Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice

TAPESTRY CONSERVATION Butterworth-Heinemann Series in Conservation and Museology Series Editor: Andrew Oddy British...

Author: Frances Lennard | Maria Hayward

385 downloads 2395 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

TAPESTRY

CONSERVATION

Butterworth-Heinemann Series in Conservation and Museology Series Editor:

Andrew Oddy British Museum, London

Consultants:

Sir Bernard Feilden Director Emeritus, ICCROM Page Ayres Cowley Conservation Architect, New York David Bomford National Gallery, London John Fidler English Heritage, London C.V. Horie Manchester Museum, University of Manchester Sarah Staniforth National Trust, London Jeanne Marie Teutonico The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles

Published titles:

Architectural Tiles: Conservation and Restoration (Durbin) Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation (Timár-Balázsy, Eastop) Conservation and Restoration of Ceramics (Buys, Oakley) Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone (Ashurst, Dime) Conservation of Furniture (Rivers, Umney) Conservation of Historic Buildings (Feilden) Conservation of Leather and Related Materials (Kite, Thomson) A History of Architectural Conservation ( Jokilehto) Lacquer: Technology and Conservation (Webb) The Museum Environment, 2nd edition (Thomson) Radiography of Cultural Materials, 2nd edition (Lang, Middleton) Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice (Lennard, Hayward) The Textile Conservator’s Manual, 2nd edition (Landi) Upholstery Conservation: Principles and Practice (Gill, Eastop)

Related titles:

Contemporary Theory of Conservation (MuÒoz-Vinas Digital Collections (Keene) Digital Heritage: Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage (MacDonald) Fragments of the World: Uses of Museum Collections (Keene) Historic Floors (Fawcett) Managing Conservation in Museums (Keene) Materials for Conservation (Horie) The National Trust Manual of Housekeeping Natural Materials: Sources, Properties and Uses (DeMouthe) Organic Chemistry of Museum Objects (Mills, White) Pigment Compendium: Dictionary (Eastaugh, Walsh, Siddall, Chaplin) Pigment Compendium: Optical Microscopy (Eastaugh, Walsh, Siddall, Chaplin) Pigment Compendium CD (Eastaugh, Walsh, Siddall, Chaplin) Restoration of Motion Picture Film (Read, Meyer) Risk Assessment for Object Conservation (Ashley-Smith) Structural Aspects of Building Conservation (Beckman, Bowles)

TAPESTRY

CONSERVATION Principles and Practice

Frances Lennard

●

Maria Hayward

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803 First published 2006 Copyright © 2006, Frances Lennard and Maria Hayward. All rights reserved The rights of Frances Lennard and Maria Hayward to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1T 4LP. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science and Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (44) (0) 1865 843830; fax: (44) (0) 1865 853333; e-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Customer Support’ and then ‘Obtaining Permissions’ British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-6184-3 ISBN-10: 0-7506-6184-4 For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our website at http://books.elsevier.com Typeset by Charon Tec Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India www.charontec.com Printed and bound in Great Britain

This book is dedicated to Dinah Eastop, MA, FIIC, ACR, ILTM, Senior Lecturer and Associate Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies in recognition of her unfailing support of research and publication in the field of textile conservation

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Foreword by Wendy Hefford and Karen Finch

ix

Editors’ preface

xi

Acknowledgements Picture credits

xiii

xvii

Tapestry timeline Maria Hayward

xxiii

Part One: Context

1

1.

The art of tapestry conservation Frances Lennard

3

2.

Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection Maria Hayward

13

3.

The survival of Henry VIII’s History of Abraham tapestries: an account of how they were perceived, used and treated over the centuries 20 Jenny Band

4.

Changing approaches to tapestry conservation: the conservation of a set of seven eighteenth-century tapestries Lynsay Shephard

5.

The truth will out: the value of tapestry documentation Maria Hayward and Ksynia Marko

48

xv

List of contributors

Part Two: Documentation and analysis of materials

6. Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation of a fifteenth-century tapestry altar frontal and super frontal Cordelia Rogerson and Paul Garside

Part Three: Cleaning 7. Comments on tapestry wet cleaning David Howell 8. A brief history of tapestry wet cleaning systems at the Victoria and Albert Museum Frances Hartog and Albertina Cogram 9. Chevalier Conservation: past and present developments in the cleaning of tapestries Susanne Cussell

57 59

62

68

10. Cleaning antique and modern tapestries by aerosol suction: thirteen years later – the characteristics, comparative advantages and limitations of this system 74 Yvan Maes De Wit 11. Non-aqueous cleaning Frances Lennard

81

Part Four: Treatment options

89

28

37 39

(a) Support systems 12. Development of a couching technique for the treatment of historic tapestries Danielle Bosworth and Caroline Clark 13. A grid support for The Lamentation tapestry Frances Lennard and Michelle Harper

91

97 vii

viii

Contents

14. Conservation techniques at De Wit Royal Manufacturers Yvan Maes De Wit

102

24. The conservation of tapestries in Bavaria 177 Cornelia Wild and André Brutillot

15. A description and evaluation of a conservation system for tapestries Sheila Landi

185

108

25. Tapestry conservation in Italy: two case studies Claudia Kusch

Part Five: Maintenance and display

191

16. Tapestry as upholstery: the challenges of conserving tapestry-covered seat furniture Kathryn Gill 17. Tapestry on a small scale: conserving a set of Soho tapestry chair covers from Petworth House Laura Bosworth

113

26. Made to fit: reinstating a set of tapestries and painted panels into the Audley End Tapestry Room Michelle Harper and Karen Thompson

123

27. Maintenance and first aid Ksynia Marko

(b) Image reintegration 18. The visual reintegration of missing areas in tapestries Rachel Langley and Philippa Sanders

129

28. Removing large tapestry hangings from display Fiona Hutton, Frances Lennard and Ksynia Marko

19. Methods of infilling areas of loss Frances Lennard

138

20. Tapestry conservation techniques at Chevalier Conservation Susanne Cussell (c) Different approaches 21. Tapestry conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Ronnee Barnett, A. Alice Blohm, Kathrin Colburn, Tina Kane, Midori Sato and Florica Zaharia 22. Tapestries on long-term view at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: a synthesis of treatment options Kathy Francis, Tess Fredette, Bonnie Halvorson and Deirdre Windsor 23. Wawel Castle tapestry collection: an overview of past and present conservation practice in Krakow, Poland Jerzy Holc

131

193 200

207

29. Ephemeral or permanent: environmental decisions for textiles 213 Boris Pretzel

145

Part Six: Current research projects 153 155

163

171

30. Monitoring of damage to historic tapestries (MODHT): a European research project Kathryn Hallett

223

225

31. Mechanical testing and its role in the condition assessment of tapestries 227 Melin Sahin, Alan Chambers, Leonidas Dokos, Janice Dulieu-Barton, Jacqueline Earl, Dinah Eastop and Frances Lennard

Select bibliography

235

Glossary

241

Index

243

Foreword

Wendy Hefford Three things make or mar a tapestry – design, craftsmanship and condition. Many tapestries were designed by leading artists of their day, such as Bernard van Orley, Raphael, Rubens, Le Brun and Boucher. With no less artistry, weavers translated the style of the designer faithfully. Highly-paid specialists, weaving flesh, faces and hair, overcame constraints of their medium to achieve likenesses that caused universal admiration and could deceive an onlooker into thinking a woven portrait was a painting. Silk and wool dyed in brilliant colours and subtle shades, though uniformly tapestry woven, were mingled with such skill that they seemed like velvet, satin, fur, shot or watered silk, damask or transparent veils. Surfaces of silver, glass or stone were realistically rendered in tapestry; even the luminosity of the sky was successfully evoked. But all that beauty could be destroyed by constant use, resulting in fading, degradation of fibre and hazards of major damage and repair. For a tapestry to survive, not only careful treatment but skilled remedial work was, and is, essential. In the past, workshops weaving new tapestries made a considerable part of their income repairing existing tapestries that were privately owned. For the royal tapestries in England, Great Wardrobe accounts show how they were cleaned, repaired and lined by a permanent staff of arras workers and tapestry taylors. Detailed accounts reveal large sums spent on materials for repairs, shown to involve reweaving by payments for warp and occasionally ‘for painting the design’ to fill substantial holes. Up to the eighteenth century, however, such reweaving was performed by men who had served a seven-year apprenticeship learning their trade and spent their lives practising it. Original cartoons, or tapestries of the same design, were often available for copying to recreate missing areas.

This relatively happy state of affairs lasted while tapestry was valued as a major furnishing, in spite of fluctuations in fashion for different styles. By the later eighteenth century, however, tastes changed so radically that far fewer new tapestries were being made, and fewer old ones were in use. Eventually, tapestry workshops closed and skills were lost. The Great Wardrobe itself was abolished in 1782. When, by the end of the nineteenth century, tapestry once more had a commercial value, it began to be sold with increasing frequency; and to make the hangings serviceable they were often ‘restored’ by workers with no idea of how the damaged tapestry originally looked or with what subtleties it had been woven. Not until the second half of the twentieth century was there a revolution in tapestry conservation, with an approach based on scientific and artistic education, seeking better ways to preserve and protect these vulnerable, irreplaceable works of art. This wide-ranging book with contributions from experienced conservators shows what advances have been made and what problems inevitably remain, as the study and practice of tapestry conservation enter the twenty-first century.

Karen Finch Like my fellow students at the Kunsthaandvaerkerskole in Copenhagen, I was taught the technique of tapestry weaving by Gerda Henning, herself an artist whose work holds an honoured place in the Danish Museum of the Decorative Arts, where our school – also her creation – was housed. Her teaching instilled in us respect for the long traditions of the art of weaving; and it determined my attitude to the sad specimens of worn and tattered, but once beautiful tapestries that I came to ix

x

Foreword

encounter in the workrooms of the Royal School of Needlework and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A). I knew right away that some of their beauty would still be there, waiting to be reclaimed. At the V&A, the Keeper of the Textile Department, George Wingfield Digby, allowed me to prove my belief by unpicking the darning covering a seventeenth-century French tapestry (T 125 –1931) and then supporting the weak remains on heavy linen lining material, undeterred by the fact that to the dealers, who advised on insurance, this would proclaim repair and therefore lower value. Close up, no design was visible, but the memory of it was held by the still firm warp thread, so when these were couched into place with neutral coloured embroidery silk, the design was revealed as a distant townscape above a wooded foreground. The warps of this tapestry were whole, even if worn. Commissions in my Ealing workroom often had large chunks cut away, leaving unsightly holes, difficult to camouflage. This was dealt with by a gifted colleague, Danielle Bosworth. She laid new warps, dyed to match the old, on the patches under the gaps and found the information available to use colour indications to suggest the missing details of the design. Danielle taught her techniques to our students, while always following the rules of minimal – and reversible – intervention.

A good friend, a paintings conservator, told us that he did not like tapestries because ‘the drawing is so bad’. We pondered this and realised that he could not have seen a tapestry with no repairs, so we invited him to the nearest tapestry gallery. Unhappily, to no avail, since none of the tapestries there were in their original condition. All of these experiences added strength to our resolve to develop means to preserve the fine tapestries that still grace the great houses for which they were woven or that are treasured in our museums. Tapestry conservators have come a long way from these beginnings, as witnessed by the many contributors to this book. Tapestries can now be safely cleaned with great benefits to their colours, but we still need a better understanding of the long-term effects of new materials and support techniques on weak and worn fibres, and to generate the knowledge that tapestries depend on stable environmental conditions for their survival. Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice should benefit all with an interest in tapestries and their care; not only owners, historians and tapestry conservators but also designers of modern interiors, who may be inspired to design new, lightly undulating pictorial textiles for their clients.

Karen Finch at the Textile Conservation Centre at Hampton Court Palace in the early 1980s.

Editors’ preface

This book is not a technical manual on how to conserve tapestries, rather it seeks to provide an analysis of how tapestry conservation techniques have evolved over the centuries. Treatment began with the practices established within the Great Wardrobe by the late Middle Ages to care for the English royal collection, and disseminated to noble households, originally based on cleaning with ‘bread and brushes’ and reweaving areas of loss. It evolved into tapestry conservation as it exists today, which in the UK developed in the 1960s and 1970s with the pioneering work of among others, Karen Finch and Danielle Bosworth, continued by Caroline Clark,

Lynsay Shephard stitching on a tapestry frame at Hampton Court Palace.

at the Textile Conservation Centre. This longstanding pattern of caring for tapestries can be seen throughout Europe and in America, where different techniques have evolved. Developments in the field of tapestry conservation are ongoing as shown by the Europe-wide project Monitoring of damage to historic tapestries (see Chapter 30). Modern research is often interdisciplinary, as demonstrated by the successful collaboration between conservators and engineers (see Chapter 31). The chapters are grouped thematically: context, documentation, cleaning, treatment options (subdivided in turn into support systems, image reintegration and different approaches), maintenance and display, and current research projects. While some subjects such as lining or hanging mechanisms do not have a specific section, they form a recurrent theme. The question of specialist terminology and how it is used has been addressed in the glossary and we have sought to ensure a consistent use of terms throughout the text. The glossary, along with Chapters 1 and 12, addresses the structure of tapestry weaving, while an introduction to the history of tapestry weaving is provided by the timeline. The book seeks to be representative of conservation practice within the major studios in the UK and this work is set in context by a group of comparative studies from America and mainland Europe. These chapters bring out a number of issues related to the ways in which tapestries are perceived as art objects, and how they have been collected and displayed. The chapters have been edited to avoid repetition of recurring issues such as why conservators use stranded cotton to couch areas of silk weft. A number of the chapters include case histories to illustrate their particular theme and these have been edited to focus upon the issue in point rather than to cover all facets of the treatment.

xi


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies (2002 –7) for support while working on this publication. The book itself forms one of the Research Centre’s milestones and its publication fulfils the Centre’s aim to consider textiles on long-term open display in country houses and museums. Dinah Eastop must be credited and thanked for suggesting the initial idea for this book and for developing the book proposal. Dinah also compiled the index. We would also like to thank Nell Hoare, Director of the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton, for her support during the course of this project and for permission to publish material relating to tapestries conserved at the TCC. We acknowledge all of the hard work of TCC colleagues, past and present, who have undertaken the conservation of a number of the tapestries discussed in this book and who are acknowledged personally in the relevant chapters.

We owe our biggest debt to Christine Bennett and Mike Halliwell, without whose help with the editorial process and the images, this book would have been much the poorer. Other TCC colleagues who played an invaluable role include Amber Rowe, Paul Wyeth and Andrea Poole. Grateful thanks also go to Ksynia Marko, Lynsay Shephard and Michelle Harper for their work on the editorial board which discussed the proposed contents and contributors with the editors. The book has benefited greatly from their extensive knowledge and experience of tapestry conservation. We are also indebted to Karen Finch and Wendy Hefford for their encouragement throughout this project and for contributing the Foreword. We also wish to thank our contributors without whom this book would not have happened. Finally, we would like to acknowledge all the hard work and encouragement provided by Stephani Havard, our editor at Elsevier, and all her editorial team who have brought this book to fruition.

xiii


Picture credits

Cover images: National Museums Liverpool (The Walker). Foreword: © Textile Conservation Centre. Editor’s preface: Crown copyright: Historic Royal Palaces. Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Collection. Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 reproduced by kind permission of the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensbury, KT. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 1.2 Line drawing by Mike Halliwell © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 1.3 Steve Speller © West Dean Tapestry Studio; Figure 1.4 with kind permission of the Wernher Foundation, English Heritage. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 1.5 reproduced with permission of the Henry Moore Foundation. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 1.6 Marta Rogoyska. © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Crown Copyright: Historic Royal Palaces. Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Collection. Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 © The Prince de Ligne; Figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 Crown Copyright: Historic Royal Palaces. Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Collection. Chapter 4 Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Crown Copyright: Historic Royal Palaces. Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Collection. Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 reproduced by kind permission of the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensbury, KT. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figures 5.2 and 5.5 with

thanks to the National Trust; Figure 5.3 with kind permission of the Wernher Foundation, English Heritage. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 5.4 with thanks to the National Trust. © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 6 Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 reproduced with permission of the Whitworth Art Gallery. © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 7 Figure 7.1 Crown Copyright: Historic Royal Palaces. Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Collection. Chapter 8 Figures 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 published with the kind permission of the Board of Trustees of the V&A. Chapter 9 Figures 9.1 and 9.2 © Théo Baulig/Chevalier Conservation. Chapter 10 Figures 10.1 and 10.2 © De Wit; Figures 10.3 and 10.4 by permission of the National Trust, Hardwick Hall, Devonshire Collection. © De Wit. Chapter 11 Figures 11.1 and 11.6 by kind permission of the Chapter of Peterborough Cathedral. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4 reproduced with permission of the client © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 11.5 Permission of Trustees of the Weston Park Foundation © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 12 Figure 12.1 © V&A Images/Victoria and Albert Museum. Figures 12.2 and 12.3 by permission of xv

xvi

Picture credits

the National Trust, Hardwick Hall, Devonshire Collection. Chapter 13 Figures 13.1, 13.2, 13.3 with kind permission of the Wernher Foundation, English Heritage. © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 14 Figures 14.1 and 14.2 © De Wit. Chapter 15 Figures 15.1 and 15.2 Textile Conservation Consultancy workshop; Figure 15.3 private collection. Chapter 16 Figures 16.1 and 16.4 by kind permission of the trustees of the Wallace Collection. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figures 16.2, 16.3, 16.5, 16.6 and 16.7 © Kathryn Gill, Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 17 Figures 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 by permission of the National Trust, Petworth House. Chapter 18 Figures 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4 © The National Trust. Chapter 19 Figures 19.1 and 19.2 President and Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figures 19.3 and 19.4 reproduced with permission of the client. © Textile Conservation Centre; Figure 19.5 © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 20 Figures 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4 Chevalier Conservation, Paris and Aubusson. Chapter 21 Figures 21.1, 21.2, 21.3 Metropolitan Museum of Art, Medieval Art Collection; Figure 21.4 Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection.

Chapter 22 Figures 22.1, 22.2, 22.3 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston. Figure 22.3 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston. Photograph by Richard Lingner. Chapter 23 Figures 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4 Wawel Castle. Chapter 24 Figures 24.1, 24.2, 24.3, 24.4 Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich. Chapter 25 Figures 25.1 and 25.2 with the kind permission of the Museo Diocesano di Ancona. Chapter 26 Figures 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4 Images courtesy of English Heritage. © Textile Conservation Centre. Chapter 27 Figures 27.1, 27.2, 27.3, 27.4 with thanks to the National Trust. Chapter 28 Figure 28.1 with thanks to the National Trust; Figures 28.2, 28.3, 28.4 with thanks to the National Trust, Dyrham Park. Fiona Hutton and Frances Lennard, Textile Conservation. Figure 28.5 Photograph by Cristian Barnett. Chapter 29 Figures 29.1 and 29.2 Photographs by Paul Robins, © V&A Photo Studio; Figures 29.3, 29.4, 29.5 Line drawings by Boris Pretzel. Chapter 30 Figure 30.1 Image courtesy of Historic Royal Palaces. Chapter 31 Figures 31.1, 31.2, 31.3, 31.4, 31.5, 31.6 Line drawings by Melin Sahin. Glossary © Textile Conservation Centre.

Contributors

Ronnee Barnett

Danielle Bosworth

Ronnee Barnett, Associate Conservator, has been restoring tapestries at the Textile Conservation Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art since 1991. Among other projects, she has been sole restorer of Noli Me Tangere, the fifth fragment in the Hunt of the Frail Stag series, and is presently restoring the third tapestry of the Courtiers in a Rose Garden series.

Danielle Bosworth studied art embroidery and restoration in Paris. She worked as a textile restorer at Maison Brocard, Paris. In 1965, she joined Karen Finch at her London studio as a freelance conservator. The studio moved to Hampton Court Palace when the Textile Conservation Centre was established in 1975, where she was employed as Senior Conservator/ Tutor until 1982. Danielle set up her own studio in North West London in 1983. She also taught textile conservation at the Institut Français pour la Restauration des Oeuvres d’Art in Paris for four years. She moved her studio to Dorset in 1999.

Jenny Band Jenny Band gained a BA specialising in tapestry in 1972 and undertook an apprenticeship with the last Morris & Co restorers at Hampton Court from 1976 – 8. In 1980 she assumed the management of the Hampton Court tapestry and furnishings workshops, changing the working ethos to conservation, and amalgamating them to form the Textile Conservation Studio and research laboratory. In 2002, Jenny was appointed Conservation Advisor to the Historic Royal Palaces. She is now a freelance consultant working on historic interiors, undertaking research and lecturing.

Laura Bosworth Laura Bosworth studied History of Art and French at the University of Sussex. She joined Danielle Bosworth’s private studio in North West London in 1990 and completed a four-year in-house training programme in textile conservation. She moved to Dorset with the studio in 1999 where she specialises in tapestry conservation.

André Brutillot A. Alice Blohm Alice Blohm, Associate Conservator, Department of Textile Conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, has assisted in the technical analysis of the publication, Medieval Tapestries in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Adolpho S. Cavallo. Presently, she is restoring a medieval tapestry. She has a Certificate in Tapestry Weaving from West Dean College, England.

Born in La Chaux de Gilley, France, André Brutillot graduated from the University of Besançon. In 1975 he started an apprenticeship in Munich with a freelance textile conservator. In 1979 he started working part-time at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum and part-time as a freelance conservator. Work at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum includes the storage and documentation of c. 150 tapestries from the collection and the conservation of two tapestries from xvii

xviii


The Life of the Apostle Paul, Brussels, c. 1550 by Peter Coecke van Aelst.

Alan Chambers Alan Chambers, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Materials Engineering at the School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton. He has expertise in composite materials and damage detection techniques.

Caroline Clark Caroline Clark took a one-year diploma course in Tapestry Weaving at West Dean College (1975 –76). She was employed by the Textile Conservation Centre as an apprentice in Tapestry Conservation (1976 –78), Conservator (1978 –79), Head of Tapestry Conservation Department (1979 – 88 and 1992 –94), and Head of Conservation Services (1988 –92). Since 1996 she has worked part-time as an independent conservator and, from 2002, also part-time with Danielle and Laura Bosworth in Dorset.

Susanne Cussell Susanne Bouret, née Cussell, graduated from the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court Palace in 1989. After working with Kysnia Marko at the Textile Conservation Studios in Limehouse, she took an internship at the Musée des Tissus, Lyon, France. In 1991 she joined Chevalier Conservation where she was responsible for setting up and running the Aubusson studios until 2002. Currently on sabbatical leave, she teaches tapestry conservation theory at the restoration/conservation department of the Institut National du Patrimoine and lectures at the University of Clermont Ferrand.

Leonidas Dokos Leo Dokos is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow; he is co-located in the School of Engineering Sciences and the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton. He has experience in the application of optical strain sensors to structures.

Janice Dulieu-Barton Albertina Cogram Albertina Cogram gained a City and Guilds Certificate in Conservation and Restoration Studies from Lincoln College of Art in 1981. This was followed by voluntary work and then employment in the Conservation Department of the Horniman Museum, London. In 1985 she joined the Textile Conservation Studio, Hampton Court Palace working mainly on tapestries. In 1988 she joined the Textile Conservation section of the Victoria and Albert Museum taking up a post as a tapestry conservator.

Janice Dulieu-Barton, PhD, is a Reader in Experimental Mechanics, at the School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton. She has around 15 years’ experience in material testing, strain measurement and non-destructive evaluation.

Jacqueline Earl Jacqueline Earl, PhD, is a Research Fellow in Ship Science, at the School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, with expertise in testing and evaluation of composite materials and structures.

Kathrin Colburn

Dinah Eastop

Kathrin Colburn, conservator, joined the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1990. She is responsible for the conservation of textiles belonging to the Department of Medieval Art and the Cloisters. Prior to her appointment at the Metropolitan, she worked at the Cleveland Museum of Art. She received her training at the Abegg-Stiftung in Switzerland.

Dinah Eastop is Senior Lecturer at the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton and Associate Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies. She has worked in the heritage conservation sector since 1976 and has a special interest in developing the principles and practice of textile conservation via the integration of both the physical and social sciences.

List of contributors xix

Karen Finch After training as a weaver in Denmark, Karen Finch worked at the Royal School of Needlework where she became involved with tapestry conservation. Then, in 1954, she joined the Art Work Room at the Victoria and Albert Museum, soon to be renamed the conservation department, before establishing her own workshop in Ealing, London. She was founder of the Textile Conservation Centre and its Principal from 1975 to 1986.

as a textile conservator, specialising in upholstery conservation at the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court Palace. In 1984 Kate moved to the USA to set up the upholstery conservation section at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. After seven years as Senior Upholstery Conservator, she took a post at the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton. Kate is Senior Conservator and Lecturer, combining practical conservation (textiles and upholstered furniture) with teaching and research. She is principal contributor to and co-editor (with Dinah Eastop) of Upholstery Conservation: Principles and Practice (2001).

Kathy Francis Kathy Francis presently works as a freelance textile conservator in Summit, New Jersey. From 1995 to 2002 she was Senior Conservator for Textiles at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. From 1988 to 1994 she served as Chief Conservator of the Textile Conservation Center. She holds a BS in Clothing and Textiles from Framingham State College.

Tess Fredette Tess Fredette is Associate Textile Conservator at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. From 1996 to 2003 she was Assistant Conservator at the Textile Conservation Center and a principal member of the tapestry conservation team. She holds a BFA in Fiber Art from the Massachusetts College of Art and an MS in textiles from the University of Rhode Island.

Paul Garside Paul Garside received an MChem from the University of Southampton, where he remained to study for a PhD. He subsequently joined the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies. His current research involves the development of techniques to investigate the chemical and microstructural properties of natural and synthetic fibres, with the aim of informing textile conservation treatments.

Kathryn Gill After gaining a BA (Hons) in Textiles and Fashion at Manchester Polytechnic, Kate trained and worked

Kathryn Hallett Kathryn Hallett is Senior Conservation Scientist at Historic Royal Palaces. After training as a conservator at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, she gained a Masters degree in Conservation Science from the Royal College of Art/Victoria and Albert Museum joint course, in collaboration with the British Museum.

Bonnie Halvorson Bonnie Halvorson has worked at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum since 1997 and is a Senior Conservator of Textiles. Her background includes tapestry conservation experience from the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, and the Cathedral of St John the Divine, New York City. She graduated with an MS in textile conservation from the University of Alberta, Canada in 1991.

Michelle Harper Michelle Harper (BA Hons) completed a three-year postgraduate diploma in textile conservation at the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC), Courtauld Institute of Art in 1995. She worked for a year at the National Trust Textile Conservation Studio, Norfolk and then joined the Conservation Services department of the TCC in 1996. Michelle has recently worked as project manager on a variety of large English Heritage projects, specialising in tapestry conservation.

xx


Frances Hartog In 1989, Frances Hartog began a three-year apprenticeship in textile conservation at the Textile Conservation Studio in London, focusing mainly on tapestry conservation. From 1992 to 1994 she worked at the Textile Conservation Centre predominantly in the tapestry department. The following two years were spent at the Museum of London fulfilling contracts for a costume exhibition and displays. In 1996 she joined the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio, Norfolk. Two years later she took up her present post as senior textile conservator in the Conservation Department of the Victoria and Albert Museum.

Maria Hayward Maria Hayward, PhD, gained the postgraduate diploma in Textile Conservation in 1990 and subsequently worked at the Textile Conservation Centre as a conservator. She is currently a Reader and Head of Studies and Research at the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton and Director of the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies. In 2004 she published The 1542 Inventory of Whitehall: The Palace and its Keeper and was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. She is currently working on two books, Dress at the Court of Henry VIII and Rich Apparel: Dress in Henry VIII’s England.

Wendy Hefford Wendy Hefford read History at Oxford and then joined the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1960, later becoming a Research Assistant in the Department of Textiles. She went on to become the expert on tapestries in the Department of Textiles, Furnishing and Dress. She is now a freelance tapestry historian.

conservator and took over the role of Department Head in 1990.

David Howell David Howell trained as a chemist, spent some time in industry and studied English Mediaeval Studies before entering the conservation profession. During twenty years at Historic Royal Palaces, he gained an international reputation in research in textile conservation. He was coordinator of a major European funded research project, ‘Monitoring of Damage to Historic Tapestries’ and led the development of the unique washing facility at Hampton Court Palace. David has moved to Oxford University Library Service where he is now Deputy Head of Conservation and Collections Care.

Fiona Hutton Having served an apprenticeship at the TCC under Karen Finch, Fiona Hutton built up her experience with Ksynia Marko at the Textile Conservation Studio in London before moving to the South West of England. There she established Textile Conservation with Frances Lennard. She continued to offer conservation services throughout the South West until her untimely death in May 2005.

Tina Kane Tina Kane, conservator, began working in the Textile Conservation Department at the Metropolitan Museum in 1978. She is a specialist in the restoration of medieval tapestry. She received an MA in Comparative Literature from the University of California, Berkeley, USA, and has published articles on tapestry and other subjects.

Claudia Kusch Jerzy Holc Jerzy Holc has held the post of Head of Textile Conservation Studio at Wawel Royal Castle in Krakow for 14 years. He began studies in Art History at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow in 1987. Whilst there, he began an internship at the Textile Conservation Studio at the Wawel Royal Castle. Upon completing his MA degree in Art History he remained employed there as a textile

Claudia Kusch trained as a tapestry weaver with Professor Silvio Grossi at the Vatican Laboratories, followed by training as a textile conservator at the Abegg-Stiftung, Switzerland. Since the mid eighties, she has worked as a freelance textile conservator in Italy, where she set up the workshop ‘Arakhne’, specialising in tapestry conservation. Currently, beside Arakhne’s projects, she collaborates with the Vatican Museums and the Istituto per il Restauro di Roma.

List of contributors xxi

Sheila Landi Sheila Landi’s early education and training was centred on fine art followed by a variety of jobs in teaching, design and manufacture, all of which proved useful in a career in conservation that began in 1963. Largely self-trained while working in the Textile Conservation Section of the Victoria and Albert Museum, she became Head of Section in 1972, remaining in post until her official retirement in 1989, when the Textile Conservation Consultancy was established. The studio moved to Burghley House, Stamford in 1992. Her chief publication is the The Textile Conservator’s Manual.

Rachel Langley Rachel Langley has worked at the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio since 1993. She trained as an Apprentice in Tapestry Conservation at the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court (1989– 92) and began her career as a Textile Conservator in the Tapestry Department of the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court (1992 –93) before joining the National Trust.

Frances Lennard Frances Lennard gained the Postgraduate Diploma in Textile Conservation awarded by the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC) & The Courtauld Institute of Art in 1985. She worked for the Conservation Services Department of the TCC until 1990, then moved to the South West of England to work as a freelance textile conservator in partnership with Fiona Hutton; she was Chair of the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC) Textile Section from 1994 to 1997. She returned to the TCC in 2001 where she is Convenor of the MA Textile Conservation programme.

Yvan Maes De Wit Starting in 1968, Yvan Maes De Wit received training as a master weaver and restorer from his grandfather, Gaspard De Wit. Between 1969 and 1973 he studied History of Art followed by Business and Administration at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Between 1975 and 1976 he was president of the ‘Cultural Commission’, AGL at the Catholic

University of Louvain. In 1979 he did research for his History of Art dissertation at the Musée des Tissus in Lyon, France. Since 1980, he has been manager of the Royal Manufacturers De Wit.

Ksynia Marko Ksynia Marko has been working in the field of textile conservation for over thirty years. She began her training in 1973, first with Karen Finch and then with Sheila Landi at the Victoria and Albert Museum where she became Senior Textile Conservator responsible for tapestry conservation. She ran her own studio in London for eleven years, before joining the National Trust in 1991 as manager of the Textile Conservation Studio at Blickling, Norfolk. In 1995 she became the Trust’s Textile Conservation Adviser, caring for over 50 000 textiles including 500 tapestries.

Boris Pretzel Boris Pretzel was born in West Berlin. He graduated from Bristol University with a BSc, followed by an MSc and a term as researcher. Subsequently, he worked in the European Patent Office in The Hague and Berlin, with responsibility for solid-state physics devices, manufacturing and materials. Since 1989, he has been the Materials Scientist in the Victoria and Albert Museum Conservation Department’s Science Section. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Cultural Heritage, European Chair of IRUG (the Infrared and Raman Users Group), and a chartered physicist.

Cordelia Rogerson After taking a History of Art degree, Cordelia Rogerson trained and worked as a textile conservator at the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton, and is presently a lecturer in the Studies and Research Department. In addition, she currently holds a research conservator post at the TCC as part of the AHRC Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies, and is a PhD candidate at the Royal College of Art.

Melin Sahin Melin Sahin is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow; he is co-located in the School of Engineering Sciences

xxii


and the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton. He has a special interest in experimental vibration analysis, structural health monitoring and damage identification.

Philippa Sanders Philippa Sanders has worked at the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio since 1992. She gained a Diploma in Textile Conservation from the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court (1989 –92) and began her career as a Textile Conservator when she joined the National Trust in 1992. In 1996 she was a team member of the runner-up project for the Jerwood Foundation Award.

Midori Sato Midori Sato, Conservator, began working at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the conservation of four large hangings in the Museum’s Louis XIV bedroom in l986. Since then, she has contributed to many projects including the restoration of the tapestry series, Courtiers in a Rose Garden. She works on the conservation of textiles from the Asian Art and Ancient Near East Departments.

Lynsay Shephard Lynsay Shephard completed a two-year apprenticeship in Tapestry Restoration at Hampton Court in 1980, after which she continued to specialise in tapestry conservation and was instrumental in the development of conservation practices at Hampton Court. She was Head of Tapestry Conservation at Hampton Court until 2004. Lynsay is now working in private practice and continues to lecture and teach.

Karen Thompson Karen Thompson graduated from Manchester Polytechnic in 1990 with a BA (Hons) in History of

Design. She completed her postgraduate training in Textile Conservation at the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court Palace in 1993. Since then she has carried out conservation for museums and private practice both in the UK and abroad. She is currently employed at the Textile Conservation Centre, University of Southampton and her areas of specialisation include tapestries, painted textiles, costume and accessories.

Cornelia Wild Cornelia Wild attended the School of Fashion in Munich and then completed a dressmaking apprenticeship. She has worked as a freelance conservator for the Civic Gallery at Lenbachhaus and on the Munich Archiepiscopal chair. She has worked in the Bavarian palace conservation department since 1986. In 1992 she became head of the tapestry department with responsibility for one of the most important tapestry collections in Germany.

Deirdre Windsor Deirdre Windsor is currently Principal of Windsor Conservation, in Dover, Massachusetts, USA. From 1995 to 2001 she was Director and Chief Conservator of the Textile Conservation Center, American Textile History Museum in Lowell, Massachusetts, USA, and managed the tapestry conservation team. She holds a BFA in Textile Design from the Rhode Island School of Design.

Florica Zaharia Florica Zaharia, Acting Conservator in Charge, joined the Department of Textile Conservation of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1988. She has contributed to various tapestry conservation projects, including Courtiers in a Rose Garden and The Start of the Hunt of The Unicorn tapestry series. She holds a PhD in Visual Arts from the University of Art Nicolae Grigorescu in Bucharest.

Tapestry timeline Maria Hayward

The aim of the timeline is to place the tapestries used to illustrate the chapters into the context of the key developments in tapestry weaving. The dates given for tapestry designs in the left-hand column are the dates for the initial design, rather than the period over which tapestries were woven from these cartoons. The numbers in round brackets ( ) in the right-hand column refer to the chapter number in which the tapestries are discussed. Where authors are uncertain about the date for a tapestry, this has been reflected in the timeline by citing the whole century. The tapestries illustrated in the book are highlighted in bold.

Major developments in tapestry weaving 11th century: the Cloth of St Gereon, Cologne 11th to 13th century: Baldishol, Norway 12th to 13th century: Halberstadt pieces 1302: the formation of the Corporation of Tapestry weavers as ‘tapissiers de la haute lisse’ in Paris 1422: only two master weavers in Paris 1425: the occupation of Paris by the English and the removal of the French court c.1447: a dyer called Gobelin buys property on the banks of the Bièvre in the parish of Saint-Marcel, Paris 1447: a tapestry guild established in Brussels 1449 –53: History of Gideon woven for Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy 1450 –51: first guild rules at Brussels 1466: Verdure with Arms of Burgundy by Jean de Haze, Brussels 1476: victory of the painters’ guild of St Luke in Brussels to secure their right to design tapestries 1477: capture of Arras by Louis XI of France c.1480: History of the Trojan War, woven by Pasquier Grenier, Tournai tapestry merchant c.1500: Brussels established as the centre of tapestry production c.1500: The Triumph of Christ, Brussels 1519: Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles set delivered by Pieter van Aelst to the Vatican from Brussels

Tapestries cited in this book

c.1375 – 80: The Apocalypse series, Angers, woven by Nicolas Bataille, Paris (5) 1420 –30: The Fabulous Beast, Upper Rhineland (21) 1425: The Triumph of Fortitude, Brussels (12) c.1450: Courtiers in a Rose Garden, Flemish (5, 21) 1450 –75: Praetexta, Germany (21) 1460: The Story of Alexander the Great, Tournai (10) c.1460: The Roman de la Rose, Tournai (5, 6, 12) 1475 –90: The War of Troy, Tournai (8, 10) 1475 –99: The Tree of Jesse, Cologne region, German (6) c.1490 –1510: The Lord of the Vineyard, Flemish (19) c.1488 –1501: Millefleurs with the Arms of John Dynham, French or Flemish (5) 1500s: Anthony and Cleopatra, Brussels (5) 1500s: Fructus Belli, after cartoons by Giulio Romano, Brussels (20) 1500s: October, Brussels (10) 1500s: The Triumph of Fame, Brussels (10) c.1500: Christ of the Mystic Winepress, South Netherlands (21) c.1500: La Chute des Idoles, possibly Flanders (14) c.1500 –25: Esther Hearing of Haman’s Plot, Brussels (12) c.1500 –30: Triumph of Eternity over Time, Flemish (8) (Continued ) xxiii

xxiv

Tapestry timeline

Major developments in tapestry weaving


1522: tapestries over a certain size to carry the Brussels’ mark of a red shield flanked by two red Bs c.1530: The Battle of Pavia, woven for Charles V c.1535 – 40: The Story of Jacob, by Bernaert van Orley, first woven by Willem de Kempereer, Brussels c.1535: The Story of Romulus and Remus series, Brussels c.1535: The Story of Cyrus series, Brussels 1541: tapestries over a certain size to carry the weaver’s mark, Brussels 1548 –53: The Conquest of Tunis series, designed by Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, in the workshop of Willem de Pannemaker, Brussels, woven for Charles V 1548 – 60: Cornelius Floris produced the first designs for verdures incorporating mythical figures in decorative metalwork c.1550: William Sheldon’s tapestry workshop established in Warwickshire c.1550: The Story of Moses, by Bernaert van Orley, Brussels c.1550 – 60: the large leaf verdure or feuilles de choux, Flemish, especially Grammont and Oudenaarde c.1555: The Story of Cyrus series, Michel Coxcie, Brussels 1576: the sack of the Antwerp tapestry market by Spanish troops c.1575 – 80: verdure with mythological figures increasing the narrative element in verdures, Brussels 1597: Laurent sets up a tapestry workshop in Paris 1601: Flemish weavers brought to France to work in an atelier at faubourg Saint-Marcel 1601: Law banning the import of verdure tapestries into France 1607: Henri IV established an atelier in the grand gallery of the Louvre under the direction of Marc Comans and Frans van der Plancken 1619: the Mortlake manufactory established by James I and Charles, Prince of Wales c.1623 –25: The History of Constantine, designed by Peter Paul Rubens, woven in the Saint Marcel workshop, Paris c.1627: Raphael de la Planche established an atelier at faubourg Saint-Germain-des-Prés 1634 –35: The Story of Theagenes and Chariclea series, designed by Simon Vouet, woven by Raphael de la Planche 1661: 200 –250 weavers and 42 looms at faubourg Saint-Germain-des-Prés c.1662: transformation of the atelier Saint-Marcel into the royal manufactory of the Gobelins by Colbert 1664: foundation of Beauvais workshop by Colbert 1665: letters patent issued to establish Aubusson and Felletin with a level of royal status while retaining independence; weavers could use the letters MRD or MRDB (Manufacture Royale d’Aubusson) 1665: The Story of the King series, designed by Le Brun, Gobelins

1510 –15: Pannos d’Oro set, Brussels (14) 1510 –20: The Landlord and the Woodcutters, Tournai (22) 1510 –25: Esther Fainting before Ahasuerus, from the Story of Esther, Brussels (22) 1515 –25: The Story of David and Bathsheba, Brussels (14) c.1520: The Reception with Nuptial Banquet and The Nuptial Procession from The Priamo series, Flemish (25) 1525 –30: Los Honores series, Brussels (14) 1525 –50: The Education of the Prince of Peace, Tournai (22) c.1530 – 40: The Hunts of Maximilian, designed by Bernard van Orley, woven in the workshop of Jan Ghieteels, Brussels, for Charles V (5) 1530 –50: The Conversion of the Apostle Paul, from The Life of the Apostle Paul, after design by Pieter Coecke van Aelst, Brussels (24) 1535 –50: The Life of Saul, Brussels (18) c.1543 – 44: The History of Abraham by van Orley, Coexie and Coeke (2, 3) 1545: The Story of Moses, Brussels (14) c.1550: St Paul before Porcius Festus, Brussels (10) c.1550: The Lamentation, Brussels (13) c.1550: Arras with the Arms of Poland and Lithuania, Brussels (23) c.1550: The First Parents, Brussels (23) 1550s: Verdures, Brussels (23) c.1550: The Story of Noah, Brussels (23) c.1550: The Story of the Tower of Babel, Brussels (10, 23) 1575 –95: The Life of Scipio, Brussels (18) 1575 –95: The Story of Gideon, Brussels (5, 10, 18, 27) 1600s: Contarini landscapes, Flemish (8) 1600s: Don Quixote, after cartoons by Francis Poyntz, Mortlake (15) 1600s: The Fall of Damiate, Haarlem (10) 1600s: The Life of Eli’jah (20) 1600s: The Life of St Paul (11) 1600s: The Life of the Virgin, Paris (10) 1600s: Moses Smites the Rock, French or Flemish (19) 1605 –9: The Marriage from The Acts of Otto von Wittelsbach, after designs by Peter Candid, from the workshop of Hans van der Biest (24) 1625: The Battle of Ponte Molle, Paris (14) c.1629: Kitchen Scene from Scenes of Country Life after cartoons by Jacob Jordaens, from the workshop of Jacob Geubels, Brussels (5, 10, 12) c.1630: The Institution of the Eucharist, The Assumption of the Virgin, The Resurrection of Christ and The Worship of the Shepherds, after cartoons by Rubens, Brussels (25) c.1650: Julius Caesar Meeting Cleopatra, woven by Marcus de Vos, Brussels (5) 1650 –75: God Commands Noah to Build an Ark and God Shows Noah a Rainbow from the Life of Noah, Brussels (22) 1650 –95: The Miraculous Draft of Fishes, Mortlake (1, 5) After 1657: The Return of Sarah by the Egyptians, from The History of Abraham, Mortlake (5) 1662 – 80: La Portiere de Char de Triomphe, Gobelins (27)

Tapestry timeline xxv Major developments in tapestry weaving


1667: royal edict establishing the manufactory of the Gobelins 1667–90: Charles le Brun, director of the Gobelins 1684 –1705: Philippe Behagle, director of Beauvais c.1689 –1729: The Berain Grotesques, designed by Jean Berain, cartoons by Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer c.1690: The Metamorphoses of Ovid series by René-Antoine Houasse, Beauvais 1694 –99: the Gobelins was closed 1699: reopening of the Gobelins 1699: Les Portieres des Dieux (The Seasons and the Elements), cartoons by Claude Audran III 1703: closure of the Mortlake workshop 1726 –55: Jean Baptiste Oudrey (1685 –1755), official designer for Beauvais c.1732: The Story of the Emperor of China series, designed by Guy Louis de Vernansal, Jean-Baptiste Belin de Fontenay and probably Jean-Baptiste Monnoyer, Beauvais 1736: Fêtes Italienne, by Boucher, at Beauvais 1755 –59: Jean Baptiste Oudrey illustrates Jean La Fontaine’s edition of Aesop’s Fables 1756 –70: Boucher director of Beauvais 1756 –76: Jacques Germain Soufflor, director of Gobelins and Savonnerie 1780s: the last weaving ateliers in London close 1793: selected tapestries were burnt before the Liberty Tree in the courtyard of the Gobelins 1794: the Gobelins and Beauvais workshops were made national institutions 1794: the last atelier in Brussels closes 1871: Fire almost destroys the Gobelins workshops 1876: a workshop established under royal patronage at Windsor with French weavers who had left France during the Franco-Prussian war 1881: Merton Abbey tapestry works established by William Morris 1890: Windsor workshop closes 1893: Windsor tapestries displayed at the Chicago World Fair 1893: William Baumgarten established a manufactory in New York, later moving to Williamsbridge 1894: Holy Grail series, designed by Edward Burne-Jones, woven at Merton Abbey 1908: Herter workshop established in New York 1912: Baumgarten’s workshop closes 1912: Dovecot Studios established in Edinburgh 1926: Beauvais is granted autonomy 1927: Private commissions possible at the Gobelins 1937: Forests and Illusions of Icarus, designed by Jean Lurçat, woven in Aubusson 1939: Gobelins and Beauvais evacuated to Aubusson 1940: The Beauvais workshops in Paris are bombed. From then on they share the Gobelins buildings 1957– 66: The Song of the World, designed by Jean Lurçat, woven in Aubusson

1670s: The Cadmus series, Antwerp (27) 1670s– 80s: Boy Satyr Climbing a Tree, from the Bacchanals set, English (5) c.1675: The Healing of the Lame Man at the Beautiful Gate, Mortlake (15) c.1657: The History of Abraham, Mortlake (18) 1675 –95: The Story of Nebuchadnezzar, English (27) 1675 –95: Diogenes Washing Herbs, English (8) 1675 –95: Diogenes in a Barrel Discussing the Meaning of Life with Alexander, Mortlake (28) 1675 –1710: Melintus and Arianne Fleeing Rome, Brussels (22) c.1675 –95: The Liberal Arts after cartoons designed by Daniel Janssens (d. 1682) (5) 1684 –1705: The Tea Party from The King of China set, from cartoons by Vernavisal, Blin de Fontenay and Dumons, woven by Philip Behagle, Beauvais (1, 5) 1690 –1720: A Rural Scene, after Teniers (11) 1690 –1720: Chinoiserie tapestry, woven by John Vanderbank, Soho (11) 1700s: Eros and Psyche, Gobelins (15) c.1700: Mercy and Argos and the Daughters of Ericthonius, English (5) 1700 –25: Verdures, Brussels (27) c.1716: The History of Alexander the Great woven by Josse de Vos, Brussels (4, 7) c.1720: Chinoiserie set, by John Vanderbank, Soho (27) c.1735 – 60: A set of seat furniture depicting scenes from Aesop’s Fables, after cartoons by Jean Baptiste Oudrey, Beauvais (16) c.1760: Seven chair covers depicting scenes from Aesop’s Fables, probably based on Francis Barlow’s, probably by Paul Saunders, Soho (17) 1764: Peter the Great tapestry, woven in St Petersburg (27) 1766: Pastoral Scenes by Paul Saunders, Soho (26) 1800s: Tapestry woven curtains in the bedroom of Napoleon III at the Chateau de Pierrefonds, Oise (20) 1898 –99: The Attainment of the Holy Grail by Sir Galahad, Sir Bors and Sir Percival, English (19)

1946: Le Pêcheur, after a cartoon by Jean Lurçat, Aubusson (20) 1978: Three Reclining Women, One with a Child, after designs by Henry Moore, West Dean (1) 1984: Greenhouse I designed and woven by Marta Rogoyska (1) 2005: Estuary by John Hubbard, West Dean (1)


Part One Context


1 The art of tapestry conservation Frances Lennard

Tapestry weaving Western European tapestry weaving is one of the fine arts. The skill of the tapestry weaver is considered by many to be equal to that of the painter, although it has generally received less recognition.

