil the work’s insignificance.