Permanence

 

Permanence: Who Cares?

I was painting in oils on an unprimed cotton canvas to see what effects I could get when my university painting instructor told me that the acid in the oil would cause the cotton to rot and become brittle, in other words, it would not be permanent.  “Permanent?”  I paused, “Really?” “Then I guess it will be the problem of the conservationists some day” was my answer.  This was my introduction to the concept of permanence and its relation to works of art.

 

Later, when I became interested in the techniques of the so-called ‘Old Masters’ I learned that permanence was indeed a topic a great concern for them and their clients.  They took great care to insure that their paintings would last for hundreds of years.  They carefully chose their materials and used them in ways that were proven over the centuries to stand the test of time.  Often the artists signed contracts that specified which materials (pigments in particular) would be used to create a painting.  That is not to say that all old paintings are in good condition, but in general the artists were aware of the implications of their choices when it came to materials and techniques.  This awareness gradually faded over time as artists became less involved in the actual manufacturing of their materials.  Now very few artists are educated in this aspect of their work. 

It has indeed become the problem of the conservationists and it is thru them and their writings that we are becoming aware once again of the effects of our creative choices.  Louis Pomerantz, a conservationist in Chicago, wrote a groundbreaking book in the early 60’s to try to alert artists to the significance of permanence in artwork.  The book is called “Is Your Contemporary Painting More Temporary Than You Think?”  He was inspired to write it when he noticed that he was spending more time restoring contemporary paintings than he was on paintings done hundreds of years ago. 

Museums are full of paintings done by modern artists that are in very poor condition and are quickly becoming unrecognizable because of unstoppable deterioration due to the use of unstable materials.  Paintings that are considered to have great artistic and cultural significance are being lost forever.  We all know of artists, some very famous, using household paints and commercial products, found objects, and even perishable food products in their works.  The dilemma faced by museums and their staff, collectors, and art lovers, is what to do, if anything, to keep the art in its original state for as long as possible.  Clearly, most of these people believe it is the responsibility of the artist to choose their materials carefully to ensure permanence.  This is where the question of permanence becomes a philosophical issue.  Many artists do not expect their paintings to last and don’t care - they are not concerned about permanence, and if this is a conscious, deliberate choice, then it is a legitimate one.   Occasionally, however, the issue also turns into a financial one. 

Museums, galleries, and collectors often end up spending a lot of money on restoration to keep their investments from deteriorating.  There have been a number of court cases where galleries and artists were sued because paintings began to fade, crack, or fall apart.  So, once again, we are seeing the emergence of artists having to sign contracts or being held financially responsible for the permanence of expensive works of art and commissions.  

Now this is where the question turns to the situation faced by the artist of modest fame, and the amateur artist.  Probably 99% of us fit into this category.  Why should we care about permanence?  No one is asking us to sign contracts guaranteeing that our paintings won’t fall apart.  Consider too, as history has shown; only time will determine who will be regarded as significant in the centuries ahead.  Bougeureau’s paintings were selling for one quarter of a million dollars U.S. at the end of the 1800’s (imagine how much that would be in today’s dollars!) and he was one of the most renowned artists of his time.  Van Gogh was a nobody.  Yet how many people have ever heard of Bouguereau?  Will Picasso still be considered a great artist in two hundred years?  I can tell you that a lot of his painting will be in very poor condition. 

I was lucky to be teaching at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts after I graduated and I came into contact with the conservationists working there.  I discovered that they knew more about materials and techniques than any artist or painting instructor that I had ever come across.  More importantly, they were a source of resource material and literature on the topic.  I began my years long study and research to try to learn as much as I could about the ‘craft’ of painting.  My idea was that the ‘art’ of painting was a lot easier to learn as it was the main emphasis of every painting class or workshop that I was aware of and there seemed to be endless resources in the writings of art historians and artists.  Reliable information about the ‘craft’ of painting, that is the physical and chemical properties of the paints and their applications, was more elusive.  I later obtained a Masters Degree in Art Education and the ‘craft’ of painting was the theme of my monograph.  I was not particularly interested in permanence, but learning about it was an automatic result of learning how to use the materials to achieve all of the effects that we recognize in the work of the great painters of the past.  I just wanted to be a better painter.  I am also not one of those people on either side of the argument that says artists should take responsibility for the permanence of their expressions.  The choice is up to each artist.  As an artist I appreciate the ability to make a choice based on the simple facts of the permanence of materials and their interactions with each other and with the environment.  That way, if I decide I want the painting to last I can chose my materials accordingly, if I am doing experimentation or simple studies or exercises I may decide to use cheaper, less permanent materials.  Then again, you don’t necessarily have to spend a lot of money on materials to make a permanent work of art.  That is also nice to know.  My objective in teaching these facts and writing these articles is to offer artists the same ability to make knowledgeable choices.

I remember reading about one of the American Abstract Expressionist painters who was invited by the conservation department of the Museum of Modern Art in New York to come and look at the state of his paintings.  He was shocked.  The conservationists wanted to know how far he thought they should go to keep the paintings from deteriorating beyond recognition.  It would eventually mean laying them flat and under glass.  Many artists of the past may have, if they had had the proper information, made different choices to preserve their expressions for future, others, perhaps not.  For some of us it is just nice to know that your choices will make a difference to the longevity of your work, and to know what your choices are… any questions?