The combined skills of designers and weavers were capable of rendering detailed images, of capturing facial likenesses and expressions, and reproducing the textures of velvet and satin, fur, feather, stone and water in wool, silk and metal thread (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 The Miraculous Draft of Fishes, Mortlake, showing the modelling of the figures and the reflections in the water. 3

4

Context

Tapestries woven in Western Europe at the peak of production, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, were an undoubted status symbol. They were more expensive than paintings and were among the most costly and prized possessions of wealthy patrons. In 1528, Henry VIII bought a 10-piece set of tapestries depicting the Story of David for £1500, while in 1538, Holbein, the King’s painter, received £30 per annum.1 Tapestries remained valued possessions throughout the centuries, as seen by the fact that so many have survived periods of war and domestic upheaval, changes of use and movement from one property to another. Tapestries are woven textiles; the term ‘tapestry weave’ generally describes a weft-faced plain weave, where the warp threads are completely covered by

the weft threads (Figure 1.2). If weft threads are missing, both the design and the physical structure of the material are compromised. Another characteristic of tapestry weave is that the weft is discontinuous and does not extend all the way from one selvedge to the other; there is a separate weft for each coloured area of the design and the image or pattern is created by building up small areas of different coloured threads (Emery, 1966). The weavers used a variety of techniques to join the areas of differently coloured weft yarns (Figure 1.2) and a high degree of subtlety was employed to create different effects. Chapter 12 discusses tapestry weaving in more detail. This book is about the conservation treatment of large tapestry weave hangings created as domestic and liturgical furnishings, and also of smaller-scale

Tapestry weave

Slit tapestry

Single interlocking tapestry

Single dovetailing tapestry

Figure 1.2 Diagram showing tapestry weave, and different methods of joining two colours of weft threads. The horizontal weft yarns are spaced further apart than on a tapestry, in order to show the relationship of warp and weft yarns in the weave structure.

The art of tapestry conservation 5

tapestry furniture covers, designed to be used en suite with the hangings. Tapestry weave is a widely used technique found on all continents and throughout history. Decorative elements found on Coptic textiles, flat weave kelim rugs from the Middle East and kesi textiles from China are all created using this weaving technique. However, there are many stylistic and material variations within this basic technique so that each of these types of tapestry weave presents a very different appearance. These tapestry-woven textiles are generally conserved in the same way as other types of textile, using techniques to support and stabilise them, but not usually to recreate missing areas of design. The materials used and the scale of the weaving also influence the type of conservation treatment carried out; it is unlikely that a kesi woven in fine silk yarns would be treated in the same way as a Flemish tapestry hanging because of the relative fineness of the weave.

Aims of conservation The conservation of Western European tapestry hangings has developed in a different way from that of other types of tapestry-woven textile. The unique challenge presented when undertaking the conservation treatment of a tapestry hanging is the need to provide overall structural support to allow the large, heavy and weak textile to continue to bear its own weight while, often simultaneously, providing compensation for areas of loss within the image and returning definition to the overall design. In the wider field of textile conservation, the preservation of the structure of a textile is often an important aim; carefully colour matched support fabrics are frequently used in order to visually fill in missing areas, but often there is no attempt to recreate missing areas of decoration. This approach is sometimes taken with tapestries, but is often seen as too minimalist when the projection of the image is the fundamental role of the tapestry, and when the image is often of such fine quality. While this may also be true of embroidered pictures, the tradition of repair and reweaving of tapestries means that it is far more common for some attempt to be made to reconstruct missing and damaged areas of the picture, whether by reweaving or by colour matched stitching. From this point of view, tapestry conservation has more in common with paintings conservation where retouching is often a central part of treatment. However, retouching is carried out as a separate, reversible procedure when conserving a painting, not as an intrinsic part of the support. The purely visual aspect

of tapestry conservation is sometimes carried out separately from the structural support (Chapter 14 discusses one such technique). For example, a ‘neutral’ support is sometimes worked in less visible warp coloured couching stitching, particularly on smaller pieces such as chair covers. This may then be supplemented by stitching in coloured yarns with the sole aim of infilling missing areas of the image. However, it is more common for both structural support and visual infill to be carried out at the same time. Tapestry conservation is a distinct branch of textile conservation – the need to preserve the integrity of both structure and image, often simultaneously, poses distinct challenges; in response a wide variety of different approaches and techniques is used. There are still many hundreds of tapestries hanging in historic houses, museums and churches throughout Europe and North America, but this is a finite resource. Although modern workshops preserve the skills of the weaver, for example at the West Dean Tapestry Studio (Figure 1.3) in the UK and at the state funded Gobelins Workshop in France, modern tapestry weaving is nowhere near as fine and intricate as the weaving of the early modern period. It is not so much a question of the skills having been lost, as that resources no longer permit the tremendously detailed work involved, while equivalent materials are also difficult to obtain. Much more coarsely woven tapestry than that which is found on almost all surviving historic examples is almost prohibitively expensive to weave today, and tapestry as fine as the highest quality Flemish production of earlier centuries is completely beyond the range of current financial possibility. Once the surviving tapestries have deteriorated to the point where they can no longer be hung, this rich heritage will have gone for ever.

Condition Compared with other textiles, tapestries appear to be relatively robust but this appearance may be misleading. As has been well documented, for example in the proceedings edited by Barnett and Cok (1994) and Marko (1995), they suffer from particular forms of damage. The exposed weft yarns deteriorate as a result of external environmental factors, particularly light. The front of a tapestry is often seen to be very faded when compared with the reverse which has been protected from light. Exposure to light also causes colour changes; the green of foliage tends to become more blue as it ages and the more fugitive yellow component is lost (compare the background of Figures 1.1 and 5.1).

6

Context

Figure 1.3 Philip Sanderson, West Dean Tapestry Studio, weaving Estuary by John Hubbard.

In addition, component materials contain the agents of their own deterioration – areas of pale silk weft are often weak with areas of loss, presumably the result of a bleaching process combined with the damaging effect of light on the silk yarn. The dark brown dyed wool weft, found particularly in the outlines of the design, is often badly damaged as a result of the iron mordant used to obtain the dark colour. The weft yarns deteriorate from the crowns of the weave, gradually exposing the undyed warp yarns, and affecting the image as well as the structure of the tapestry. Loss of warp yarns, through insect or physical damage, causes areas of weakness in the structure. The condition of Germanic tapestries with linen warps is particularly compromised as the linen is often extremely weak. The slit stitching in all tapestries is often weak, leading to gaping areas where long lines of stitching have failed. Metal threads are often tarnished and abraded. Tapestries virtually always contain areas of reweaving and repair carried out over generations; whole areas have sometimes been replaced. Long-term display has nearly always led to high levels of soiling and discolouration. Tapestries’ size and weight become more problematic as the materials age, and although the long-term

mechanical effects of hanging have not been quantified (although see Bilson et al., 1997), conservation aims to reduce their impact. Although conservators can usually only speculate about the causes of damage on the tapestries they treat, those who work with permanent collections are in a position to gain an understanding of the tapestries’ histories and to relate the damage they see to episodes in their past (see Chapters 3 and 4). The assessment of damage and the evaluation of tapestries’ conservation needs have until now been carried out mainly on a basis of visual examination, relying on the often considerable experience of individual conservators. Conservation techniques are usually selected because experience indicates that they are successful. To date there has been only a small amount of research aimed at providing empirical evidence of a tapestry’s condition and the effectiveness of conservation treatments. Recent developments have aimed to begin to provide such evidence. The European Commission funded project, the ‘Monitoring of Damage to Historic Tapestries’, aimed to develop a better understanding of the materials and techniques used in the construction of tapestries and of the degradation mechanisms affecting them


(see Chapter 30). A project at the University of Southampton, which started in 2004, aimed to establish whether a non-destructive test method could be used to monitor stress in tapestries hanging on display and so help to determine the optimum time of intervention (see Chapter 31).

Developments in conservation treatment Cleaning Before the twentieth-century traditional surface cleaning techniques were used on tapestries, they were often cleaned by brushing or by applying bread to absorb the dirt (Hefford, 1979). Tapestries from the UK are often particularly soiled, in part due to the country’s early industrialisation, and in part because there was less of a tradition of wet cleaning tapestries than in other European countries where it was a more accepted part of maintenance. Since the mid twentieth century it has become common to wet clean tapestries as part of an overall conservation treatment. Wet cleaning aims to remove large amounts of soiling deposited on tapestries over centuries on open display; the presence of soiling can catalyse degradation and often causes the pH of the yarns to be lowered to damaging levels, as well as being disfiguring. Wet cleaning also has the effect of making the stiffened yarns more supple before stitched support treatments are carried out. Early wet cleaning treatments were carried out in a manner which now appears fraught with hazard (Chapter 8 discusses a typical evolution of wet cleaning techniques); tapestries were often subjected to what may now be considered extreme mechanical action and inappropriate cleaning solutions. Today there is a much greater awareness of the inherent weakness of tapestries, and wet cleaning treatments aim to reduce movement by keeping mechanical action to a minimum. The late twentieth century has been characterised by rapid developments in the technology of cleaning large textiles such as tapestries. Several workshops in Europe now have purposebuilt facilities designed to clean tapestries and other large textiles safely (see Chapters 9 and 10). Although simpler systems involving immersion in a temporary bath are now used less often, they still have a place in tapestry conservation. Although concerns have been expressed that movement of the wet tapestry causes fibre loss, experience of wet cleaning demonstrates that if immersion cleaning is carried out carefully it can be achieved safely while

providing very effective cleaning. Further work is needed to investigate the part played by different types of mechanical action and also by the duration of the wet cleaning processes. Support and reintegration techniques Reweaving was the dominant repair technique before the 1960s; since that period the trend has been towards the use of conservation techniques, primarily the support of weak areas by stitching them onto a support fabric. This was in part due to the developing conservation ethic which was extended to the conservation of tapestries from other types of textile, although the issue of cost has also played a part. Reweaving takes longer than stitched support. Wingfield Digby (1971) recorded a total of 41 789 hours spent on the reweaving of the Otter and Swan tapestry, one of the Devonshire Hunting Tapestries at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The work was carried out between 1962 and 1966 at the Stichting Werkplaats tot Herstel van Antieke Textiel in Haarlem, The Netherlands. Conservation treatments aim to preserve a textile in its entirety, while making conservation additions visible on close examination. Formerly, reversibility was central to conservation ethics; more recently it has been acknowledged that reversibility is not that straightforward an aim, and the emphasis has been rather on minimum intervention. It is difficult to encompass both these aims in tapestry conservation. Although full stitched supports are reversible in theory, it is unlikely that in practice they would ever be reversed, while any technique that aims to recreate the image rather than purely support the fabric goes beyond pure conservation in structural terms. Tapestry conservation is a subtle process; the line is inevitably drawn somewhere between pure conservation and restoration. The contributions to this book demonstrate how many gradations are found across Europe and North America, while all conservators who work on tapestries would agree that aesthetic considerations are fundamental and that it is necessary to consider the image as well as the structure when making decisions about conservation treatments. Reweaving As the contributions to this book demonstrate, tapestries have often been repaired at frequent intervals throughout their existence; individual tapestries often contain repairs from many different periods. Although most tapestries contain crude amateur

8

Context

with the conservator’s aim of preserving all that is original in the textile. Proponents of reweaving argue that stitching is an essentially alien technique which introduces differential stresses to the hanging tapestry, while support fabrics obscure the reverse, probably permanently. Conservation stitching

Figure 1.4 The Tea Party, from the King of China series, late seventeenth- to early eighteenth-century Beauvais. The sides had been rewoven following damage to the tapestry when it was rolled for storage.

stitched repairs, reweaving has predominated as a professional restoration technique until relatively recently, carried out initially by the tapestry weavers themselves (Hefford, 1979). Historically, reweaving was not carried out through a support fabric and was often executed so skilfully that it is not always recognisable as a later addition, although differences in the rate of dye fading have often revealed its presence (Figure 1.4). Reweaving is still a favoured technique in some conservation laboratories, while others use both reweaving and stitching techniques depending on the condition and role of the tapestry (as demonstrated in Chapters 20 and 21). Evidence of reweaving would now usually be left deliberately visible on the reverse of the tapestry by the presence of warp ends and knots. It is often necessary to remove weak weft yarns before reweaving an area; this conflicts

Conservation techniques applied to tapestry use the common textile conservation process of stitching weak and damaged areas onto patches or a full support of new fabric. Where tapestry conservation often differs from the conservation of other types of textile is in the stitching technique. Laid thread couching, designed to be unobtrusive, often to the point of near invisibility, is commonly used to stabilise damaged areas of textiles, and is sometimes used on tapestries. In tapestry conservation, however, particularly in the UK, visible couching stitching (sometimes called ‘brick couching’) is often used across areas of bare warps, colour matched to the missing weft yarns, and stitched through new fabric on the reverse of the tapestry. Suitably dyed threads are selected to match the colour of the remaining weft threads. The couching stitching extends into stronger areas of the tapestry, and an overall grid of stitching may also be worked in order to integrate the supported areas into the overall structure. This technique has developed since the 1960s (see Chapter 12), and has had a major impact on the conservation of tapestries in the UK. It aims to help recreate the design at the same time as supporting the structure. It can be extremely successful in returning definition to the overall image, so that from a viewing distance the design of the tapestry appears much more complete, while on a closer inspection the areas of loss and damage and the conservation stitching are obvious. Other stitching and weaving techniques are used which have a different visual effect from couching, but which have the same aim (see Chapter 14). The need to conserve and reinforce the image means that, unusually in textile conservation, the conservation stitching is intended to be seen by the viewer. The creativity and artistic interpretation of the conservator play a greater part than in other areas of textile conservation; this can make tapestry conservation particularly rewarding but also particularly time-consuming. Such is the skill of the weaver in depicting facial expression, for example, that the conservator intending his or her stitching to be visible has to use great skill and subtlety to convey the


image intended by the weaver and not to substitute their own interpretation. Some textile conservators are specialist tapestry conservators and develop real expertise in the redefinition of the image. Previous repairs As many tapestries have been repaired at frequent intervals since they were first woven, one of the problems facing the conservator is how to treat previous interventions. In this area, many different approaches have also been taken. The historical value of previous repairs is weighed against their appearance and potential to result in further damage, whereas the cost of removing them and carrying out a further treatment is sometimes an issue. Historic reweaving and repair may cause problems by causing distortion, or damage through the use of fugitive dyes. Reweaving which has been rendered unsightly by unintended colour changes has sometimes been removed; it may also be preserved because it is considered to be part of the tapestry’s history, or sometimes perhaps because it would be expensive to replace. The removal of reweaving is also likely to cause further damage to the tapestry. Previous repairs have often had to be incorporated into conservation treatments (Thompson, 1997). Structural support There has been debate on the most appropriate material to use for the structural support of tapestries, focusing on whether it is desirable to allow movement in the support fabric. It is widely believed that a support fabric should behave in a similar way to the tapestry itself so that changes in the environment cause it to expand and contract at the same rate. Linen is the most commonly used support fabric. Although linen is not normally a component of tapestries, it is believed that as a natural fabric it has a comparable response to environmental changes, while being strong enough to support the weight of the tapestry and capable of moulding itself to the surface.2 Landi (see Chapter 15) has taken the less widely held view that a support fabric should restrain the tapestry and prevent it from expanding and contracting with changes in temperature and relative humidity. A survey was carried out at Hatfield House to measure the dimensions of tapestries as they expanded and contracted in response to environmental changes.3 It was discovered that the dimensional changes were significant and it was feared that these would lead to increased stress on the structure; this has not yet been quantified however. As yet there are no answers to

these questions, although research at the University of Southampton (from 2004) aimed to investigate these issues. Modern tapestries The conservation of modern tapestries poses different problems which will become more apparent to future generations of conservators. Tapestries woven from the nineteenth century onwards can incorporate different materials which need to be treated in a different way. The cotton warps generally used in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries usually preclude wet cleaning as they tend to shrink dramatically. In the late twentieth and now in the twenty-first centuries, tapestry weaving is being used experimentally for pieces of textile art, but also for modern hangings in a development of the basic technique but involving a range of different materials. Cartoons were often drawn by well-known artists (the Raphael cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles tapestries now on display in the Victoria and Albert Museum are a famous example). This has continued in the modern age; for example the tapestry weaving studio at West Dean has woven a set of tapestries from cartoons by Henry Moore (Figure 1.5). Modern tapestries such as the one in Figure 1.6 are often passed on to textile conservators after weaving to be prepared for hanging by blocking and lining. An interesting debate surrounds the treatment of damaged modern tapestries. Chapter 20 discusses the treatment of a damaged Lurçat tapestry from the mid twentieth century. It is interesting that sections were replaced by reweaving in the same way that older tapestries would have been treated at an earlier point in their history, and presumably for the same reasons: the expertise was still available to precisely recreate the damaged areas and the restoration of the undamaged appearance of the relatively new tapestry was considered to be paramount. Cost of conservation The cost of conserving tapestries can often be prohibitive; their size combined with an often large proportion of weak areas means that the extremely labour intensive and time-consuming work required is costly. One of the greatest challenges facing tapestry conservators is the necessity to make the cost of conservation feasible for owners, who may have large collections of tapestries representing an enormous level of expenditure (Clarke and Hartog, 1996). This has led to the initiation of different approaches aimed

10

Context

Figure 1.5 Three Reclining Women, One with a Child, woven at West Dean Tapestry Studio in 1978 to a design by Henry Moore.

at reducing the time needed to make a tapestry safe to hang and so reducing the costs involved. Adhesive treatments have occasionally been used by conservators in an attempt to develop more timeefficient conservation treatments. Marko (1978) discussed the adhesive treatment of several tapestries carried out both to maximise efficiency and because stitching methods did not appear to give enough support. However, even at the time of conservation it was recognised that this technique did not enhance the image of the tapestry, and these treatments have

not stood the test of time; they are often now beginning to fail. The structure of the tapestry weave means that tapestry hangings are not well supported by an adhesive treatment. The adhesive contact is solely with the more loosely spun weft yarns whereas the warp yarns are generally not supported at all; this can cause the wefts to be pulled away from the warps. Coloured patches have often been used, both as a faster alternative to the more labour intensive reweaving or couching techniques, and for their aesthetic qualities. Painted infills have also been used on


Figure 1.6 Greenhouse I by Marta Rogoyska, 1984.

occasion, for the same reasons (see Chapter 20). However, the need to consider the image means that the development of alternative methods of stitched support is not always straightforward. Rather, the search to limit costs has tended to focus on the use of volunteers, seen as a way of limiting the need for expensive skilled labour (Biddulph, 1988). One of the impulses behind the preparation of this book was the increasing need to use scarce conservation resources more effectively and to attempt to identify more time-efficient methods of conserving tapestries while restoring their visual appeal.

Display Tapestries are frequently kept on permanent display; they often form an essential component of the decoration of a room in a historic house. Even in museum collections, the scarcity of other similar examples may lead to tapestries being on long-term or permanent display. Appropriate linings and

hanging mechanisms are important in providing long-term protection. In many European countries a lining acts to support the weight of a tapestry (see Chapters 14 and 24). In the UK the two functions tend to be separated: a lining is often added to act as a dust barrier, following the provision of a support fabric which bears the weight of the tapestry. Some tapestries are still displayed in rooms designed to house them. Some are still found in their original presentation, so that conservation must also take into account the preservation of the frame or other architectural features (as discussed in Chapter 27). Other tapestries may have been modified to fit different room settings (as in Chapter 4); reuse and remodelling have been common themes in their history. This can sometimes create challenges at the time of conservation (an example is given in Chapter 26). It is important that conservation is an ongoing process. Before or after a major conservation intervention the condition of the tapestry must be regularly assessed (Chapter 27) and its environment monitored. The environmental conditions in which

12

Context

tapestries are kept play a vital role in enhancing their long-term preservation; research continues to lead to developments in the recommendations for optimum display conditions (see Chapter 29).

promote discussion among those charged with the preservation and presentation of these works of art.

Endnotes Treatment context

1.

An evaluation of the literature demonstrates that there has never been a single method of tapestry conservation, and today there is no ‘correct’ way to treat a tapestry. A wide range of cleaning, support and display techniques is used. This book includes contributions from individuals and teams of conservators from institutions across the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States of America. Some regional variations are apparent; for example, the use of strapping as a support technique is far more common in the USA than in Europe. Techniques of tapestry conservation continue to be largely dependent on the context of the tapestry. Tapestries may be displayed in historic houses or private homes, in civic or commercial buildings, in museums or in churches; an approach which is selected for a tapestry in one situation may not be the most appropriate for another. The contributions to this book demonstrate that tapestries conserved for historic houses may be treated in a different way from those intended to be displayed in museums of fine and decorative arts where the quality of the image may be considered paramount. The conservation of a particular tapestry may also be influenced by its relationship with others; whole or partial sets of tapestries often survive, so that the consistency of treatment becomes an issue. More than one set of tapestries woven from the same cartoons may survive; this can aid the interpretation of details missing from a tapestry. The time taken to work through a set of tapestries may also have an effect on treatment; Chapter 4 discusses a set of tapestries from Hampton Court Palace in the UK where the treatment was completed after a period of 20 years, necessitating a complete change of technique. Chapter 23 discusses similar issues. This book is not intended to be a manual giving instruction in tapestry conservation techniques but is aimed at illustrating the diversity of approaches at the beginning of the twenty-first century and relating them to their context, as well as highlighting recent developments. It does not present a systematic survey of tapestry conservation techniques, but illustrates some of the developments in tapestry conservation since the 1960s. The book aims to

2.

3.

LP V, Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts and LP XIV.ii, 781. Hofenk de Graaff, J. and Boersma, F. (1996). Tapestry Conservation. Support Methods and Fabrics for Tapestries. Results of the ‘Questionnaire on the Subject of Tapestry Conservation’. Unpublished report, Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage. Personal communication with Ksynia Marko.

References Barnett, J. and Cok, S. (eds). (1994). ‘The Misled Eye . . .’ Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam, 10 October 1994. TRON. Biddulph, F. (1988). Point counterpoint. Behind the scenes at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, skilled volunteers conserve the finest early 17th century English tapestries. Traditional Interior Decoration, April–May 1988, 108 –16. Bilson, T., Cooke, B. and Howell, D. (1997). Mechanical aspects of lining ‘loose hung’ textiles. In Fabric of an Exhibition: An Interdisciplinary Approach – Preprints pp. 63 –9, CCI. Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H. (eds). (1861–3). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green. Abbreviated as LP. Clarke, A. and Hartog, F. (1996). The cost of tapestry conservation. In ‘The Misled Eye . . .’ Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam, 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds) pp. 69 –72, TRON. Emery, I. (1966). The Primary Structures of Fabrics. Thames and Hudson. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England, 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Marko, K. (1978). Experiments in supporting a tapestry using the adhesive method. The Conservator, 2, 26 –9. Marko, K. (ed.). (1995). Textiles in Trust. Archetype. Thompson, K. (1997). The History of Caesar tapestries from Powis Castle: the treatment of previous repairs and alterations. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 195 – 6, Archetype. Wingfield Digby, G. (1971). The Devonshire Hunting Tapestries. Victoria and Albert Museum.

2 Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection Maria Hayward

‘Item one pece of Arras wrought with roses and Sonnes made in king Edwardes tyme lined with canvas conteyning in lengthe x yerdes and in depthe iiij yards three quarters’(9006).1 This entry highlights the fact that when Henry VIII (1509 – 47) came to the throne, he inherited a tapestry collection which included pieces that had been acquired primarily by Henry V (1413 –22), his brother John, Duke of Bedford, Edward IV (1461– 83) and Henry VII (1485 –1509). By the time of his death in 1547, Henry VIII had developed the collection substantially by purchase of new and second-hand sets and by confiscation from individuals such as Cardinal Wolsey. This collection can be studied via the 1547 inventory of Henry’s possessions, which was taken after his death in January of that year (Starkey, 1998). Such a collection required and had a programme of maintenance and so this chapter seeks to demonstrate that many of the approaches current in tapestry conservation today were well established within the English royal household by the first half of the sixteenth century.

Context By 1547, Henry’s collection of wall hangings consisted of 2364 pieces: 103 textile hangings, 301 pieces of arras, 1372 pieces of tapestry and 588 pieces of verdure. In addition, he also had tapestry-woven chimney pieces, window pieces and over-doors. Henry’s tapestries were housed within the Removing Wardrobe of the Beds, his 15 Standing Wardrobes of the Beds, and the wardrobes of his three children. The Removing Wardrobe and the Standing Wardrobes associated with his leading properties such as Greenwich, Hampton Court and Whitehall had

yeomen appointed to care for them. At less important houses, such as Oatlands or Beddington, the keeper of the house was also responsible for the wardrobe (Hayward, 1998). In addition, there was the Great Wardrobe which was a repository of cloth and a place where craftsmen worked, including the king’s arras-maker and teams of arras-makers and tailors who repaired and lined the king’s tapestries. Details of the tapestries being treated and of those involved in the work were recorded within the annual Great Wardrobe accounts. Between 1523 and 1525 Cornelius van der Strete, the king’s arras-maker provided the materials for undertaking rewoven repairs to a range of sets including two pieces of hunting and hawking, one piece of arras of suns and roses, four pieces of verdure and two pieces of Jacob and Rachel.2 There is no direct evidence of who, if anyone, had a complete overview of Henry VIII’s tapestry collection, or whether there was a coherent plan for maintaining it. Surface cleaning using brushes (Hefford, 1979) and minor repairs were probably undertaken by the wardrobe staff because the Black Book required that ‘Thes officers of the wardrobes put to ther hondz to amend many faults with the needle worke’ (Myers, 1959). However, it is likely that the keepers of the king’s houses, the yeomen of the Standing Wardrobes, the keeper of the Great Wardrobe and the king’s arras-man would have liaised to plan which pieces received more interventive treatment and when.

Documentation Henry VIII’s houses and their contents were cared for by a series of keepers. When a keeper took office, the 13

14

Context

objects placed into his care were inventoried and recorded in a book of charge. Consequently, inventories are one of the best sources of information on how tapestries were documented at the early Tudor court. These inventories were primarily intended to record what there was, where it was and who was responsible for it. Even so, the level of information recorded about the tapestries was not consistent from one property to another. Tapestries could be referred to by subject, by type, by their dimensions or by quoting the opening words of the inscription. In general, the entries that were described as ‘tapestry’ or ‘arras’ also included a very brief description of the subject matter, although less helpful terms such as ‘imagery’ (9740) were also used. For verdures, however, it was more usual that further qualification of the subject matter would not be provided. Equally, the practice of recording dimensions was not consistent, either in terms of whether dimensions were given at all, or if they were, whether they were given in Flemish ells, yards, square ells or square yards. There were three principal types of tapestry-woven hanging: arras, tapestry and verdure. This was a hierarchy of quality, reflected in the cost of the materials, the scale of the object and type of image. Tom Campbell has sought to establish precisely what the terms ‘arras’ and ‘counterfeit arras’ were intended to convey in the context of early Tudor accounts and inventories (1995 –96). Arras was the most expensive type of tapestry, woven with metal thread and a high proportion of silk, and the clerks were well aware of this distinction. In December 1528, Harman Hullesman was paid £201 5s by the Treasurer of the Chamber for three pieces of arras of the Passion of Christ, wrought with silk, silver and gold measuring 833⁄4 Flemish ells in length.3 The clerks sometimes provided more details on the type and provenance of the less expensive pieces including ‘newehall Stuffe’ (9032), ‘Tapistre course of parke worke’ (12016) and ‘hangynges of olde stuffe called Outnaill’ (13361). In addition, where they felt mistakes had been made in previous inventory entries, they would highlight them. So the 1547 inventory for Woodstock recorded one pieces of arras ‘named in tholde booke but Tapistre’ (13242). In addition to recording details such as the dimensions, subject and type of hangings, others methods could be used to identify particular sets. In 1630, a set of ‘Orders regulating the Great Wardrobe’ was drawn up in an attempt to reduce corruption. One of the clauses stated that: ‘All hangings and other wardrobe stuff that shalbe brought from his Majesty’s houses or wardrobes to the

said great wardrobe to be repaired shall come with the linings in them and a label of parchment sowed to the same with the clerk of his Majesty’s wardrobe’s hand subscribed thereunto significing of the charge of what house or wardrobe the same stuff is.’4 Although there is no indication that labels of this type were attached to Henry VIII’s tapestries, the 1547 inventory indicates that a partial system of identifying sets of hangings with letters of the alphabet was in place. The evidence is strongest at Oatlands where 21 of the 69 sets were marked with a letter, for example, ‘vj peces of Tapestry with braunches and boyes playinge quarter lined marked with letter A’ (12565). Similar systems were also in place in the Great Wardrobe (V, B, N, E), Greenwich (M, P, V) and the Prince’s Wardrobe (A, R). Even though this systemised approach was not uniform, its presence does indicate a clear awareness of the need to be able to locate, identify and track pieces in the collection.

Condition The need to record the condition of the king’s tapestries was linked to several factors. Firstly, it was important to ensure that the pieces were in good condition and so able to contribute to the magnificence of the king’s court. Secondly, the tapestry collection represented a substantial financial investment (see Chapter 4). In November 1528, Richard Gresham was paid for supplying ten pieces of arras wrought with gold of the story of David containing 7431⁄2 Flemish ells at 41s 8d the ell.5 These motivating factors resulted in two courses of action once a piece of tapestry began to degrade. In some cases, it was worth investing time and money to repair them, so reflecting the financial, artistic and social value of the pieces. For others, this investment was not made. However, they were still kept even when they were not in good condition. These pieces were usually at the less frequently visited royal properties such as Nottingham Castle or those acquired by confiscation such as Beddington, so partially explaining why they would have a lower priority. A range of different terms were used in the 1547 inventory to indicate the quality and condition of the tapestries including ‘fine’ (15203), ‘coarse’ (14049), ‘rich’ (9011), ‘new’ (15204) and ‘old’ (14043). In addition, some of the descriptive terms indicate age, as with the new, fashionable pieces described as being ‘wrought with antiques’ (9215) or being ‘of the brode bloome’ (12877). On the whole, details

Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection 15

were only recorded about the condition of a set of tapestries when they were in poor condition. Then terms such as ‘perished’ (9212), ‘rotten’ (14027) and ‘broken’ (14029) were generally used although more specific references to other types of damage do occur, so highlighting knowledge of the various factors that could adversely affect the tapestries’ condition. Consequently, references to moths (13949) do appear. In addition, a piece of tapestry in Prince Edward’s wardrobe from a set ‘of old Thebes’ had ‘a grete pece burned’ (14043). The tapestries at Woodstock had similar problems including a set of four verdures that were ‘so broken and torne that they cannot be measured’ (13252). This state of affairs was caused by a combination of poor maintenance and old age, but it was specific to Beddington and Woodstock and not typical of the king’s tapestries as a whole.

Use Royal household ordinances sought to prevent tapestries being damaged while they were hanging. The ushers of the chamber were expected to ‘Take good heede that no man wipe or robe their handes vpon none arras of the kinges wherby they might be hurt in the chamber where the kinge is specially and in all other’.6 In spite of such orders, the tapestries did become dirty and brushes were supplied regularly to the wardrobes of the Beds. These brushes were used to remove dust and particulate soiling. Surface cleaning tapestry by brushing required skill as John Russell’s Boke of Nurture noted: ‘With the ende of a soft brushe ye brushe them clenly And yet ouer moche brushynge werethe cloth lightly’ (Furnivall, 1868). Wealthy individuals, such as Henry VIII and Wolsey, owned many sets of tapestries which meant that there was an element of choice about which pieces were placed where and when they were used. In 1519, the Venetian ambassador, Sebastian Guistinian noted that Wolsey ‘has a very fine palace, where one traverses eight rooms before reaching his audience chamber and they are all hung with tapestry, which is changed once a week’.7 At houses with less extensive resources, such as St John’s, the tapestries were probably hung for longer periods in the positions indicated in the inventory. In the hall there was ‘one Lardge pece of Arras hanginge at thupper ende viij small peces of olde verdoures hanginge vpon bothe sides’ (13791). In addition, pieces were not generally on permanent display.

Rather they were taken down when the houses were not lived in. While the habit of taking the tapestries down when the houses were not lived in limited the amount of light that the tapestries were exposed to, it could increase the likelihood of damage to the top borders as the tapestries were taken on and off the wall.

Specialist craftsmen: the king’s arras-maker and his team Henry VII and Henry VIII both employed an arrasmaker (the term used for tapestry weavers), who oversaw a number of other weavers and tailors who repaired and lined the royal tapestries (Table 2.1). The role of the king’s arras-maker was described in the grant of office made to Cornelius Musting in July 1546 as being an ‘arras-maker and repairer of . . . cloths of arras and tapestry’.8 The names of the arras-makers suggest that many of them were from the Low Countries: from 1528 to 1529 the list of arras-makers included Dirik Cowpar, Haybard van Wynkyll, Peter van Coy and John van Harbard.9 In comparison, the tailors who were employed to line tapestries were predominantly English. This division of labour acknowledged their specialist skills but both groups of workers were paid at the rate of 6d per day. While the king’s arras-maker was paid a regular wage of 12d a day, all of the other men were employed on a casual, daily basis, although some of them were taken on for quite long periods of time. The accounts of the Great Wardrobe do not make it explicit where the work was undertaken but it is likely that most of it took place within the Great Wardrobe. Although the king’s arras-maker primarily featured in the royal accounts when he was either overseeing the repair of the king’s tapestries or supplying materials for this work, the 1547 inventory makes it clear that the arras-maker did undertake small commissions. The Wardrobe of the Beds at Hampton Court contained ‘one lytle pece of Arras of Christ in our Ladies armes conteyning one yarde one naile square’ (12027) and ‘one square pece of Arras of Christe and one giving him grapes & our Ladie standing by conteyning iij quarters yarde square’ (12029) which were both described as having been made ‘by tharrise man’. In 1547, the wardrobe of the beds at the Palace of Richmond contained ‘a Lome for an Arras man’ (13669). It is not possible to tell whether this was for weaving new pieces or undertaken woven repairs.

16

Context

Table 2.1 Payments for repairing and lining tapestries in the reigns of Henry VII and VIII Date

Arras makers

Tailors

Materials

Total cost

Henry VII 1498 –99

124 days – £3 2s

£3 18s 3d

1502 – 03

707 days – £17 11s 6d

763 days – £19 2s 6d

1505 – 06

1556 days – £38 18s

metal thread – 9s 2d; wool – 6s 8d; other – 5d canvas – £17 14s 9d; wool – 50s; woven badges – £12 canvas – £24 13s 2d; wool – 48s 4d; silk – 24s 9d ob

359 days – £9 4s 6d 768 days – £19 3s 6d 507 days – £12 11s

522 days – £13 1s

£10 4s 6d £60 9s 7d ob

1531–32

309 days – £7 14s 6d

43 days – 21s 6d

1535 –36 1537–38

1229 days – £30 14s 6d 1207 days – £30 3s 6d

438 days – £10 19s 3d 1166 days – £29 3s

wool – 20s metal thread – 7s 6d; wool – £3 6s 8d; basting thread, etc., – £11 19s 11d ob wool, etc. – £5 1s 4d; canvas, thread, etc. – 10s 6d canvas, thread – £15 11s 6d wool, etc. – £48 6s 2d; canvas, thread, etc. – £72 12s 11d

1543 – 44

*63s 8d

*£103 3s 1d ob

Henry VIII 1523 –25 1527–28

£68 18s 9d

£65 4s 3d ob

£14 7s 10d £57 5s 3d £180 5s 7d

£106 6s 9d ob

*Included with the labour

Repairs and alterations Some of the entries recording tapestries at Beddington, a house acquired by confiscation from Sir Nicholas Carew, referred to ‘oone course old pece neding mending’ (13942) and ‘oone old course pece past the kinges vse’ (13944). Comments of this type indicate that there was a degree of condition assessment and prioritisation being undertaken when tapestries were documented. There was also a history of tapestries being repaired in royal and semiroyal households. The accounts of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Henry VIII’s grandmother, for 1509 included a payment of 10s 4d made to John Mustring and John Barnard, who were described as Dutchmen, for mending certain pieces of arras by the space of a month 8s and two and a quarter pounds of yarn costing 2s 8d.10 These rewoven repairs were usually described in the accounts as ‘emendacio’ or mending. Reweaving areas of loss or damaged areas, the replacement of borders and the removal and/or replacement of the coats of arms of previous owners all came within the remit of the arras-makers. For example, Arnold

Kayser, and Charles Caunte were paid for mending a piece of arras of the three estates over 124 days. They used 51⁄2 ounces of gold and silver thread costing 9s 2d, along with 4 pounds of wool yarn. The process of transferring the design to the warps prior to reweaving is hinted at in a payment of 5d that was made ‘to a peynter for drawyng of ye patrone of ymages that were broken’.11 Cornelius van der Strete was paid £12 for eighteen red roses and eighteen portcullises inserted into nine pieces of verdure.12 Other less conventional techniques for enhancing the appearances of tapestries were also undertaken, such as reversing pieces. In August 1524 Wolsey’s Wardrobe of the Beds ‘vij pieces of lozenge verdors . . . were shorne and new dressed on the wrong side and made mete for the hanging of the halle at Hampton court by reason wherof they were demenysshed in depth’.13 The inventory entries provide few clues as to whether particular sets of tapestries were intended to be hung in particular rooms, or whether they were moved from room to room provided the hangings were roughly the right size. However, there are occasional references to tapestries being altered, the

Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection 17

implication being that this was to make them better suited to the places they were being displayed, or possibly to remove damaged areas. For example, at Oatlands two sets of tapestries of Joseph and Jacob had their borders removed at the king’s request (12595 – 6), while at Hampton Court there was a reference to ‘three pieces of old Arras of hawking thone of theym being made of foure pieces’ (11972).

Lining Inventory evidence indicates that lining tapestries was a fairly standard practice as part of the pattern of caring for them. The linings were mostly made from linen canvas which was imported from the Low Countries or Northern France, although lockram and buckram were also used. The buckram was often dyed, with blue being the more common colour, especially at Hampton Court (11959, 11976) but black was recorded (e.g. 9213). There is no indication of how the lining was prepared, although a process resembling the current practice of washing to scour and pre-shrink the fabric may have been undertaken. However, it is clear from the Great Wardrobe accounts that the linings were pieced, because of the references to basting thread, and this is born out by tapestries such as the set of the prodigal son at Greenwich which were ‘lyned with Canvas paned’ (9288). Newly purchased tapestries were often lined shortly after acquisition, although this was not a uniform policy because several new sets of tapestries in Mary’s wardrobe were specifically identified as being unlined (15204 –5). Even so, an analysis of the tapestry entries in the 1547 inventory reveals that at least three quarters of Henry’s tapestries (74.9 per cent) were lined to some extent. The figure could well be higher, as no reference was made to the lining for a further 18.6 per cent. Of those that were lined, 10.5 per cent were quarter-lined and 64.4 per cent fully lined. Lining was a labour-intensive process as the following example demonstrates. Twenty-one tailors were employed at 6d a day to line ten pieces of arras of King David bought by the king in 1528, with John Bevan and Christopher Wilson leading the team. Twenty-two men worked a total of 199 days at a cost of £4 19s 6d and then twenty-one men undertook 323 days work for £8 1s 6d.14 In addition to the canvas, Christine Guisnam supplied 111⁄2 pounds of basting thread ‘to sewe the canvas with all’ costing 11s 6d, 17 pounds of fine black thread

for 25s 6d and 1641⁄2 pounds of grey lior for £10 1s 71/2d. Periodically linings need renewing, as in the case of a set of arras described as ‘lyned & the lyninge torne’ (13062). The layer of canvas or buckram helped protect the back of the tapestry, which was particularly relevant if it was hung against an external wall, where there was a chance of condensation forming. Such conditions could favour mould growth and if it did occur, it would be on the lining which could be replaced. The extra layer would also protect the hangings from bad handling and support weak areas if there was a delay in sending the tapestry to the Great Wardrobe for repairs. In August 1511, the Great Wardrobe settled a bill for extensive work to tapestries, counterpoints and carpets at Nottingham Castle, prior to the king’s visit. Cornelius van der Strete and eleven other arrasmakers were employed for a total of 1140 days. They used 60 pounds of woollen yarn costing 100s and 1000 ells of canvas costing £16 13s 4d which was supplied by John Hawell; the total cost of the project came to £98 10s 3d.15 The process of providing protection could be taken one step further for especially prized pieces as indicated by the presence of ‘Thirtie and nyne Canvas bagges to putte fynes Arras in’ (9034) in the wardrobe at the Tower of London.

Conclusion While there are a number of gaps in Table 2.1, these reflect the survival rate of the Great Wardrobe accounts and should not be interpreted as proof that tapestries were only repaired and lined on a sporadic basis. If the documentation were complete, it is most likely that it would reveal an annual work programme, with the volume of work reflecting the perceived need of the collection by the king’s arrasmaker and the keepers of the wardrobes. Where the documentation survives, it highlights significant levels of time and money being invested in both repairing and lining tapestries. While the systems for documenting and recording the condition of tapestries within Henry VIII’s household were prone to inconsistencies in the level of detail recorded, they still succeeded in making the collection useable and highlighted problems as they occurred. There were also teams of skilled craftsmen who could undertake rewoven repairs, alterations and lining – all essential processes in ensuring the longevity of the collection (Figure 2.1).

18

Context

Figure 2.1 The Great Hall with the Abraham tapestries at Hampton Court Palace today.

Acknowledgements Grateful thanks are accorded to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of St John’s College, Cambridge for permission to cite their documents.

Endnotes 1. This entry comes from the 1547 inventory of Henry VIII: Society of Antiquaries MS 129 and British Library (BL) MS Harley 1419 (Starkey 1998). Each entry in the inventory has been numbered and

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

objects cited in the text will be referred to by this number given in round brackets (). The National Archive, Kew (TNA) E36/224, p. 63. LP V, Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts. TNA E36/234, f. 2r. LP V, Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts. BL Additional MS 21,116, f. 8r. CSP Venetian, II, 1287. LP XXi.i, 1383.52. TNA LC9/51, f. 183v. St John’s College, Cambridge MS D102.1, f. 7v. TNA E36/209, f. 30v. TNA E101/415/10, f. 28r. LP IV.iii, 6184.

Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection 19 14. TNA LC9/51, f. 184r. 15. TNA E101/417/4, unfoliated, 12 August 1511.

warrant

dated

References Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H. (eds). (1861–3). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green. Abbreviated as LP. Brown, R. (ed.). (1864 –98). Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 9 volumes. 1864 –98. Abbreviated as CSP, Venetian. Campbell, T. (1995 – 6). Tapestry quality in Tudor England: Problems of terminology. Studies in the Decorative Arts, 3, 29 –50.

Furnivall, F. J. (ed.). (1868). Early English Meals and Manners. Early English Text Society, original series, 32, 64. Hayward, M. A. (1998). Repositories of splendour: Henry VIII’s wardrobes of the robes and beds. Textile History, 29.2, 134 –56. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England, 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennet, ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Myers, A. R. (1959). The Household of Edward IV: The Black Book and the Ordinance of 1478. Manchester University Press. Starkey, D. R. (ed.). (1998). The Inventory of King Henry VIII. I: The Transcript. Harvey Miller for the Society of Antiquaries.

3 The survival of Henry VIII’s History of Abraham tapestries: an account of how they were perceived, used and treated over the centuries Jenny Band

Introduction Entering the Great Hall of Hampton Court Palace today, visitors are visibly impressed by the magnificent hammer-beam roof towering over the high mullion-windowed walls hung with six monumental tapestries of the History of Abraham. Moreover, they are standing in the centre of Henry VIII’s court. However, the hall today is only a shadow of its original painted, gilded and bejewelled opulence and the tapestries have lost the luxurious density of new wool, lustrous silk and glittering gold thread. That prodigious opulence, further enlivened by the ornate textiles and costume of the court, was Henry VIII’s new Tudor style, designed to proclaim his dynastic might in the contemporary language of ‘magnificence’. Furthermore, the presence of these tapestries, among Henry VIII’s fifteen best sets, indicates that the hall was being dressed for a highly important occasion. Since the royal court was both the monarch’s household and the seat of government, important events took place in the palaces where the court was in residence. Of these, Hampton Court was ‘the most splendid and magnificent royal palace . . . in England or indeed in any other kingdom’ (Thurley, 2003a). Not only were textiles its principle decoration, but the Abraham tapestries were so valuable that they were reserved as part of the spectacular brio of Tudor ceremony. Whereas today’s visitor might assume them to represent the quotidian appearance of the Tudor hall, the Abrahams were part of the vast working machinery staging royal magnificence. Usually safeguarded and maintained in the Standing Wardrobe at Hampton Court, they were transported in special cases by barge or long-cart to other palaces for state events.

However, despite their monumentality and prodigious gold content, the Abraham tapestries sadly provoke little awe today. Besides the problem of agedulled colours, modern perception of textiles, conditioned by industrialisation, has blinded viewers to the immense production skill and labour, conspicuous to a sixteenth-century audience. Symbolism, allegory and the vocabulary of colour have also become impotent over time. Whilst it could be assumed that top quality tapestries were valued and therefore preserved, unsurprisingly, given that the tapestries’ existence spanned twenty-two reigns and fifteen generations of maintenance officials, some discontinuity exists in how the tapestries were perceived, used and maintained. This begs the question of how and why have these particular tapestries survived when most of Henry VIII’s collection of over 2000 did not? The current practice of writing Conservation Plans as a framework for prioritising conservation funding uses value and significance as its keystones. However, being changeable concepts, their own value as predictive or negotiating tools is unreliable. The following essay therefore traces chronologically the history of the Abraham tapestries from the perspective of their perceived value and significance over 460 years.

The origin of the Abraham tapestries The ten History of Abraham tapestries are among only thirty Tudor survivors in the Royal Collection. The rest were either sold by Cromwell or were discarded by the Royal Household’s Wardrobe department when beyond repair. The set’s origin and cost is undocumented, but over time, it has been attributed to masters including Bernaert van Orley, Raphael, 20

The survival of Henry VIII’s History of Abraham tapestries 21

Michael Angelo, Giulio Romano, Michel Coxcie and Pieter Coecke van Aelst (Campbell, 2003). These varied attributions largely reflect the perpetuation of a notion of significance which adhered by folklore to the tapestries until the nineteenth century. Recently published research (Campbell, 2003) suggests, however, that the set was created by several masters, including van Orley, Coexie and Coeke, following a contemporary precedent of stained-glass windows. First appearing in Hampton Court’s Wardrobe accounts in 1543 – 44, the tradition that they were made for the Great Hall is only supported by the fact that they were too large for other rooms and that they lined the hall during the lavishly staged visit of the French embassy to conclude the vexed Anglo-French peace treaty in 1546 (Thurley, 2003a).

The changing perception of the tapestries at the Tudor courts Henry VIII’s display of The History of Abraham could be perceived as promoting sacral kingship through a Biblical model in the layered allegorical and emblematic vocabulary of the sixteenth century. Henry’s political and religious ideologies were complex and in the 1540s, polemics raged over Biblical interpretations, fuelled by Henry’s printed campaign justifying the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. By 1546, Henry was complaining to Parliament that the Bible was ‘disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern’ (Hill, 1993). The continued use of the Abrahams by subsequent Tudor monarchs during the Reformation and Counter Reformation was undiminished because the Old Testament imagery also served the Protestant cause. Campbell suggests that Henry envisaged the Abrahams as a backdrop for Edward VI’s coronation in Westminster Abbey where they also fitted the choir. Visiting diarists such as the German traveller, Hentzer, visiting Elizabeth I’s court in 1598, did marvel at the tapestries, writing ‘We were led into two chambers called the Presence or Chambers of Audience, which shone with tapestry of gold and silver and silk of different colours’, while ‘all the other rooms, being very numerous, are adorned with tapestry of gold, silver and velvet, in some of which were woven history pieces . . . in one chamber are several excessively rich tapestries, which are hung up when the Queen gives audience to foreign Ambassadors . . . in short, all the walls of the palace shine with gold and silver’ (Hentzer, 1598). For Hentzer, the tapestries clearly communicated Tudor splendour. In

1602 the Duke of Stettin Pomerania observed that ‘the decorations consisted entirely of tapestries . . . not easily will such be found anywhere in such quantities as in this place’ (Thurley, 2003b).

The Stuart reigns and the Commonwealth Although the dynastic change in 1603 introduced artistic innovation and modernisation, James I and Charles I both preserved Hampton Court unaugmented, as a monument to Tudor greatness, capitalising too on the growing fashion for antiquity. Hampton Court was now famous for its tapestries and with painting succeeding tapestry for royal image-making, travellers like the Duke of Saxe Weimar admired the painterly artistry of the Abraham tapestries, noting in 1613, ‘The dress, landscapes, buildings and the like are in gold, silver and variegated silks so artistically worked as though they had been carefully painted with colours’ (Law, 1899). The imagery of kingship changed when Van Dyck chose to express the King’s regality as a quality of his humanity rather than via antiquarian and Biblical models. Even so, the Abrahams were hung to celebrate such historic moments as the ‘solemnization of the peace with Spayne’1 at Whitehall. Following Charles I’s execution, however, Cromwell sold much of the royal collection, fuelling aristocratic collecting mania for antique tapestries. The Abrahams were valued at an enormous £8260 (Thomson, 1973), followed by the Triumph of Caesar at £5022, with Raphael’s cartoons being valued at £300. Cardinal Mazarin’s agent visiting Hampton Court in 1654, determined to buy the Abrahams, noted their pristine condition, due to their limited use (Campbell, 1994), a fact which probably optimised their value. Cromwell however, retained them (Campbell, 2003). He also purchased five sets and four tapestries dispersed from the royal collection in 1654 (Sherwood, 1978) and in 1657 he commissioned Mortlake to replicate the Abraham and Caesar sets, implying that their value and significance was still recognised (Sherwood, 1978). Charles II reinstated the coronation ceremony in 1660 with the Abrahams in the Abbey choir (Sandford, 1687), curiously purchasing four duplicate but lesser quality Abrahams in 1661, for unknown reasons. Fragments of this set still hang in the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster Abbey. Wright’s portrait of Charles enthroned used a tapestry backdrop to create a triptych alluding to regal spirituality and antiquity

22

Context

Figure 3.1 Painting of The Embassy of the Prince de Ligne, 1660.

(Lloyd, 1999). The Embassy of the Prince de Ligne (1660) also shows tapestry’s continuing role in ceremony at Whitehall (Figure 3.1). Charles furnished Hampton Court with ‘six suites of Superfine Tapestry Hangings’ from store and purchased others.2 Extant fragments of the Abrahams’ linings bear crested stamps, (e.g. HC 1661 Abraham 6), as evidence of Wardrobe activity at the palace. In 1662, Evelyn described the ‘incomparable furniture, especially hangings designed by Raphael, very rich with gold’, adding ‘I believe the world can show nothing finer than the stories of Abraham and Tobit’ (Law, 1899). Clearly, the Abrahams were not only still awe-inspiring but were now ascribed to Raphael. However, the physical appearance of antique tapestry is often deceptive, and in 1663, the Wardrobe was commanded to ‘repayre and new lyne the hangings of Abraham’.3 More repairs followed in 1664.4 The Abrahams were displayed infrequently until James II’s accession in 1685 when Sandford recorded a committee examining records of Charles II’s coronation, assessing ‘what was fit to be provided for the present Coronation’. Charles’s account listed ‘Four pieces of History of Abraham at the alter’ (Sandford, 1687) and this pattern was followed at his brother’s coronation, as illustrated by contemporary engravings (Figure 3.2).

The Hanoverian reigns William and Mary’s accession in 1689 prompted a rapid transformation of Hampton Court to rival Versailles. Wren preserved the Tudor frontage and hall, grafting new state apartments onto them. William installed a theatre in the hall and placed Henry VIII’s best tapestries in his state apartments (Campbell, 1994), with the Caesar set being ‘cutt according to His mat’ies directions’ to make them fit.5 Although the Abrahams were carefully stored, Wardrobe accounts describe ‘old goods in their Maj’s Standing Wardrobe at Hampton Court which are not fitt for service to be taken away lest they should infect ye other goods with Moths and rottenness, includes Tenn pieces of old Tapestry hangings of severall suites rotted and wore to pieces’.6 ‘Rotting’ suggests that tapestries were stored dirty or that pest control was failing. In 1693, the Abrahams were cleaned and repaired along with thirty-nine tapestries deemed otherwise unserviceable.7 Mary’s posthumous inventory recorded 162 tapestries at Hampton Court, twelve being deemed ‘past service and good for nothinge’, fifty-nine being ‘old’ and thirty being ‘not fitt for service till they be mended’. The Abrahams were among four remaining sets of ‘Rich Arras’ (Thomson, 1973). In 1700, eight Abrahams


Figure 3.2 Engraving of the coronation of James II in Westminster Abbey in 1685, showing the Abraham tapestries hanging at the altar.

were cleaned and sixty-one holes were mended. Recent conservation of The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek revealed holes patched with fragments of fine tapestries, probably dating from this time. By now, the Abrahams were ascribed to Michaelangelo. Campbell suggests William’s intention of showing the famous Raphael Cartoons with the ‘Michael Angelo’ tapestries adjacent (Campbell, 1994). Throughout the reigns of William and Mary and Anne, fourteen Arras workers continuously repaired the tapestries. Evidence suggests that Queen Anne also hung the Abrahams at her coronation (Campbell, 1994). In 1713 ‘Michael Angelo’s Abraham and the Old Testament’ was cleaned again using breadcrumbs and brushes in the traditional manner (Hefford, 1979 and Hayward, 1998). Coronation engravings copied from Sandford, significantly annotating all the coronation trappings except the tapestries, show George I’s use of four Abrahams at the altar (Anon, 1953). However, the tapestries languished during the Hanoverian reigns,

and Hampton Court being in bad need of repairs, were mothballed in 1720. ‘Three pieces of tapestry hangings very large and very rich with silver and gold The Story of Abraham’8 were used at George II’s coronation, indicating the metal threads were still bright. George repaired and smartened Hampton Court, cleaning and relining forty-four tapestries, and adding new borders (Thurley, 2003a). Queen Caroline’s death in 1737, however, ended Hampton Court’s career as a principal royal residence. In 1742, the palace’s first guidebook, by Bickham, mentioned an Abraham tapestry in the Audience Chamber. During George II’s reign wagon-loads of paintings and furniture migrated to other palaces. George III seldom visited Hampton Court and his political reshuffle in 1782 closed the Great Wardrobe (Beard, 1997), transferring its responsibilities to the Lord Chamberlain’s Office. In 1800, during a vogue for gothic architecture, George commissioned Wyatt to restore the great hall, long obscured by William’s theatre, to a romanticised

24

Context

Figure 3.3 A water colour of an Abraham tapestry, probably the Sacrifice of Isaac, hung under paintings in the Second Presence Chamber. From Pynes Royal Residences, 1817.

ideal. In 1817, Pyne’s Royal Residences, the first scholarly study of historic interiors, illustrated an Abraham tapestry overhung with five paintings (Figure 3.3). George IV concentrated on his objets d’art at Windsor and Buckingham Palace leaving Hampton Court occupied by Grace and Favour residents. An ‘air of stately desolation’ pervaded the state apartments (Law, 1906) until 1830 when William IV, a former resident, decided that Hampton Court should become a museum and appointed Edward Jesse to restore the palace.

The Victorian era In 1837, Queen Victoria inspected Hampton Court, and was ‘thunderstruck and shocked’. Parts of the building were ‘unfit for human habitation’ and despite

a resident housekeeper, massive deterioration had happened.9 Prince Albert attempted to improve standards of presentation, care and scholarship. Michael Faraday advised on the effects of pollutants on works of art; scientific approaches were emerging. In 1841, the Abraham tapestries were installed in the hall and over 1000 paintings were hung in the state rooms, often over tapestries. By 1859, Robinson, Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures, noted tapestries ‘hidden from sight by canvas battening on which pictures are hung . . . Nails have been driven through the tapestries in all directions . . . ’ adding ‘five pieces of tapestry are stowed away in a lumber room, of an extremely interesting and artistically valuable character’.10 With an urgency now characteristic of Hampton Court, the paintings were removed five years later. A fire in the palace in 1882 catalysed more concerted action. Henry Cole’s son, Alan, inspecting


‘tapestries recovering after the late fire’, described those in the Watching Chamber as ‘fragmentary . . . begrimed and badly treated’. Simultaneously, Ernest Law, completing his history of the palace, queried the Lord Chamberlain’s Office ‘on the present whereabouts of two pieces of old Flemish tapestry which were formerly at Hampton Court and belong to the set called the History of Abraham now in the Great Hall’. Robinson replied ‘I have a hazy recollection of once having seen a lot of tapestries rolled up and put away in the store room at Hampton Court, but that was 25 years ago’.11 In 1884, The Times printed a Parliamentary Question asking what measures had been taken towards restoring Hampton Court’s tapestries, ‘to the deplorable condition of which attention was called last year’. Robinson replied12 ‘Considering that most of the tapestries at Hampton Court are very ancient and that they must now be regarded as curious relics of antiquity rather than decorative furniture, I do not think that any attempt should be made to renovate or systematically “restore” them, but that whatever is done should be confined to arresting further decay and disintegration’.13 In 1885, the Treasury granted £400 for 13 needlewomen, to mend 37 tapestries, increasing the staff to 16 in 1886 to cobble twelve tapestries for £200. In 1887, Robinson valued the tapestries at £20 000 but the Treasury refused a further £200 to complete the repairs. However, by 1908 the imagery’s renewed legibility inspired the First Commissioner and the Lord Chamberlain to consult the Gobelins Tapestry Works about the tapestries, observing that they ‘are of enormous value and if the repair and restoration which they undoubtedly require is to be carried out, it ought to be entrusted to the most competent people in the world’. The elderly Gobelins Director recommended Messrs Morris. On 17 April 1912, George V convened a supervisory committee, consisting of Mr Peers, Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries and Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Mr Kendrick the V&A Museum tapestry expert, Sir S. K. McDonnell, First Commissioner, HM Office of Works and Colonel Croft Lyons, FSA to oversee Morris & Co., directed by tapestry historian H. C. Marillier. A studio was established in Hampton Court because the tapestries were too fragile and valuable to move, being now valued at £1 000 00014 (Figure 3.4). In 1914, the Chief Inspector of Les Arts Decoratifs examined the work, reporting that ‘the washings . . . have cleaned them admirably, and I have observed no scraping of the threads in any restoration by the process called “potomage” which is only a colouring

by hand, of the threads discoloured by time – a reprehensible practice because it offers little durability’ adding ‘the technical conversations which I have been able to exchange with the women restorers, and above all with the person directing this select personnel, . . . have given the proof of intelligence, an artistic conscience, and a professional merit which I cannot sufficiently praise’. Restoration continued throughout the First World War, 1914 –18, stopping in 1923 for economic reasons. In 1927, the repair of the worm-eaten great hall roof enabled the removal and restoration of the Abraham tapestries, taking five years apiece. When, in 1940, Morris & Co. folded, Marillier employed the remaining three restorers until the Ministry took over in 1947. By 1961, only The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek remained unrestored. After the last restorer15 retired in 1979, they decided to change the practice to conservation to preserve what original material remained. Bureaucratic mentality disparaging textiles initially impeded this development, but through influential support Parliament granted funding for a Conservation Studio and Laboratory.16 These were completed by 1988, followed by a wet cleaning facility and by 1994 a proper store for the textiles. Conservation’s many benefits included reducing the cost by four-fifths and, through scientific research, increasingly efficient approaches were devised to help tackle the exponentially accelerating deterioration of the collection. Although the fire in Hampton Court in 1986 destroyed the King’s Apartments, the contents were saved and a major restoration project began. In 1989, John Cornforth’s article, Hampton Court Opportunity (Cornforth, 1989) urged a scholarly approach. A curator17 was appointed. Intensive research, conservation and replication were undertaken to recreate the 1700 interior. Abraham tapestries were cleaned and installed. One (Melchizedek) was too deteriorated to hang and was deferred pending its conservation.18 The Tudor rooms were next to be represented and six Abrahams were returned to the Tudor ‘loose-hanging’ arrangement. The Studio’s scientific research advised that this hanging method is only secure if the condition of the tapestries’ entire structure is maintained in perpetuity.

The present day and the future By the 1980s, financial constraints demanded reciprocity between conservation costs and revenue generating capability in cultural heritage. In 1989

26

Context

Figure 3.4 Restorers from Morris & Co. working in the Queen’s Guard Chamber at Hampton Court in the 1930s.

the Historic Royal Palaces Agency was established to make the palaces self-funding. Funds for conservation faced urgent competition with priority given to revenue generating opportunities. The thin stretch of funds resulted in the Melichizedek tapestry still undergoing conservation eight years later. To accurately quantify conservation risks for funding justification, a major EU project, The Monitoring of Damage to Historic Tapestries, was initiated in 1999 using cutting-edge scientific research analysing the condition correlated with the display history of the Abrahams and similar tapestries in Spain and Belgium. The results alarmingly proved the Abrahams to be more fragile than even the pessimistic conservators had assessed. Any movement will irreparably damage them, catalysing deterioration. The value of empirical knowledge to conservation is well known and in this case first-hand apprenticeship experience also informs us that the tapestries’ ‘restored’ appearance is deceptive, since by 1976 Morris’s nineteenthcentury restoration yarns repeatedly broke as the restorers stitched.

Conclusion The perceived value and significance of the Abraham tapestries has fluctuated dramatically from representing kingship and power, to becoming ‘curious relics of antiquity’. Actively cherished and selectively used by Tudor and Stuart courts, by 1700 they needed intensive repair to serve the Hanoverian reigns. While initially acknowledging the Abrahams’ status, quotidian display also diminished it. Thereafter the tapestries’ cultural significance became archaic as new political freedom suffused English society. Victoria and Albert saw them as national assets and encouraged public access but, without instituting necessary maintenance regimes, the tapestries deteriorated again. By the late nineteenth century they were ‘begrimed’ and disfigured. Crude repairs reconstituted their legibility sufficiently to stimulate the interest of a few scholars who developed the means to ensure their survival through the twentieth century. However, sustaining this momentum will be doomed if such tapestries are considered intellectually


élitist and only superficially explained. Phillip de Montebello’s19 principle of broadening the access to an intellectual world without diminishing the content would seem to provide the best conservation philosophy by creating a virtuous circle. Above all, this chapter illustrates how the fate of the Abraham tapestries has pivoted precariously on the mentalité of the decision-makers rather than on restorers or conservators. Given the Abrahams’ extreme fragility now, this balance needs to be actively managed to ensure their future. Historiography has become very self-conscious and the selection of cultural objects for preservation or disposal will become an increasingly demanding process. Unless we unlock the social history of tapestries and reclaim a purposeful role for them, the unrivalled skills of modern conservators will be impotent in the face of increasing pressures and diminishing resources. The very scale of tapestries makes them a special case; the mastery of specialist conservation skills is an extremely lengthy process before it becomes efficient and safe and so without the support of scholarship, the conservation of many tapestries will inevitably become either unaffordable or, at worst, damaging in the foreseeable future. The Abraham tapestries embody a mentality which is at once strange and familiar, being part of the cultural continuum which far outstretches our own existence. They are not fossils but remain in royal service, potentially able to serve future cycles of tradition and philosophy. Despite their ephemeral substance, the tapestries connect us to past and future generations, representing that ‘golden thread’ of continuity which, after all, underpins our whole concept of culture. Their loss would therefore be significant.

Endnotes 1. LC5/132 Lord Chamberlain’s Papers, National Archive. 2. LC5/137. 3. LC5/137. 4. LC5/144. 5. LC5/153. 6. LC5/151. 7. LC5/69. 8. LC 5/89. 9. Heath, G. Archive. Hampton Court Palace. Unpublished archive. 10. LC2 Lord Chamberlain’s Letter Books, ‘Palaces’ Series 1858 –1902. 11. Lord Chamberlain’s ‘Works of Art’ Series, Feb 1883.

12. Hampton Court Palace Archive, File 343: 1884. 13. File AM/323:1884, on File 3431, Hampton Court Palace. 14. File AM/323:1884, on File 3431. 15. Ida Turner (1914 –78), Betty Creasey (1914 –79). 16. Sir Geoffrey de Bellaigue KCVO, Minister Chope, Graham Goode, Parliamentary Directorate, Palace of Westminster. 17. Dr Simon Thurley (curator HRP 1989 –97). 18. Royal Collection publications. 19. Director, Metropolitan Museum, New York.

References Anon (c.1953). Crowning the King: the History and Meaning of the Coronation Ceremony. Syndicate Publishing. Beard, G. (1997). Upholsterers and Interior Furnishing in England 1530 –1840. Yale. Campbell, T. (1994). William III and ‘The Triumph of Lust’ – The tapestries hung in the King’s State Apartments in 1699. In The King’s Apartments, Hampton Court Palace Apollo Special Edition. Campbell, T. (2003). Henry VII’s Story of Abraham Tapestries. In Flemish Tapestry in European and American Collections: Studies in Honour of Guy Delmarcel pp. 62 – 64, Brepols. Cornforth, J. (1989). Hampton Court Opportunity. Country Life, September 14, 198 –203. Hayward, M. (1998). Repositories of Splendour: Henry VIII’s Wardrobes of the Robes and Beds. Textile History, 29, 134 –56. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, Brushes and Brooms’: Aspects of Tapestry restoration in England 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 65 –75, Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Hentzer, W. (1598), 80 Travels in England. London. Hill, C. (1993). The English Bible and the Seventeenth Century Revolution. Penguin. Law, E. (1899). The New Historical Guide to the Royal Palace and Gardens of Hampton Court London. George Bell & Sons. Law, E. (1906). A Short History of Hampton Court Palace. George Bell & Sons. Lloyd, C. (1999). The Paintings in the Royal Collection. The Royal Collection. Sandford, F. (1687). Lancaster Herald of Arms In the Savoy. Thomas Newcomb, one of His Majesties Printers. Sherwood, R. (1978). The Court of Oliver Cromwell. Croom Helm. Thomson, G. (1973). A History of Tapestry, 3rd edn. E.P. Publishing Ltd. Thurley, S. (2003a). Hampton Court: a Social and Architectural History. Yale. Thurley, S. (2003b). The Early Stuarts and Hampton Court. History Today, November 2003, 16 –17.

4 Changing approaches to tapestry conservation: the conservation of a set of seven eighteenth-century tapestries Lynsay Shephard

Woven by the leading Brussels workshop of Judocus ( Josse) de Vos around 1716, the seven tapestries from the series The History of Alexander the Great have been on continuous display in the Queen’s Gallery at Hampton Court Palace since their acquisition. In the early 1730s, the set formed part of a significant refurbishment of the Queen’s State Apartments that included new furniture, curtains, wall coverings and tapestry for use by George II and his family. However, after 1737, increasingly sporadic use of the palace influenced the future management of the tapestry collection including the Alexander set. Since acquisition, variations in use, fashion, treatment and perceived value of this set reflect important changes and developments in the philosophy and technology of tapestry care that began with the Great Wardrobe and continues to this day.

Description and display The seven tapestries describe the life and military exploits of Alexander the Great. They are woven with dyed wool and silk weft, in a wide colour palette1, with an undyed, wool warp, with approximately seven warps per 10 mm giving a finely woven, detailed image. The borders of scrolling acanthus leaves and cartouches are designed to imitate a carved and gilt frame, characteristic of the eighteenth century. The master weaver’s name is incorporated into the lower right-hand galloon of each tapestry. The Hampton Court set of seven is the only one known to have been woven by Judocus de Vos. The display measurements of the tapestries are similar in height (4.09 m), with the exception of

Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes (2.88 m), but vary in width: 1. Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes in his Tub RCIN 1079.1. (2.29 m) 2. Alexander and Hephaestion Visiting the Tent of the Wife of Darius RCIN 1079.2. (8.10 m) 3. Alexander’s Triumphal Entry into Babylon RCIN 1079.3. (5.08 m) 4. Alexander Meeting the Chaldean Prophets RCIN 1079.4. (4.16 m) 5. The Battle with King Porus of India RCIN 1079.5. (6.81 m) 6. The Battle of Granicus RCIN 1079.6. (6.85 m) 7. Alexander with his Horse Bucephalus RCIN 1079.7. (3.86 m). They are displayed according to their dimensions rather than chronological order. Five are hung opposite the windows on the east front of the palace – the narrowest being placed above the central fireplace with two on either side – and one at each end of the gallery. Evidence shows that when first displayed at Hampton Court the tapestries were probably in excellent condition. All seven were ‘tight-hung’, that is, securely fixed on all four sides and framed by a carved wooden moulding. This was the fashionable style of displaying tapestry in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century interiors (Figure 4.1). The walls of the gallery were almost entirely covered by the tapestries. To ensure perfect fit and symmetry, individual panels were either extended or reduced in size. It is to the credit of the Great Wardrobe that when first installed, the tapestries were altered sympathetically and skilfully, and were not cut to provide an exact fit. 28

Changing approaches to tapestry conservation: the conservation of a set of seven eighteenth-century tapestries 29

Figure 4.1 History of Alexander the Great series on display in the Queen’s Gallery, Hampton Court Palace.

General history Louis XIV set up the Gobelins tapestry manufactory in 1662 to produce tapestries exclusively for royal use and the first History of Alexander set was commissioned by the King, making it one of the most important subjects of the time. Designed in the 1660s by Charles le Brun, the tapestries were intended to celebrate the Sun King’s victories and to glorify absolute monarchy. A complete set would have consisted of eleven panels and the Gobelins workshop wove eight sets between 1664 and 1688. Additional sets, varying in size and number, were woven in both Aubusson and Brussels, the latter being where the Hampton Court set originated.

Treatment history The Great Wardrobe had full responsibility for the maintenance of the entire royal tapestry collection until its closure in 1782. The Alexander set had been installed as a permanent and integral feature of the Queen’s Gallery and any repairs or cleaning were probably carried out in situ, therefore, it is unlikely

that the Alexanders were disturbed in any way until the late nineteenth century. Increasingly, tapestries were considered to be no more than rich wall coverings that provided a backdrop for the paintings in the collection. Between 1835 and 1840, the Queen’s Gallery was filled with 131 paintings after the, now faded, tapestries were covered over with papered linen to facilitate the picture hang. The set remained covered until around 1865 when, at the suggestion of Richard Redgrave, Surveyor of the Queen’s Works of Art, the gallery was returned to its historical appearance. However, it was not until 1883, after the appointment of his successor, John Charles Robinson, that the debate regarding the future of the collection really began. Following a fire in 1882 directly above the Queen’s Gallery, the tapestries, having suffered water damage, were remounted onto large timber stretchers to allow rapid removal in any future emergency. In 1884, in direct reference to the Alexander tapestries Robinson wrote ‘Two or three of these pieces were wetted during the late fire, and the contraction of the fibre consequent on their being dried has in some places pulled portions asunder, causing numerous longitudinal rents . . . The damage could easily be remedied

30

Context

by an intelligent needlewoman working in the gallery’. In 1885, after much discussion, repairs were carried out at Hampton Court by a team of 13 needlewomen, increasing to 17 in 1886. After 1896, just four needlewomen were kept on to continue repairs to the entire Hampton Court collection. Records detailing this work do not exist, but the repairs found during the conservation of the Alexanders in the late twentieth century probably date from that period. Concerns for the entire Hampton Court tapestry collection continued. In 1908, the Lord Chamberlain, after recognising the ‘enormous value’ of the collection, sought advice from the Director of the Gobelins Tapestry Manufactory in Paris, M. Guiffre. M. Guiffre advised that the task of renovation should be entrusted to the ‘most competent people in the world’ under the management of a body of experts. Accordingly, in 1912 Messrs Morris & Co. were appointed to undertake repairs under the direction of the historian and manager of the Merton Abbey workshop, H. C. Marillier. In 1914, Monsieur Morand, Chief Director of the Arts Decoratifs, Paris, visited the workrooms to inspect the ongoing repairs and provide a written report. He concluded that the work carried out by the women restorers was ‘fine and delicate’ and was ‘of professional merit’. Not since the existence of the Great Wardrobe had the tapestries been under the care of such professionals. The work continued right up to 1940 when Morris & Co. folded. Immediately, Marillier took on the management of the weavers, continuing throughout the Second World War. In 1947, the Ministry of Works took over. By 1960, the number of weavers had increased to four but the restorers were not able to keep up with the rate of decay or the backlog of work and the seven Alexander tapestries particularly were in urgent need of cleaning and repair. It was estimated that it would take the existing staff a minimum of 21 years to restore the set. Finally, in 1968, after trying unsuccessfully to recruit additional trained restorers or trainees, and with the knowledge that the tapestries might not otherwise survive, the decision was taken to send the first Alexander abroad for repair. By now it was accepted that unless action was taken immediately, the alternative was that the set might ‘have to be treated as a write-off ’.

Restoration and conservation begin In 1970, the strongest of the seven tapestries, Alexander’s Triumphal Entry into Babylon, was sent to

a workshop in Paris for examination and on receipt of an estimate the work was agreed. The tapestry was closely examined on its return in 1971 and the subsequent report describes the work as ‘disappointing’. Several areas had been left untreated, there were open splits and the original degraded lining had not been replaced as agreed. A letter from the Parisian workshop, Maison Hamot, claimed that the splits were the result of handling during transit; nevertheless, further repairs were necessary by the Hampton Court restorers before the tapestry could be rehung. Consequently, the four restorers at Hampton Court were encouraged to continue working past their retirement age on the remaining Alexander tapestries and four new recruits were employed; furthermore, new advanced working methods being used by the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC)2 were investigated, not only to hasten the process but to ensure that the ‘best and up-to-date’ practices were used. After centuries with few changes in the working methods, things were about to develop rapidly. During the 1980s, the Hampton Court workrooms became known as the Textile Conservation Studios (TCS).3 Under the leadership of Jenny Band MVO, with a team of new graduate recruits, including a conservation scientist, and with the support and encouragement of the Royal Collection, conservation practices developed to include the care of the entire textile collection. Led by the conservation scientist, a programme of research and environmental monitoring within the State Apartments was put in place which, in turn, supported the ongoing development of condition surveys, monitoring in situ cleaning and conservation programmes introduced by the tapestry conservation manager. An undated treatment proposal, made probably between 1960 and 1970, recommends ‘the old principle of using mild soap and softened water’ as being ‘still favoured’ and suggests using an open courtyard, Brick Court, for wet cleaning the tapestry; it then being moved indoors to the Oak Room to dry. Another older document records the old Works Yard being used together with ‘soft brooms and soap’, possibly Saponaria.4 Of the first two Alexanders to be treated, The Battle of Granicus is recorded as being cleaned by the TCC in 1976 and although the cleaning methods had improved, both tapestries were to undergo a full traditional restoration/reweaving process. Following cleaning, restoration of King Porus of India began in 1974 and The Battle of Granicus


Figure 4.2 King Porus of India. Detail before conservation support treatment: an area of advanced silk weft degradation with bare and broken warps.

followed in 1976. By this time only one restorer remained in the Hampton Court workroom, although five new graduate trainees had recently been employed to continue the repairs. The restoration work involved removing all weak, original silk and wool and replacing it with new, emulating the original design as far as possible. Although the work was technically sound, progress was slow and resulted in a definitive and irreversible loss of the fine original detail (Shephard, 1996). Advanced degradation, over-handling and rigorous cleaning led to large areas of bare and broken warps where the original design could only be surmised (Figure 4.2). Additionally, the restoration work was increasingly reliant on diminishing stocks of very old Morris & Co. yarns. Eventually in 1980, on the retirement of the last restorer, it was decided to discontinue the work until a new approach could be developed. Both tapestries were therefore removed from the looms and put into storage. The restoration work had stopped abruptly, the reweaving having discontinued in a dead straight line; the King Porus of India tapestry was rewoven to halfway across

its width, and The Battle of Granicus about 1 m from the side. These two tapestries were the last to undergo ‘restoration’ treatment at Hampton Court. With support from the Royal Collection and the Hampton Court curators, both tapestries would remain in storage until an appropriate method of treatment, together with the high level of skills and competence necessary to continue the work, could be researched and developed. In 1993 the tapestries were re-evaluated and a method to integrate the reweaving into contemporary conservation was formulated. The philosophy behind the proposals was that the discontinuation of the restoration and the integration of conservation work should not be distracting from the image or narrative of the tapestry, and that on close examination, the work could be identified and if ever necessary, reversed. It was imperative that the conservation should provide overall structural support and that none of the original weave should be removed. The solution was achieved by carefully unpicking some areas of the restoration reweaving (along the edge where the work had stopped), blending some of the

32

Context

Figure 4.3 Detail of the same area after conservation support treatment.

restoration yarns removed with new conservation materials and reusing the blended yarns to break up the abrupt straight line of the reweaving. A linen support material was attached to the entire back of the tapestry and all support stitching worked through both the tapestry and the support. Initially, conservation couching was applied in close lines of stitching to emulate the reweaving but gradually the couching became more widely spaced to provide a more open, structural system that supported and strengthened the original (Figure 4.3). The support material was extended behind the rewoven sections and a widely spaced grid system of stitching applied that provided overall support and strength to the entire tapestry. The methodology was extremely successful and both tapestries were rehung in 1995. The grid stitching system continued to be used when providing a more minimalist and preventative approach for tapestries showing the first signs of degradation. Tapestries from the work programme undergoing this conservation method, together with the more intensive longterm treatment of the Alexander tapestries continued simultaneously within the workroom.

By 1993, both Alexander with his Horse Bucephalus and Alexander Meeting the Chaldean Prophets were in an advanced state of decay and, as part of the condition monitoring programme, were removed from display. Both had undergone repair work by the needlewomen employed between 1885 and 1896. The repair threads were rotten and coarse and the stitching often passed over several warps, distorting the original weave structure. On removal of the lining several layers and large quantities of patches, of varying weight and size, were discovered. The patches ranged in size from 20 to 500 sq mm, either overlapping or abutted. Tests showed that the patches shrank even further when wet. This, together with the detrimental effect on the tapestry structure, led to the decision to remove all patches and repairs. Without exception every area of intense stitching was surrounded by distorted, weak or broken warps, the original weft being either in an extreme state of degradation, or completely missing. The effectiveness of applying full support fabrics to the backs of tapestries was reinforced by these findings. On removing the lining of Alexander Meeting the Chaldean Prophets, early dimensional alterations


were found. The tapestry had been extended in width by the insertion of two vertical panels within the inner field. Both side borders had been cut away at the point of interface with the inner field. By extending the existing warps on both sides, from the cut border edges, additional sections had been woven into the original, extending the tapestry overall by approximately 1 m. At the point where the woven extensions meet the original central section of the tapestry, the warps had been skilfully and unobtrusively grafted back in, following design features such as foliage and figures. Despite the poor condition of the overall structure the grafted joins were still fairly sound and were later strengthened during the conservation treatment. Both tapestries were encased in non-abrasive net to provide temporary support and the first tapestry, Bucephalus was wet cleaned in an open palace courtyard using deionised water and detergent.5 The result was highly successful, the acidity levels improved from pH 3.45 to pH 5.3 and the tapestry was visibly cleaner, brighter and softer. However, despite careful handling, there was an unacceptable quantity of silk weft loss and it was clear that an alternative method of washing was needed. Alexander Meeting the Chaldean Prophets was cleaned shortly after but, in an effort to minimise fibre loss, the TCC indoor washroom was used and the tapestry moved to the TCS to dry on a ventilated flat surface. Again, the process was successful, pH improved from 3.3 to 5.5, but fibre loss was still problematic due to the necessity of rolling and turning the tapestry during treatment. Led by the conservation scientist, the tapestry team began to investigate and research cleaning techniques and as a result, the TCS wash facility was developed. In 1991, after various trials, a 9 m by 11 m wash tank, built by Willard,6 came into operation. The shallow wash tank enabled large, fragile textiles to be wet cleaned and dried flat with minimal handling and movement. Wetting out, the application of detergents and rinsing, either by full immersion or spray, became controlled and versatile. A moveable gantry provided access to the textiles during the process and the washing surface itself could be raised or lowered to suit. Tests have shown that the system is efficient, safe, flexible and, most importantly, that fibre loss is minimised (see Figure 7.1). The structural support system applied to the conserved sections of the first two Alexanders was repeated on both the Bucephalus and the Chaldean Prophets tapestries. The advanced degradation of the silk weft required substantial support to reduce further loss. As the tapestries are hung without gaps

between them it was necessary to maintain visual continuity throughout all seven panels despite differences in previous restoration and contemporary conservation techniques. On completion the tapestries were returned to the gallery and following a curatorial decision, the tapestries were loose-hung, that is, supported by the top edges only. TCS research verifies the fact that providing the condition of a tapestry is good, the structure is well supported throughout and differentials in stress/strain are not allowed to form, then there is no risk in displaying in this way. The sixth tapestry Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes in his Tub was removed from display in 1996 as part of the established work programme. Although in better condition overall than the preceding five, there were isolated areas of extremely weak silk weft and the tapestry was highly acidic. It had not been anticipated that the tapestry, much smaller than the others, would have been pleated substantially, reducing its original height to fit the space above the fireplace. When the Diogenes was unfolded it increased in size by 1.26 m and spectacularly revealed original colours and textures which had been protected by light since its installation in the 1730s (Figures 4.4 and 4.5). The tapestry was the first in the series to be cleaned in the TCS wash facility and after conservation support treatment, colour measurements7 and photographic documentation, the tapestry was repleated and returned to the gallery. The photographic documentation is a testament to the damage resulting from exposure to light over 250 years of continuous display. The tapestry Alexander and Hephaestion Visiting the Wife of Darius had hung at right angles to the windows since first displayed; consequently, it had been more protected from extreme light damage. However, in 1987 isolated areas of silk began to show signs of extreme weakness, and over just a few months regular monitoring identified decaying warps as a whole section of weft began to detach from the weave structure. The decision was taken that the tapestry would undergo emergency remedial treatment only. Therefore, the tapestry was not wet cleaned. A length of support material was prepared and attached to the reverse with an open grid couching system after the lining had been released. This work can easily be removed in the future, but in the meantime will provide a temporary support by spanning the width of the tapestry between stronger wool weft areas, allowing the tapestry to remain on display in the short term. Finally, by 1990, after regular monitoring, it became apparent that the tapestry Alexander’s

34

Context

Figure 4.4 Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes in his Tub after conservation and prior to reinstallation. The horizontal pleat across the top has been replaced to enable the tapestry to fit the space above the fireplace in the Queen’s Gallery.

Triumphal Entry into Babylon was in need of further treatment. The repair work carried out in 1970 in Paris had not addressed the fragility of the overall structure. To prevent any further damage and irreversible silk loss the tapestry was removed from display, assessed and wet cleaned. After a period in storage the tapestry will be included in the cyclical work programme so that it can be returned to display at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion In 1998, a prioritised treatment policy was put in place at the TCS that regularly monitored the condition of the tapestries on display, measuring any changes in condition.8 The collection is rare and of immense historical importance and value. The calibre of specialist expertise built up over the last 30 years reflects the complexity and fragility of the


Hampton Court’s specialist tapestry conservators since the mid 1970s and doubtless will continue to do so as the tapestries’ weak physical condition advances. Consequently, developments in treatment technology, research, equipment and training have all been crucial to the survival of the collection. It is planned that the Alexander tapestry currently in storage, awaiting conservation, will form part of a three-year externally funded tapestry internship, enabling the long acquired specialist knowledge and skills to be passed on to a new generation of conservators and that the current ongoing research into ways of mitigating the deterioration of tapestries will continue to influence the future care and survival of these historic objects. It is vital to preclude any more ill-advised efforts as the tapestries are now so fragile that there is simply no room for mistakes.

Endnotes 1.

2.

Figure 4.5 Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes in his Tub after conservation, showing the released pleat across the top where the colours are unfaded.

3. 4. 5.

collection – the value of this should never be underestimated where a preservation strategy is concerned. All seven tapestries will eventually be returned to permanent, open display in a royal palace that is increasingly used for events and visited by thousands of people each year. Hampton Court is not a museum and consequently it is crucial that display methods, environments and usage are considered when treatment programmes are devised. Similarly, the subtle differences and characteristics in design, display and manufacture of tapestries over the centuries can only be fully understood by the experienced specialist when making conservation decisions. The Alexander set has provided conservation dilemmas that have challenged the skills, knowledge and expertise of

6. 7. 8.

Dye analysis was undertaken using thin layer chromatography and a scanning UV-visible transmission spectrophotometer. The results were as follows: dark blue – indigo; dark green – weld/indigo; red – cochineal; browns – madder/tannin; light browns – tannin; dark brown found in the degraded wools in the galloons – tannin/indigo; browns – madder/ tannin; light browns – tannin; mordants – iron salts. The Textile Conservation Centre, Apt 22, Hampton Court Palace is now part of the University of Southampton. The Textile Conservation Studios are now known as Conservation & Collections Care, Historic Royal Palaces. Saponaria: the decocted roots of the soap-wort plant is known anecdotally to have been used. Consisting of Synperonic N, Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate, Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium Salt. Note: Ethylenediaminetetra acid disodium salt was only included in the wash solution for Bucephalus tapestry. Willard, Specialists in Conservation Equipment. Using a hand-held, Minolta Reflectance Spectrophotometer. Using digital cameras for regularly recording specific areas and a Minolta Spectrometer to measure fading or changes in colour.

Bibliography Brosens, K. (2002). Brussels tapestry producer Judocus de Vos. Studies in the Decorative Arts, Spring-Summer.

36

Context

Campbell, T. (2002). Tapestry in the Renaissance. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Delmarcel, G. (2000). Flemish Tapestry, Harry N. Abrams. Marillier, H. C. (1962) The Tapestries at Hampton Court Palace. HMSO. Shephard, L. K. (1996). The conservation treatment of two partially restored 18th century Brussels tapestries. Preprints of ICOM–CC 11th Triennial Meeting Edinburgh

1–6 September 1996 ( J. Bridgland, ed.), 721–5, James and James. Standen, E. A. (1985). European Post-Medieval Tapestries. Vol. I. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Thompson, W. G. (1930). A History of Tapestry. Hodder and Stoughton. Thurley, S. (2003). Hampton Court, A Social and Architectural History. Yale University Press.

Part Two Documentation and analysis of materials


5 The truth will out: the value of tapestry documentation Maria Hayward and Ksynia Marko

What sort of historical evidence and information can be derived from a tapestry? The short answer is a lot – but in order to extract this detail, careful observation and recording are essential and then time for evaluation of the findings is required. Consultation between conservators, conservation scientists and textile historians can shed light on many things including the date, the provenance, the subject, history of use, the condition and the specific nature of the materials used. Consequently, the significance of documenting tapestries in detail can be highlighted in several ways: it acts as a way of encouraging a conservator to focus on an often very large object and to become familiar with it; it informs the treatment and conservation decisions; it records important information about previous treatments of the piece that all form part of its history, as well as recording details of current intervention for the future. This chapter focuses on the initial documentation and underlying assessment and analysis of the object rather than the documentation of the treatment that is undertaken. Tapestry-woven hangings are primarily pictorial and consequently, for many people, the image is the obvious starting point. The image is often narrative in design and the subject of many of the older pieces was often inspired by classical history and mythology, Bible stories such as the Apocalypse set or contemporary events, as in the case of The Conquest of Tunis series and The Hunts of Maximilian. In addition, the particular objects and individuals could have a symbolic meaning, thus making the subtle nuances of the stories difficult to interpret today. This is highlighted by tapestries depicting personifications of abstract concepts such as the set of tapestries of The Liberal Arts after cartoons designed by Daniel Janssens (d. 1682)

(Hefford, 1991). Inscriptions, often in abbreviated Latin, can appear in the borders of tapestries and careful recording makes it easier to translate, as in the case of the words ‘VIC. AUG., PAX AUG.’ in the border of a tapestry depicting a scene from the life of Caesar Augustus which refer to the ‘Victory and Peace of Augustus’ (Hefford, 1991). Equally, because the designs often represented historic or fictional events, the style of the clothes worn by the key protagonists does not always help to ascribe a date or provenance. This is especially borne out by the classical subjects depicted in many Renaissance tapestries or the medieval subjects favoured by William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones. Many sets of tapestries could be woven from one set of cartoons over a long period of time. The end result would vary according to the skill of the weavers producing the piece, the fineness of the weaving and the wishes of the patron. The first set of tapestries from Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles cartoons was produced for Leo X to hang in the Vatican and the lower borders depicted scenes from the Pope’s life. Further sets were produced at the Mortlake workshop for Charles I with new borders by Francis Cleyn, the designer at Mortlake from 1624 to 1657. Later weavings from cartoons can be identified by other means, including weavers’ marks, as in the case of one of a set of children playing, at Hardwick, also woven following cartoons by Cleyn. The presence of the initials ‘F. P’ and ‘HATTON GARDEN’ indicate that this piece was woven by Francis Poyntz while his workshop was based at Hatton Garden between 1679 and 1685 (Campbell, 1997). The survival of tapestry cartoons, the full-scale original designs that the weavers followed, is rare. 39

40

Documentation and analysis of materials

They were often drawn on paper as in the case of the seven extant designs for The Acts of the Apostles, although the cartoon could also take the form of an oil painting on canvas as in the case of Vertumnus and Pomona from the studio of François Boucher (Bennett, 1992). Identifying cartoons can be difficult. Two painted hangings after designs by Charles Le Brun at Michelham Priory have been described as tapestry cartoons but there is some doubt. Equally, not all cartoons are woven into tapestries, as in the case of The Road to Peace commissioned by the War Memorial Tapestry Guild from Walter Bayes (1869 – 1956) in 1919. Comparison of the tapestry with its cartoon or with other tapestries woven from the same designs can provide the conservator with detailed information about their tapestry, especially if they have to address issues relating to areas of loss. For example, the tapestry Boy Satyr Climbing a Tree from

the English Bacchanals set, 1670s to 1680s, at Cotehele was damaged in one corner. However, comparison with another tapestry of the same subject allowed for the recreation by couching of the missing urn (Lennard and Eastop, 2005/6). Whenever possible, tapestries should not be taken at their face value. While they are often lined, the need to examine the reverse of tapestries whenever this is accessible is strong. Looking at the reverse provides the viewer with a sense of the original, often very vibrant, colours of the threads used to weave the tapestry. It also allows for an assessment of the level of change that some of the colours have undergone, especially with greens losing the yellow component leaving an overall impression of a blue hue to the foliage (Figure 5.1). This point is demonstrated very clearly by the Apocalypse tapestries at Angers. A detailed study of the reverse of the tapestries

Figure 5.1 The reverse of The Miraculous Draft of Fishes, Mortlake, showing the vibrant colours, strapping and repair patches of embroidery.

The truth will out: the value of tapestry documentation 41

highlights the quality of the dyeing which produced a wide range of rich colours: especially the variety of green, yellow and orange shades. The reverse also reveals a lot about the skill of the weavers who produced the tapestries. The weft ends were not cut and left hanging on the reverse, rather they were knotted into the woven structure, causing the tapestries to be described as being essentially double-sided. The weavers also made use of techniques such as ‘beating’ and ‘gimping’ to add subtlety to the design (Muel, 1996). The reverse can also provide detailed insights into the various repairs that have been undertaken to keep the tapestry in a reasonable state of repair. This point is highlighted by consideration of two examples. A detailed assessment of the many areas of repair on the Roman de la Rose tapestry, Tournai c. 1460, revealed that while some patches were visually acceptable, they were too badly degraded to continue to provide support to the tapestry. Some patches no longer colour matched with the front of the tapestry and an examination of the reverse revealed that the threads had probably never matched the original (Borg Clyde, 1992). In the same way, the treatment of The Return of Sarah by the Egyptians, part of a set of The History of Abraham, woven at Mortlake after 1657 and which hang in the Upper Ante Room of Blickling Hall, Norfolk, allowed for a detailed examination of the reverse. While it was apparent that a number of adhesive coated patches had been used to support areas of weakness, the full extent of the intervention could not be assessed or a treatment devised until after a full examination of the back had been undertaken and samples removed for analysis (Leach, 1997). Many tapestries have been lined with linen or cotton to protect the reverse of the hanging. The application of linings is part of current conservation practice but it is not a new process (see Chapter 2). Indeed, it has been regularly undertaken from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Linings are often removed and replaced when tapestries are conserved but this can result in the loss of evidence about how historic linings were constructed and applied. When looking at a lining, it is important to consider whether the lining is original. The Gideon tapestries, which depict the story of Gideon and his struggle with the Midianites, hang in the Long Gallery at Hardwick Hall. They were purchased by Bess of Hardwick from Sir William Newport, the nephew and heir of Sir Christopher Hatton, in 1592. On the reverse remain fragments of the original linen linings embroidered with floral motifs and Sir Christopher

Hatton’s initials (Figure 5.2). In addition, the finish of the linings along the top edge provides evidence of how this edge was reinforced prior to hanging, another incredibly rare survival. After 1528, Brussels’ weavers were required to place a red shield flanked by two Bs on all tapestries of six ells or longer and in 1544 Charles V sought to enforce this rule within all of the tapestry weaving centres within the Holy Roman Empire (Thomson, 1980). Other familiar weavers’ marks include the white shield with the red cross of St George for Mortlake (Thompson, 1980; van Tichelen and Delmarcel, 1993). Some marks still prove illusive however, such as the unidentified monogram on the borders of the Hardwick Hall set of Scenes of Country Life (Bosworth, 1997). Where such marks are present they provide very useful information on date and provenance. However, they can become obscured or lost as a consequence of later alterations. This problem was highlighted during the conservation of The Tea Party from the Rangers House. A number of sets have been woven from the cartoons by Vernavisal, Blin de Fontenay and Dumons but the dating and attribution of this particular set could be pinpointed much more precisely after the lining had been removed. This revealed that a large section of the lower border had been turned up, so concealing the name of the weaver ‘BEHAGLE’. Phillipe Behagle was Director of the Beauvais manufactory between 1684 and 1705, thus confirming where and when the tapestry was woven (Figure 5.3). The inclusion of the owners’ coats of arms in the borders can provide a clue as to who commissioned the tapestry or who had owned it at a particular phase in its history. Alternatively, the coat of arms can form the chief component of the design, as in the case of a French or Flemish millefleurs tapestry with the arms of John Dynham c. 1488 –1501 in the Cloisters Collection, New York (Salet, 1973). The strong market for second-hand tapestries meant that owners were in the habit of replacing coats of arms or putting one over another. Marks of ownership could also be added at a later date, as in the case of the unidentified coat of arms inserted into the upper border of an English tapestry depicting Mercury and Argos and the Daughters of Ericthonius, c. 1700 (Eastop and Tímár-Balázsy, 1998). In the same way, the shields with the arms of Sir Christopher Hatton, which were woven into the borders of the Gideon tapestries, were covered with woollen patches painted with the arms of Bess of Hardwick. A tapestry’s borders and galloons are both a functional and a decorative part of the object’s overall

42


Figure 5.2 Detail of the reverse of the Gideon tapestry (inventory no. HHE/ T/82M) showing remains of the original lining with an embroidered motif.

scheme. Therefore it is important to assess whether they are original and if not, whether everything has been replaced or just certain sections. Red wax seals were found at intervals along the reverse of the galloons of a set of late seventeenth-century Berlin tapestries at Chevening, a possible indication of stages in payment during manufacture. Borders can provide useful evidence of historic methods of hanging, such as the use of nails, hooks, studs or metal rods inserted in casings. This in turn can sometimes be linked to evidence relating to the original hang which can be derived from inventories and pictorial sources such as engravings and photographs. The style of the borders can provide clues as to date, both in terms of their style and whether they are present or not. While the early pieces of tapestry were quite small, many of the pieces produced from the late fourteenth century onwards were very large. The Roman de la Rose tapestry measures 4.14 m by 4.75 m even after having been cut down on all four sides

(Borg Clyde, 1992) or the Apocalypse series at Angers measures 103 m by 4.5 m (Muel, 1996). Tapestry was often sold by the yard or Flemish ell, so recording the measurements is an important part of the documentation process for several reasons. Current practice dictates that conservators record dimensions using the metric system but it is worth also taking imperial measurements because these are the units that most historic tapestries would have been sold in: either yards (36”/915 mm) or Flemish ells (27”/686 mm). In terms of conservation treatments, taking measurements before and after wet cleaning is very important, especially if a piece has to go back into a set space. However, recording these measurements can also highlight how fibres seek to revert to their original dimensions and that tapestries can undergo dimensional change as a consequence of cleaning. One of the Gideon tapestries was washed for the last duchess and as a consequence it changed in its dimensions. To make up the lost length, a


Figure 5.3 The weaver’s name from The Tea Party which helped to date and provenance the tapestry.

border was taken off another tapestry; current treatment choice is to take the border off, return the piece to its actual length and return the border to the piece it was removed from. Recording the fibre types of the warp and weft is useful: undyed wool, linen or cotton warps all say significant things about the origin and date of the piece, while the percentages of wool, silk and metal wrapped threads for the weft give good indications of how contemporaries would have interpreted the piece as arras or tapestry (Campbell, 1995 – 6). Taking this a step further, consideration of the fibre type, especially the fleece type, will allow more detailed observations to be made with regards to the breed type of the sheep used to make the woollen yarn. A number of samples taken from the Gideon tapestries were analysed and ten different fleece types that were identified included a number of hairy medium fleeces. Fleeces of this type came from hill breeds such as the Cheviot that was one of the most common sheep types found in medieval Europe.1 Another avenue to consider is the construction of warp and weft threads in terms of the number

of strands, the spin and ply. Research focusing on Flemish tapestries from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries has highlighted the following: Belgian tapestries were woven from warps that were spun in Z-twist and then plied in S-twist. In terms of ply, the following pattern emerged: they were often 3-ply in Antwerp; 2 or 3-ply in Bruges; 3-ply in Brussels; 2 or 3-ply in Oudenaarde; and in Tournai, mainly 3-ply in the fifteenth century and 2-ply in the sixteenth (Masschelein-Kleiner, 1993). One good indication of the fineness of the tapestry (and so, by implication, of the quality of the weaving) can be gauged by recording the warp and weft count, on the basis that the finer the warp count, the finer the quality and details of the design. The finely woven seventeenth-century Scenes from Country Life at Hardwick Hall has a warp count of 9 per 10 mm, wool weft 26 – 8 per 10 mm, and silk 28 –30 per 10 mm (Bosworth, 1997). In addition, metal wrapped threads were used to create highlights or accentuate parts of the design. A variety of types were used including single, double and triple wrapped threads but they are often hard to distinguish because of their poor condition (see Chapter 6).

44


Secondary sources indicate that the medieval palate consisted of approximately 24 colours derived from natural dyestuffs (Bennett, 1992). By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the importance of using light-fast dyes resulted in restrictions being imposed by the weaving guilds and central government. Colbert selected 120 colours of wool that the Gobelins weavers were restricted to, while in the late eighteenth century Chevreul instigated a palate of 14 400 shades of wool weft for use by the Gobelins weavers (Bennett, 1992). Analysis of the dyes used for the series Courtiers in a Rose Garden began by using historical evidence to determine the possible dyestuffs, then testing was carried out on samples taken from the tapestries using simple analytical tests devised by Judith Hofenk-de Graaff and Helmut Schweppe. Four of the five predominant colour ranges (the reds, red/browns, yellows and browns) were dyed using mordant dyes, while the blues were dyed using oxidising dyes (Kajitani, 1993). There is also a significant body of dye analysis that has been undertaken using thin layer chromatography and more complex techniques including high-performance liquid chromatography

in conjunction with ultraviolet visible spectroscopy or mass-spectrometry (Masschelein-Kleiner, 1993) (see Chapter 4). The quality of the weaving and the techniques used for colour blending all provide useful information on the date and provenance of the piece. For example, the use of hachures to blend colours and to suggest modelling was quite common in the late medieval tapestries but the Renaissance designs required more subtle techniques for suggesting naturalistic designs. As tapestry weaving became more specialised, weavers developed particular areas of expertise, such as the weaving of faces (Figure 5.4). Slits could be left unstitched intentionally after weaving in an attempt to add definition to the design, for example, on facial features. Tapestries should also be examined for painted details that were part of the original design. Overpainting in the form of dark brown outlines is particularly evident on the Gideon tapestries at Hardwick. The practice of overpainting details to enhance the definition and modelling of faces was acknowledged in Brussels when it was banned in 1525 on all tapestries costing more that 12d per ell (Thompson, 1980).

Figure 5.4 Weaving line round the face of the main figure in the seventeenth-century Brussels tapestry Julius Caesar Meeting Cleopatra from Powis Castle; the slits in the sky are also evident.


What does the condition of a piece tell us about its past? Sometimes damage can be difficult to detect because of the complexity of the design and hard to interpret because of the number of different ways in which deterioration can occur. Damage can be related to use, hanging methods, poor handling, general neglect, the independent deterioration of the materials selected to construct the tapestry or to undertake previous repairs, or as a consequence of treatments such as moth-proofing and flame-retarding. The longevity of many tapestries means that they will have often undergone several previous phases of repair and intervention. Repairs take a number of forms ranging from reweaving, which was the traditional method of repairing tapestries if weavers with the appropriate skills were available (Hefford, 1979). Some of these repairs are of a very high quality, however others are visually distracting because of differences in the tension of the weaving, or of distracting colour because of different rates of colour loss and colour change. Other textiles have been

used to patch damaged areas including pieces of other tapestries, carpet or pieces of embroidery as in the case of The Miraculous Draft of Fishes (Figure 5.1). Cruder forms of repair include fabric or cardboard adhered to the reverse, as in the case of the Mercury and Argos tapestry. For particularly significant sets, such as the Gideon tapestries at Hardwick, the careful recording of all previous repairs and patches present on the reverse of the tapestry has formed a key part of the treatment. Photographs in conjunction with scale diagrams and full-size melinex drawings have been made of the reverse to map repairs and the pattern of stitching used to secure linings. Through drawings and photographs it has been possible to piece together a number of repair patches and demonstrate that they were taken from part of a missing border from another tapestry in the set (Figure 5.5). For other tapestries where time and money may be limited, other approaches may be more appropriate. The careful use of photography is an essential part

Figure 5.5 Detail of the reverse of the Gideon tapestry (illustrated in Figure 5.2) showing the use of patches made from a tapestry border.

46


of the documentation process. Good quality images taken of the same areas before and after treatment and in the same lighting conditions, allow for detailed comparisons to be made. Different lighting conditions such as infra-red and ultraviolet can be used to highlight the presence of mould and can reveal areas of reweaving as some dyestuffs behave differently with changing lighting conditions. Alterations, such as the modification of a set to adapt it to fit a room that it was not originally intended for, can provide indications of changes in the use of the hangings in the past. A set of seven grotesque tapestries woven in Berlin by J. Barraband were presented to Lord Stanhope by Frederick I, King of Prussia, who had them altered by the Soho workshop in the early 1700s to fit the tapestry room at Chevening House where they still hang. Modifications of this type, if undertaken skilfully, are not always immediately obvious. Other types of alterations, including reweaving, cutting and joining and the application of painted patches, all occur for a variety of reasons to do with the nature of the image rather than the condition. This can be illustrated by reference to a sixteenth-century Brussels tapestry of Anthony and Cleopatra in the collection of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths. During the nineteenth century it was no longer felt appropriate that Cleopatra’s bare leg was resting on Caesar’s cloak-covered knee. The flesh coloured weft was removed and the area rewoven with red to match his cloak. However, the red wool used for the reweaving has faded at a different rate to the rest of the cloak, making her leg very visible once again (Finch, 1989). An image can also be altered by applying another over the top, thus forming two layers of cloth, the warps of the overlay only being visible on the reverse. A seventeenth-century Brussels tapestry fragment at Ham House shows a single figure on the reverse whilst two figures can be seen on the front. Documentation should play a very important part in the treatment of any tapestry because it provides an opportunity to examine the object in depth and to analyse its materials, construction and design. The information can be recorded in many ways and the tools for undertaking documentation can be selected to suit the needs of the object, the conservator and the client. Highly significant sets such as the Gideon tapestries at Hardwick require detailed documentation but the ideas behind this approach can be applied to any tapestry and the information collected will build up to provide an increasingly technical analysis of these magnificent objects.

Acknowledgements The Boy Satyr Climbing a Tree (TCC 0769B) was conserved in 1988 – 89 by Caroline Clark, Menaka Kenward and Ann Reynolds. The Road to Peace (TCC 1634) was conserved in 1994 –95 by Maria Hayward, Heather Howie, Klaudia Pontz and Amber Rowe. The Tea Party (TCC 2606.3) was conserved in 2001 by Michelle Harper and Frances Lennard. Mercury and Argos (TCC 1086) was conserved in 1988 – 89 by Kerstin Aronsson, Norma Borg Clyde, Sandra Bottle and Maria Hayward, and The Hunt by Meleager for the Calydonian Boar and Meleager Presenting the Boar’s Head to Atlanta (TCC 0861 a&b) were conserved in 1987– 88 by Dinah Eastop, Frances Lennard, Angelika Reschke, Amber Rowe and Wendy Toulson. The Gideon tapestries were conserved jointly by staff at the National Trust Textile Conservation Studio and the workshop of Danielle Bosworth with assistance from visiting interns.

Endnotes 1.

Rogers, P. W. (2003) Dyes and Fleece types in the Gideon Tapestry, Hardwick Hall. York: Textile Research in Archaeology.

References Bennett, A. G. (1992). Five Centuries of Tapestry: The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Borg Clyde, N. (1992). The ‘Roman de la Rose’ tapestries. In The Art of the Conservator (A. Oddy, ed.) pp. 151– 62, British Museum Press. Bosworth, D. (1997). The conservation of four tapestries from Hardwick Hall. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 142 – 6, Archetype. Campbell, T. (1995 – 6). Tapestry quality in Tudor England: Problems of terminology. Studies in the Decorative Arts, 3, 29 –50. Campbell, T. (1997). The National Trust tapestry collection. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 147–55, Archetype. Finch, K. (1989). Tapestries: Conservation and original design. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries: Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 67–74, The Getty Conservation Institute. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England 1660 –1760. Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, November 1976 (A. Bennett,

The truth will out: the value of tapestry documentation 47 ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Hefford, W. (1991). The Cotehele Tapestries. The National Trust. Kajitani, N. (1993). Conservation of Courtiers in a Rose Garden, a fifteenth-century tapestry series. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth to Nineteenth Century Tapestry, (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 79 –104, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Leach, M. (1997). Blickling Mortlake tapestry – adhesive removal treatment. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 176 – 8, Archetype. Lennard, F. and Eastop, D. (2005/6). Image, object, context: image re-integration in textile conservation. In Image Re-Integration. Proceedings of the 2nd Triennial Conservation Conference at Northumbria University 15–17 September 2003 ( J. Brown, ed.) (in press). Masschelein-Kleiner, L. (1993). Study and treatment of tapestries at the Institut Royal de Patrimoine Artistique.

In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth to Nineteenth Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 71–7, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Muel, F. (1996). Front and Back: Tapestry of the Apocalypse at Angers. Ministère Culture Direction du Patrimone. Salet, F. (1973). Masterpieces of Tapestry from the Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century. Editions des Musée Nationaux. Thompson, F. P. (1980). Tapestry: Mirror of History. David and Charles. Tímár-Balászy, Á. and Eastop, D. (1998). Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann. van Tichelen, I. and Delmarcel, G. (1993). Marks and signatures on ancient Flemish tapestries: a methodological contribution. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth- to Nineteenth-Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 57– 68, National Gallery of Art, Washington.

6 Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation of a fifteenthcentury tapestry altar frontal and super frontal Cordelia Rogerson and Paul Garside

Since the earliest times, metal threads were woven into tapestries to add glinting highlights, texture and a clear demonstration of the opulence of the tapestry to evince the wealth of its owner ( Jobé, 1965). Whilst there are many examples of tapestries which contain metal threads, the tapestry altar frontal and associated super frontal under consideration in this chapter stand out due to the uncommonly large number of different metal thread types that are incorporated into the woven structure (Christie, 1979; Kajitani, 1993; Wingfield-Digby, 1980). When the tapestry panels underwent conservation treatment for display purposes, examination and identification of the many metal threads were undertaken in order to enhance understanding of the creation of the two panels, and the interpretation of their current appearance and arrangement. The artistic effects skilfully created by the metal threads in the panels were fully revealed once the threads had been studied closely. Moreover, the data assisted in evaluating the present condition of the tapestry panels and in formulating an appropriate preservation strategy. Complementary methods of instrumental analysis were used to examine the metal threads and included light and electron microscopy, and elemental analysis. The data presented could not be obtained without the use of scientific techniques and the case study illustrates how instrumental analysis can support and assist the conservation of tapestries; it is an ongoing demonstration of the beneficial collaboration between conservation science and the treatment of artefacts.

The tapestry panels The altar frontal and associated super frontal belong to the Whitworth Art Gallery in Manchester. They date from approximately 1475 to 1499 and are considered to originate from the Cologne region of Germany (Guide to the Whitworth Art Gallery, 1979) (Figure 6.1). The largest panel, the altar frontal, measures approximately 2.06 m in width and is 0.65 m high, with linen warps and wefts of wool, silk and metal thread. The striking and colourful design depicts a tree of Jesse, a popular pictorial theme in medieval times. Jesse, the father of David and the ancestor of the royal and messianic line of Judah, is centrally seated on the lower of two rows of figures, directly above him are the Virgin and child. From Jesse’s loins sprouts a tree whose branches encircle twelve fashionably dressed men, the Kings of Israel representing the genealogy of Jesus. The wool weft forming the background to the design is red, making this the predominant colour of the panel. The super frontal is slightly shorter in width than the altar frontal at 1.99 m (although the side edges have been cut) and forms a narrow strip, as it is only 0.16 m high. Similar to the altar frontal, it has linen warps with wool, silk and metal thread wefts, but it is more finely woven with an average count of 16 warps per 10 mm by comparison with the altar frontal’s 11 warps per 10 mm. In design the super frontal also differs from the altar frontal; the primary feature is a Latin inscription, extending in large 48

Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation 49

Figure 6.1 The altar frontal and super frontal before conservation.

cream letters across the width. A square centrally placed scene depicts the Nativity whilst on the left edge stands St Catherine of Alexandria and on the right edge St Barbara is seen. The wool weft forming the background colour is blue, making this the predominant colour of the panel.

Visual impact of the metal threads The extensive use of metal thread in the panels increases their visual impact. Gold and silver threads create some glinting tree branches and foliage, and numerous large and smaller details on hats and costumes, give the Holy family shining halos and form two types of gold coloured braid that is secured to the edges of the super frontal (no metal braid was present on the altar frontal). Far from being homogenous in appearance, to create an overall shimmering effect the metal threads used in varying areas on the panels differ quite widely in thickness and in the quality of their sheen. Some are very bright, appearing to sparkle; others have a deeper coloured gloss, whilst further areas have a subtle metallic lustre. Initial visual examination of the metal threads identified nine distinct metal threads used in the altar frontal and five in the super frontal, including its surrounding metal thread braids. Each different thread is, however, a metal wrapped thread created by winding a metal strip, or metal coated substrate, around a fibre core.

A brief history of metal threads The practice of using metal threads to ornament textiles dates back several thousand years, possibly as far as the third millennium BC; the first known examples simply consisted of metal filaments woven into the fabric, and by the fifth century BC this technique was used throughout the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean regions ( Járó, 1984; Járó and Tóth, 1991; Braun-Ronsdorf, 1961; Darrah, 1987; Járó et al., 1993; Schreier and Bresee, 1979). At about this time, the practice of winding metal filaments about a fibre core (typically silk) came into use, a method that offers a variety of mechanical and aesthetic advantages as the threads were more flexible and hence manipulated with greater ease, and more varied visual effects could be attained. The metals used were predominantly gold and silver. The next major advances in the technology were made during the medieval period, when the majority of these materials originated in Italy or the Middle East. By the eleventh century, membrane threads began to appear, consisting of metal coated leather, gut or occasionally paper strips spun around a core ( Járó, 1984; Járó and Tóth, 1991). Slightly later still, composite metal threads made an appearance, such as silver gilt, copper gilt and silvered copper. By the late medieval period these had all but replaced pure gold in Europe ( Járó and Tóth, 1991; Járó et al., 1993). The introduction of wire production with dies or drawplates, during the fourteenth and fifteenth

50


centuries, in turn simplified the manufacture of filaments suitable for metal threads; many of these materials bear characteristic longitudinal striations, arising from the drawing and flattening processes ( Járó, 1983; Járó and Tóth, 1991; Braun-Ronsdorf, 1961; Darrah, 1987; Gondár and Járó, 1988). The majority of subsequent advances, before the development of synthetic substrates, involved the introduction of new metallurgical techniques. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries new alloys, production methods and gilding processes were developed, including electroplating, new techniques for the production of wires, and Pinchbeck’s method for the manufacture of brass (ASM Handbook, 1990).

Condition of the tapestry panels and metal threads Considering their age, the panels are in a comparatively sound condition, which suggests infrequent use during their lifetime. There are isolated vulnerable areas where silk weft threads have degraded and the occasional wool area is missing. The colours of the wefts are still strong and the tapestries remain very decorative, but the metal threads have suffered some corrosion, seen as dull grey blisters on the surface. This is most likely the result of silver components reacting with atmospheric sulphur compounds to form silver sulphide. The metal threads exhibit differing degrees of corrosion; a couple have quite severe corrosion whilst others appear to have far less.

The need for analysis and the methods used Initial examination of the metal threads by light microscopy allowed the general type of thread to be determined, as well as the nature of the fibre core, the likely metallic composition of the filament, the presence of corrosion, the dimensions of the various components and the direction of winding of both the filament and the core. Light microscopy alone could not reveal further information (or confirm initial judgements of composition) about the threads and their presence on the panels. Further instrumental analysis of samples was necessary in order to answer some questions relating to the panels, which had arisen during the initial examination procedure. These questions were: what are the metal components of the threads?; can the type and extent of

corrosion products be determined?; to what extent can the metal threads be cleaned?; can the manufacturing methods of the threads be identified and are the metal braids surrounding the super frontal more recent additions? Samples of metal threads from the panels (roughly 3 – 8 mm in length) were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), a technique that allows the elemental composition of a sample to be determined. Electron microscopy allowed a more detailed examination of regions of interest, including areas of corrosion; EDS analysis provided information on the composition of the metal component, and of any corrosion products.

The results The information derived from the various analyses clearly characterised the composition of the threads. The results are detailed in Table 6.1. All but three threads were constructed in the same way from silver or silver gilt strips, S-wound about a silk core. The three exceptions were gilded paper and silvered animal gut, wound around linen cores (threads 1 and 2) and a brass thread from one of the braids surrounding the super frontal (thread 10); these are discussed further below. Understanding the material composition of the threads enhanced comprehension of the type and extent of deterioration of the metal threads, and indicated differences between the threads. The wide variety of gold threads used throughout the tapestry, which appeared to have a superficially similar construction, was confirmed to have different underlying properties. For example, the threads used for the branches of the tree itself are gold in colour, and gilt in construction, but are not identical. This is highlighted by the fact that some of the threads have corroded to a far greater extent than others. Figure 6.2 shows that the branch above and to the left of the figure is extensively blackened with corrosion, whereas the same branch, continuing to the right is unaffected by this discolouration; these are threads 9 and 8, respectively. Except in the case of those gilt threads with a sufficiently thick and continuous gold layer, surface corrosion was evident on most of the samples to a greater or lesser extent. The confirmed presence of silver and copper in the silvered and gilt threads showed that the corrosion products were indeed silver sulphide and (to a lesser extent) copper sulphide,

Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation 51 Table 6.1 Analysis of metal threads from the altar frontal and super frontal (‘w’ and ‘d’ refer to the width and depth of the metal filament; corrosion, where present, was found as silver (and probably copper) sulphide). No.

Metal filament

Threads from the altar frontal 1 S-wound gilded paper Au (100%) w:615 m, d:60 m 2 S-wound silvered gut Au (30%), Ag (70%) w:545 m, d:80 m 3 S-wound silver Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:90 m, d:35 m 4 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (95%), Cu (5%) w:155 m, d:20 m 5 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (95%), Cu (5%) w:170 m, d:25 m 6 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (95%), Cu (5%) w:170 m, d:15 m 7 S-wound silver Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:185 m, d:20 m 8 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:110 m, d:15 m 9 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:160 m, d:10 m Threads from the super frontal 10 S-wound brass Cu (85%), Zn (15%) w:245 m, d:35 m 11 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (97.5%), Cu (2.5%) w:185 m, d:15 m 12 S-wound silver Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:160 m, d:25 m 13 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (85%), Cu (15%) w:155 m, d:25 m 14 S-wound silver gilt* Ag (90%), Cu (10%) w:170 m, d:30 m

Fibre core

Notes

white linen low twist

The gilt is cracked, but otherwise relatively intact; the apparently granular surface may indicate powder gilding.


The metal is heavily corroded; the apparently granular surface may indicate powder gilding.

white silk Z twist

The metal is corroded; the Ag/Cu proportion is quite variable throughout the sample.

yellow silk low twist

The metal is heavily corroded; the strip edges are very rough.

dark yellow silk low twist yellow silk N/A

The gilt has flaked off in places, and the underlying metal is corroded; corrosion does not break through undamaged gilt. There is a low level of corrosion; longitudinal striations are apparent.

white silk Z twist

The metal is corroded; the Ag/Cu proportion is quite variable throughout the sample.

yellow/cream silk low twist yellow silk low twist

The gilt is largely intact; longitudinal striations are apparent.


The alloy is present only at the surface, with pure copper beneath; longitudinal striations are apparent.

yellow silk Z twist

The metal is highly corroded; only fragments of the overlying gilt remains.

white silk Z twist

There is a low level of corrosion.

dark yellow/ orange silk Z twist dark yellow/ orange silk Z twist

The gilt is largely intact, with no obvious corrosion; longitudinal striations are apparent.

The metal is heavily corroded, with corrosion bubbles breaking through the gilt.

The gilt is largely intact, with no obvious corrosion.

* For these gilded silver threads, the metal proportions refer to the underlying, predominantly silver, substrate, and do not include the overlying gold layer.

52


Figure 6.2 Detail from the altar frontal, highlighting the change in appearance due to different corrosion patterns – and hence different construction methods – of the metal threads used in the branch above the figure’s head.

as had been initially speculated. In the case of the gilt threads, corrosion in several samples was observed breaking through the upper gilt layer, particularly where this layer was thin, or had suffered mechanical damage. This is particularly obvious in the case of thread 9. In cases of severe corrosion, such as thread 3, where a thick, continuous corrosion layer was observed, the complete layer was found to flake away in places, revealing the metal surface beneath. Similarly, in the case of thread 5, a gilt thread (Figure 6.3), the gilding was entirely detached from the substrate in places. Despite these few degraded threads, analysis revealed the overall level of corrosion of the threads

was relatively low; the corrosion layers were found to be superficial, and did not appear to have compromised the structure of the threads themselves. Only in the case of thread 9 was a significant proportion of the gold layer lost from the gilt threads. Although the metal layers present on both of the membrane threads exhibited some fracturing, they also appeared to be largely intact. The state of the organic components of the threads, namely the fibre cores and the membrane substrates, was readily assessed by microscopic examination. In historic textiles these components are often heavily degraded (and consequently difficult to handle), and their deterioration may in turn

Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation 53 Undamaged gilt surface

10 m

‘Blistered’ corrosion surface

10 m

200 m

Figure 6.3 Light micrograph of a silver gilt thread (thread 5), demonstrating the loss of the gilding layer from the silver substrate; inset electron micrographs highlight the difference between the surfaces of the gold and the corroded silver.

damage the metal component. Such degradation was evident with the silvered gut seen in thread 2, where the metal coating has began to buckle and flake along the grain of the underlying material. Similarly, the flexible nature of the paper used in thread 1 has led to the cracking of the gilt layer, rendering it very fragile. Identifying the component parts and examining the levels of corrosion of the metal threads assisted in developing the cleaning strategy of the panels and consequently no attempt was made to clean the metal threads on the panels. Removing corrosion from metal threads is rarely undertaken due to the risks of injuring the metal layer (Hacke et al., 2003). In the case of the more corroded threads on the panels, as well as the delicate gilded membrane and paper substrates, this certainly was a danger (Kite, 1992). Moreover, despite some of the metal foil threads having only a superficial layer of corrosion

and remaining in a structurally sound condition, reasonable access to the surface of the metal for cleaning was difficult in the tightly woven structure, and partial cleaning and damage to the metal was a probable and unacceptable outcome. Furthermore, the detection of membrane and paper components of the metal threads determined that cleaning the panels with water was inappropriate now or in the future. Wet cleaning any metal thread is complex, particularly wrapped metal threads where the fibre core may swell and split the metal strip, but gilded membrane is particularly vulnerable to water because it might also expand and risk losing metal from its surface. Accordingly, surface cleaning only was undertaken in the stronger wool and silk weft areas of the panels, but even during this procedure the more vulnerable and corroded metal thread areas, such as threads 3 and 9, were avoided to prevent damage.

54


The analysis of the metal threads did not just assist the actions of the conservator but shed some light on the physical activities of those who made the threads. A number of morphological clues, evident in the course of the analysis undertaken, gave some indication of the methods of working employed in the construction of the threads. Metal strips rolled from wires typically possess rounded, rather than sharp sides and in addition the surfaces may exhibit characteristic longitudinal striations from the drawing plate or the rollers (Gondár and Járó, 1988). Such striations were visible on threads 6, 8 and 13 when they were viewed with a scanning electron microscope, suggesting they were made from drawn wire. But gilt threads rolled from wires will typically be gilded on both surfaces because a silver rod will be gold coated and then hammered flat. The strips on the threads with striations were only gilded on one side however, when viewed in cross-section, which leaves their exact method of manufacture elusive. Determining the manufacturing method of threads 4 and 5, however, was more conclusive. The metal strips were most likely cut from metal foil because, when viewed under an SEM, nicks, burrs and ragged edges were observed on the gilded strips, which are characteristic of cut metal sheet. The strips from threads 4 and 5 are also gilded on one side only, as would be expected from a gilded foil, which further supports the suggested mode of manufacture. When the homogeneity of the alloys was assessed, the analysis revealed contextual data about the fabrication of the silver metal foils. Homogenous or heterogeneous arrangements in metal alloys may be revealed by either back-scattered electron images or EDS and threads 3 and 7, both silver threads constructed from silver and copper alloy, exhibited very variable proportions of the two metals along their length. Far from revealing poor workmanship during the manufacture of the metal threads, however, given the technical capabilities of the fifteenth century, for example in the mixing of metals, such heterogeneity of alloys is neither surprising nor unexpected. When the metals were originally mixed and cast into ingots, prior to being hammered into foils, the two metals of different weight would naturally want to separate. Once hammered into foil and cut, any patchy areas within the metal block would be elongated and randomly placed, as was revealed by analysis of the two threads.1 The uniformity (and adhesion) of the gilt layer on the gold threads was judged by the nature of the corrosion observed. Filaments on which the gold layer is not uniform in thickness, or which exhibit

areas in which the gold is poorly adhered to the substrate, are likely to preferentially degrade in these vulnerable regions. Thread 5, a silver gilt foil, displays such non-uniform corrosion; in areas the gilt layer is in very good condition whilst in other regions the gilt has flaked away to reveal underlying corrosion. Similar to the silver foils discussed above, irregularities and defects in the gilt layer are not extraordinary but show shortcomings in working methods of that period and help explain patterns of corrosion evident today. Both the silver and the silver gilt strips, therefore, exhibit characteristic traits of metal working consistent with their accepted date of manufacture. In addition, the evidence of manufacturing methods uncovered by analysis indicates that the metal threads woven into the tapestry panels largely correspond with the believed manufacturing methods of metal threads at the time the panels were woven. Identifying and recognising the range of metal threads present on the panels points to the wide variety of threads the weavers could choose from when the panels were created, and offers an insight into the weavers’ selection and use of metal threads. The tapestry weavers seemingly did not only have access to metal wrapped strips with subtle differences in colour and thickness, but also metal threads of very different types, such as threads with paper and membrane substrates. Whereas the use of a membrane substrate for a gilded metal thread is cited as a cheaper method of manufacture than a silver gilt strip, because less precious metal is needed, in these panels the question of keeping costs low is not apparent (Braun-Ronsdorf, 1961). The use of such large quantities of metal thread denotes a very expensively produced textile, but the employment of cheaper membrane threads within areas of the design was more likely for artistic merit, to add interest, rather than to reduce the expense. Over the surface of both panels metal threads of different aesthetic qualities are used much as differing shades of wool are combined to create details and shading in tapestries. For example, the crown and halo of the Virgin on the altar frontal are created from similar gilt threads, with slight differences in colour and dimension, to give a textured and shaded effect (Figure 6.4). The panels are not merely woven textiles but woven works of art; the subtleties and refinements of the weavers’ techniques were revealed through detailed examination of the metal threads. Whilst the study of the metal threads allows better comprehension of the decorative design of the panels, the gold coloured braids embellishing the super

Instrumental analysis of metal threads as an aid for interpretation and preservation 55

Figure 6.4 Detail of the Virgin Mary illustrating how two subtly different gilt threads are used to create texture and detail in the crown and halo.

frontal were proven to be later additions to the weavers’ original scheme. Thread 10, a gold coloured wrapped metal thread taken from one of the braids, was exposed as brass rather than gold, the only one of its kind on the panels. Furthermore, the distinctive gold colour of the brass has abraded in places revealing copper beneath, suggesting it was manufactured by Pinchbeck’s method, whereby copper wire is exposed to zinc vapour, forming an alloy at the surface. Pinchbeck’s method originates from the eighteenth century, substantially later than the super frontal’s attributed date of late fifteenth century, and indicates that the braid is not original to the tapestry. Through a study of the arrangement of the two

braids and their alignment with the more recently cut edges (rather than the original edges of the panel), the second braid on the super frontal is also considered a later addition. The analysis of the threads revealed the original appearance of the panels and enabled a clearer interpretation of their current manifestation.

Conclusion The tapestry panels make a striking impact and, with the use of fourteen different metal threads within them, their appearance is rich and ornate.

56


The presence of metal threads within the tapestries cannot be ignored from a visual or a preservation point of view. Results from the analysis of the threads (see Table 6.1) most significantly identified the component materials within them, and the extent of deterioration, so that appropriate treatment strategies could be developed and inappropriate ones avoided. In addition, interpretation of the panels was enhanced by contextual details and the detection of later components revealed through the research. For these reasons, the analysis undertaken was not merely considered an addition to the process of conservation, but an integrated element for the comprehension of these exceptional artefacts.

Acknowledgements The altar frontal and super frontal were conserved in 1998 –99 by Cordelia Rogerson, with the metal analysis carried out by Paul Garside (TCC 2012). The authors would like to thank Jennifer Harris, Deputy Director, Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester for permission to publish.

Endnotes 1.

Personal communication with Professor J. Rogerson, Emeritus Professor in Material Science, formerly School of Industrial Science, Cranfield University, UK, 24 September 2004.

References ASM Handbook (1990). Volume 2: Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special Purpose Materials. ASM International. Braun-Ronsdorf, M. (1961). Gold and Silver Fabrics from Medieval to Modern Times. Ciba Geigy Review, 3, 2 –16.

Christie, G. (1979). Embroidery and Tapestry Weaving. Pitman, 4th edition. Darrah, J. A. (1987). Metal Threads and Filaments. Proceedings of the Jubilee Conservation Conference, 211–21. Gondár, E. and Járó, M. (1988). Examination of Manufacturing Methods of Metal Threads in Museum Textiles. EUREM 88, 2, 367– 8. Guide to the Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester (1979). Whitworth Art Gallery. Hacke, M., Carr, C., Brown, A. and Howell, D. (2003). Investigation into the nature of metal threads in a Renaissance tapestry and the cleaning of tarnished silver by UV/Ozone (UVO) treatment. Journal of Materials Science, 38, 3307–14. Járó, M. (1984). Technological and analytical examination of metal threads. 4th International Restorer Seminar, Veszprem, 1983, 2, 253 – 64. Járó, M. and Tóth, A. (1991). Scientific identification of European metal thread manufacturing techniques of the 17–19th centuries. Endeavour (New Series), 15.4, 175 – 84. Járó, M., Gondár, E. and Tóth, A. (1993). Technical revolutions in producing gold threads used for European textile decoration. Antiquités Nationales, Mémoires 2, 119 –24. Jobé, J. (1965). The Art of Tapestry. Thames and Hudson. Kajitani, N. (1993). Conservation of Courtiers in a Rose Garden: a fifteenth century tapestry series. In Conservation Research Studies of Fifteenth- to Nineteenth-Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 79 –104, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Kite, M. (1992). Gut, membrane, parchment and gelatine incorporated into textile objects. The Paper Conservator, 16, 98 –105. Properties of precious metals. (1990). ASM Handbook Vol 2: Properties and Selection: Non Ferrous, Alloys & Special Purpose Materials. ASM International, 699 –707. Schreier, B. A. and Bresee, R. R. (1979). History of decorative metal yarns. Book of Papers of the 1979 National Technical Conference, 137– 40. Wingfield Digby, G. F. (1980). Victoria and Albert Museum – The Tapestry Collection Medieval and Renaissance. HMSO.

Part Three Cleaning


7 Comments on tapestry wet cleaning David Howell

Because of the pictorial nature of tapestry there is a long history of washing in order that the image can still be seen clearly. Wet cleaning of textiles is so often treated as a trivial operation because of familiarity with domestic laundry, whereas immersing old fragile textiles in water must constitute one of the major risks in textile conservation. It is difficult to balance the conservator’s obsession with controlling relative humidity in the display environment to an extremely narrow band, with immersion in water and subsequent drying which must result in much higher chemical and physical risk. Many of these issues are discussed in the excellent review article Wet cleaning of historical textiles: surfactants and other wash bath additives by the late Ágnes Tímár-Balázsy (2000). With over 200 references to a diversity of articles on ethics, chemistry and practice, this review is both an excellent introduction and ideal starting point for more in-depth study. In this chapter, the main special characteristics of tapestry wet cleaning are discussed. These can be summarised as materials, size, types of soiling and past repairs.

Materials Most historic tapestries are made of wool, silk or a combination of the two. These two natural fibres, both protein, are chemically quite similar, but both physically and mechanically dissimilar. Silk is a long, thin smooth surfaced fibre with little capacity to stretch, whereas wool is generally thicker, has surface scales and is the most extensible natural fibre. Because of the chemical similarity, it is generally easy to choose a washing solution that is neutral or slightly

acid which should not cause chemical attrition during the cleaning process. The ideal surfactant for tapestry wet cleaning is very much under current discussion with the phasing out of some products on environmental grounds. This phasing out seems to be taking place over quite a long period and many people continue to use the popular nonylphenol ethoxylate sold as Synperonic N while it is still available. It can easily be argued that textile conservation is such a low user of these chemicals, and in such dilute solutions, that the environmental impact is insignificant. The difference in physical properties can give problems in appearance and dimensional change after washing. Where a tapestry with a large wool content has been stretched for a long period while on display (that is, fixed under some tension to fit a frame or space), then, when it is immersed in water, it will tend to shrink back to its original dimensions. This can appear to be damaged, but is in fact just a natural phenomenon due to the history of the object. This can be avoided by restraining the object so that it cannot relax back to its smaller dimensions. Another effect that can occur with a silk weft on a woollen warp is often called ‘cockling’. This is where the smooth surface of the tapestry is disrupted by the formation of a regular pattern of indentation or cups. The exact mechanism for this is not fully understood and is worthy of further study. Current thinking suggests that this deformation is due to stresses in the woollen ends set up during the weaving process being relaxed during immersion in water, or perhaps shrinkage of the woollen fibres due to prolonged immersion or inappropriate temperature. Shrinkage in wool is possible due to the interlocking of the surface scales, which can then fix 59

60

Cleaning

Figure 7.1 The wet cleaning facility at the Textile Conservation Studio, Hampton Court Palace. The tapestry being cleaned is Alexander’s Visit to Diogenes in his Tub from the History of Alexander the Great series, described in Chapter 4.

the position of the fibres during swelling due to immersion; this is then not reversed during drying.

Size Many tapestries are enormous, many as large as 12 m2. Although tapestries were always considered heavy objects, it was only during the 1980s that knowing the mass of a tapestry was considered to be important. A small wool or wool and silk tapestry could weigh as little as 10 –20 kg, whereas a large tapestry with a large quantity of metal thread could

weigh as much as 100 kg. Although these weights are quite high, one can still expect a tapestry to hang safely under its own weight unless very highly degraded, (although recent data from MODHT, introduced in Chapter 30, suggest that many more tapestries are in a much weaker state than formerly thought). While tapestries may be safe in dry conditions, of course the mass of water adsorbed on immersion can increase the overall mass by a factor of seven or eight. This extra mass increases the risk from handling by a similar factor and many modern cleaning apparatus are designed so that the textile lies flat throughout the wet cleaning process (Figure 7.1).

Comments on tapestry wet cleaning 61

The importance of this cannot be over emphasised and it is disappointing that some tapestries are still cleaned by cheaper methods and are excessively handled, as this must reduce the life of the objects, or increase the need for remedial conservation.

Type of soiling Because of the nature of tapestry, the soiling is likely to be of a different type to other textiles, such as costume. While a costume may have a number of soils from human contact, a tapestry, which is designed to hang inertly on a wall without much human contact, is mainly subject to air-borne particulates and pollutant gases. An important indicator for deciding to wet clean is the acidity of the object and in terms of conservation this can be considered more important than aesthetic considerations. As there are fewer problems with fatty deposits, the surfactant does not have to be chosen to remove these, except in unusual circumstances. What is important is that the surfactant effectively wets the object to help release tightly bound particles, and that the water is present in sufficient quantities to remove the accumulation of pollutant gases, in particular sulphur containing gases which can accelerate degradation.

Past repairs As with all textile conservation wet cleaning processes, one of the main concerns is dye-bleeding. The worry is that a dye will either be completely soluble and the design will be lost, or more likely that a dye will be slightly soluble and will run into another area thus disfiguring the image. Careful testing is always carried out and in most cases the

bleeding dyes are found to be later additions. This then makes it possible to remove the problem completely before the wet cleaning. Another potential danger is if the tapestry has been repaired in the past using patches. These are often cellulosic in nature and as such may shrink, causing tension and potential damage to the tapestry itself. Caution suggests that the removal of these patches is best practice, although in some occasions tapestries have been washed with patches in place and no damage has occurred. It should be noted that the forces involved in shrinkage are far in excess of any gentle method of constraint that may be applied to a tapestry.

Conclusion Washing a tapestry is a major undertaking and should only be carried out by experienced personnel using the best equipment available. Considering the relative risk of the operation and the relatively short period of time a wet clean takes compared to the full conservation of a tapestry, it is worth paying for access to the best facilities. It is important that water used is at room temperature to ensure that the cleaning is as effective as possible and so that the positive effects last as long as possible. Wet cleaning still remains an extremely valuable tool in reducing acidity in textiles, although further research on balancing the positive and negative effects would be extremely useful.

Reference Tímár Balázsy, Á. (2000). Wet cleaning of historical textiles: surfactants and other wash bath additives. Reviews in Conservation, 1, 46 – 64.

8 A brief history of tapestry wet cleaning systems at the Victoria and Albert Museum Frances Hartog and Albertina Cogram

Introduction The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) was established in the mid nineteenth century to encourage, in the words of the authorities, ‘the improvement of public taste in design’ and ‘the application of fine art to objects of utility’. It has developed into Britain’s national museum of art and design, with a particularly rich collection of textiles amongst which are approximately 350 tapestries spanning the fifteenth to twenty-first centuries. Tapestries undergoing full conservation are usually wet cleaned as part of their treatment. Their size can make this a daunting undertaking especially if space is restricted. A great deal of thought and planning is required to ensure the safety of the object, particularly in its wet state when it is vulnerable and unwieldy. The aim is to achieve the maximum effectiveness of cleaning whilst avoiding possible damage. The wet cleaning process has radically altered over the decades at the V&A. From before the inception of the Conservation Department in the early 1960s to the time of writing, it has evolved from the use of troughs, to an ingenious apparatus called ‘the drum’, to the use of a wash floor and on to the present – outsourcing to a specialist installation in Belgium.

The troughs History does not relate exactly when the troughs were installed in the Still Room of the Museum, but they were certainly in use at the beginning of the 1950s. There were two tiled troughs measuring 6.1 m long, between them was a wide, low, tiled wall. The method of use involved filling both troughs with

distilled water from the large still in the room. The dirty tapestry would be folded in concertinas and placed in one of the troughs. The lead end was pulled out onto the tiled space between the troughs and the exposed area sponged. It is not known whether a detergent was used. The whole tapestry would be worked over in this manner feeding the ‘cleaned’ tapestry into the second trough. When sponging was complete, the tapestry was hauled out of the second trough and hung over a hoist, where it was hosed down with tap water to rinse it, there being no purified water left in the still. The tapestry remained hanging over the hoist until dry. Though this addressed the problem of washing an oversized object in a limited space, the usage was crude and its shortcomings are obvious. When the Conservation Department was established in 1962 the system was modified (Pow, 1970). The modified version used only one trough into which the dirty, rolled tapestry was placed. A second roller sat on a tabletop at a higher level ready to receive the washed tapestry. A board of an appropriate width, covered in polythene, was suspended at an angle between the edge of the trough and a support bracket on the table. Above the upper end of the board was a long sprinkler bar through which deionised water was dispensed, running down over the tapestry as it lay on the boards. The boards provided a ‘treatment’ surface for sponging with detergent and a support for the wet tapestry. The detergent used at this time was the non-ionic Lissapol N, the precursor of Synperonic N, a nonylphenol ethoxylate which became ubiquitous in the UK during the 1980s and 1990s. As washing progressed, the dirty end of the tapestry would be unrolled from the trough and the cleaned part wound onto the roller on 62

A brief history of tapestry wet cleaning systems at the Victoria and Albert Museum 63

the tabletop; this was repeated as necessary. The same process was used for rinsing. It appears that this worked relatively well though it sounds a little precarious. With this method the tapestry was not soaked in a bath or trough of water. It was necessary to repeatedly roll and reroll the wet tapestry. Presumably, as the dirty water ran down the boards it was soaked up by the part of the tapestry awaiting cleaning or rinsing. Competent rinsing would have been difficult to attain. Reaching into the centre of the tapestry to sponge must also have been awkward; this is supported by Pow’s comment on a new apparatus that was to be designed ‘which will take all the bending and stretching out of this job’. There was still the problem of drying a large tapestry; there was not enough space available to lay it out flat so the hoist had to be employed. The two warp ends of the tapestry were rolled onto rollers whilst the centre was hung over the bar of the hoist. The hoist was raised very slowly allowing the water to drain away in an attempt to reduce the drag of the wet textile. Eventually the bar was raised high enough for the warp ends to be unrolled and laid flat on a tabletop; the tapestry was then left semi-suspended to dry. Still less than ideal, it was a definite improvement on the previous method despite having to utilise the same space and equipment.

The drum Figure 8.1 The drum.

The new apparatus referred to above was the drum, designed by Ernest Beecher, Senior Experimental Officer at the V&A. It was manufactured at Mintech’s Royal Ordnance Factory in Berkshire. For its time, the drum was considered innovative, mechanised and generally ‘cutting edge’. It was installed at the beginning of the 1970s, in the area that had been occupied by the old Still Room. Again, it sought to address the problem of washing oversized textiles in a limited space, including tapestries, quilts, embroideries and carpets. It consisted of a large cylinder, measuring 4.4 m long with a circumference of 6.7 m. This was suspended over a new tiled trough which was sunk into the floor (Marko et al., 1981; Landi, 1985). Originally it was thought this trough could be filled with water and the cylinder spun through it. In practice it was never used like that, the trough was merely a catchment for the run-off. The cylinder was covered with a laminated metal grid allowing water and air to pass through. Water was dispensed from two pipes suspended above the cylinder and connected to soft and deionised water sources (Figure 8.1). The pipes

were perforated at intervals with nozzles through which the water flowed. This was supplemented by a hosepipe with spray attachment housed close by. The cylinder was motor driven and could be set to rotate continuously or centimetre by centimetre. For smaller tapestries which did not extend around the circumference, it could be rocked back and forth rather than totally rotated, giving full support during the washing process. It also contained a warm air dryer, however this was only used when drying thick carpets. The tapestry was attached by means of two canvas aprons. Each warp end of the tapestry was sewn to an apron. The other edge of the aprons had metal eyelets through which a nylon rope was threaded, this edge was then either ‘clipped’ to the drum using ‘snap hooks’ or lashed with the rope. This allowed the tapestry to be turned over during washing; the tapestry would be detached from the cylinder and rolled off onto a reinforced plastic roller which was then turned around. The tapestry was rolled back on to the drum with the opposite surface uppermost.

64

Cleaning

During washing the tapestry would be wetted out using the pipes and hose whilst the drum was gently rotated. Rotating the drum as and when necessary, the whole surface could then be sponged with detergent. The process was repeated as many times as was considered necessary before rinsing. Sometimes the washing was carried out over two days (not necessarily consecutive), one side of the tapestry being treated at a time. At the end of the treatment the tapestry was blotted and left on the cylinder to dry. Amongst the tapestries cleaned using this system were: a set of three Conterini landscapes, seventeenth century Flemish (Museum Nos.: 129,130,130A–1869); Diogenes Washing Herbs, late seventeenth century English (Museum No.: T.53 –1981); and Triumph of Eternity Over Time early sixteenth century Flemish (Museum No.: T.148 –1959, on display in gallery 94). Though the system was satisfactory there were some drawbacks. Early on it was discovered that areas sitting directly on the metal mesh were cleaner than those sitting over holes in the mesh. This was thought to be caused by the slightly longer period the water and detergent were held in these areas, allowing time for the fibres to swell and the soil to release. It was also noted that the suction action of sponging against a solid surface was more effective than the use of a sponge over a void, as over the holes in the mesh. Covering the drum with polythene sheeting alleviated both problems. However, it was an indication of the benefits of being able to soak a tapestry repeatedly during this type of manual washing. Other problems included the inability to utilise the space occupied by the drum for anything else. There was also the issue of ‘bagging’. Inevitably when large tapestries were sodden they would begin to stretch causing them to bag out, away from the bottom of the cylinder – this must have put substantial strain on the weave structure. It is not possible to assess how effective this form of washing was compared to a flat wash bath where the tapestry can be immersed in depths of water during washing and rinsing, a process that is known to considerably increase the efficiency of both. This method also did not negate the need to roll the tapestry whilst wet in order to turn it, an action that can cause loss of weft, particularly to weak silk areas where the crown of the weft threads is broken.

The wash floor In 1995, several sections of the Conservation Department were rehoused in purpose-built studios, amongst them Textile Conservation. Previously the section

had been split into three locations: two studios were on the V&A site – general textiles, and carpets and tapestries (the drum was housed in the latter); the third was located at Osterley Park. In the redevelopment the studios were integrated into one. The new space needed to be as flexible as possible; there was no room for the now outdated drum. It was decided to have a wash floor incorporated into the studio, a large tiled space with integral drainage (Figure 8.2). Using polythene sheeting and plastic rollers, a temporary bath could be made up on the floor when required and large textiles could be washed whilst lying out flat. A lightweight mobile gantry was commissioned with a span of 4.3 m from which sponging could be carried out. It was made from powder coated aluminium, making it sturdy but relatively light, with lockable castors. It was fitted with two spray bars, each with 15 nozzles (Haldane, 1999). The nozzles were adjustable and could be turned off independently if the bath was narrower than the width of the gantry. The gantry’s great advantage was that it limited the number of times a wet tapestry needed to be rolled. When washing a large tapestry flat in a wash bath without a gantry, the only way to access the centre for sponging is to roll it up as treatment progresses. However, using the gantry it was still necessary to roll the tapestry – in order to turn it during washing and rinsing, and also at the end of the wash before laying it out to dry on palettes. The only tapestry washed on the floor has been a seventeenth-century Mortlake from Ham House (Museum No.: HH 522 1948). Using this method a large tapestry is better supported throughout the wash. The cleaning efficiency should be an improvement on the drum because of the ability to soak a tapestry during washing and rinsing. Soaking provides the time required for the water and surfactant solution to penetrate the weave and for the removal of soiling from the fibres as the detergent swells, rolls or breaks it up (Tímár-Balázsy and Eastop, 1998). A depth of water allows for the displaced impurities to be held in solution. The length of time for effective cleaning is dependent on the density of the tapestry, the tightness of the weave and spin of the yarns, and the type of soiling present. Tapestries are rarely wet cleaned and therefore the level of soiling is usually high, requiring several detergent baths with mechanical action. During rinsing, experience has shown that a textile that has had a prolonged running water rinse and is apparently detergent free will, when left to soak for several minutes in a depth of clean water, release further detergent. Presumably these intermittent soaks provide time for the water to


Figure 8.2 The wash floor in the textile conservation studio.

penetrate the fibres and a depth into which the residual detergent can move. As stated, this method did not entirely avoid the need to roll the tapestry in its vulnerable wet state, causing it considerable physical stress and the possibility of loss of weft threads. The tapestry is not ‘held down’ during sponging and inevitably there is some movement which can easily dislodge damaged weft. It is a lengthy process taking on average eight to ten hours for the wash and a further 12 to 24 hours to dry. Any fugitive dyes in the tapestry or repairs have plenty of time to migrate into neighbouring yarns. Washing in a depth of water risks redeposition of soiling as dirt particles are released into the bath. The complete immersion of the tapestry for lengthy periods, though very successful at soil removal, causes the swelling and realignment of the fibres which can result in dimensional change.

Specialist installation in Belgium In 2004, a five-year programme began for the complete refurbishment of the Medieval and Renaissance

Galleries in the Museum. One of the objects chosen for display in the new galleries was a tapestry from the The War of Troy series woven in Tournai 1475 –90 (Museum No.: 6 –1887) and measuring 4.13 m by 6.80 m (Figure 8.3). The fragile condition and multiple patching of the tapestry, and recent developments in wet cleaning, led conservators at the V&A to re-evaluate past methods and to look elsewhere for solutions. The alternative system that most interested conservators in the department was that operated by the De Wit Royal Manufacturers in Mechelen, Belgium (Hartog, 2004). Their system, which uses a combination of aerosol mist and vacuum suction, has considerable advantages over those described above. The aerosol/suction combination creates a very even and intense cleaning system with the great benefit of the entire tapestry being treated simultaneously. Only a low concentration of detergent is required; the tapestry is treated with a mist that is constantly pulled through the weave. As there is no depth of water there is no need to work above the critical micelle concentration. The continuous flow through the tapestry means dirt is loosened from the fibres and immediately drawn away, avoiding the

66

Cleaning

Figure 8.3 Detail showing the right-hand side of the tapestry from the War of Troy series (Museum No.: 6 –1887) before conservation.

danger of redeposition. Using a smaller amount of detergent results in a shorter rinse cycle. It is not necessary to turn the tapestry during washing or drying, therefore no physical damage from manoeuvring a wet textile can occur. The process appears to avoid dimensional changes, such as shrinkage, associated with other methods, presumably as a consequence of minimal wetting coupled with the constraint

imposed on the object by the suction and the relative speed of the treatment. The advantages of soaking a tapestry to increase soil removal appear to be equalled in efficacy by the use of constant suction. Sponging is only required in cases of heavy soiling but because the object is held down by the vacuum during this process there is no movement and therefore minimal danger of loss of fragile weft.


During drying there is also continuous suction. Firstly, the tapestry is blotted then left uncovered with the vacuum on. Filtered warm air is circulated through the tapestry to speed the drying process. The swiftness of the operation and the continuous suction lessen the danger of fugitive dyes migrating. The whole process including drying takes approximately eight hours. The procedure is constantly and comprehensively monitored throughout, giving information to the operator on levels of pH, conductivity, vacuum pressure, etc. making it a very responsive system to operate.

least stressful to the object. It provides comprehensive and continuous support throughout the process and most importantly, in the attainment of greater safety for the object, it does not appear to compromise the efficiency of the cleaning and rinsing processes.

Conclusion

References

It can be seen, by reviewing the methods used, how each system was suited to the time of its operation and the constraints of space and budget. Each system was an advance on the one before and demonstrates an improved understanding of the mechanisms of wet cleaning. The manual systems all relied on the mechanical action of sponging to move the water, detergent and soil through the fibres, which though effective, undoubtedly resulted in fibre loss. They also required the tapestries to be thoroughly wetted out, leaving them vulnerable to damage when rolled, and to the risks of fugitive dyes and dimensional change. The approach offered by De Wit would seem to be the

Haldane, E-A. (1999). So that’s why Textile Conservation has such a big studio!, V&A Conservation Journal, 32, 17–20. Hartog, F. (2004). An away day to Belgium – washing tapestries, V&A Conservation Journal, 48, 6 –7. Landi, S. (1985). The Textile Conservator’s Manual. Butterworth-Heinemann. Marko, K., Blyth, V. and Kendall, J. (1981). Three methods of handling and washing large tapestry hangings. The Conservator, 5, 1– 8. Pow, C. V. (1970). The conservation of tapestries for museum display. Studies in Conservation, 15.2, 134 –53. Tímár-Balázsy, A. and Eastop, D. (1998). Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Sheila Landi and Karen Finch for delving into their distant memories to assist in the writing of this chapter.

9 Chevalier Conservation: past and present developments in the cleaning of tapestries Susanne Cussell

The past The restoration/conservation studios of Chevalier Conservation date back to 1917. The principal activities of this family concern were the cleaning of rugs, carpets and tapestries, and their repair and restoration. The methods of washing and cleaning at that time were far removed from those advocated for such textiles nowadays (Fiette, 1997). Beating carpets and tapestries removed dust and particulate soiling. Vigorous brushing, the use of tap water and ‘savon de Marseille’ were the wet cleaning techniques. Little attention was paid to the drying of the tapestries and carpets. These monumental textiles were often draped over trestles or laid on cement floors until they were considered to be dry. The management of the company was passed from father to son to the grandchildren: Pierre and Dominique Chevalier took over the company in the 1960s. Changes and improvements were made, but it was not until the beginning of the 1980s that significant changes were introduced, both in the handling and cleaning of these textiles and also in restoration/conservation techniques (see Chapter 20). The international seminar on tapestry conservation/restoration held at the Institut Français de Restauration des Oeuvres d’Art (IFROA) in 19841 was crucial to the development of wet cleaning and restoration/conservation techniques in France in general and for the Chevalier studios in particular (Masschelein-Kleiner, 1984). In 1987, following three years of research in collaboration with European curators, tapestry conservators and textile scientists, Chevalier Conservation opened its first wet cleaning facility.

This chapter describes how this revolutionary cleaning equipment operated, its advantages and disadvantages and how they inspired the evolution of the present textile and tapestry cleaning installations at Chevalier Conservation.

The first cleaning laboratory There were four main objectives of the cleaning apparatus: to limit handling of a tapestry before, during and after wet cleaning to a minimum; to develop a cleaning treatment where the quality of the solvent and surfactants used were adapted to the cleaning of aged and fragile fibres; to analyse the water and the behaviour of the textile fibres during the wet cleaning process; and to improve and accelerate the drying of tapestries in comparison with previous methods (Masschelein-Kleiner, 1972). After surface cleaning by vacuum suction the tapestry was rolled out onto a polyester mesh screen tensioned to a metal frame that measured 6.6 m by 5 m. This frame could be raised, lowered and moved horizontally by means of a hydraulic pulley system. It was positioned over a polyester resin washing tank. The distance between the frame and the bottom of the tank was approximately 100 mm. A ramp equipped with nozzles passed over the tapestry initially to wet it out; up to twenty passages of the ramp were necessary to complete this operation. Softened and deionised water were used in the cleaning treatments but it was often the case that deionised water was reserved for the rinsing process. Once it was considered that the wetting of the tapestry was sufficient the non-ionic surfactant was 68

Chevalier Conservation: past and present developments in the cleaning of tapestries 69

introduced into the water via a pump, assuring its correct dosage. The number of passages of the ramp depended on the thickness and density of the weave, the extent of the soiling and in some cases the condition of the tapestry. Manual mechanical action with sponges in specific areas could be undertaken at any time from the ramp. The tapestry was left for approximately 30 minutes to one hour before rinsing. Samples of the water were taken manually at all stages of the treatment and were used to test the pH of the water. Samples were also checked, visually not analytically, for the presence of dye-bleeding and the presence of soiling. The length of the rinsing process was determined by pH tests and visual analysis of the water. Following rinsing the tapestry was left while the excess water dripped from the object. Large lengths and widths of terry towelling were then laid over the tapestry to assist in absorbing the excess moisture. The tapestry, still on its frame, was raised above the washing tank and the dehumidifiers present in the laboratory were turned on. The original conception of the cleaning apparatus included an accelerated drying chamber that functioned by circulating air heated to 32°C within the chamber. This part of the cleaning equipment rapidly became obsolete as certain tapestries, notably those with a significant quantity of silk weft, were dry to the touch, and in some cases ‘buckling’ of the weave occurred (Delcroix, 1984). The advantages of this revolutionary cleaning equipment were obvious and numerous when compared to the methods of wet cleaning tapestries used in other European countries and in North America at the time. However, during the 15 years of experience in the use of the equipment, it was possible to stand back and analyse, to judge and criticise its performance. Dye-bleeding was still a possibility. Heavily soiled tapestries, and in particular tapestries with a dense weave, were often found to be soiled on the reverse side. This was detected when handling the tapestry once it was dry. Turning the tapestry over and wet cleaning right and reverse sides was an obvious remedy, and in some, albeit rare, cases this was undertaken. However, it was felt that this solution defeated the object and aims of the cleaning apparatus. Although the water pressure and the position of the nozzles could be adjusted, the degree of adjustment was felt to be insufficient in the cleaning of certain tapestries, namely those with significant areas of damaged silk weft.

Despite having achieved a great improvement on previous methods, the drying of tapestries was felt to be unsatisfactory. The drying time was considerably reduced by the use of dehumidifiers and by the fact that the tapestry was supported and raised by the frame, enabling the air to circulate around the tapestry. However, drying times of 12 to 15 hours were still felt to be excessive. The need for the water to be extracted from the tapestry became obvious. The nozzles regularly blocked with surfactant residue. This was not a problem for the tapestry itself, but was a maintenance issue that could prove to be time-consuming. Maintaining the tension of the mesh screen proved to be a problem when wet cleaning tapestries whose weight and size were particularly significant. The screen tended to sag in places creating areas where water was retained. In 1996, hardly 10 years after the conception of the cleaning equipment installed in the Paris studios, it was the turn of the Aubusson studios to take a step forward in improving cleaning techniques.

A step forward The Aubusson-based studios of Chevalier Conservation were opened in 1991 to widen the company’s conservation services by providing a textile conservation studio, based in the provinces. Tapestry conservation was and is undertaken in the Aubusson studios although their wet cleaning remains the responsibility of the Paris workrooms. A multifunctional cleaning table was designed and built for the studios. It aimed to provide solutions for the treatment of textiles presenting the following problems: dye-bleeding, stains and soiling which were insoluble in aqueous treatments, potential shrinkage problems and extreme fragility. The cleaning of heavily soiled tapestry-woven furnishings also presented difficulties for the two studios. Collaboration with the French-based company, Chassitech, led to the development of the multifunctional cleaning table based in the Aubusson studios and ultimately the present tapestry cleaning equipment based in the Paris workrooms. The multifunctional cleaning table incorporates a frame which provides a support for the textile object while the tank beneath it is raised or lowered according to the treatment required. This allows wet cleaning by spray or immersion to take place; the table can also be used as a humidification chamber. Vacuum suction can be used to extract the water from the textile after cleaning; this also allows

70

Cleaning

localised cleaning treatments or overall cleaning by vacuum suction. The table is adaptable and has obvious advantages for the cleaning and drying of textiles. However, from the tests undertaken on tapestry fragments and tapestry-woven furnishings using this equipment and other low pressure vacuum tables available on the conservation equipment market, certain drawbacks became apparent. Such equipment requires the tapestry to be covered and obscured from view, albeit for a limited period of time, during the extraction of air/water (Maes, 1998). The need for a film to cover the tapestry during the extraction of water results in a flattening of the weave of the tapestry that in some cases is visually disturbing (the mechanical effects on the fibres themselves have not been evaluated). Deformations due to differential tension of the weave, previous restorations, alterations and additions, are often dried badly positioned. The number of perforations of the stainless steel supports of the equipment available on the conservation market was considered to be insufficient, and in the case of a tapestry fragment of a fine weave and light in colour, one could observe the perforations of the support which appeared as clean dots on the right side of the tapestry. A remedy to this phenomenon was to place a foam material between object and support. The possibility of retention of dirt and/or detergent was considered to be a drawback to this solution. The technical difficulties in maintaining equal pressure over a large surface were a concern.

The present The experience gained from the first cleaning equipment and the multifunctional treatment table enabled the development of the present cleaning system (Figure 9.1). The new equipment has been in operation since 2000, following three years’ research, tests undertaken on the prototype and collaboration with Chassitech. The tapestry is unrolled on to a screen of Tefloncoated fibreglass threads, as used on the multifunctional treatment table. Nineteen holes per 10 cm allows for an open weave. The tension is not altered by the weight of the tapestries. However, as it is not possible to walk on the screen; the tapestries are unrolled from the mobile ramp/platform that moves from north (left on Figure 9.1) to south (right on Figure 9.1) and south to north. The tapestry is rolled onto the screen with the warp aligned on the north– south axis.

Particulate soiling can be removed from the surface of the tapestry before the wet cleaning treatment by means of vacuum extraction from the ramp. This function does not replace that of manual surface cleaning by controlled vacuum suction on the right and reverse sides of the tapestry; this is considered to be not only an efficient treatment, but also an irreplaceable manner of understanding and appreciating the tapestry’s condition. However, significant quantities of particulate soiling have been collected using this facility after manual surface cleaning. The ramp is equipped with 12 nozzles that spray the tapestry with deionised water or deionised water and surfactant. It is possible to rinse the underside of the tapestry with nozzles positioned on the mobile strip beneath the screen. Deionised water is used exclusively. Water pressure and volume can be controlled according to the tapestry and the type of treatment (wetting out, cleaning, rinsing, etc.). The water is heated to the temperature required for the optimum performance of the surfactant, taking into account the loss of temperature of the water when used in the form of a spray. The temperature of the water in contact with the tapestry is measured. The speed of the ramp can be varied depending on the tapestry and/or the stage of the treatment. The operations can also be stopped at any point if a manual treatment is necessary (sponging, rolling out of the tapestry, photography, taking of weft samples, etc.). The vacuum suction strip is positioned beneath the screen 100 mm behind the upper nozzles and although independent of the ramp, moves at the same speed. The vacuum suction is positioned behind the nozzles whether the direction of the ramp is north– south or south–north. The pressure can be varied according to the weave density and the stage of treatment (wetting out, cleaning, rinsing, drying). The water extracted from the tapestry at all stages of the treatment is analysed for pH, turbidity, and conductivity via internal sensors. Samples can also be taken manually at any point from a transparent tank where the water removed from the tapestry passes. The length of treatment varies according to the tapestry but generally takes between two and four hours. A webcam is installed on the ramp enabling curators and owners to view the wet cleaning of the tapestry if distance prevents their presence. A camera can be fixed to the ramp which proves particularly useful for detailed, photographic documentation as it can be moved north south east west. The equipment is piloted by computer. All the parameters can be adjusted and modified throughout the cleaning process. The first computer screen presents the different


Figure 9.1 Overall view of the cleaning laboratory.

elements of the machine: screen, nozzles vacuum suction strip, etc. The instructions given are represented alongside continuous readings of the various parameters (pressure, concentration of surfactant, temperature of water and air, etc.). The second screen displays graph readings of the pH, turbidity and conductivity. Other graphs show the volume of water used, pressure of water and air. The cleaning report that accompanies the tapestry after treatment includes copies of the graphs and all information that pertains to the tapestry and its wet cleaning. Despite regular contact with the personnel from Chassitech it was felt that this sophisticated apparatus

required a highly skilled operator to accompany it and the personnel throughout the first 12 to 18 months of use. A textile engineer, a graduate of the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Industries Textiles de Mulhouse, was put in charge of the machine and the research necessary to ensure its optimum performance. Such research included the choice of a surfactant that is adapted to the function of the machine. The non-ionic surfactants widely used in tapestry and textile cleaning are particularly efficient in a bath situation. The function of this apparatus requires a surfactant with different specifications to optimise the cleaning. Excessive foaming of certain

72

Cleaning

surfactants also proved to be a problem due to the use of nozzles and the air and water pressure.

Advantages and improvements The results have proved to be excellent and the objectives of the 1987 equipment surpassed (Figure 9.2). The system has many advantages. The continuous, but not overall, vacuum suction has proved to be efficient and highly compatible with the wet cleaning of tapestries. The tapestry remains visible at all stages of the treatment. Deformations are not ‘fixed’ in place by the extraction of water or drying. Manual interventions at all and any stage of the treatment are possible. The volume of water required is considerably lower. The efficiency of a surfactant is improved when combined with compressed air/water; its concentration can therefore be adjusted. A reduction in drying time has been achieved. The length of the treatment has been

shortened making it possible to clean and dry a tapestry within a working day. Tapestries that have previously presented cleaning problems have been safely and successfully treated. The greatly reduced volume of water necessary for cleaning, and its extraction, avoids the problems of puckering and differential tension in areas of reweaving and repair, particularly where cotton warps have been used. The bleeding of dyes or their migration is avoided, as is the loss of paint or inks often used to highlight certain areas of weave. Repair stitching through a textile support is not only a current conservation method but a widely used technique in the past. However, the support fabric was rarely scoured and was often stitched to the tapestry in a manner that did not allow for dimensional changes in the tapestry. Even slight shrinkage of the support could cause problems. It is not always possible to remove such stitching to enable the tapestry to be cleaned. However, the reduced quantities of water, the rinsing of the underside and

Figure 9.2 Detail of a tapestry before and after wet cleaning.


the extraction of water and soiling prevent shrinkage of the support fabric and the trapping of soils between the support and the tapestry. Although it has not yet been carried out, this demonstrates that it is possible to wet clean a tapestry that has been conserved using current conservation methods. Heavily soiled tapestries, when cleaned in a bath, often require buffer solutions to correct the pH of the water once the acidic soiling has been released from the fibres. The tapestries often remain in a bath of an undesirable pH for long periods of time. With this equipment the output of water, the vacuum suction and the speed of the ramp can be raised in order to rapidly and efficiently correct the pH. Although the dimensions of the screen are sufficient for the majority of tapestries, exceptions do exist. In such a case, once the first part of the tapestry has been cleaned and dried it can be rolled and placed in a ‘cradle’ at one end of the screen. The remaining part is cleaned in the same manner. In order to avoid marks and rings, the water is not extracted at the same pressure in the intermediate section between the cleaned and soiled parts of the tapestry. This section is effectively cleaned twice.

The future Changes and improvements have been made to the cleaning equipment since 2000. The possibilities for adapting and improving the performance of the equipment are extensive; this was a requirement specified by Chevalier Conservation during its conception. Coupled with Pierre and Dominique Chevalier’s dedication to improve and innovate, changes will undoubtedly continue.

Endnotes 1.

In 1984 the Institut Français de Restauration des Oeuvres D’Art (IFROA) was situated in the buildings of the Mobilier National, Paris. It later became the Institut de Formation des Restaurateurs des Oeuvres d’Art (IFROA). The title IFROA no longer exists but is referred to as the Département des Restaurateurs du Patrimoine of the Institut National du Patrimoine (INP).

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Pierre Chevalier for permission to publish. I also thank Christian Ferrer and Pauline Julia of Chassitech for their collaboration during and after the conception of the cleaning equipment described in this chapter.

References Delcroix, G. (1988). Un projet de machine à nettoyer les tapisseries. In Proceedings of the International Seminar 18 –20 June 1984: La Restauration et Conservation des Tapisseries, pp. 63 – 66, IFROA. Fiette, A. (1997). Tapestry Restoration; An historical and technical survey. The Conservator, 21, 28 –36. Maes, Y. (1995). Tapestry cleaning by aerosol suction. International Perspectives on Textile Conservation (A. TímárBalázsy and D. Eastop, eds), pp. 32 –35, Archetype. Masschelein-Kleiner, L. (1972). Le nettoyage des textiles anciens. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, 12, 215 –22. Masschelein-Kleiner, L. (1988). Le nettoyage des tapisseries: avantages et dangers. Proceedings of the International Seminar 18–20 June 1984: La Restauration et Conservation des Tapisseries, pp. 41– 47, IFROA.

10 Cleaning antique and modern tapestries by aerosol suction: thirteen years later – the characteristics, comparative advantages and limitations of this system Yvan Maes De Wit

Introduction A cleaning system for antique and modern tapestries, based on aerosol suction, was developed in 1991 by De Wit Royal Manufacturers and has since been used regularly for an increasing number of museums throughout the world. De Wit Royal Manufacturers clean about 150 tapestries a year mostly for museums. A list of some recent cleanings for museums can be seen on the website.1 Now that well over a thousand tapestries have been cleaned, it is appropriate to make an inventory of the comparative advantages and the limitations of this cleaning system. The characteristics of the system are first summarised (they are also described in more detail in Maes, 1996 and 1998).

Characteristics of the tapestry cleaning system using aerosol suction The tapestry is spread over a large suction table, in this case 8.75 m long by 5 m wide (Figure 10.1). A sheet of watertight plastic film surrounds the tapestry so that suction is exerted only through the textile. The upper part of the suction table consists of a thin, stainless steel mesh screen, which is sturdy enough to walk on. The screen itself is covered with a thin, 6 mm protective layer of synthetic foam, renewed after each cleaning.

Approximately 2 m above the tapestry, sprinklers mix water with compressed air to create an aerosol: a mist of very fine particles of water about 50 microns in diameter. This aerosol, drawn by the vacuum created below the suction table, revolves towards the table, humidifying the tapestry very gradually. Only 20 litres of water per hour and per m2 are produced by this aerosol system, allowing very slow and gradual wetting of the fabric. As soon as the tapestry has reached a certain level of humidity, and the textile becomes tighter, the suction extracts the excess moisture. By adding a detergent, the uninterrupted transit of the aerosol through the fabric very gradually, but also very effectively, dilutes and releases the dirt from the fibres and then pulls it downwards by suction without any risks of lateral redeposition. The use of an aerosol, characterised by a much larger surface area, makes it possible to use a very small proportion of detergent (0.5 ml per l). The detergent used is a non-ionic surfactant without any additive. After this cleaning phase, lasting approximately one hour depending on the level of dirt, the same uninterrupted transit of the aerosol, but without detergent, allows effective rinsing. After two hours rinsing with softened water, this treatment is extended for half an hour with demineralised water. The drying operation is faster and more effective as the suction is still working and the tapestry has never been saturated with water. Terry towels and 74

Cleaning antique and modern tapestries by aerosol suction 75

Figure 10.1 General view of the cleaning system.

then absorbent paper are unrolled over the tapestry, with a plastic film on top. Once the watertight film completely seals the suction table, the suction pressure can be substantially increased. In this way, the terry towels and absorbent papers are pressed perfectly evenly over the fabric and remove at least 75 per cent of the water still contained in the fibres. Next, sustained suction allows the fabric to be dried by ventilation. One hour is enough to dry wools completely; one and a half to two hours are needed to dry silks completely. The air used is filtered, heated at a constant temperature of less than 30°C and continually renewed. The total time for the cleaning operations is approximately six hours. This particularly short time makes it possible to organise a complete cleaning, including about two hours preparation, in a normal eight-hour working day. Above all, it enables people involved in the cleaning of tapestries to maintain control over all the operations described, including drying. A highly efficient system of continuous monitoring throughout the entire process has been developed. Samples of the clean water added and the dirty water extracted from the tapestry are taken automatically.

The pH, the conductivity and the temperature of those samples are continually measured by probing. The measurements taken are sent to a computer, which displays the progress of these different parameters in the form of a graph (Figure 10.2). The computer automatically calculates the maximums, minimums and the variations (delta) of these parameters and presents them in a summary table. It is easy to see on the graph when the parameters (pH and conductivity) stabilise and therefore when it is advisable to stop adding detergent in order to proceed to the rinsing operation. After the measurements, the samples of dirty water are placed side by side, in transparent jars, to give a better view of the progress of the cleaning process. A 3CCD digital video camera, placed on a mobile bridge, can move over the entire fabric and make very tight close-ups when zooming in (2.5 cm of tapestry on full screen). Usually, the entire fabric is scanned systematically. These high quality digitised images document the state of the fabric before, during and after treatment. They are engraved on a DVD, which is given to the curator. The aerosol spraying can be interrupted at any time, but the suction remains uninterrupted. It is possible to walk around the tapestry and make a

76

Cleaning

Figure 10.2 Graph of the cleaning of the tapestry October (Brussels, sixteenth century) belonging to The Art Institute of Chicago.

close inspection of the fabric. A mobile pedestrian bridge, moving barely 100 mm above the screen, allows an even closer examination of the central parts of the fabric and, if necessary, as discussed below, more direct interventions.

The comparative advantages of this system This system presents specific and exclusive features. The main feature is that the entire fabric is cleaned at the same time. As previously described, the fabric is subjected to a single, extremely slow and gradual, overall treatment cycle. The second feature is that the suction applied to the entire fabric is constant and uninterrupted from the beginning of the treatment until its completion, when the fabric is thoroughly dry. As far as both the water flow and the suction are concerned, the fabric is never treated a section at a time. The comparative advantages arising from these features are discussed below. In summary they are: the control of dye-bleeding; the prevention and improvement of deformation; the

reduction of mechanical action; the constancy of mechanical stresses; and the safe drying system. Control of unstable dyes Dyes which are unstable in water, and the resulting risks of their lateral bleeding during washing, are the nightmare of restorers responsible for cleaning antique or modern tapestries. Experience in cleaning hundreds of problem tapestries has demonstrated that it is, in practice, impossible to test all the dyes, and even less so all the potential areas which were subsequently painted, to obtain a guarantee of stability in water. One example is the cleaning of a series of 14 tapestries of The Life of the Virgin (woven in Paris in the seventeenth century, ordered by Cardinal de Richelieu for Notre Dame de Paris and now displayed at Strasbourg Cathedral). Surprisingly, during the cleaning, very fugitive colours appeared in painted areas although these were not detected after a very accurate analysis.2 It was impossible to detect these in a total area of 375 m2, except by progressively humidifying the total area of the tapestry, as achieved by this system.


Experience has shown that uninterrupted suction and humidification, with other factors, prevent fugitive dyes from bleeding laterally. In fact, since the development of this system, lateral bleeding of unstable colours has not occurred, except on the back of some modern tapestries. This can be confirmed by curators, who are regularly present at the cleaning of their pieces.3 These fugitive colours can often be seen on the support foam, once the tapestry is dry. Moreover, aerosol suction has enabled dye migration caused by previous cleaning treatments to be eliminated from some tapestries. An example is the fugitive red colour in the borders of the Triumph of Fame (Brussels, sixteenth century) belonging to the Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam. Staining caused by the bleeding of a very unstable modern red border in the main field of the tapestry was almost completely removed. However, it has been observed that the interruption of humidification, and especially of suction, as part of a cleaning treatment by successive areas, prevents the control of lateral bleeding of unstable dyes. The alternative, which would involve calling on acidic buffer solutions and/or additives, is considered less advisable for the long-term conservation of the fabric. Control of the risks of irregular shrinkage and deformation and the capacity to improve the shape of deformed tapestries Most old tapestries to be cleaned contain consolidation fabrics fixed to the back at the time of previous treatments or various added fabrics (modern edging, borders, patches of tapestry, new woven parts, etc.). These materials of various origins usually have different reactions in an aqueous medium; in particular they shrink in different ways subjecting the original fabric to opposing tensions and therefore to risks of deformation. In the system described here, the tapestry is entirely immobilised and treated continuously, not in sections. The suction holds the fabric onto the rigid screen and prevents irregular shrinkage and the ensuing deformation. Here too, those properties have been confirmed in the presence of curators during the cleaning of critical cases. An example of this is the cleaning of the tapestry The Fall of Damiate, (Haarlem seventeenth century, for Paswerk Textielrestauratie, Haarlem, now ICAT Textielrestauratie). This tapestry has wool and cotton wefts woven adjacent to each other over a distance of more than 8 m. These did not move or shrink during and after the cleaning and remained perfectly flat.

Another property of continuously working suction is that fabrics that have undergone previous deformation can be made flatter again; a tapestry’s shape can often be improved, especially when it is badly damaged. Irregularities in the fabric can be flattened out when it is completely dry, on the suction table, before cleaning begins. Deformed areas of the fabric can be corrected, section by section, and then immobilised immediately afterwards by the continuous suction; the intensity can be finely adjusted. The uninterrupted suction ensures that the tapestry remains in position, especially during the drying process. This equalisation treatment will make it easier later on to apply the consolidation fabrics and the lining, and lastly to hang the tapestry since its weight will be more evenly distributed. This treatment was successfully applied, for instance, to the very badly damaged tapestry The Story of Alexander the Great (possibly Tournai, 1460, of the Prince Doria Pamphilj collection, Rome–Genoa). The tapestry was extremely deformed before treatment due to many very inappropriate and coarse old repairs; it is now hanging very well following this preliminary flattening operation. Interruptions in suction, and intermittent suction particularly, prevent the fabric from remaining in position, may cause irregular shrinkage and lastly prevent the possibility of flattening out and correcting a tapestry deformed by time. Reduction of mechanical action Any cleaning process is a compromise between the mechanical action of water, sprayed more or less intensely over the old fabric, and the duration of that action. By treating the entire fabric at the same time, an extremely gentle force can be applied. Can a less harmful mechanical action be imagined than that caused by an aerosol mist settling slowly over a fabric undergoing constant suction? In this case, the effectiveness of cleaning is achieved through the duration of the treatment, since each part of the tapestry is treated for the total duration of the cleaning. Thanks to this very gentle aerosol treatment it was, for instance, possible to prevent any additional damage during the cleaning of the extremely fragile silk areas in the tapestry St Paul before Porcius Festus, (Brussels c. 1550), of the Detroit Institute of Arts, USA. However, where treatment is applied successively to small sections of the textile, much larger volumes of water, stronger spraying and suction forces are needed for an equal total treatment time and a similar result; in this case each section can only be treated

78

Cleaning

during a small fraction of the total cleaning time, which should not exceed one working day. The constancy of mechanical stresses Changes from the dry state to the wetted state, and back again, represent a radical transformation for an old fabric. It is essential to ensure that such a transition takes place as gradually and gently as possible. The simultaneous treatment of the entire fabric ensures that it undergoes a single treatment cycle. Mechanical and physical stresses are constant within that single cycle. The start and end of the cycle are particularly slow, smooth and progressive. As an illustration, it takes five minutes before the first drops of water are extracted from treated tapestries. A very fragile tapestry and a piece in very good condition are cleaned according to the same process. It is not necessary to adapt or change the method according to the condition of the tapestry, except with extremely dirty tapestries, so it is not necessary to discuss this with the curator or restorer. This consistency in the method makes the system very reliable and safe. For instance, the three separate parts of a Troy Tapestry (possibly Tournai, fifteenth century), of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, were cleaned in one operation, providing a perfectly equal treatment to the three different parts of the tapestry. When a tapestry is treated in sections or sequentially, the fibres are subjected to repeated physical stresses. They undergo sudden or repeated dilation and contraction, which are certainly less favourable than the same phenomena in the context of a slow, constant and progressive, single treatment. A fast, safe and very effective low temperature drying process The suction process over the entire fabric makes it possible to use a highly efficient water absorption and drainage system. It then becomes possible to dry a 45 m2 tapestry completely at low temperature (30°C) in less than two hours. For instance, all the wool parts of the tapestry The Building of the Tower of Babel (Brussels, c. 1550), of the Wawel Royal Castle in Kracow, Poland, which measured 5 m by 8 m, were dry in almost one hour and the silk parts in almost two hours at 29 –30°C. Other systems require the entire mass of water to be drained from the fabric using the effects of only suction and/or temperature and/or ventilation. This modifies the mechanical stresses, even more so if suction is intermittent. Either the drying time has to be considerably extended (which favours the

hydrolysis of the old fibres), or the temperature has to be increased considerably, or the suction force, whether it is intermittent or not, has to be intensified – all factors which are not favourable to the optimal conservation of old or modern tapestries.

Limitations of the system Thirteen years of using the aerosol suction cleaning system have enabled a more precise identification of the limitations of this system. Lateral bleeding of unstable dyes on the back of some late nineteenth-century or modern fabrics Restorers know that the more contemporary a tapestry is, the more likely it is to pose problems of unpredictable bleeding. It has sometimes been seen, when cleaning late nineteenth-century tapestries with aniline dyes, or twentieth-century tapestries, that lateral bleeding of unstable dyes may occur not on the front but on the back of the fabric. However, in the last five years modern and also late nineteenth-century tapestries have been cleaned using the same suction system, but by a different method which has avoided the problem. This specific method for cleaning modern tapestries could be discussed in another chapter. For instance, many modern tapestries have recently been cleaned for the museums of the city of Bern in Switzerland, and also for the Town Hall and museums in Copenhagen, Denmark, without any problems of dye-bleeding on the reverse. Cleaning very or extremely dirty tapestries The cleaning of well over a thousand tapestries has obviously included some very, or even extremely, dirty tapestries. It is impossible to remove the dirt from some extremely dirty tapestries without a stronger mechanical action, which this system, characterised by its gentleness and its harmlessness, does not provide. In those cases, a manual dabbing operation needs to be carried out using sponges during an interruption of aerosol spraying. The pedestrian mobile bridge lends itself very well to this intervention. For instance, the very dirty tapestry The Death of the Virgin of the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, was cleaned using this method. There are cases where neither stronger spraying, nor more intensive suction are capable of completely getting rid of dirt that is firmly embedded into the fibres. These special cases, regrettably, no longer


Figure 10.3 Detail from the tapestry The Kitchen Scene (Brussels, seventeenth century, after a cartoon by Jordaens) before cleaning.

Figure 10.4 Detail from the tapestry after cleaning.

benefit in the same way from one of the major advantages of the system, namely the very gentle mechanical action used. However, in this case the necessary mechanical action is still lower than in other systems. Indeed, experience demonstrates that one hour’s prior use of the aerosol will result in the dirt being removed from the fabric to a great extent and a gentle mechanical sponging action will be enough to release it by suction. The tapestry remains completely immobilised by continuous suction throughout the dabbing process. This considerably reduces any possible negative effects of the mechanical action, even on the most fragile elements of the old fabric. The other main advantages of the system remain unchanged.

exceptional case, it is sometimes necessary to interrupt the suction process, to roll the fabric onto a tube and to clean the back of the fabric by hand using sponges. Some tapestries belonging to the National Trust, displayed at Hardwick Hall, particularly the series of the Story of Gideon (Brussels, sixteenth century) and the series after Jordaens (Brussels, seventeenth century) (see Chapter 12) illustrate the case of tapestries which are exceptionally dirty on the back.4 These tapestries are the dirtiest pieces cleaned in thirty years; some of the faces had become invisible but reappeared after cleaning. In the course of the cleaning process manual intervention on both the front and the back of the textile was deemed necessary. Very sticky dirt had accumulated over the centuries, probably due to the combination of coal heating and a very humid environment (Figures 10.3 and 10.4). These exceptional cases are obviously inconsistent with the usual procedure. However one hour of aerosol treatment limits considerably the amount of

Cleaning the back of exceptionally dirty tapestries Some tapestries are exceptionally dirty on the back and unfortunately, in this special but very

80

Cleaning

mechanical action required and also the risks of lateral bleeding. Better solutions are still being sought. Increasing the suction pressure, for example, is not the answer. As the suction increases, a depression is created on the back of the tapestry, and the ensuing effect attracts and concentrates dirt on the back. When it comes to treating pieces which are exceptionally dirty on the back, like the ones mentioned above, it is probably necessary to accept the limitations of a method which nevertheless offers many advantages for the overwhelming majority of tapestries to be cleaned, and which is still chosen for the cleaning of the dirtiest pieces.

the perception of the cleaning of old tapestries. Curators, used to increasingly clean tapestries, no longer accept incompletely cleaned tapestries. In the same way, we see that some dirt on the reverse is no longer accepted, while it would have been accepted 10 years ago. Although it is important to recognise its limitations, the system offers a highly efficient cleaning result, whilst designed to preserve tapestries as well as possible.

Endnotes 1. 2.

Conclusion After thirteen years of cleaning tapestries with aerosol suction it is important, in conclusion, to emphasise how much cleaning standards have changed over this past decade. In the early 1990s, it was normal either to forgo cleaning with water for fear of the many problems mentioned, or to accept cleaned tapestries which today might be considered as still dirty. How many tapestries grey with dirt have we not seen after their treatment? It was not exceptional, for instance, to hear curators claiming that soaking in a bath of water and detergent would be enough to clean tapestries. Nowadays, some curators or tapestry restorers consider that the system described here, owing to the new conditions of safety offered and to the great effectiveness of the cleaning, and also on account of its international success, has in some way modified

3.

4.

www.dewit.be Performed in collaboration with engineer B. Oger, head of the textile department at the Laboratoire de Recherche des Monuments Historiques, France. For example André Brutillot, Head Restorer at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich, who each year attends the cleaning of many tapestries from German museums. Performed in collaboration with Danielle Bosworth, a private conservator in Dorset, and Ksynia Marko, from the Textile Conservation Studio of the National Trust in Norfolk, UK.

References Maes, Y. (1996). Les problèmes particuliers du nettoyage de tapisseries. Abegg-Stiftung Riggisberg (Switzerland), Ehemaligentreffen Nov. 1996. 20 –31. Maes, Y. (1998). Tapestry cleaning by aerosol suction. In International Perspectives on Textile Conservation. (A. TímárBalázsy and D. Eastop, eds.) pp. 32 –5, Archetype.

11 Non-aqueous cleaning Frances Lennard

Surface cleaning Until relatively recently, it was customary to use only surface cleaning techniques to remove surface dust and dirt from tapestries. Hefford (1979) describes how, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, crumbled bread was brushed across the surface of a tapestry to pick up dirt particles. Surface cleaning may still be the only form of cleaning carried out as part of a conservation treatment. It is not always possible to carry out a wet or solvent cleaning treatment if, for example, the dyes are fugitive or if components are particularly weak. In other cases the degree of soiling may not warrant such an interventive treatment. The Lamentation tapestry discussed in Chapter 13 was not wet cleaned because testing indicated that the metal-wrapped thread, present in large quantities in the weft, would be at risk of damage. The thread had a thin gilded layer on a substrate of a silver alloy wrapped around a silk core; much of the gold was missing. It was felt that the risk of loss of the remaining gold outweighed the possible benefits of wet cleaning as the tapestry was not excessively soiled. Surface cleaning with low powered vacuum suction, on the front and back surfaces, removed a significant amount of soiling. Surface cleaning, using low powered vacuum suction, is still an essential first step before moving on to other methods of cleaning. It aims to remove particulate soiling from the surface of the tapestry; if not removed this may be broken down into smaller particles by the mechanical action of wet or solvent cleaning. Smaller particles are more likely to become trapped in the weave, making them harder to remove. Surface cleaning has another valuable function: an incidental benefit is that it causes the

conservator to make a thorough and detailed examination of the tapestry on both front and back.

Solvent cleaning The preceding chapters demonstrate how wet cleaning has been used since the mid twentieth century to clean tapestries, and that it is currently the most usual method of cleaning entire tapestries. A detergent solution in water is usually most effective at removing the type of ingrained soiling deposited on tapestries over centuries on open display. Organic solvents are not often used to clean tapestries; cleaning is usually less effective and there is a risk that they may desiccate the fibres making the tapestry yarns more brittle. However, it is sometimes necessary to use solvents where the constituent materials would be affected by water or to remove soiling which is insoluble in water. In practice, solvents are most often used to clean tapestries with cotton warps or with dyes which are fugitive in water, or to remove old adhesives. Weak tapestries have frequently been repaired using adhesives to consolidate weak weft yarns and to adhere patches to the reverse, a method which was particularly common in the mid twentieth century. It is usually necessary to reverse these treatments if possible: the adhesive is now often failing, or it may have caused staining and embrittlement of the tapestry fibres. Adhesive residues may cause long-term damage to the tapestry and will almost certainly make it difficult to apply a stitched support. It is usually necessary to use organic solvents to remove adhesives from tapestries. Different methods of solvent cleaning tapestries are used, including spot cleaning and overall techniques. 81

82

Cleaning

These are illustrated by examples where these techniques have been used on tapestries treated at the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC).

Spot cleaning Solvent cleaning tapestries necessitates the use of appropriate health and safety measures. Where possible, solvents are used in small quantities so they can be targeted at the adhesive residue being removed. Skill and care are needed when using spot cleaning techniques. There is a risk that the solvent will wick out, carrying dirt and dissolved adhesive and leaving a ring at the point where it evaporates from the textile. The solvent may also remove soiling locally leaving a cleaner area. There is a risk that the solvent will drive the adhesive further into the textile instead of removing it. It may be more effective to use a solvent which turns the adhesive into a swollen gel so that it can be lifted off, rather than dissolving it completely. Tímár-Balázsy and Eastop (1998) described the spot cleaning of an English tapestry dating from about 1700, depicting Mercury, Argos and Ercthonius. It had been treated with three types of adhesive; testing indicated that these were probably animal glue, latex and shellac. In this instance, much of the animal glue and latex were able to be removed mechanically using a mounted needle to break up and dislodge the deposits. Spot cleaning techniques were then used to remove further deposits of latex and as much of the shellac as possible. Spot cleaning techniques were also used on a tapestry which had been vandalised. Conservators from the TCC were asked to look at two tapestries depicting scenes from the life of St Peter hanging in the apse at the east end of Peterborough Cathedral. The letters ‘PUFC’ had been written on one tapestry in felt-tip pen in the bottom left corner of the main scene. Tests carried out during a visit indicated that the ink was soluble in acetone and in Industrial Methylated Spirit (IMS). It was initially recommended that spot cleaning of this area should be followed by overall wet cleaning. The tapestry was generally soiled and there were concerns that local cleaning would result in an obvious clean patch. However, because of the relatively damaged condition of the tapestry, wet cleaning would have necessitated a commitment to undertake the necessary support work, and because this tapestry was one of a pair, it would then also have been desirable to treat the second one. Since this was not possible, the

tapestry was treated in situ with the sole aim of removing the writing. The tapestry was attached to a wooden frame with tacks around all four edges; it did not have a lining attached directly to it. The tacks in the lower left corner were removed so that an absorbent pad could be placed behind the tapestry. The area to be spot cleaned was surface cleaned with low powered vacuum suction. An absorbent pad was placed behind the tapestry. Another pad dampened with a 50:50 mixture of acetone and IMS was pressed to the front of the tapestry over the ink stain (Figure 11.1). The area was then blotted with filter paper to absorb the solvent and ink. This was continued until all the ink had been removed. The absorbent pads and filter papers were changed frequently to prevent the ink from being spread over a wider area. Once there was no more ink visible on the filter papers, the tapestry was allowed to dry. Once dry, the tapestry was repositioned using new tacks. Personal protective equipment was used throughout the cleaning operation. A small tapestry depicting a rural scene in the style of Teniers, was treated at the TCC in 1992; it dated from the period 1690 –1720 (Figure 11.2). It was in weak condition with areas of loss in the pale silk and dark brown wool weft yarns. Many different fabric and tape patches had been stitched and adhered beneath the damaged areas using a variety of adhesives (Figure 11.3). The adhesives were tested. Although it was established that five different adhesives were present, identification tests were positive for only one of them: a Biuret test for protein and a Hydroxyproline test for collagen confirmed the presence of animal glue. However, solvency tests gave a useful indication of the swelling and dissolution properties of the remaining adhesives which consisted of an orangepigmented adhesive used extensively to adhere cotton domette patches; a cream-coloured adhesive found on cream and pink coloured tapes; a shiny transparent adhesive found on a black cotton tape; and a white adhesive found on a pressure-sensitive tape. Although the adhesive-coated patches had preserved some of the weak weft yarns, the treated areas were now stiff and brittle. The patches made it impossible to apply a new stitched support to other damaged areas, so it was considered necessary to remove the adhesives if possible. It was possible to remove most of the adhesive deposits from the tapestry; this was achieved using a variety of different techniques prior to wet cleaning. Although the animal glue was soluble in water, it was removed as far as possible before wet cleaning

Non-aqueous cleaning 83

Figure 11.1 Using an absorbent pad to remove ink from the tapestry St Peter Healing the Lame Man in Peterborough Cathedral.

Figure 11.2 A small tapestry depicting a rural scene in the style of Teniers, c.1690 –1720.

in order to reduce the soaking time and the amount of mechanical action required. Poultices of paper pulp and warm water were used to swell the animal glue, allowing much of it to be removed mechanically. The remaining glue was removed during the wet cleaning process. The orange-coloured adhesive was removed with a localised poultice treatment to reduce the risk of staining. Sepiolite, a natural clay, was used as the poultice medium in this case as the rate of evaporation of the solvent could be controlled more readily. The poultice was applied to the tapestry with a loosely woven cotton muslin fabric as a barrier between them (Figure 11.4). It was covered and left in place to allow the solvent to soften the adhesive, until the patches could be removed. Once testing had established the solvent for the remaining three adhesives they were removed by applying the appropriate solvent with a pipette. The solvent was pipetted onto the edge of the tape and as the adhesive softened, the tape was peeled off. If adhesive residue was still present on the tapestry, it was softened with the solvent and removed mechanically. The treatment of this tapestry was very successful, resulting in the almost complete removal of the different adhesives. Appropriate health and safety

84

Cleaning

Figure 11.3 A variety of tapes and adhesives used to repair the tapestry.

measures were taken throughout to limit exposure to the solvents used. A variety of different solvents and techniques was used; this illustrates the importance of testing. Although it may not always be possible to ascertain the type of adhesive used, particularly if it is a mixture, testing will allow the most appropriate solvent and treatment method to be selected. Tímár-Balászy and Eastop (1988; pp. 168 –173) outline a protocol to determine the solubility of different types of soiling.

Immersion

Figure 11.4 The application of a poultice (acetone in Sepiolite) used to soften one of the adhesives.

There are very few occasions when large tapestry hangings are known to have been fully immersed in solvent. Finch (1982) discussed one tapestry which was immersed in acetone to remove a coating of adhesive. This work was carried out in 1981–2. A seventeenth-century Chinoiserie tapestry measuring approximately 2.75 m by 3 m was very stiff following a previous treatment (carried out in 1961) using a heavy nylon net held in place with an early thermoplastic adhesive (Vinamul 6515, a copolymer of vinyl acetate and vinyl caproate). The adhesive was dark brown and brittle nearly 20 years after treatment. The net was removed during wet cleaning by spraying the reverse side with IMS. Although this


Figure 11.5 Solvent cleaning a seventeenth-century Chinoiserie tapestry outdoors in 1981–2.

solubilised the adhesive sufficiently to allow the net to be removed, the PVA residue still thickly coated the fibres. It was finally removed by passing the tapestry through a bath of acetone, then rinsing in two further baths (Figure 11.5). As this was considered a high risk operation, the bath was set up outdoors with the fire brigade on standby. It was necessary to take precautions to avoid generating static electricity which would cause sparks. Although the treatment successfully removed the adhesive from the tapestry, it was a very ambitious undertaking which would not be considered today. More stringent health and safety regulations now in force would prohibit such large-scale use of solvents without limiting exposure by effective fume extraction. An overall treatment to remove adhesive from the whole surface of a tapestry would now be carried out using a vacuum suction table. Leach (1997) and Langley and Sanders (2003) discussed the removal of adhesives from tapestries in the National Trust collection, firstly using mobile fume extraction equipment and later a vacuum suction table.

Solvent cleaning equipment Equipment based on the vacuum suction table has been introduced more recently and allows tapestries which cannot be wet cleaned to receive overall

cleaning. Nineteenth-century tapestries, such as the The Attainment of the Holy Grail tapestry described in Chapter 19, often have cotton warps. These cannot be safely wet cleaned as the cotton warps would shrink significantly causing major deformation of the tapestry. However, it is important that only an organic solvent is used to clean a tapestry if it is at risk from water-induced shrinkage; water used to rinse a tapestry after solvent cleaning will have the same detrimental effect as a wet cleaning process. The Attainment of the Holy Grail tapestry panels and others in the same set were solvent cleaned at an external facility.1 Each panel was cleaned on a large vacuum suction table using white spirit which was sprayed onto the tapestry and flushed through the fabric by vacuum suction. This operation was carried out successively, from one area to another, in order to clean the whole panel. After cleaning, the panels were left flat on the mesh screen to allow the solvent vapours to evaporate. The solvent cleaning was very effective and caused no dimensional changes to the tapestry panels. The two tapestries in Peterborough Cathedral mentioned above were also solvent cleaned with white spirit following a fire in the cathedral in 2002. Although the tapestries were not physically damaged in the fire, they were soiled as a result of the smoke circulating in the building. The tapestries were solvent cleaned rather than wet cleaned because it was

86

Cleaning

Figure 11.6 St Peter Healing the Lame Man from Peterborough Cathedral, after solvent cleaning.

felt that solvent cleaning would achieve the removal of the sooty soiling with minimal impact on the damaged areas of weft already in existence before the fire. The insurance payment would only cover damage caused as a direct result of the fire, so only small amounts of support treatment, in the most damaged areas, were able to be carried out. The cleaning treatment was very successful (Figure 11.6).

Conclusion Surface cleaning methods have probably been used to remove dirt from tapestries, as part of their routine maintenance, since they were first woven. Today, although surface cleaning is still used, either alone or as a preliminary to wet or solvent cleaning, there is a far wider repertoire of cleaning techniques available, and a far greater awareness of the comparative benefits and risks of wet and solvent cleaning, which

allows conservators to select the most appropriate option in each case. In order to make this evaluation, it is necessary to assess the constituent materials of the tapestry and their condition, and the type of soiling and staining present. Wet cleaning is generally the most effective method of removing the type of ingrained soiling found on tapestries exposed to atmospheric dirt for centuries. Solvent cleaning is rarely used to remove overall soiling except where the use of water is prohibited, for example by the presence of cotton warps, or where the particular type of soiling present means that it is likely to be more effective. However, in these cases solvents can often be safely used, although it may be necessary to combine them with humidification treatments to reintroduce moisture to the fibres. Organic solvents are often used to remove old adhesives from tapestries, in order to allow new stitched support treatments to be carried out; solubility tests are essential to ascertain the most effective


solvent and the most appropriate technique to use. A range of techniques can be used, depending on the type of solvent and the solubility of the adhesive. The use of organic solvents is restricted to small quantities wherever possible in order to comply with health and safety legislation. Where it is necessary to use larger quantities appropriate equipment must be used to minimise the risks.

Acknowledgements St Peter Healing the Lame Man in Peterborough Cathedral (TCC 1482i) was spot cleaned by Menaka Kenward and Rachel Thomas in 1991. The Teniers tapestry (TCC 1547) was treated in 1992 by Alexandra Clarke. The cleaning of the Soho Chinoiserie tapestry (TCC 0199) was carried out by Caroline Clark, Sandra Barnard, Kerstin Aronsson and Tony Smith. St Peter Healing the Lame Man and St Peter Released from Prison were treated (as TCC 2701) by Robin Bastian, Tamara Frost, Michelle Harper (Project Manager), Sung-Hyun Im, Anne Laila Kvitvang and Karen Thompson in 2002.

Endnotes 1.

Willebrord Jacobs, Duffel, Belgium.

References Finch, K. (1982). Problems of tapestry conservation. V&A Conservation Newsletter, 16, 40 –3. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England, 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennet, ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Langley, R. and Sanders, P. (2003). Developing a practical method for the removal of previous adhesive treatments from large scale textiles. In Dust, Sweat and Tears: Recent Advances in Cleaning Techniques. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section Forum, 7 April 2003 (L. Dawson and M. Berkouwer, eds.) pp. 3 –13. UKIC. Leach, M. (1997). Blickling Mortlake tapestry – adhesive removal treatment. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 176 –78, Archetype. Tímár-Balázsy, Á. and Eastop, D. (1998). Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann.


Part Four Treatment options – Support systems


12 Development of a couching technique for the treatment of historic tapestries Danielle Bosworth and Caroline Clark

Introduction A method for the conservation of tapestries was formulated in the 1960s to incorporate the ethics of conservation with the need for visual appreciation of a pictorial hanging. At the time, there were conflicting ideas about the treatment of tapestries. The new ideas of conservation consisted of stitching the degraded areas of a tapestry (with uniform, warp coloured threads) to supporting patches of cloth on the reverse, as opposed to the restoration aims of removing weak or thin original wefts and reweaving entire areas (Fiette, 1997). These ideas did not meet the commercial value given to tapestries. In those early days, the antique trade refused to consider the use of support fabric as it was visible on the back. Tapestries were, in their view, purely decorative objects, and their monetary value would be diminished by such ‘mendings’ as opposed to invisible reweaving or darning. Fortunately, museums recognised the value of tapestries as historic documents. When Danielle Bosworth, who trained in restoration, joined Karen Finch at her private studio in late 1965 a development of the conservation technique evolved. They first worked on two tapestries depicting the story of Esther (Brussels, first quarter of the sixteenth century) from the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) (Wingfield Digby, 1980). Karen, with the eye of a weaver and with experience of conservation from Scandinavia and at the V&A, saw tapestries as pictorial structures and documents of historic importance (Finch, 1989). Previously, the use of neutral coloured threads and a support fabric had aimed purely to conserve the remaining elements of a tapestry. This technique

is a successful form of treatment for, for example, fragments of early tapestry-woven textiles which are rare or are pure documents. For a large hanging which has a story to tell, this method does not address the original colour balance and pictorial aspect of a tapestry, especially when the design has been lost or disfigured by previous repair. The technique of holding the original weave to a supporting fabric, using yarns which match the original degraded or missing weft in colour and texture, was developed. The decorative Renaissance style of the Esther tapestries with static figures, blocks of primary colours and dark outlines, required the reinstatement of the missing dark outlines, separating the colours to balance and define the image (Figure 12.1). The different approaches of conservation and restoration were combined to good effect. To successfully conserve a tapestry it is important, as with any object, to understand its place in history and how it was made. This is particularly important where it is necessary to identify what is original and what is repair and what sort of conservation is required. Large-scale tapestries woven in Europe that survive from about 1300 have an image element which can tell a story, commemorate an event, reflect the life of the commissioning patron, be copied from a painting or be purely decorative. Clarity of design is important for decorative effect and to help read the subject and place it in its historical context.

Weave technique Tapestries in the European tradition are woven with the tapestry technique using mainly wool and silk 91

92

Treatment options – Support systems

Figure 12.1 Esther hearing of Haman’s plot (Brussels, first quarter of the sixteenth century) from the Victoria and Albert Museum.

fibres and some linen, dyed with natural dyes, and metal-wrapped threads. From the nineteenth century, cotton warps and synthetic dyes are also commonly found. The fineness of the weave and the detail in the design is determined by the spacing of warps, so that the higher the number of warps per cm, the finer the weft and detail of the design. The warp count affects the weave density, thickness and flexibility ( Jobé, 1965). The tapestry weave structure has an undyed warp, which is highly tensioned during weaving to keep the warp thread straight. The coloured weft threads are woven to bend around the straight warp and are beaten down to cover the warp completely, so that the threads seen on the front and back surfaces are only wefts. Each colour of the design is built up separately. The weft follows the same path as a plain weave but travels in each pass only to the warp at the edge of a

particular colour area before returning in the next pass. Colours can be interwoven for shading and other decorative techniques. Where colours change along the line of one warp and the weft turns more than once on the warp, a slit is formed. To avoid slits forming, an interlocking technique is used at the junction of two colours and a mixture of the two techniques is usually found in a tapestry. Slits are sewn during or after weaving to hold the two sides together. However, sometimes the shadow from the gap of the slit is used to define a subtle shape or line within an area and is left unsewn. Traditionally, tapestries are woven sideways and from the back, on two types of loom named according to whether the warp is tensioned vertically, a high warp loom, or horizontally, a low warp loom. Most tapestries are woven so that, when they are hung, the warp direction runs horizontally (Clark, 1996).

Development of a couching technique for the treatment of historic tapestries 93

The couching technique The basis of the couching technique is to secure the tapestry to a fabric backing to support the structure and weak areas. Choice of support fabric and threads It has been traditional to use linen cloth for lining tapestries. Linen is also the fibre of choice for use in close contact with the weave as it has a natural affinity that is visible and palpable. The choice of supporting fabric needs to be compatible with movements in the tapestry which occur in response to changes in relative humidity. This is why for most conservators linen is selected as a support fabric. It absorbs and releases moisture less quickly than cotton or other fibres and behaves more in accordance with the thicker structure of the tapestry. The weight, or thickness of the weave, of the support fabric also has to be appropriate. The weave must be close enough to stay firm when the stitching is worked through it and follow the contours of the reverse of the tapestry, but not so tight as to be rigid. This would be difficult to work with and the stiffness would alter the fluid appearance of the tapestry when hung. The yarns used for repairs must be compatible with the original wefts. Wool wefts are usually couched in wool threads. Silk areas can be worked in silk, but it is a vulnerable fibre and will be the first to degrade unless environmental conditions are kept in perfect balance for textiles. Fine polyester threads, although extremely strong and durable, will tend to cut through the warps of a tapestry when it hangs. Thick polyester threads have a dull appearance and do not blend easily with the weave when used in areas where some degraded silk weft is still present. Stranded cottons combine affinity to the weave with a suitable amount of strength. They have a certain amount of sheen, which enables them to blend with degraded silk wefts without being aggressively robust. Stitching of slits requires similar criteria to be respected. The thread used must be strong but round, so as not to cut into the warps when the tapestry is hung. Stitching technique To control the tapestry during conservation, it is rolled in the direction of the warps on to the rollers of a large frame and worked from one side edge to the other, as it was woven. When a full support is required, continuous vertical lines of running stitches

at regular intervals give overall structural support and ensure that the grain of the support cloth is not distorted. The spacing of these lines must be in accordance with the strength and stability of each tapestry. When local patches only are used, the cloth needs to be on the straight grain to offer support. In either case, a small amount of excess fabric, introduced across the width, has to be allowed so as to counter the uptake of fabric by the stitching. In the direction of the height the fabric lies flat with the weave to give support whilst hanging. The amount of excess allowed also depends on the condition and original structure of the tapestry. The couching stitches are placed following the direction of the weft. As the weft is the weak element of the weave, this direction strengthens the structure by using the stronger warp as the anchoring point to consolidate the structure of the weave and integrate the support fabric. Using threads to match the particular area and working across warps, stitches are worked through the support fabric, over one warp and under the next, then return over and under the alternate set of warps following the path of the woven weft, allowing adequate spacing between each row of stitching and maintaining the correct spacing of the warps. Several stitches are taken into surrounding stronger areas to integrate the repairs. The type of yarn has to be chosen to match the original and changed to follow the design, colour and fibre. Rows of stitching are spaced according to the amount of remaining weft. On an area where much weft remains, but shows signs of weakness, the rows can be more spaced and do not have to go over and under every pair of warps. In weaker areas, rows can be spaced closer. Judging the distance between rows is a decision based on visual requirements and the condition of the tapestry. Where the intention is to attenuate the importance of the light warp colour showing between the dark new stitches, such as in dark brown areas, there is a point where the spacing is just close enough to make the new yarn colour predominant over the warp colour, and that is the maximum closeness of spacing rows to allow the viewer’s eyes to pass over the repair and appreciate the design. In areas of light coloured weft, the rows can be spaced further apart as the contrast between the warp and the light couching stitches is less noticeable. Outlines were used to delineate blocks of colour and are an important stylistic statement in early tapestries. Couching as described will fix the remaining brown wefts and with careful spacing will ensure the continuity of those important lines. However, this is

94


an area where previous restoration and repair has often been carried out and where a lack of understanding of the weave and design can cause considerable distortion. An example of this can be seen in the Esther tapestry referred to earlier. In the Triumph of Fortitude, Brussels 1425, from the Walker Art Gallery (Souchal, 1979), the outlines had been cut out and the warp ends pulled and stitched together. During conservation they were rewarped and the weft was reinstated (Brooks et al., 1994) (see cover illustration). The Story of Gideon set at Hardwick Hall (Campbell, 1997), undergoing conservation in 2005, presents another aspect underlining the importance of dark outlines. There, dyes have faded a great deal and were the outlines to be missing, the pale beige and green colours would visually blend together to confuse the design. In areas where the weft and warps are missing, two solutions are possible depending on the area of design missing and the size of the hole. If there is a large hole in the borders or outer areas of design, a patch of fine wool or linen fabric, dyed to blend with the area, can be inserted between the linen support and the tapestry to infill the area. For small areas where the weft and warps are missing, each broken warp can be rethreaded independently from one side of the break to the other, taking care not to damage the wefts or the original warp ends, then couched with appropriate colour and texture threads as described, working over and under each warp, incorporating old warp ends and according to the design. Where a large area in the main field of a tapestry is missing in an important part of the design, it is not possible to dictate a method of repair, as each case will be different. There are, however, criteria to be respected. The missing part should not be replaced unless remaining evidence makes the design obvious; the conservator has knowledge of the original cartoon or another version of the same design; there is photographic evidence or other reliable form of documentation. In this case, the rewarping and couching method can be applied. If there is no documentary evidence, the ethical route to choose is to infill the missing area with an inserted patch of dyed cloth as above, and secure the loose ends of warps and wefts by couching them onto the patch and support backing. An example where many holes and patches had to be assessed and treated is the Roman de la Rose tapestry, Tournai circa 1460 (Borg Clyde, 1992). Where a full support is applied it is necessary to attach strong areas, where repairs are not needed, to the backing. In an unattached area, staggered straight or zigzag lines of stitching, running vertically when

hanging, can be spaced so that the support backing is integrated and hangs with the tapestry. Traditionally, tapestries were lined with linen cloth to protect them from dust and give structural support. Today, unless only a few areas are weak or damaged, the tendency is to give tapestries a full support, through which the repairs are done, as well as a protective lining. This gives the hanging an evenly distributed structural support, but it also adds weight. This problem can be slightly alleviated by the use of a lighter outer protective lining fabric than the traditional linen cloth. As the methods of cleaning tapestries have evolved and the environment in which tapestries are kept has improved, subsequent cleaning of tapestries will not be impaired by the presence of a layer of support material through which repairs have been stitched.

Example of conservation treatment The conservation treatment of a tapestry from a set that hangs in Hardwick Hall, illustrates well the flexibility of the couching method for a tapestry in extremely thin and poor condition. The design was not legible in many parts, being obscured by soiling matter. This tapestry, Kitchen Scene, was the fifth and last piece in the series of five tapestries needing conservation titled Scenes of Country Life. This set is reputed to have been the first to be woven from cartoons by Jacob Jordaens (1593 –1678) at the Jacob Geubel workshop circa 1629, although this date has been the subject of controversy (Delmarcel, 1999). Similar pieces woven from the same cartoons are still in existence (Nelson, 1998). Four tapestries from the set were conserved by removing previous unsightly or damaging repairs and supporting weak areas on a full backing, to allow the remaining elements of weave and design to predominate (Bosworth, 1997). However, the fifth tapestry was in far worse condition. It had undergone extensive restoration and conservation type repairs, including extensive couching worked through an early, and probably original, lining to retain loose, broken and exposed original warp. In an attempt to restore the chiaroscuro effect so important to the original balance of design, the warps and new stitching in the dark brown background, representing approximately onethird of the main field, had been painted. New woven patches had been applied over weak silk areas, as in previous tapestries of the same set. The thread count of the new patches was close to

Development of a couching technique for the treatment of historic tapestries 95

the original but not quite equal. The new warp ends were pushed through to the reverse of the tapestry and knotted to hold the patches into position. The woven patches appeared dull, as they had been woven in wool with only few silk highlights. Both the couched repairs and the application of rewoven patches appeared to have been done by professional restorers. This was denoted by the precision of the weaving and designs of the patches, which copied the original weave rigorously, and by the quantity and regularity of the couched stitching. The tinting is likely to have been done at the same time as the couched and rewarped repairs whilst the application of the patches is likely to have been done at an earlier date. Other darned repairs may have been done in-house. After consultation, it was decided that because of its fine weave and the quality of design, which remained intense in spite of the decayed condition of the structure of the tapestry, full conservation was worthwhile and was recommended. The aim of conservation for this tapestry was to achieve the same degree of stability, structural support, and visual impact as for the previous four tapestries, whilst being aware of the boundaries of time and cost. Support treatment After removing the existing hessian lining, the couched repairs on the original lining were retained. The appliquéd woven patches were examined and revealed that some original silk weft under most patches had remained in sufficient quantity to allow the removal of the over-imposed patches. Permission was given to proceed in removing the patches in the main areas of design, as had been done for the four previous tapestries. Long patches simulating architectural ledges running horizontally at the lower and upper edges of the tapestry were retained. The tapestry was attached to a scoured linen support backing with regular vertical lines of stitching. The earlier repairs and the linen fabric were left in place although some stitches were removed where they became too obtrusive. The warps and wefts were couched through all layers. Because of the great amount of repairs to be done all over the tapestry, the spacing of the couching stitching was discussed at length. Trials of stitching were done and the most successful spacing was adopted. In dark areas of wool in the background, where more intensity of colour was needed to enhance the chiaroscuro effect, the stitching was more concentrated so that the main parts of design in the field

would be well defined. In other dark areas such as the top and lower edges, the dark wool couching stitches were more spaced. This also gave a less flat effect to the background. In light areas of silk weft, where there was little difference between the colour of the warp and the weft, stitching was widely spaced at 9 –10 mm, whilst in dark wool areas of background the spacing between stitches on the same warp was at 7– 8 mm, but in the central design stitching was spaced much closer, at approximately 3 mm, as emphasis was needed. Small fragments of original weft and shadows on the warps, together with reference to a photograph of another version of the subject were used to identify the shapes of the design (Figures 12.2 and 12.3). Silk areas were couched in matching colour stranded cotton threads used double. Wool areas were couched in matching colour wool. Dyed wool fabric patches were used in outer areas and loose warp ends couched over the inserted patches. In the very few places where no stitching was needed, such as the woven patches, these areas were secured onto the support with zigzag stitches in strong thread stitching. This was chosen in preference to straight lines of running stitches in the strong parts surrounding the weak areas, as these proved to be more visible than the zigzag due to the thickness and weight of the patches. The treatment given was very successful in accommodating all previous repairs, as well as fulfilling the criteria of strength, readability and balance of colour and design. It is strong enough to be hung alongside the previous four tapestries. Without this treatment, this tapestry would have been destined to storage.

Conclusion Using yarns of suitable texture, matching the colour of surrounding areas, and being aware of preserving original lines of design and straightening distorted or broken warps, allows the repairs to subtly blend in whilst retaining the original elements. Since the 1960s, this method has proved to be durable, versatile, non destructive and capable of releasing the original design’s intrinsic visual aspect whilst preserving all original materials. It enables the backing fabric to evenly maintain the woven structure against gravitational pull. The basic technique can be adapted to suit all types of tapestry and levels of degradation and continues to evolve as needs and ethical considerations change with time.

96


Figure 12.2 Detail from Kitchen Scene, Brussels, circa 1629: detail of a grotesque face at the centre of the top edge of the tapestry, before cleaning, showing the effect of soiling and the loss of the light coloured silk weft and surrounding dark wool weft.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank The National Trust, Hardwick Hall, Devonshire Collection for permission to publish Figures 12.2 and 12.3.

References Bauer, R. (1975). Barocke Tapisserien aus dem Besitz des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien. Halbturn Castle. Borg Clyde, N. (1992). The Roman de la Rose tapestry. In The Art of the Conservator (A. Oddy, ed.) pp. 151– 62, British Museum Press. Bosworth, D. (1997). The conservation of four tapestries from Hardwick Hall. In Textiles in Trust. (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 142 – 46, Archetype. Brooks, M., Clark, C., Eastop, D., and Petschek, C. (1994). Restoration and conservation – issues for conservators: a textile conservation perspective. In Restoration: Is It Acceptable? (A. Oddy, ed.) pp. 103 –122, British Museum Press.

Figure 12.3 The same detail after cleaning and couching in light and dark coloured areas to clarify the design.

Campbell, T. (1997). The National Trust tapestry collection. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 147–55, Archetype. Clark, C. (1996). Tapestry, I, 1: Materials and techniques. In The Dictionary of Art ( J. Turner, ed.) 30, pp. 307–10, Macmillan. Delmarcel, G. (1999). Scenes of Country Life. In Flemish Tapestry, pp. 290 –94, Lannoo. Fiette, A. (1997). Tapestry restoration: An historical and technical survey. The Conservator, 21, 28 –36. Finch, K. (1989). Tapestries: conservation and original design. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, Belgium, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 67–74, Getty Conservation Institute. Jobé, J. (ed.). (1965). The Art of Tapestry. Thames and Hudson. Nelson, K. (1998). Jacob Jordaens Design for Tapestry. Brepols. Souchal, G. (1979). The Triumph of the Seven Virtues: Reconstruction of a Brussels series (ca. 1520 –1535). In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 103 –54, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Wingfield Digby, G. (1980). The Tapestry Collection. HMSO, pp. 42 – 43.

13 A grid support for The Lamentation tapestry Frances Lennard and Michelle Harper

The development of support techniques There has been a gradual evolution in methods of providing structural support to tapestries at the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC) since the development of the conservation stitching techniques described in the previous chapter. The TCC has treated many tapestries for museums, historic houses and private clients since it was established in 1975 and a variety of approaches has been and continues to be used. The treatment of the tapestry described in this chapter illustrates one of the more recent developments. The general trend in conservation throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, at the TCC and elsewhere, has been towards minimum intervention. Although this is probably less evident in the conservation of tapestries than in other types of textile, it has had an effect on the treatments carried out. This chapter focuses on the provision of structural support to tapestries, rather than on the visual reintegration aspect (this is discussed separately in Chapter 19). A range of techniques is used at the TCC to provide structural support to damaged tapestries. The condition of the tapestry and its context influence the treatment strategy; its overall condition is the decisive factor when deciding how to approach its conservation. For many years the commercial conservation department of the TCC employed conservators, and trained apprentices, to work specifically on tapestries. A high level of skill and technical ability was evident in the use of colour matched couching stitching to redefine the design and to infill missing areas of tapestries (Borg Clyde, 1992). As the division between conservators specifically trained to work on tapestries and those who specialised in other types of textile

became less pronounced, there was a new interest in applying techniques commonly used on other types of textile to the requirements of tapestry conservation. The most significant development has been the widening of the range of support treatments used on tapestries. Although it is still considered desirable to replace missing design elements on some tapestries with detailed couching stitching, others do not have significant areas of loss, and may not be treated in the same way. If a tapestry is in need of full support it may be attached to a support fabric by means of an interlocking grid of support lines, in a manner more commonly found on other types of textile. It is possible to vary the spacing of the support lines within a tapestry from an area in relatively sound condition to another in weaker condition. The support of small areas of damage is then integrated into the overall grid; more intensive stitching is used in areas of particular damage. However, if a tapestry is significantly damaged throughout, the density of stitching required to support the individual weak areas may be so high that additional support lines are unnecessary.

Case history: The Lamentation A sixteenth-century Brussels tapestry entitled The Lamentation was conserved at the TCC in 2001 (Figure 13.1). It was one of a group of tapestries treated for English Heritage, part of the Wernher Collection from Luton Hoo, which was being conserved for display in the Rangers House. Aspects of the treatment of this tapestry were both challenging and rewarding. This chapter focuses on two areas: the removal of past repairs and the development of the 97

98


Figure 13.1 The Lamentation, early sixteenth century, from Brussels or Bruges.

stitched support treatment. The aim of the conservation treatment, as specified in the client’s brief and the treatment proposal, was to stabilise vulnerable parts through minimal conservation and to apply suitable hanging and mounting methods to enable the tapestry to be safely displayed in a historic house setting. Removal of past repairs The tapestry had been heavily repaired over the years with areas of reweaving, including in many of

the outlines around the main figures. The bottom border had been cut and reapplied. These areas were now considered to be integral to the object and to be of historical interest. They were not altered but were conserved as part of the tapestry. Much of the slit stitching had previously failed and had been crudely restitched in a variety of threads. In general, a policy of only removing stitched repairs which were causing structural damage was implemented. Slit repairs were removed where they had been worked too tightly or had been overstitched

A grid support for The Lamentation tapestry 99

Figure 13.2 The position of the grid lines was marked with colour coded pins, using a card template as a spacer.

causing the warps to overlap. However some of the very crude and disfiguring slit repairs were also removed, particularly those executed in a thick cream coloured thread, because of their distracting effect on the readability of the design. Development of grid support Although from a viewing distance the tapestry appeared relatively complete with few large areas of loss, it was in vulnerable condition overall with considerable crown loss to the weft yarns which exposed areas of the warps and gave a mottled appearance. The overall weakness dictated that the tapestry was given an overall full support of scoured linen scrim fabric; all the stitching was carried out through this fabric. The support fabric was attached using stitched ‘scrim lines’ which ran the height of the tapestry and were worked in a running stitch using polyester thread. It was applied to the tapestry with a small amount of excess from one side to the other, as this would be taken up by the support stitching. The amount of excess

needed varies with each tapestry; the calculation is based on the condition of the tapestry and how much conservation work needs to be carried out. The tapestry was given an overall stitched support. This was based around an interlocking grid of staggered running stitch lines used to attach the linen to the tapestry. The length and spacing of the lines was tailored to the fibre content and condition of The Lamentation; in general, lines are placed closer together in areas of poorer condition. The position of the lines was marked with colour coded pins, using a card template as a spacer (Figures 13.2 and 13.3). They were stitched parallel to the weft of the tapestry so that they ran vertically when the tapestry was hanging. The slits where the stitching was weak or had been removed were reinforced using polyester thread. The reinforcement of the slit stitching created a series of horizontal stitched lines which acted in combination with the grid of vertical support lines to attach the tapestry to the support fabric. Additional stitching was worked to augment the grid in weaker areas such as those caused by broken

100


Figure 13.3 The lines were temporarily marked with white threads laid on the surface of the tapestry.

warps and missing or damaged silk weft. Evenly spaced rows of running stitch were used; these were worked across alternate warp yarns and extended into sound areas of the weave. The treatment’s aim was to strengthen the tapestry where this was necessary rather than to recreate lost aspects of the design or revive colour density. However, the stitching was carried out using dyed yarns which blended in colour and texture with the weft yarns of the tapestry: dyed wool yarn was used in areas of wool weft, and stranded cotton was used in areas of combined wool and silk weft. Although the spacing of the rows of stitching was not close enough to visually infill missing areas, the use of coloured threads helped to restore the definition of the image in a way that would not have been achieved by using neutral warp coloured threads.

Conclusion The primary aim of the conservation treatment in this case was to allow the tapestry to be rehung safely. This was successfully achieved: the grid of

stitching and the reinforcement of the slit stitching provided overall support. The grid system created a distributed network of support lines to attach the scrim to the tapestry. The additional stitching in areas of damage provided further support in these vulnerable areas; the stitching was extended out into areas in good condition following the basic principles of textile conservation. However, it was also acknowledged that the visual appearance of the tapestry was important. Some of the particularly coarse and eye-catching repair stitching to the slits was removed primarily because it was disfiguring. The weak areas were couched in colour matched threads; although the couching stitching was well spaced and did not aim to restore the original density of colour nor to recreate lost aspects of the design, it did still have the effect of visually infilling missing areas. It would in theory be possible to carry out such support stitching using only warp coloured yarns to provide an equally effective support but without any image enhancement. Although this policy of minimum intervention is often applied to other types of textile, the history of intervention to restore the image, and the value placed on the

A grid support for The Lamentation tapestry 101

image itself, mean that this pure conservation approach is rarely applied to tapestry hangings. The grid system has been incorporated into the range of techniques used at the TCC. In this case beginning the treatment with an overall grid support worked very well because the tapestry was in a similar condition throughout and had relatively small areas of damage, although its general weakness meant that it needed to be given a full support. However it would not be appropriate in all cases; in some tapestries a greater emphasis is placed on the reintegration of the image, while others may require such intensive stitching to support weak areas that an additional grid of support lines is unnecessary. It is important that the conservation treatment is formulated to suit the requirements of each individual tapestry.

Acknowledgements The Lamentation (TCC 2606.4) was conserved by Michelle Harper (Project Manager) and Frances Lennard.

Reference Borg Clyde, N. (1992). The Roman de la Rose tapestry. In The Art of the Conservator (A.Oddy, ed.) pp. 151– 62, British Museum Press.

14 Conservation techniques at De Wit Royal Manufacturers Yvan Maes De Wit

De Wit Royal Manufacturers was founded in 1889 and has been restoring tapestries for more than a century. Since the author of this chapter became responsible for this laboratory in 1980, techniques have changed completely. New techniques were developed with regard to cleaning (see Chapter 10), conservation, visual integration, lining, hanging and storage of tapestries, in order to meet the new requirements of museums. This laboratory is focused on the treatment of tapestries and work for museums represents 75 per cent of its activities. 75 per cent of its production is exported abroad. The most important recent tapestry conservation programmes in the world have been entrusted to this laboratory (the collection of Canton de Vaud in Switzerland of 102 tapestries and the collection of the Chicago Art Institute of 88 tapestries). The five major tapestry collections in the world, and many others, regularly entrust their most important pieces to this laboratory (Maes, 1989 and 2000). A list of recent work for museums can be seen on the website.1 Different techniques are used by De Wit Royal Manufacturers for the conservation of tapestries (Masschlein-Kleiner and Verrecken, 1994). One particular technique, however, is used regularly by this workshop. This technique, known as ‘conservation integration’, is explained in this chapter; examples are given in other publications.

Conservation treatment Sewing the slits The first conservation treatment operation is the sewing of the old slits or the replacement of

previously poor or obtrusive sewing work. Although this operation does not, strictly speaking, form part of the conservation treatment, it is emphasised that at De Wit Royal Manufacturers this sewing work is carried out as much as possible before attaching the consolidation fabrics and, therefore, before the consolidation operations begin. Some restorers sew the slits after attaching the consolidation fabrics and, therefore, through the latter, but it is our opinion that the sewing work of the slits is a fundamental part of the original structure of the old tapestry, and consequently that it is preferable to restore those slits before applying new consolidation supports. It goes without saying that this operation is sometimes difficult to carry out for tapestries in very bad condition and resewing certain slits through the consolidation fabrics then becomes inevitable. Attaching the consolidation fabrics Consolidation fabrics of fine woven linen, twice pre-washed at over 90°C, are applied to the back of all the weak or damaged parts of the tapestry. These fabrics are specially dyed in the dyeing laboratory of De Wit Manufacturers with high wet and light fast dyes. The colour is chosen according to the dominant colour of the area to be treated. They are cut to be used as patches which are deliberately larger than the damaged parts, firstly in order to bridge to stronger adjacent areas, secondly to take into account the inevitable extension of future degradation. For some very damaged tapestries, considering the extent of the fragile and damaged areas, consolidation fabrics can cover the whole tapestry. 102

Conservation techniques at De Wit Royal Manufacturers 103

Creating a network of consolidation lines on the support fabric The consolidation fabric is first attached to the tapestry by means of invisible stitches in vertical lines of 450 mm. These lines are spaced 150 mm apart from each other in both directions and form an overlapping pattern. The stitches are worked at intervals of 20 –25 mm. Shorter consolidation lines, 60 mm long, support weak areas of the tapestry at intervals of 30 mm, in an overlapping pattern. These long and short consolidation lines together create a cohesive and supportive network that connects the old textile to the new consolidation fabric. It secures the transition between weak and strong areas and consequently resists vertical stresses. All weak parts are treated using this ‘consolidation grid’. Consolidation of the areas of missing wefts using an angled fixing stitch In areas of lost coloured wefts, floating warp threads are attached to the consolidation fabric using an angled fixing stitch following the twist of the original warp threads. The colour of the silk fixation thread is chosen in accordance with the predominant colour of the area to be treated or is neutral, the same colour as the warp. The decision whether to choose neutral or coloured fixation lies above all with the curators responsible. Most curators with whom De Wit Royal Manufacturers has worked have chosen an intervention in a colour close to the lost colour. That choice is motivated by the fact that such interventions give, at a normal reading distance, a certain idea of the lost colour while not attempting to recreate the original in any way since the interventions are deliberately spaced and present a different structure. This can be justified particularly in areas where dark brown woollen weft threads have been lost. In that case, angled fixing stitches in a darker colour restore to a certain extent the continuity of the pattern and the balance of great masses of colour. It goes without saying that this methodological approach may be contested and, in that case, invisible fixing stitches are used. Consolidation of areas with missing warp using span stitches In areas of lost warps, silk threads of 60 mm, laid vertically on top and thus bridging the gap, are used for the fixation of floating wefts. Horizontal fixation stitches are sewn every 5 mm through the consolidation fabric in order to stabilise the floating threads.

Removal of old repairs Bad previous restorations, poor stitching and undesirable consolidation materials are normally removed. The basic objective of the different operations described above is to ensure the mechanical stabilisation of the original elements of the textile by means of a whole network of small and large lines combined with angled fixing stitches. This technique was, for instance, used as a basic treatment for the conservation of all the 102 tapestries of the Canton de Vaud, Lausanne, Switzerland (Toms collection). This conservation campaign started in 1995 and was finished in 2004 (Maes De Wit, 1998). The 88 tapestries of the Chicago Art Institute are being treated by the same method. At the time of writing, 51 tapestries have been treated and 37 will be conserved before 2009. This programme, covering 88 tapestries, started in 1995. This technical approach can contribute greatly to the aesthetic improvement of the tapestry provided that special attention is paid to the following points. First of all, the judicious choice of appropriate colours for the consolidation fabrics can play a decisive role in the overall aesthetic result. The availability of a wide choice of linen colours is obviously essential. If the most suitable colour is not available, the cloth will have to be specially dyed. By always choosing colours duller than the original colours, the future evolution of modern dyes compared with old dyes will be taken into account. For this purpose, Royal Manufacturers De Wit has established its own dying laboratory: all materials (wool, silk, cotton and linen) are dyed in-house, in trichromy, using only colours with high light and wet fastness in order to guarantee the best long-term stability. This was, for instance, very useful for the conservation treatment, in 2002 –5, of the series The Moses Story (Brussels, 1545), displayed at Châteaudun Castle, France, the main tapestry exhibition venue of the Monuments Historiques of France. A lot of large holes were treated by using only consolidation textiles, all specially dyed in different colours. Secondly, the reshaping of the old textile prior to its immobilisation on consolidation fabrics can also contribute greatly to the final aesthetic result. This means putting all the warps back in parallel alignment, which, more often than not, involves adjusting original parts of the textile deformed by time. While this reshaping process is above all important for obvious reasons of stability, such an operation can reduce the size of the open spaces between the warps and so decrease the disturbing impact of gaps.

104


The process of prior reshaping of the old textile on a suction table, explained in Chapter 10, can play a considerable role in the success of such an operation. For instance, the tapestry The Battle of Ponte Molle (Paris, Faubourg St Marcel, 1625) after Rubens, belonging to the Mobilier National, Paris, and displayed at the Musée des Arts Décoratifs in Strasbourg, treated in 2004 –5, was very deformed before treatment due to a lot of very inappropriate and coarse old repairs. The reshaping process made it possible to achieve a very flat textile which was easy to roll on the conservation loom.

Visual integration treatment Sometimes, it is desirable to treat the damaged parts that interrupt the appreciation of the work of art or detract from its overall appearance, after the conservation treatment. In this case, a second stage of the treatment, the visual integration, can be considered. This second procedure is completely independent of previous conservation work and is reversible. Every intervention of integration can thus be removed in the future and be replaced by a more adequate one. The visual integration of damaged parts is accomplished in the following way. Introduction of new warps In some areas, new warps can be introduced where original warps are missing and the reading of the composition is disturbed. These warp threads are dyed an appropriate colour so they are less visible. Generally, warps are made darker, greyer or with an older appearance, but not in the colour of the surrounding weft which would not respect the original structure of the tapestry. They are not put into the original structure, but laid on and attached to the consolidation fabric, using the above mentioned angled fixation stitch. They are not attached through the original textile. Sometimes it is preferable from an aesthetic point of view not to introduce new warps or wefts in damaged areas. Using only an appropriately coloured consolidation fabric can be enough to integrate the damaged part into the composition. Twelve medieval tapestries from the Treasure of Mainz cathedral in Germany were conserved in this way in 1997– 8. Some holes were treated with only a consolidation textile in a suitable colour and other holes, sometimes on the same tapestry, were treated with only a few warps attached to the support fabric.

Introduction of new wefts New weft threads can be introduced by weaving them between the warp threads which have been fixed during the conservation treatment described above. These wefts are deliberately spaced and are attached through the consolidation fabric at the beginning and at the end of each pick. The new weft threads are spaced at 4 –5 wefts per 10 mm, which leaves a slight distance between them. These weft threads consist of one single woollen thread or two silk threads and are of an appropriate colour according to the colour of the original lost wefts. At the request of the Patrimonio Nacional of Spain, the Los Honores series (Brussels 1525 –30) of nine huge tapestries, together with three tapestries after J. Bosch (Brussels before 1542) and some of the Panos d’Oro tapestries (Brussels 1510 –15), were treated with this method in order to reduce the disturbing effects of some missing areas in the silk.

Lining Lining is considered part of the total consolidation process and not as only a dust cover for the reverse of the textile. Lining is done on a flat table specially made for this operation. This table, 5 m long (can be extended to 6 m) and 4 m wide, is made with a sliding surface. An aperture is made on one of the sides of the table running along its entire length. The tapestry is unrolled on the lining. The front of the tapestry therefore faces the restorer. The tapestry and its lining are slid over the lengthwise aperture. The restorer fixes the tapestry onto its lining through this gap using fixing stitches arranged in vertical lines in relation to the tapestry. The consolidation lines are 450 mm long at 150 mm intervals, in both directions, in a grid pattern with a cotton thread. The stitches of the consolidation lines are done at a distance of 15 mm. The lining is made of pure linen, twice boiled and specially dyed an ochre colour in the workshop. The restorer, with the front of the tapestry facing him or her, is in a position to place the fixing stitches very accurately and effectively. The stitching thread can be slid between two weft threads, so as to make the fixing stitch invisible. A single warp thread, the strong element of the textile, can also be used as support, while avoiding the fragile areas and the badly damaged warp threads. The consolidation lines of the lining are placed in such a way as to be inserted between the similar

Conservation techniques at De Wit Royal Manufacturers 105

consolidation lines previously attached when the support fabric was fixed. The result is a grid of lines at intervals of about 75 mm spread all over the tapestry where the consolidation fabric is used; the intervals are 150 mm where no consolidation fabric is used. In this way, the density of fixing stitches is 310 per m2 in areas without support fabrics and 620 stitches per m2 in the areas with support fabrics. This grid offers a guarantee of an efficient longterm support of the tapestry. For some very fragile tapestries, or tapestries of very high value, a grid with lines at only 75 mm intervals is sometimes used. This means a density of stitches of 620 stitches per m2 on the lining. The looped side of Velcro is sewn onto the lining beforehand; Double Velcro is used at the corners. For museum tapestries a system of Velcro attached to an extension of the lining of about 100 mm is increasingly used. In this case, the Velcro is fixed on the reverse of the hanging batten. With this system, the laboratory always supplies a special batten with an adapted hanging system. All identification markings as well as inscriptions found on a former lining are sewn onto the new lining, together with the manufacturer’s mark and date of treatment. This lining method is used for all the tapestries treated in the laboratory, for example, for a series of 10 tapestries of the Story of David and Bethseba (Brussels 1515 –25), of the Musée National de la Renaissance at the Ecouen castle, France, treated in 2004 –5. This series, considered as probably the most important of the pre-Renaissance tapestries, includes some pieces in fairly good condition and others in bad condition. Nevertheless, at the special request of the curator, this lining technique, with a grid of lines spaced with 75 mm (620 stitches/m2), was used on all the different pieces of the series. All the tapestries hang with Velcro attached on an extension of the lining, near the old textile. Special battens and a special hanging system make it possible to easily lift and dismount the tapestries without any uneven stress. This also acts as a security system in order to remove the tapestries extremely quickly, for example, in case of fire.

The characteristics and advantages of the methods of intervention The first characteristic of the method described above is that it tries to separate, as far as possible, technical conservation interventions from aesthetic interventions. The aim is to concentrate in the first

operation on all the indispensable interventions related to the mechanical stabilisation of the fabric and thereby concentrate aesthetic choices and contributions in a second, later phase. Inevitably, aesthetic choices will also have to be made in the first phase of intervention; for example, the choice of the most appropriate colours for the consolidation fabrics. In the same way, the restorer will have to select either coloured or invisible fixation of the warp threads. In this situation, some restorers will only accept a neutral and therefore invisible intervention. Others maintain that an invisible intervention (the colour of the warp) is anything but neutral (when it is carried out in an area of lost dark browns, for example). Whatever that may be, it cannot be denied that aesthetic choices in this first phase of treatment can be minimised as much as possible. The second characteristic of the described method is that the main aesthetic interventions, since they are treated separately and independently of the conservation work, become more easily reversible than in any treatment where both these elements overlap each other in practice. More precisely, removing and replacing certain aesthetic interventions, without touching all the previously accomplished consolidation work, does not pose any problem. This is not devoid of interest since these aesthetic interventions are precisely the ones most exposed to criticism and to divergent interpretations. Figures 14.1 and 14.2 show an example of this aesthetic integration carried out on the tapestry La Chute des Idoles (possibly Flanders circa 1500) of the Museum of Decorative Arts, Palais du Louvre, Paris, at the explicit request of the curator who considered the very large central gap (a fifth of the tapestry) as being much too disturbing. To illustrate the reversibility of the explained method of intervention, it is important to emphasise that certain aesthetic interpretations of the missing garment were modified and that this was done without altering the entire previous consolidation work in any way. These interventions were based on thorough comparative research carried out using the computerised database of De Wit Royal Manufacturers, which led to the discovery of a pattern of a very similar garment on a tapestry conserved at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. With regard to aesthetic integration, this method of introducing wefts on previously immobilised warps is preferred to couching methods. The introduction of wefts, even spaced ones, is considered

106


Figure 14.1 An example of aesthetic integration carried out on the tapestry La Chute des Idoles (possibly Flanders circa 1500) from the Museum of Decorative Arts, Palais du Louvre, Paris: consolidation fabric applied behind the area of loss.

closer to the original structure of the tapestry than the use of couching stitches which, in the author’s opinion, is closer to the technique of embroidery. Finally, the author considers that systematic interventions through the consolidation fabric, which the couching technique involves, are less readily reversible than the introduction of wefts which are merely attached between previously immobilised warp threads. In conclusion, by separating the conservation treatment from the aesthetic treatment, these latter interventions are much more easily reduced to the strict minimum. After the conservation treatment, it is possible to hang the tapestry and examine the whole piece so as to make a better diagnosis of the main aesthetic problems. At a normal reading distance these problems are seen with a clearer sense of proportion and local problems will be better situated

Figure 14.2 New warps and wefts inserted to infill the area of loss.

in the overall composition. Lastly, and this may seem paradoxical, by separating the two aspects explained, more attention will be focused on the conservation interventions and on their integrating function. A large proportion of the visual problems actually find an acceptable solution from an aesthetic point of view through carefully studied and really appropriate simple conservation methods.

Endnotes 1.

www.dewit.be

References Maes De Wit, Y. (1998). Conserving Toms’ tapestries. Hali, 98, 73. Maes, Y. (1989). The Conservation-restoration of the sixteenth century tapestry, The Gathering of the Manna.

Conservation techniques at De Wit Royal Manufacturers 107 In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, 21–24/9/1987, pp. 103 –12, Getty Conservation Institute. Maes, Y. (2000). The Conservation of the Los Honores tapestries of the Patrimonio Nacional of Spain. In

Los Honores, Flemish tapestries for the Emperor Charles V (G. Delmarcel, ed.) Mechelen. Masschlein-Kleiner, L. and Verrecken, V. (1994). La Conservation de tapisseries. In S.O.S. Tapisseries, pp. 21–35, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels.

15 A description and evaluation of a conservation system for tapestries Sheila Landi

The methods of conservation that have become more or less universal, with variations, over the past forty years are highly intensive in terms of time, with the result that they are very expensive, prohibitively so for many private owners. In terms of mechanics, they can also sometimes leave the structure of the tapestry, which is very specific, without the overall support it needs for long-term display. The use of linen, although continuing a historical precedent, can be called into question in view of the way it degrades, losing elasticity and tensile strength as it ages even without the direct action of light. The method developed by the Textile Conservation Consultancy addresses both these aspects by a radically different approach, although it is not presented as the answer to every problem but only as another possibility to explore.

The support A fabric made from polypropylene fibres is used as a support. It has a distinctive leno weave that is strong, without much extension in the warp direction and with a very low absorption regain figure. While this last quality means the fabric cannot be dyed, it also means there is no risk of shrinkage if the tapestry needs to be washed again in the future, or even part way through an intervention. Since water is shed very rapidly, there is no risk of wicking from the backing into the tapestry fibres carrying residual dirt or degradation products during the drying process. The fabric is made for industrial use as a backing for modern carpets and the first experiment employing

it for conservation was as a support for carpets hanging in the study collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The amount of stitching applied in that case was minimal, but the principle was the same as is now being used for tapestries. Support of the tapestry weave structure is given by ensuring a very close association with the structure of this backing fabric. A warp count of higher than ten per centimetre would probably be difficult to accommodate into the fabric currently being used, but that is a matter of finding a different fabric rather than a different technique. Although some slight amount of ease in the support is allowed, it is important to understand that too much will mean that the weight is added to the tapestry and not that the weight of the tapestry is transferred to the support. It is also important that the support runs through the height of the object, to be included in the means of suspension. A patch behind an area where weft has been lost will put stress on the line of the outer edge of the patch unless it is extended in this way.

The method Maximum accuracy, linking warp ends of the tapestry to corresponding warps in the support without the needle passing through either, is achieved by working on an equivalent apparatus to a high warp loom (Figures 15.1 and 15.2) – two people working together, one behind regulating the stitches over the support warp, and one in front doing the same for the tapestry. A similar procedure, although not using 108

A description and evaluation of a conservation system for tapestries 109

Figure 15.1 Tapestry under repair set up on the high warp loom. As each section is completed it is wound onto the upper roller.

the same fabric is described in Landi (1985) in the case history of a fragment of a Persian carpet, which in turn was based on the experience of handling the Ardabil Carpet. A basic rectangular grid of stitch lines is laid first, starting from the vertical centre line with horizontals placed every 300 to 400 mm. Any restitching of slits required is carefully attached to an associated warp on the support. Areas of loss of weft are controlled with laid couching worked as closely as necessary for an area, this time attaching to a weft thread in the support. The amount of stitching can be regulated according to the money available, but is always worked with regard to the design and local colour and thus is quite unobtrusive. Since a large area of the tapestry is visible while working, it is possible to keep the overall need in view without concentrating on small details. Additions can be made at a later time and, given the opportunity,

some replacement of lost details of drawing can be considered – in particular the dark outlines that are often missing, but add so much definition when replaced. A technique of working over three warps and back under two with an appropriate colour has been found to work quite well, but it is not easy to incorporate closer coverage of bare warps by more conventional means without compromising the independence of the two weave structures. Total loss of both weft and warp can be dealt with in a number of ways, but experience has not, so far, presented enough problems for wide experimentation. In one example a section cut from the border of a tapestry, but still extant in a fragmented condition, was worked on separately. A piece of linen cloth was attached to the back of the tapestry itself to cover the hole and the fragment was repaired onto it in situ ensuring a close fit. The normal procedure followed.

110


Figure 15.2 The apparatus seen from behind. The backing fabric is carried on the small diameter roller, to be fed into the tapestry as needed.

Evaluation Two sets of tapestries have been completed that provide contrasting degrees of intervention. In the

first, a set of three eighteenth-century Gobelins tapestries on classical subjects, it was possible to remove the majority of old and ugly repairs and much unnecessary stitching of small slits that had been

A description and evaluation of a conservation system for tapestries 111

Figure 15.3 Eros and Psyche, eighteenth-century Gobelins, hanging after conservation.

added later. The designs regained their sense of drawing without losing mechanical strength. A full treatment was carried out at a 50 per cent reduction in cost of an estimate made for conventional methods (Figure 15.3). In the second set, five seventeenth-century tapestries on the subject of Don Quixote (designed by Francis Poyntz), the client would only pay for washing and very basic support. In these, much old and ugly repair stitching had to be left in place, along with large areas of coarse darning. As far as possible any distortions in the weave were removed so that the two structures lay together comfortably and more work could be done later without having to remove what has already been done. With fresh cotton linings and suspension by means of Velcro the improvement to both the appearance and mechanical stability was considerable.

Long-term assessment The first tapestry to be treated with this method was one of the Acts of the Apostles series at Burghley House (woven in the Mortlake Tapestry Factory about 1675), this particular one being The Healing of the Lame Man at the Beautiful Gate. First worked on in 1993, with very strict limitations on the time allowed for replacing slit stitching, after a period of ten years it was taken down for surface cleaning and maintenance: it hangs in an open corridor less than three metres away from the windows. While down, the lining was temporarily removed and the tapestry was put on the high loom and more of the old weak slit stitching was replaced and extra couching worked over areas of loss of weft, the amount of work limited by the time available in the estimate. Much more could be done if ever more money is allocated, but the main structure is

112


holding up very well and can wait until other tapestries, in greater need, have been made safe for display. During the first intervention this tapestry was washed a second time as technical difficulties had prevented the first wash from being fully effective. It was dried, tented over a very large diameter metal roller and weighted out under tension, providing the case history for washing during an intervention.

In addition, the fact that much of the picture was architectural in character proved how effective the support fabric is in keeping weaving lines straight.

Reference Landi, S (1985). The Textile Conservator’s Manual. Butterworth-Heinemann.

16 Tapestry as upholstery: the challenges of conserving tapestry-covered seat furniture Kathryn Gill

Tapestry is a term normally associated with large wall hangings. This chapter focuses on the conservation of another form of tapestry, namely tapestry-woven panels designed to cover upholstered seat furniture. Such furniture was very fashionable in eighteenthcentury Europe and formed an important part of many interior schemes (e.g. Osterley Park House, Isleworth, Middlesex). Many other fine examples of tapestry-covered furniture are preserved, for example at the Wallace Collection (Figure 16.1) and the Victoria and Albert Museum, both in London; Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire; and the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Frick Collection, in New York. The main considerations in determining the conservation needs of tapestry panels as top covers attached to upholstered furniture are different from those concerning large free hanging tapestries. This chapter focuses on three differences and their effects on the treatment of the tapestry-covered furniture. Firstly, the covers are one element of a complex multimedia functional artefact, so therefore are exposed to different stresses and strains during application and use. Even though the covers are largely supported by the upholstered frames to which they are nailed, they are stretched and manipulated to fit over three-dimensional forms. Secondly, they may have to be temporarily removed from the upholstered form and require tapestry and upholstery conservation specialist expertise to facilitate conservation treatment. Finally, being of a much smaller scale than most tapestry hangings, they are usually viewed at a much closer distance.

Degradation of tapestry top covers The main physical factors that affect the condition of tapestry top covers relate to their materials, construction and use. Many tapestry-woven top covers have a high silk weft content. The most common reason for the covers requiring conservation treatment is due to degradation and loss of the silk wefts. The causes, effects and rate of loss of silk are due to a number of factors. The three-dimensional upholstered form offers considerable support to the tapestry panels. However, the condition within each panel may vary depending on its warp direction over the threedimensional upholstered form and the location of the silk elements. Tapestry panels with wool warps, and wool and silk wefts, are stronger in the warp direction than in the weft; therefore, identifying the warp direction and percentage of silk wefts is significant when assessing the condition of a cover. The warp direction of a tapestry weave top cover will either run across the width or along the length of an upholstered form (Figures 16.2 and 16.3). However, being attached to a three-dimensional form, the warp direction will vary considerably at corners and curves where the cover is folded, gathered or pulled down toward the tacking rail to accommodate the shape of the upholstery, as shown in Figure 16.4. The Wallace Collection suite top covers1 had a high content of degraded silk wefts. Many of the silk wefts had dropped out exposing bare warps. Since the bare warps were positioned across the width of the seat they were relatively unsupported by the upholstered form, as shown in Figures 16.1 and 16.3. 113

114


Figure 16.1 Gilded armchair with tapestry covers, after conservation.

In addition, the most protruding areas, for example the armpads and front edge of the seat, are more exposed to mechanical abrasion during use than the relatively protected areas, for example the rear seat panels and areas concealed within folds. During the ageing process, the silk wefts (and slit stitches) will normally fail first and will eventually drop away exposing the warps underneath. Consequently, tensioning will become uneven between exposed warps and those still covered and connected by wool wefts. The most vulnerable areas will be the remaining silk

elements and bare warps located in the protruding areas. A characteristic of tapestry weaving is the positioning of the warp threads. In tapestry-woven cloth every other warp stands slightly forward of the adjacent warps. This is particularly noticeable in areas of wool weft. Consequently, the weft covering the raised warps is subject to more mechanical abrasion and wears away more quickly than those on either side. As a result, and particularly noticeable across areas of dark wefts, a striped effect is created as bare

Tapestry as upholstery: the challenges of conserving tapestry-covered seat furniture 115

Figure 16.2 and 16.3 Drawings of two armchairs showing the warp direction on the covers.

cream warps lie adjacent to those covered in dark coloured wefts. The special problems of conserving the multimedia, many layered, functional artefacts that constitute upholstery have long been recognised (Gill and Eastop, 2001). Degradation of one or more element of the upholstered structure or frame may play a significant part in accelerating the degradation of the tapestry top cover. For example, if the webbing fails on an upholstered seat (as often seen with nineteenth-century seats upholstered with springs), this may cause the upholstery layers to collapse on themselves, depriving the tapestry cover of its support. Another typical point of failure is the collapse of the front seat edge when the filling cover pulls away from the frame along the tack line. This is due to stresses imposed during use. The collapsed edge exerts strain and tension along the tack line of the tapestry cover and the point where the frame edge pushes against the tapestry. An equally common problem is the weight of the upholstery understructure covering the inner back frames. Eventually, the upholstery pulls away from the tack line causing it to sag and deform. This puts most strain along the full width of the upper edge of the top cover and to a certain extent along the lower edge as the upholstery filling continues to settle (Gill, 2001).

Stresses occur between the tensioned cover and the frame, particularly along the tack line, and are increased during use by the sitter’s weight. Stresses also occur due to fluctuating environmental conditions. Metal fasteners anchoring the tapestry top cover to the frame eventually become corroded and may bond with the cover, making removal difficult.

Method of attachment of tapestry top cover to seat furniture frame Some upholstery structures are nailed directly to the seat furniture frame whilst others are attached to an independent frame which sits within the chassis frame. The chair illustrated in Figure 16.1 is an example of this type of frame. Chassis-type frames enable the upholsterer to build up the upholstery away from the main furniture frame. This not only increases access for the upholsterer but also reduces the risk of damage to a gilded frame (Diderot, 1751–72). The relatively stiff handling properties and thickness of tapestry-woven cloth demands considerable skill to achieve a good fit to the upholstered frame, particularly at corners where shaping results in folds

116


Figure 16.4 Detail of the front proper left corner of one of the Wallace Collection chairs.

and gathers in the tapestry, which can result in bulkiness. The upholsterer is required to manipulate the woven panels to follow the contours of the upholstered unit. During the process of application the cover might be clipped, stretched, gathered and folded as needed to assist in this aim (Figure 16.4). The process also involves adjusting and retacking until the cover sits well on the frame. The covers are attached within a narrow band of the tack rail, usually no more than 10 mm wide and the excess cover is usually cut away close to the show wood. Following application to the frame, the edges of the covers are often decorated with a narrow woven tape and/or decorative nails to accentuate the line of the upholstery and to cover the tacks. The tape is secured to the tapestry edge with adhesive, by stitches or with gimp pins, or possibly a combination of all. The decorative nails are spaced or placed head to head in a single line or in a pattern formation, e.g. parallel lines perhaps linked with a swag pattern (Beard, 1997).

Temporary removal of top covers for treatment Most degraded covers are not removed from the frame for treatment as they no longer have sufficient strength to withstand removal, treatment and reapplication to the upholstered frame. However, for those severely degraded panels which are removed for treatment, it is essential that the method applied in attaching the tapestry top covers to the upholstered frames is thoroughly documented prior to and during removal. If the covers are not replaced in exactly the same way after treatment, unfaded areas previously concealed may become visible, impairing the overall appearance. Accurate templates made of all panels serve as reliable guides to shape and dimensions. Templates also serve as a means of marking the most vulnerable areas on the textile in its flat state and in relation to its positioning on the threedimensional form; for example, areas of the tapestry panel under most strain and distortion or most

Tapestry as upholstery: the challenges of conserving tapestry-covered seat furniture 117 2 Aa

1 Aa

unravelling from the raw edges. When the covers are lifted from the frame they are no longer supported by the upholstery. Consequently, all vulnerable areas, including edges, often require support and protection during wet cleaning and other treatment phases by temporary encasement with netting to reduce silk loss.

Ab

Support stitching of top covers

0

B Ab C

3

2

Tapestry top cover, stitched

Aa

Top cover support – linen, stitched

1

Upholstery understructure, nailed

0

Frame – wood

B

Cotton fabric covered NomexTM strips, stapled

Ab

Top cover support – net, stitched

C

Net binding – nylon, stitched

3

Main frame (Chassis)

Figure 16.5 Cross-sectional diagram of an upholstered frame showing a system devised to minimise bulkiness of the support fabric on the upholstered frame.

worn and suffering warp loss. These areas influence the conservation treatment, in particular the way in which the panels are stitched to the support fabric, the degree and location of stitching and support fabric allowance required. Noting how firmly the panels are held over the upholstery and how much space there is between the upholstered frame and the main furniture frame is of equal importance as this may help to determine the maximum thickness of the support fabric that could be used in conservation. The process of releasing and removal of the decorative nails and other trimmings may expose new areas of weakness and damage. The edges of the tapestry top cover panels are particularly vulnerable. The threads along the tack line are often severed by tack shanks and are susceptible to further weakening by corrosion products and adhesive residues from decorative trimmings. The tightly packed wefts are prone to

The main aims of a top cover conservation treatment are to support damaged areas, help to camouflage loss and to take some of the strain away from the top cover by placing the support, rather than the top cover, under slight tension upon the upholstered frame. The selection of an effective support fabric is critical in the conservation of tapestry weave covers. Most support material options are too bulky at the point where the cover fits into the frame, or along the tack line or folds. Silk crepeline, although very fine, is too weak and the weave of polyester crepeline distorts and frays too easily. Net is better, although too stretchy to provide adequate support alone. In one such situation the main area of the top cover panel was supported on fine linen fabric but the edges above and including the tack line were supported on net, thus combining the qualities of both materials to maximum effect and enabling the cover to be reattached to the frame (Figure 16.5). The weave of the support fabric needs to be sufficiently accommodating to conform to the contours of the three-dimensional form, but not too open to cause the couched bare warp threads to distort, for example at folded corners, and when under slight tension in the weft direction. The thread count should be higher than that of the panel requiring support since the areas of bare warp threads require rows of close couch stitching to hold them in position. Couching stitching is a long established and effective conservation technique used to hold bare warps on degraded tapestry-woven panels to the support fabric. However, there are concerns about the visual effect of colour matching threads; the spacing of support lines and couching; and the type of thread used. These concerns are not exclusive to upholstery panels but the relatively small scale of the panels, the three-dimensional form over which they are stretched, and the close viewing distance make them more obvious than on large wall hangings viewed at a greater distance.

118


An evaluation of couching techniques in supporting tapestry-woven top covers The visual impact of colour matching threads The practice of couching areas of bare warps with thread colour matched to the missing weft can create a satisfactory support and provide an aesthetically sympathetic integration with the extant weft (Figure 16.4). However, detailed design areas may require several colour changes of thread in a short space. In addition, the detailed design of colours, especially in areas of silk highlights, makes the treatment process extremely time-consuming as the many different colours mean the threads have to be cast on and off, as well as making it harder to achieve even tension across the width. Furthermore, whilst better aesthetic integration is achieved overall, in areas of dark colour, even when stitch rows are placed closer together, the overall effect can be of spottiness and the rows of stitching appear quite distinct against the cream warps as shown on the front section of the armpad in Figure 16.1. For all of these reasons the approach to conservation stitching has been reviewed. During the conservation of the Wallace Collection suite, a decision was made to change colour less often, opting for colours which blended with areas of the bare warps. There was one exception. Since the individual pieces were to be viewed together as a suite, a decision was made not to modify colour choice in areas which would have a distinct visual impact upon the design, for example the prominent areas of dark red/brown wool weft loss on the front sections of the arm pad covers (Figure 16.1). As a result of the reduced colour palette, the whole process was less time-consuming as fewer colour changes meant more continuity in stitching. Tension control across the width of the cover was more achievable. Even though fewer colours were used the difference in aesthetic integration with the surviving silk weft and design detail loss was negligible, and much improved in areas of deeper tones where contrast with the light warps was less extreme. This success is largely due to the fact that a tapestry panel, being stretched over a three-dimensional form, is never in full view as it would be if displayed flat. Spacing of support lines and couching The spacing of couching rows required across bare warps of a tapestry panel displayed flat is generally

further apart than the spacing across bare warps of a tapestry chair cover. The main reason for the closer spacing is to secure the exposed warps when the conserved cover is manipulated into position on the upholstered form (Figure 16.4). In areas of bare warps requiring folding and gathering, it is particularly important for the distance between any two stitches on the same warp to be less than 12 mm apart, as anything greater causes the warp to pop up and become vulnerable to snagging. The spacing of lines of couching stitching varied on the Wallace Collection top covers, depending on the condition of the area being worked. Across areas of completely bare warps the spacing ranged between 5 –7 mm, each line couching every other warp. In areas where warps remained covered by wefts the lines were spaced further apart, ranging between 7.5 –12.5 mm; the couching stitches were also spaced further apart. Although couched stitching provides effective support, aesthetic issues are raised in areas of bare warps. Unless stitching rows are very close together, on a finely woven tapestry with a high thread count, it would be difficult to avoid creating the tram line effect exhibited in Figure 16.6a. This is particularly noticeable in large areas of silk weft loss and very noticeable at a close viewing distance, for example looking at an upholstered chair seat (Figure 16.4). Stitching trials Four stitching trials were undertaken by the author to find the optimum stitching pattern, i.e. one that would reduce the tram line effect without either compromising on the amount of support required or overstitching an area. Different spacing of stitch rows and variations on couching over every other warp were explored (Figures 16.6a–d). The investigation was undertaken on an eighteenth-century tapestry panel from the Textile Conservation Centre’s (TCC) Karen Finch Reference Collection. It was selected because it was comparable in weave count and fineness of weaving to the Wallace Collection suite set; 8 warps per 10 mm (20 warps per inch); 34 wefts per 10 mm (85 wefts per inch). The four stitch trials are shown in diagrammatic form (Figures 16.6a–d). The spacing between couching threads along the length of one warp remains constantly at 10 mm in trials one to three as shown in Figures 16.6a– c. The spacing is closer in trial four. The total number of couching stitches worked in trials one to three was almost identical. However, the stitch distribution varied: trial one (Figure 16.6a)


10 mm

a

b

c

d

Figure 16.6a–d Images of the four stitching trials undertaken on sections of bare warps of the tapestry panel.

couched every second (alternate) warp; trial two (Figure 16.6b) couched every third warp and trial three (Figure 16.6c) couched every fourth warp. The couching stitches were distributed within a 10 mm section of warp. The number of rows differed for each trial, there being two rows in trial one, three in trial two and four in trial three. Trial four (Figure 16.6d) was different in that it combined elements from trials one and two, i.e., couching every second (alternate) warp with three rows per 10 mm. All four stitching trials held the supported warps securely. However, trial one showed the strongest tram line effect across the width of the warps; trial three created a similar effect across the diagonal. The most successful from an aesthetic point of view was

trial two, as there was no discernable linear pattern. This was achieved by spacing individual couching stitches approximately the same distance apart between rows and between warps (Figure 16.6b). Trial two was also visually effective across areas of alternating worn wool wefts, the stripy effect being reduced by the couched stitching pattern. The linear pattern was also less apparent on trial four, however, 33 per cent more couching stitches were required to create this effect (Figure 16.6d). Combining all aspects All favourable outcomes from the support stitching trials and the results produced from the work

120


Figure 16.7 Detail of a tapestry weave panel utilising the polyester thread, colour matched to the warps and the couching arrangement illustrated in Figure 16.6b.

undertaken on the one Wallace Collection set with neutral coloured polyester thread, were combined and used to good effect on the seat cover panel from the TCC Reference Collection. The aim of treatment was to provide an overall support with rows of stitched couching lines across the full width of the panel. The rows and the number of stitches were more concentrated in weak areas. A fine polyester thread, matt in appearance and soft but considerably finer, smoother and stronger than stranded cotton thread that was colour matched to the warps, was selected. The preferred couching pattern (Figure 16.6b) was used. The thread was hardly noticeable and there was no tram line effect (Figure 16.7). The couching process was quicker than for the Wallace Collection pieces for three main reasons; firstly, less decision-making was involved as only a single colour was used throughout and consequently there was less stopping and starting to change colours and thread needles. This was by far the most time-saving element. Secondly, although the rows were closer together, the number of couching stitches was the same and took no further time; and thirdly, the thread passed more easily between packed warp threads. When the supported bare warp area was pulled in the weft direction the threads did not become distorted. They also remained in place when the same stitched area was folded diagonally, at right angles and parallel to the

warp direction showing that corners, gathers and tucks would be adequately supported. The aim of the support was to reintroduce structure to the surviving elements of the tapestry-woven panel by realigning, reconnecting and securing bare warps with rows of couching stitches. The selection of the fine support threads, colour matched to the warp, was made in order that surviving design elements would stand out against a neutral ground. The results were considered very successful, perhaps because the main areas of loss had been of light cream silk of similar colour and depth of shade as the exposed warps, and the majority of the wool wefts and coloured silk highlights remained largely extant. If the lost silk wefts were of a greater colour contrast than the warp, for aesthetic reasons a thread more closely matching the colour of the original weft may have been selected. As illustrated in Figure 16.6b, the particular stitch pattern was not predominantly linear but assisted in redressing the balance of the overall design. Since the thread was sufficiently fine to become completely concealed between rows of surviving wefts this would still allow for couching large blocks and providing more continuous support. In some circumstances following completion of mono colour block couching, for aesthetic reasons alone, small design elements considered critical in the understanding of the panel could be suggested by couching exposed warps with coloured threads. Since the structure of mono colour couching provided the main support there would be no need to extend the aesthetic couching yarn into strong areas of existing weft. This would create better aesthetic integration between bare and existing weft and prevent unnecessary tension, especially from thicker wool weft replacement thread in these areas.

Reapplication of top covers No matter how desirable it is to minimise changes to the original multi-layered upholstery construction, once removed from the frame, reattachment of the conserved covers to the wood frame with the original tacks and into the original holes can be difficult (Balfour and Trupin, 2000). This is especially true of tapestry covers whose thickness demands a particularly strong hold. Furthermore, reattachment of top covers to the wood frame with tacks is damaging to both the cover and the frame. Tacks create new holes and uneven tensions across the tapestry. The irregularly shaped cut edges of the top cover need to be well secured to withstand the handling


during reapplication to the frame. Colour matched semi-transparent net provides a discreet and fine protective binding. The edges of the cover are bound in a continuous layer of net stitching through all layers (Figure 16.5). Less stitching is required than if the edges were stitched to a single support from behind, and all partially detached threads are held down flat under the net. The bound edge can be attached to the under upholstery or to the frame. The net layer also provides additional protection from the trimming layer. Modifying the original method of attachment can minimise damage to the frame, even tension and reduce damage to textile elements. The aim of the modification is to provide a stitching ground for the reapplication of layers with stitches rather than with metal fasteners (Figure 16.5) (Gill, 2004). Attachment of edges to the support fabric is often undertaken once the conserved cover has been pinned back on the upholstered frame. In this way a close fit and accurate placement of netted edges can be achieved in direct relationship to the upholstered frame. For this reason it is advantageous that documentation, removal, conservation and reapplication of the cover onto the upholstered form is undertaken by the same person.

Conclusion Top covers are rarely removed from their upholstered forms for treatment because of the degree of intervention imposed upon the textile and upholstered frames, and the permanent change to the objects in doing so. The challenges of conserving tapestry weave covered upholstered furniture do not arise only from the technology and materials of tapestry weaving. They are further complicated by the effects of its use as upholstery. The condition and the function of the upholstery (past, present and future) and how the tapestry is applied to the upholstery, has a major effect on treatment. Conserving tapestry weave chair covers requires considerable experience in textile conservation, including the specific needs of tapestry structures. In addition, a clear understanding of the methods and techniques used by upholsterers and upholstery conservators in fitting and attaching top covers to a wide variety of upholstered three-dimensional forms is essential. Knowledge of upholstery structures, profiles and the frames to which they are attached is also required, as well as strong investigation, observation and documentation skills. The skill and knowledge is rarely embodied in one person, and consequently

many tapestry covered upholstery conservation projects are the product of a team of specialists (Gill & Eastop, 2001; Gill, 2004; Balfour & Trupin, 2001).

Acknowledgements The stitching trials and conservation of the tapestry top cover from the Textile Conservation Centre’s Kaven Finch Reference Collection was undertaken by the author in 2004. The Wallace Collection’s set of eighteenth-century Beauvais tapestry top covers was conserved at the TCC between 1983 and 1993 by Deborah Beasley, Sandra Bottle, Norma Clyde, Sherry Doyal, Kate Gill, Menaka Kenward, Frances Lennard, Rachel Thomas and Wendy Toulson (TCC 0573, 0738, 0936). I would like to thank the Wallace Collection for permission to illustrate this chapter with items from their collection. Thanks go to colleagues for the time they have taken to discuss their experiences with me. I would like to acknowledge the support provided by the University of Southampton and the support of colleagues at the Textile Conservation Centre, notably Nell Hoare, Amber Rowe and Maria Hayward. Thanks also go to Mike Halliwell for processing the photographs. Special thanks go to Dinah Eastop for her invaluable editorial advice.

Endnotes 1.

Further information on this suite of furniture can be found in Gill, K. (1984). The Conservation of a set of 18th century tapestry panels from an upholstered sofa. Unpublished Museums Association Conservation Project Report. Textile Conservation Center.

References Balfour, D. and Trupin, D. (2000). Case studies in upholstery conservation: an Anglo-American collaboration’. In Conservation Without Limits. Pre-prints of IIC Nordic Group XV Congress, August 23 –26 2000, pp. 185 –203, Finland. Beard, G. (1997). Upholsterers & Interior Furnishings in England 1530–1840, p. 192, Fig. 210, Yale University Press.

122


Diderot, D. and d’Alembert, J. (eds). (1751–72). Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers [Encyclopedia or systematic dictionary of the sciences, arts and crafts], Vol IX, plate XI, Tapissier, Suite de la Facon d’un Fauteuil Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton, Durand. Gill, K. (2001). The Lawrence Alma-Tadema settee, designed c.1884 – 85: the challenges of interpretation and replication. In Upholstery Conservation: Principles

and Practice, (K. Gill and D. Eastop, eds.) p. 36, Butterworth-Heinemann. Gill, K. (2004). The development of upholstery conservation as a practice of investigation, interpretation and preservation. Reviews in Conservation, 3 –22. Gill, K. and Eastop, D. (eds). (2001). Upholstery Conservation: Principles and Practice. Butterworth-Heinemann.

17 Tapestry on a small scale: conserving a set of Soho tapestry chair covers from Petworth House Laura Bosworth

Paul Saunders (1722 –71) of Soho Square, London, was a furniture maker, upholsterer and tapestry maker, who was appointed ‘Tapestry Maker to His Majesty’ in 1757 (V&A, 1984). In 1763 he sent a bill to the executors of the second Earl of Egremont for a set of ‘French Elbow Chairs’, which might well be the set of seven Louis XV style, Soho tapestry covered chairs, c. 1760, in the Carved Room at Petworth House. Saunders is known to have supplied tapestry pieces to the Egremont family, based on Francis Barlow’s illustrations for a 1666 edition of Aesop’s Fables, a popular source of upholstery designs. It is possible that these are the chairs illustrated in an 1865 watercolour-gouache painting of the Carved Room by the Hon. Mrs Percy (Madeline) Wyndham (Anon, 1997). A similar set of chairs can be found in The Saloon at Uppark House. The accounts at Uppark include an entry for £33.0.6 paid to Paul Saunders in 1761 for ‘tapestry’ for a set of Louis XV style English giltwood armchairs (Anon, 1989). Six of the Petworth chairs depict scenes from Aesop’s Fables. The seventh has tapestry covers from a different set, slightly more coarsely woven than the others and this may have been used to replace a particularly damaged original cover. To date, conservation of two of the chair covers has been completed, with the third currently in progress.

Description and condition The covers on the first chair to be conserved depict a cat with a cockerel on the chair back and a dog standing on a wooden bridge over a stream on the seat. The second depicts a dog and heron on

the chair back and a dog with a bird on its back on the seat. The third shows a fox and a stork on the chair back, while the seat depicts a fox with a bunch of grapes. All of the chairs in the set, with the exception of the one that does not match the others, have arm pieces with floral designs. The design is surrounded on all pieces by plain red/ brown wool. The condition of the chair covers reflects their use. They are generally weak and worn with the worst damage concentrated in the centre and along the front section of the seat cover (Figure 17.1). The damage is fairly uniform on the armrests. Damage to the chair backs is more general and less extreme. Damage is also quite severe where the wood elements of the chair meet the textile part, such as where the wooden armrest joins the sides of the chair seat. The first chair to be conserved presented some unique problems, along with other challenges that were common to the rest of the set. Examining the covers while they were still on the chairs, extensive previous repairs were evident. In many areas, the repairs were distorting the warps, thus exerting stress on the surrounding areas and breaking the remaining silk wefts. The repairs were so extensive that they formed a thick, padded layer on the reverse of the covers. Consequently, a less interventive approach, such as using a grid of support stitching combined with an overlay of conservation net, with no additional couching stitching, would not have alleviated the stress and tension problems caused by the previous repairs. When the covers were removed from the chair by the upholsterer, it became apparent that the repairs had been worked 123

124


through up to three layers of fine cotton muslin. The silk repair stitching was worked through all three layers, indicating that it was done at approximately the same period, possibly in the 1930s. The silk used for these repairs was extremely weak, fluffy and friable. The stitches were often of uneven tension, with some stitches going over two warps instead of one, or going through a warp, thereby weakening it. In some areas, the stitches were worked closely to imitate the original weave. Some of the silk threads had either faded or changed colour, thus drawing the eye to the repairs and detracting from the design. Poorly placed repair stitches had obscured details of the design. Silk had also been used to repair damaged and missing areas of the dark red/brown wool surround on the back and seat pieces. However, the silk repairs on all parts of the chair covers were part of the history of the chair. They were also extremely extensive and their removal would have been very time-consuming and would also have caused damage to the remaining weak silk weft. The conservation treatment had to take these aspects into account, balancing the ongoing damage caused by the distortion of the warps and the confusion of the design, with the history and future use of the piece. Some slits had been restitched using an unsightly, coarse linen thread. Small woven red/brown patches had been used to extend the covers at the top of the back and where the seat piece meets the back uprights of the chair. These additions were common to all three chairs conserved to date and they were sometimes stitched out of alignment. The second conserved chair also had very particular problems. Some of the previous repairs had been worked in black wool. Although this was used sparingly, it contrasted sharply with the pale, faded background. The previous silk repairs were of two different types. The same weak, friable silk repairs seen on the first chair were evident on the second. There were also areas where the rewoven silk was still in a fairly strong condition. Earlier wool repairs to the red/brown surround had faded and no longer matched the original wool. The third chair was similar in condition to the previous two, although some repairs had been done through cotton as well as muslin patches.

Conservation challenges Tapestry-woven upholstery top covers are functional as well as having an important aesthetic value.

They play a significant part in the overall scheme of an interior and they are designed to be appreciated by the viewer close up. This means that the precision of the design is vital. Therefore, any support treatment must address the legibility of the design at close range as well as the structural integrity of the textile. The condition of upholstery textiles is directly affected by their use and their treatment must take their ultimate function into account (Gill and Eastop, 2001). Whilst on a chair, tapestry-woven covers are put under tension in both the warp and weft directions, with extra stresses at the corners. During conservation, it must be borne in mind that the textiles will be put under the same stresses when they are returned to the chair. The method of attaching the textile elements to the chair frame means that the already fragile outer edges will hold the entire cover under tension. It is therefore necessary to provide the textile with overall support that will withstand handling by the upholsterer. The woven textile and the support fabric through which repairs are done need to be unified in such a way that the strain will be evenly taken by the support fabric rather than the fragile textile. The correct combination of an even structure of gridlines and the support stitching, which is led by the condition and design of the piece, will ensure the liaison between the two layers.

Treatment aims The aims of treatment were: to clean and stabilise the woven covers; to give suitable overall support to each piece while taking into consideration the fact that they would be held under tension when returned to the chair; and to retain previous repairs where possible, whilst realigning the weave as far as possible to prevent further stress being placed on the remaining silk and wool wefts. Repairs that obscured the design would be removed.

The treatment One of the aims of the treatment was to straighten the distorted warps as much as possible without causing further damage to the original silk wefts. To this end, it was decided to cut away some areas of the support fabric that had not been stitched through. This would also help to prevent any soiling released during cleaning becoming trapped between

Tapestry on a small scale: conserving a set of Soho tapestry chair covers from Petworth House 125

Figure 17.1 Detail of the fox eating a bunch of grapes from the seat cover of the third of the set of covers to be treated from Petworth House, before conservation.

Figure 17.2 Detail after conservation.

the layers of muslin and cotton fabric and the reverse of the cover. Areas of repair which were not causing stress were retained. A template of each piece was taken to ensure that the cleaned pieces would fit accurately when returned to the chairs. Fine linen fabric was scoured and used as a support. A generous amount of linen was left around the edges of each piece to ensure easy handling when they were being put back onto the chairs by the upholsterer. Support stitching was worked through the linen support using wool in wool areas and stranded cotton was chosen to repair the silk areas (Figure 17.2). In order to provide strong overall support, a stitched grid was used. As the covers of the first chair were so distorted, a fine polyester thread grid of lines 25 mm apart in both directions was done as the seat and back pieces were worked on. This allowed a certain amount of adjustment to take place, easing distorted areas into a better and safer position (Figure 17.3). The process of reducing distortion, while retaining repairs that were not causing damage, proved very time-consuming because the repair silk was in such poor condition that it was impossible to avoid dislodging it whilst securing it and the surrounding original areas. After consultation, the approach to the conservation treatment of the remaining chairs in the set was reassessed. The first chair would be used as an example of a more interventive approach. It was proposed to treat the second chair in a less interventive manner, relying on the grid to provide the overall support. The conservation stitching

would be confined to the central area of the seat and back, reasserting the design. The spacing of the stranded cotton couching lines would be increased to 5 mm intervals so that a spacing of no more than 10 mm resulted on each warp in background and surrounding plainer areas of design. The grid lines would be closer together than on the first set, to provide more substantial support. The application of a layer of fine conservation net after treatment was considered, to provide the fragile surface with additional protection. As a trial, a 20 mm grid was started on one of the armrests using stranded cotton, working over alternate warps. However, the result was that each square formed by the grid became raised in the centre because of the many loose weft floats on the reverse of the weave and the tight muslin backing. The grid stitching was found to leave the weak areas raised and more vulnerable. The grid was also clearly visible and, when reupholstered and under tension, it would have caused more stress than beneficial support. To alleviate these problems, it would have been necessary to cut away more muslin and remove many of the previous repairs. It was concluded that although, in theory, this approach would be an appropriate method of conserving the chair covers, in practice, the specific problems presented by these particular covers made this approach unsatisfactory and, ultimately, damaging to the textiles. The covers of the second chair were therefore treated in the following way. Only the most distorting repairs were removed. The muslin was slit

126


Figure 17.3 The reverse of the seat cover after conservation showing the grid and the distribution of the couching.

only where it held the weave in a distorted position. A grid of running stitches was worked in a fine polyester thread with the lines 25 mm apart in both directions and the stitches spaced at between 15 mm and 20 mm long, as for the first chair. Using stranded cotton of appropriate colours, lines of couching stitching were worked across the weave, with lines 5 mm apart. Supplementary stitching was used where the weft was missing in order to make the design legible. This method provided good overall support and an overlay of conservation grade net was not used. The third chair will be treated using the method devised for the second chair.

Evaluating the technique The conservation of the Petworth chair covers illustrates that the techniques developed for supporting

large tapestry-woven textiles need to be adapted when working on tapestry-woven top covers for upholstered furniture. Just as their function differs from that of large, flat pieces, their aesthetic and structural aspects must be considered together when devising a generic set of conservation guidelines for them. In turn, these general principles then need to be adapted to create a conservation strategy for each set of chair covers being conserved. The system of gridlines proved an effective way to provide structural support without compromising the aesthetic appearance of the pieces. In addition, the conservation stitching re-emphasised the design, protected original silk and wool weft from further loss, and reinstated missing areas without causing damaging differences in tension. The combination of the gridlines and support stitching ensured that the conserved pieces could be safely handled and effectively reapplied by the

Tapestry on a small scale: conserving a set of Soho tapestry chair covers from Petworth House 127

upholsterer. In conclusion, by taking a flexible approach and considering their original function, previous intervention and their future use, the conservation of the Petworth chair covers has been adapted very successfully to meet their specific requirements.

References Anon (1989). Uppark. The National Trust. Anon (1997). Petworth House. The National Trust.

Gill, K. and Eastop, D. (2001). Upholstery Conservation: Principles and Practice. Butterworth-Heinemann. The Victoria and Albert Museum (1984). Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth’s England. The Victoria and Albert Museum.


Part Four Treatment options – Image reintegration


18 The visual reintegration of missing areas in tapestries Rachel Langley and Philippa Sanders

Background to the National Trust and its collections The National Trust is a charity set up by an Act of Parliament in 1885. The Trust currently cares for just over 200 historic properties, areas of significant natural beauty and coastline. The Trust’s stated aim is to preserve this heritage forever, for everyone, making public access a key issue. In general, the historic properties are shown very much as the lived in residences they once were, with most of their contents on open display. Preventive conservation is the guiding principle and each house and contents has its own care programme determined by its sensitivity. The environmental controls that it is possible to exert within a historic house are necessarily limited. However, levels of light and relative humidity are regularly monitored and visitor numbers controlled by having closed periods during the winter, when essential maintenance and cleaning can be carried out. Within its collections, the Trust is responsible for over 50 000 textile objects, ranging from elaborate state beds to samplers and household textiles. In order to provide the properties with the necessary expert advice on caring for their textile collections and to carry out conservation treatments, the Trust has established an in-house Textile Conservation Studio. The Trust’s textile collection includes about 470 tapestries, which as an entity is the fourth largest collection in the world. These tapestries are found in 54 of the properties (Campbell, 1997). Some of these properties such as Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire, Knole in Kent and Cothele in Cornwall have large collections of significant tapestries, with some sets of tapestries still displayed in rooms which were built specifically to house them (Drury, 1997).

One of the roles of the Textile Conservation Studio is to survey the textile collections in terms of the condition and stability of the items. These surveys are used to determine treatment requirements, estimates and priorities. With specific reference to the tapestry collection, those requiring routine maintenance, basic first aid treatment to prevent weak areas from deteriorating and those in urgent need of full conservation treatment at the Studio can be identified. Further information on the in situ first aid treatment carried out by the Studio is given in Chapter 27. In this chapter the different approaches used at the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio to reintegrate missing areas in tapestries undergoing full conservation treatment will be discussed and illustrated using case histories.

Factors influencing the choice of treatments for missing areas Once a tapestry has been identified as requiring full conservation treatment, many factors need to be taken into consideration. The specific problem that will be considered here is when damage has resulted in significant areas of loss. Tapestries are pictorial; therefore the integrity of a tapestry as an art object is inextricably bound up with its visual integrity. As mentioned previously there are several rooms within the Trust’s properties which were built specifically to house sets of tapestries. The integrity of these historic interiors is dependent on the visual impact made by the tapestries, which will diminish if there are large, distracting areas of loss. When a tapestry has areas of loss the conservator is faced with the complex problem of stabilising the structure, 131

132

Treatment options – Image reintegration

together with conserving the original material and the image, where possible. When devising a treatment proposal for a tapestry with significant missing areas the choice of approach is determined by a variety of factors.

the original weaving; photographs and diagrams of the tapestry prior to the damage; a similar set of tapestries depicting the same scenes; repetition of the design or image in the tapestry or within the set, e.g. on a border; or obvious design elements either side of a missing area, e.g. the spears in Case history 1.

The context of the missing area The scale of the missing area affects the technique chosen. For example, a small hole within a significant area of the picture can be rewarped and warp couched with coloured threads to match the original weft. This technique was used on one of the Gideon tapestries (see Case history 2). Larger missing areas may not be suitable for this intensive stitched technique as it is very labour intensive, which will have cost implications and there may be no hard evidence as to the missing design. An alternative is to infill with dyed fabric (see Case histories 1 and 2). The position of the missing area can result in different techniques being used within one tapestry. For example, a missing area within a significant design area, such as a central figure, may be rewarped and warp couched in great detail, whereas it may be possible to use a patch of suitably dyed fabric behind a missing area of foliage or in the background. Colour is also a factor. Patches of dyed fabric are often the most effective way of dealing with holes in dark, monochrome areas such as galloons. The dyed fabric gives the required intensity of colour, which can be hard to achieve with warp couching. The condition of surrounding areas A variety of agents can cause damage: physical damage caused by rodents or pests (see Case history 1); deliberate removal by cutting out weak areas (see Case history 4); fire; and chemical breakdown of the fibres caused by the iron mordant used in the dyeing of dark brown wool wefts. In Case history 2, dog urine is thought to be the most likely cause of damage. In order to rewarp and couch a missing area, the surrounding tapestry must be strong enough to withstand the introduction of new warps. In cases where the surrounding tapestry is weak, a patch infill or laying warps across the support fabric could be a more appropriate choice. Sources of evidence for the missing image Any infilling that suggests the missing design should be based on evidence of the original, to avoid subjective interpretation by the conservator. Possible sources may include: cartoons and working drawings from

Financial constraints Rewarping and couching a missing area can be a lengthy and therefore costly procedure; the stabilisation of a missing area by a simpler, quicker method including patching with coloured fabric may be preferred (Clarke and Hartog, 1996).

Case histories of treatments undertaken at the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio to illustrate different approaches and solutions to missing areas Case history 1 A set of eight, late sixteenth-century Brussels tapestries depicting the story of the Roman General Scipio at Hardwick Hall. Five have been conserved and the sixth is due to be completed in 2006. All the tapestries were very dirty, with numerous tapestry patch repairs and some extensive missing areas, across both main fields and borders. One tapestry, depicting a battle scene, has a missing area 300 mm by 800 mm through the centre of the main field. This extreme damage is thought to have been caused by rodents whilst the set of tapestries was stored folded in the attics many years ago. There are no known cartoons or other extant sets, therefore only the surrounding areas of design gave any evidence for the design of the missing areas. After surface and wet cleaning, the tapestries were given a full support onto a linen scrim. With the curator’s approval any previous patch repairs that were physically or visually distorting were removed, otherwise patches were left in place where they were of a suitable colour, to provide evidence of previous treatments. Small missing areas of tapestry were rewarped and couched using the surrounding area as evidence. In some cases, even the tapestry patch repairs required this treatment. The large missing areas were infilled with dyed, wool rep fabric with a wide rib to blend in with the coarse weave of the tapestries. Colours

The visual reintegration of missing areas in tapestries 133

Figure 18.1 Detail of tapestry from the Scipio set, showing dyed rep patch inserted behind missing area. The dark brown wool and the cream silk lines of the inner border and the outline of the horse’s head have been embroidered onto the plain rep patch to carry the design across it.

were chosen to blend in with the general tones of each tapestry. The surrounding areas and loose warp threads were stitched in place using spaced warp couching in wool and silk. Dark blue wool rep was used in the large missing areas of the galloons, rather than using the rewarping and couching technique, as this would give a spotty appearance. In one tapestry, a fragmented missing area was infilled with wool rep but some of the missing area ran through a distinctive design element of a cluster of spears. This part was rewarped and couched, over the rep patch, using the evidence of the top and lower sections of the spears. The rest of the area was left as plain rep. Rewarping over the rep patch did not cause undue thickness as the tapestry was a coarse weave. Also, by extending the patch under the rewarped section, additional support and stability was given to the area of loss and surrounding extant tapestry. The largest area of loss on this tapestry, however, ran across the centre of the mainfield depicting a busy battle scene. There were no strong outlines or distinctive design elements that could be charted from one side of the hole to the other and so a plain rep patch was inserted with no embellishment added.

On other tapestries in the set, key design details within the main field were identified and embroidered onto the rep patches using a running stitch to replicate a warp couching stitch, for example the dark brown outline of a horse’s head and the silk highlights of an inner galloon. This proved an effective method for allowing some continuity of design so that the area of loss did not appear so prominently (Figure 18.1). Further examples using this technique of embroidery over a fabric patch infill can be found on other conserved tapestries at Hardwick. Case history 2 A late sixteenth-century Brussels tapestry from a set of thirteen depicting the Story of Gideon at Hardwick Hall. This case history illustrates how two different infilling techniques can be successfully used within one tapestry. This tapestry is one of a set of thirteen, late sixteenth-century tapestries, depicting the Story of Gideon, which hang in the Long Gallery at Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire. This is a unique set of tapestries with no other complete set extant and no

134


Figure 18.2 Detail from the lower border of the Gideon tapestry showing a stained, damaged area that was too weak to re-warp, supported onto a dyed, plain weave patch.

surviving cartoons. Initially six tapestries are to be conserved as part of a collaborative project.1 Regular communication and meetings ensure consistency in the work carried out. Within this tapestry there were two very different types of missing area. One of these consisted of a series of four small, clearly defined holes running in a vertical line through the face of one of the central figures in the mainfield. The most likely cause was the stitches holding the linen lining in place pulling on the tapestry and forming holes over time. The other missing area, in the lower border, was stained and structurally unstable (Figure 18.2). It measured 650 mm by 750 mm and consisted of numerous missing areas surrounded by weak brittle tapestry. It is known that the household dogs were often exercised in the Long Gallery. The location and nature of the damage to the tapestry is consistent with this having been caused by dog urine, which is very alkaline and over time would degrade the protein fibres of the wool warp and weft and the silk weft, causing them to become very brittle. A decision was made to infill the small discreet holes running through the figure’s face by rewarping

and warp couching in coloured wool to replace the missing elements of the face. The figure was central to the design of the tapestry and to infill such a significant area as the face with coloured patches would have been more distracting. The conservators were able to use the evidence of the remaining area of the damaged face as well as the features of the other figures within the group. A tracing was made of another face in profile and used as an overlay to guide the couching as work progressed. This area is now structurally stable and, when viewed as a whole, the repair blends very well with the original tapestry, whilst still being discernible as not original when studied in detail (Figures 18.3 and 18.4) The other missing area within this tapestry was considered to be too weak to withstand rewarping as the degraded wool and silk weft was very thin and brittle. As it was in the lower border this missing area was not so prominent, nor so critical to the design of the tapestry. For these reasons the decision was made to infill with a plain woven, dyed wool. This technique of infilling with dyed wool patches has been used in the less significant areas of the design on other conserved tapestries from this set.


Figure 18.3 Detail from Gideon tapestry showing four small holes running through figure’s face possibly caused by lining stitches.

Figure 18.4 Detail from Gideon tapestry showing rewarped and couched holes.

136


However, due to the very weak condition of the surrounding area, a laid couching technique using a fine polyester thread, in colours to match the weft, was chosen as this resulted in a stronger and neater finish. The missing areas ran through a few different coloured areas of weft. A variety of different coloured patches was experimented with, but the least obtrusive result was achieved by using one patch dyed to match the general background colour. Case history 3 Two late sixteenth-century Brussels tapestries from Packwood House. This work was carried out in 1995 on two Brussels tapestries depicting scenes from the life of Saul, dated 1535 –50.2 Both tapestries had large holes in the top decorative borders, but were otherwise in a fair condition with strong colours and no other substantial missing areas. The tapestries were wet cleaned and given a full support of linen scrim. The borders on both tapestries were highly decorative with repeating patterns of flowers, bunches of grapes, pomegranates, blackberries, pea pods and twining leaves. In consultation with the curator, it was decided to infill the missing areas in the upper borders by rewarping and couching using the repeating floral design of the borders as evidence for the missing design. It was felt that to infill such a highly decorative element of the tapestry with a plain dyed patch, when there was evidence from the object as to the missing design, would be more obtrusive than recreating the design with coloured warp couching. Also, as the main fields of both tapestries were not badly damaged, it was possible to spend the extra time that rewarping and couching entails on these missing areas in the borders. Case history 4 A set of late seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestries depicting The History of Abraham from Blickling Hall. This existing set of seven tapestries was woven at the Mortlake factory after 1657, when permission was granted to weave a set of The History of Abraham. They are based on a similar set woven in Brussels between 1530 and 1540 by Bernaert van Orley, which now hang at Hampton Court Palace (see Chapter 3). The borders of the Blickling Mortlake set were probably designed by Francis Cleyn. The Blickling Mortlakes underwent repairs in the 1950s. On two of the tapestries these repairs consisted of substantial areas of weak silk weft being cut out and infilled with patches cut from other tapestries. These tapestry patches were then held in

place with large patches of cotton, treated with adhesive, applied to the reverse of the tapestry. Analytical tests showed that two adhesives had been used: shellac and latex. Over time, the adhesives had become stiff, discoloured and distorted and were causing further damage to the surrounding tapestry. The tapestries required treatment if they were to continue to be displayed without further damage being caused. In order to carry out this conservation the adhesive treatments had to be reversed (Leach, 1997). This left the tapestry with substantial missing areas in central figures, the main field and the borders. The treatment of this set of tapestries has been ongoing since the 1980s. Each tapestry exhibits different problems and therefore different solutions have been required. For example, two of the tapestries had large missing areas in the dark brown wool ground of the side borders. As these large missing areas were monochrome dark brown it was felt that a dyed patch infill would achieve a better visual result than rewarping and couching. In one tapestry entitled Abimelet Rex, the patch used was a piece of dark brown tapestry especially woven at the Studio by a skilled volunteer. Another area of loss in the dark brown wool ground of the border of the tapestry entitled The Return of Sarah by the Egyptians was supported and infilled using a specially woven wool rep fabric dyed to match the original. This change in choice of infill fabric was due partly to the availability of new materials and the specialist volunteer help being no longer available. In this tapestry there were also large cut out areas of the drapery on the main figures. The lengthy process of rewarping and couching was undertaken in these areas due to their prominent position and polychrome nature. A different approach is being considered for the next and largest tapestry in the set as it has many more sizeable missing areas in the mainfield and main figures. Estimates for the reweaving of tapestry patches to infill these areas are being sought. These can then be compared to the costs of rewarping and couching. The designs for the missing area will be discussed with the curator and decisions based on the evidence of the cartoons, another extant set, the surrounding areas and the other tapestries in this set.

Conclusion The National Trust has in its care a large and diverse collection of tapestries which are key to the integrity of the historic interiors of some of its most significant properties. These tapestries were extremely costly at


the time of manufacture and rooms within the houses were built specifically to house them, for example the High Great Chamber and the Long Gallery at Hardwick Hall. The sympathetic reintegration of any missing areas is essential to preserve the visual integrity of the tapestries. The care and preservation of these tapestries is a long-term commitment. Through its experience in treating sets of tapestries, the Textile Conservation Studio is able to undertake the forward planning required to ensure a consistent approach even when the treatments will extend over many years. This is especially significant with the Gideon tapestries. In order to maintain consistent treatment sufficient fabric has been purchased for the infills for the whole set. The experience that has been gained over the years at the Studio has reinforced the view that there is no one formula which can be applied to all tapestries. When reintegrating missing areas within tapestries each piece has to be judged very much on its own merits and within the financial constraints which are increasingly placed upon these treatments.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge all their many colleagues who undertook work on the tapestries

discussed and especially Ksynia Marko, the National Trust’s Adviser on Textiles and Manager of the National Trust’s Textile Conservation Studio.

Endnotes 1. 2.

A collaborative project involving the Studio and Danielle Bosworth, a private conservator, and her staff, with Danielle acting as project leader. The tapestries were identified by Tom Campbell, while working for S. Franses.

References Campbell, T. (1997). The National Trust tapestry collection. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 147–55, Archetype. Clarke, A. and Hartog, F. (1996). The cost of tapestry conservation. In ‘The Misled Eye . . .’ Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds) pp. 69 –72, TRON. Drury, M. (1997). A crumbling inheritance: Textiles and The National Trust. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 1–7, Archetype. Leach, M. (1997). Blickling Mortlake tapestry: adhesive removal treatment. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 176 – 8, Archetype.

19 Methods of infilling areas of loss Frances Lennard

It has already been demonstrated that a particular feature of tapestry conservation, within the wider field of textile conservation, is the need to consider some degree of visual reintegration. This chapter will focus on the aspect of visual reintegration, rather than structural support, and will consider some of the different approaches which have been used at the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC), since it was established in 1975, to infill damaged or missing areas of the image on tapestries. As in any other conservation intervention, the treatment carried out depends on the physical characteristics of the tapestry, its condition and its intended role and context, as well as the size of the missing area. The degree to which compensation for loss is carried out is dictated by a consideration of all these factors. Discussion with the client is the first stage in developing a treatment strategy.

Visual infilling using couching stitching Couching, or brick couching, has already been mentioned as a common stitching technique used in the support of tapestries. In areas of damaged or missing weft yarns spaced support stitching worked across the warp yarns and extended into stronger areas of the weave is a way of combining structural support with a method of visually infilling loss. This technique can be extremely successful in returning definition to the overall image so that from a viewing distance the design of the tapestry appears more complete, while on a closer inspection the areas of loss and damage, and the conservation stitching, are obvious. The degree of subtlety and intricacy with which this is done can be varied enormously, from

merely giving a suggestion of the colour of the missing wefts to the recreation of missing elements of the design. The spacing of the couching stitching varies depending on the visual effect sought, as well as the degree of support needed. The degree to which the couching stitching is colour matched to the tapestry’s weft yarns varies according to its appearance and condition. The stitching may be worked using a small range of different coloured yarns which blend with the surrounding areas. It is more time-consuming to match the colours individually to those of the surviving wefts, and the effectiveness of the support can be compromised when many short lengths of stitching are used. Small areas of damage are less noticeable from a viewing distance, so a stitched support which blends with the weft will help to clarify the design even if it is worked in less detail than the tapestry itself. A tapestry, Lord of the Vineyard, belonging to Magdalen College, Oxford, was treated by this method in 1985. This example demonstrates that it is possible to camouflage areas of loss and recreate missing design elements using this technique. The tapestry is one of two sixteenth-century Flemish tapestries belonging to the college which show the same scene, presumably illustrating the Parable of the Husbandmen. It is part of a collection of tapestries which include three depicting scenes from the marriage in 1501 of Prince Arthur, oldest son of Henry VII and Katharine of Aragon, which were acquired by the first president of the college in recognition of his services in negotiating the marriage. Although it is not known when the college acquired the Lord of the Vineyard tapestries, the collection as a whole is regarded as a valuable asset and a historic survival of the early furnishings of the 138

Methods of infilling areas of loss 139

college. The college was interested in improving the appearance of the tapestries in keeping with their distinguished history, as well as making them safe for long-term display. The tapestry had extensive previous repairs. Several large holes had been cut from the design and patched with tapestry fragments of unsympathetic colour and pattern. Some had been painted, many were wrongly oriented. As the patches were not providing adequate support to weak areas and were visually disfiguring, they were removed, along with other crude repairs. The holed areas were then supported onto patches of dyed linen fabric. The tapestry was not given a full support as it was in generally sound condition. New dyed wool warps were inserted across the large holes; these were anchored into the support fabric on either side of the area of damage. The warps were couched using dyed wool in areas of wool weft, and appropriately coloured stranded

cotton in areas of silk weft. Coloured couching stitching was used to recreate missing areas of the design across quite large areas of new warps; this was possible as evidence of what was in the missing areas was provided by the second tapestry of the same design owned by the college. The couching stitching was extended into the tapestry beyond the area of loss to secure the damaged areas around the edges of the hole and to integrate the new warps into the tapestry structure. Although this technique is very time-consuming, images depicting the pouch hanging from the belt of one of the main figures, before and after treatment (Figures 19.1 and 19.2), illustrate the extent of image reintegration which is possible. At close quarters it is obvious that the design is created by stitching and is very different from the woven technique of the tapestry itself, but at a viewing distance the addition recreates a missing area of the design and completes

Figure 19.1 Lord of the Vineyard tapestry: detail before treatment showing a tapestry patch in the area of the pouch carried by the figure. The dark brown outlines are weak with areas of loss.

Figure 19.2 Lord of the Vineyard tapestry: detail after treatment. The pouch has been recreated with couching stitching and the missing dark outlines have been rewoven.

140


the image without attracting undue attention. Lennard and Eastop (2005/6) give another example where this technique was used to infill a large missing area on a tapestry from Cotehele.

Recreation of dark outlines A significant feature of the Lord of the Vineyard tapestry is the way dark brown outlines are used to separate the figures and main elements from the background and so clarify and enhance the design. This is a common design feature of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century tapestries. Lemberg (1977) described how colour could be used very subtly in the weaving of outlines. Before synthetic dyes were introduced the dark brown colour of the wool yarn often used was achieved by dyeing the fibres with tannins using an iron sulphate mordant. This process has often caused the dark brown wool to be in a more advanced stage of deterioration than other colours: the tannins produce a very acidic dye while iron has a catalytic effect on the process of photo-degradation (Tímár-Balázsy and Eastop, 1998: pp. 95 – 6). The loss of these outlines has a major impact on the legibility of the design, particularly when earlier repairs and reweaving have faded and changed colour. Because of this, conservators often decide to recreate the outlines with very closely spaced couching stitching or sometimes by reweaving them. In such cases more stitching is carried out than is necessary to support the tapestry, purely for the purposes of clarifying and enhancing the image. The outlines of the Lord of the Vineyard tapestry were recreated where necessary using a needle weaving technique with dark brown wool yarns, dyed to blend with the original. The reweaving was undertaken before the patched support was carried out. This treatment was carried out in the mid 1980s; it is probable that in a similar situation closely spaced couching stitching would now be used rather than a reweaving technique, although the desired effect would be the same. Over the last twenty years the trend in the UK has been to move away from restoration towards conservation techniques which are visible from the front of the tapestry, at least at close quarters. Figures 19.1 and 19.2 illustrate how the recreation of the outlines clarified the overall image.

Dyed fabric infills Although colour matched stitching is often used successfully to recreate missing areas of the design,

this is not always possible or desirable. In other tapestries where areas are missing it is considered more appropriate to use dyed fabric beneath the areas of loss to both visually infill them and support the structure. This is particularly the case where large areas are missing or where there is doubt over how missing areas should be recreated. A seventeenth-century French or Flemish tapestry fragment depicting the Biblical episode Moses Smites the Rock was treated in this way (Figure 19.3). The tapestry was in very poor condition before conservation: the two side edges had been cut and most of the centre of the lower half of the fragment was missing; some smaller pieces were completely detached from the main body. The tapestry had been subjected to damp conditions at some time; the lining fabric was extremely degraded and the whole was covered with dust, plaster, mould and moth cases. Most of the silk weft yarn was very degraded. It was decided to treat the tapestry as a fragment and support it onto a neutral coloured fabric rather than to try to recreate missing areas of the image, particularly as the missing areas were large. It was supported onto a lightweight wool fabric, dyed an intermediate colour which blended with the colours used in the weaving. It was necessary to seam the support fabric; the seam was placed horizontally so that it could be hidden behind the tapestry at the top of the fragment. The wool fabric was reinforced with cotton domette fabric where it extended beyond the surviving tapestry in order to make it more equal in thickness to the tapestry fragment. Running stitch support lines were worked to secure the fragment onto the support fabric, with laid and couched support stitching to give further support to the damaged areas. The smaller pieces were positioned on the support fabric with laid and couched stitching. However it was felt necessary to use a different technique for the faces of the three figures; here couching stitching in wool and stranded cotton threads was used to reintroduce some definition to the image. Tears in the upper edge of the fragment were rewarped and couched to provide greater strength in this area. This infilling technique is also illustrated by the treatment of a late nineteenth-century tapestry, The Attainment of the Holy Grail by Sir Galahad, Sir Bors and Sir Percival, woven by Morris & Co in 1898–9 after a design by Sir Edward Burne-Jones. This very large tapestry, with an original estimated width of 8.7 m, had been trimmed on three sides and cut into four panels; it is not known when this was carried out. The owner of the four panels was keen to


Figure 19.3 Moses Strikes the Rock: after conservation treatment.

restore the readability of the tapestry by rejoining the panels in their former sequence; the narrative impact of this long frieze was felt to be important. This was judged to be possible because only a small proportion of the original tapestry was missing. The conservation treatment carried out aimed to reduce the visual impact of the missing sections without misleading the viewer about the tapestry’s incomplete state. It also aimed to stabilise the panels structurally by securing the cut warp ends and fraying wefts, and to reduce the visual impact produced by the untidy fraying wefts and the white line of cut warp ends at the edges of the panels. These goals were achieved by devising conservation techniques

which were minimally interventive and which could be reversed relatively easily. The panels were woven with cotton warps and wool and silk weft yarns. They were all in generally good condition apart from the irregularly cut edges. It appeared as though each panel had been cut with a sharp knife on the lower and side edges; the cut edges had not been secured and were fraying. As a result of the cuts some of the original material was missing, to a greater or lesser degree, from around the edges of the panels. A set of photographs in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum showed the tapestry before it had been cut. From this the losses between the panels and at each end of the tapestry could be

142


Figure 19.4 The Attainment of the Holy Grail by Sir Galahad, Sir Bors and Sir Percival after conservation; the four panels have been rejoined.

Figure 19.5 Drawing indicating the position of the four panels which had been rejoined, and the extent of the areas of loss.

deduced: it was estimated that approximately 800 mm had been removed from each end of the tapestry, and about 100 –150 mm from the bottom edge, although the dark blue galloon on the upper edge remained intact on all the panels. The loss of tapestry between Panels A and B was minimal as they had been separated by a single clean cut, while about 50 mm had been lost between Panels B and C. The loss between Panels C and D was larger, about 110 mm (Figures 19.4 and 19.5). The damaged edges were supported onto dyed linen fabric. Couching stitching in appropriately coloured wool yarns was used to secure the cut white cotton warp ends. This prevented further fraying of the weft yarns and also helped to disguise the line of bare warp ends. The methods used to rejoin the cut sections varied according to the amount of

original material missing. It was possible to rejoin Panels A and B by butting the warp ends and securing them to the underlying support fabric with couching stitches. The join was strengthened by selectively rewarping; new cotton warps were inserted at intervals, through the support fabric, to hold the cut ends together. As there was more loss between Panels B and C, and C and D, the method had to provide infilling material in a way that would be minimally obtrusive to the viewer and give the perception of a complete tapestry. The use of different techniques was explored, including rewarping the area and infilling the missing elements with couching stitching. However, as well as being very time-consuming, this method did not recreate the dense colours of the original tapestry. A more satisfactory result visually was achieved by


infilling the missing sections with plain dyed linen patches, suggesting the main areas of the design. The panels were spaced appropriately and temporarily held in place with straps. The dyed linen fabrics were seamed together and stitched in place. It was decided that a few large coloured patches would be used rather than many smaller ones; they were intended to give an overall impression of the missing areas of the tapestry rather than to replicate them. The plain weave linen fabric was selected to provide an infill with a neutral appearance. The patches were reinforced with a nonwoven polyester fabric to give them greater bulk and to compensate for the thickness of the tapestry-woven original. It was considered unnecessary to recreate the approximately 800 mm wide sections missing from each end of the tapestry as this would have added to the final width without contributing greatly to the overall image. As part of the blue galloon remained on the lefthand side of Panel A, as well as along the upper edge of the panels, it was possible to recreate the effect of the galloons around all the edges. They were made from strips of linen fabric dyed dark blue to match the remaining areas. Figure 19.4 shows the tapestry in its complete state once the four panels had been stitched together. Figure 19.5 indicates the positioning of the four individual panels making up the complete tapestry and the infills between them. It was necessary to carry out this treatment relatively quickly in order to meet a display deadline. It was suggested that infill fabrics could be printed with the missing areas of the design to give a greater appearance of completeness, but there was insufficient time to explore this option. Digital printing is beginning to be used to replicate areas of damaged design in objects and conservators are exploring its use to recreate the missing areas of an image or a design directly onto a support fabric. This technique can also be used to create the illusion of texture on a plain weave fabric, and so may be useful in the case of a tapestry-woven textile which has a very specific texture and quality.1 This remains an option for this tapestry; the treatment carried out in this case was designed to be relatively reversible allowing this, or another method, to be used in the future if desired. However, the approach implemented succeeds in presenting the four, once separate, panels as a convincing whole.

Conclusion These examples demonstrate that different techniques can be used to visually infill missing areas of

the image on a tapestry hanging, if this is considered necessary. The selection of the most appropriate technique depends on a variety of factors: the size of the missing area; the availability of evidence of what has been lost; the context of the object; and the degree of reintegration sought. In general, the larger the missing area the more difficult it is to reproduce the design with colour matched couching stitching. However, this is more because a large missing area makes it more difficult to ascertain what is missing than because the technique cannot be used to cover a big expanse of exposed warp yarns. It is commonly used to great effect, for example to recreate large missing areas on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century tapestries where the upper background is often a large expanse of pale coloured silk weft representing the sky. The owners of the Lord of the Vineyard tapestry considered the restoration of the tapestry’s original appearance to be important and this was carried out using this technique. In order to reconstruct the detail of missing areas it is vital that there is surviving evidence of what has been lost. This can be provided by a variety of sources; in the case of the Lord of the Vineyard a second tapestry woven from the same cartoon showed what was missing. The surviving photograph of the complete tapestry, The Attainment of the Holy Grail, allowed conservators to make informed decisions about the width of the areas of loss created when the tapestry was cut into four panels, and showed the missing elements of the design. A suggestion of the missing areas, allowing the tapestry to be interpreted as one piece on display, even when it had clearly been cut into separate panels, was considered appropriate in this instance. In the case of the tapestry fragment the areas of loss were considered too large to recreate even had another tapestry or a photograph survived; the presentation of the tapestry as a fragment was seen as being the most suitable option. The context of the displayed tapestry is always fundamental; the most appropriate means of visual reintegration in each case was arrived at following discussion between the conservator and the owner of the tapestry.

Acknowledgements The conservation of the Lord of the Vineyard tapestry (TCC 0421B) was carried out by Sandra Bottle and Teresa Roberts. The conservation of Moses Striking the Rock (TCC 0119) was carried out by Anne Amos in 1982. The conservation of the Attainment

144


of the Holy Grail tapestries (TCC 2088) was carried out in 1995 by: Eric Houpeaux (Project Manager), Tarja Bennett, Foekje Boersma, Sandra Bottle, Alexandra Clarke, Kathryn Gill, Maria Hayward, Brent Hile, Heather Howie, Kim Leath, Klaudia Pontz, Eric Pujalet Plaa, Amber Rowe and Louise Squire.

Endnotes 1.

Baldursdóttir, T. (2003). An Investigation into Noninterventive Methods for Treating Areas of Loss for the Display of Knitted Costume, using Digitally Produced Infills. Unpublished Dissertation for MA Textile Conservation, University of Southampton.

References Lemberg, M. (1977). The problem of brown wool in mediaeval tapestries: the restoration of the fourth Caesar tapestry. In Studies in Textile History. In Memory of Harold B. Burnham (V. Gervers, ed.) pp. 178–83, Royal Ontario Museum. Lennard, F. and Eastop, D. (2005/6). Image, object, context: image re-integration in textile conservation. In Image Re-Integration. Proceedings of the 2nd Triennial Conservation Conference at Northumbria University 15–17 September 2003, ( J. Brown, ed.). In press. Tímár-Balázsy, Á. and Eastop, D. (1998). Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann.

20 Tapestry conservation techniques at Chevalier Conservation Susanne Cussell

Conservation techniques in the treatment of tapestries came late to France when compared to other European countries (Fiette, 1997). The tradition and expertise in the use of traditional restoration techniques, such as reweaving and rewarping, was doubtless responsible for a certain reticence in adopting a conservation approach. Despite Chevalier Conservation’s long history and use of restoration techniques, conservation treatments were rapidly introduced and applied without, however, totally abandoning the expertise in restoration. The general approach of the workrooms in conserving tapestries will be described briefly in this chapter. As other chapters in this book already deal with the use of warp couching techniques (see Chapter 12), and the majority of readers will be familiar with this approach, priority will be given to the presentation of the following four treatment options: the use of laid-couching stitching commonly found on other types of textile; the use of restoration techniques; the theoretical and practical knowledge of tapestry weaving; and the use of printing pigments in recreating missing parts of the tapestry. These examples are exceptions to general practice and illustrate the diverse approaches and expertise of the workrooms.

Support methods and conservation techniques The international seminar on tapestry conservation held in Paris (IFROA, 1984) was influential and crucial in the development and introduction of tapestry conservation techniques in France. Reading the papers presented and the recorded roundtable discussions, it is apparent that curators and the few conservators

present had very different expectations and understanding of what conserving a tapestry involved. Pierre and Dominique Chevalier were in an excellent position to be made aware of the general conservation approach and the conservation techniques used in different European countries and North America in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Curators from these countries were regular visitors or clients of the Galerie Chevalier. Visits by such curators to the restoration workrooms led to discussion and an exchange of ideas. Visits were made to conservation centres and studios abroad, and as a result changes took place in these traditional restoration workrooms. The widely used and accepted technique of warp couching is the adopted approach. A three-beam conservation frame is prepared with scoured linen scrim. In some cases the support fabric is dyed. Following wet cleaning, the tapestry is mounted to the frame on the first and third beam, the support is attached to the first and second. Bare warps are couched to the support using wool yarns in the case of the missing wool weft and, generally speaking, with mercerised cotton threads in the areas of missing silk weft. The scrim is attached to the tapestry every 200 mm by a continuous line of stitching. Weave slits are resewn where necessary. Some tapestries, whose condition allows, are consolidated using dyed patches rather than a full support. Generally speaking, the patches are of a linen fabric whose weave is compatible with that of the tapestry. However, in some cases a wool rep fabric is used. The use of mercerised cotton threads for the couching of areas of silk weft was not systematic in the early years of change. The workrooms possessed an enviable supply of colours and qualities of silk threads. Their use was felt to give better visual results. This practice continued for 145

146


some years, its use documented in the treatment reports. These changes and innovations did not arrive in traditional restoration workrooms easily. The personnel were and are experienced restorers, qualified through apprenticeships, and taking great pride in reweaving part of a tapestry so that after treatment it can hardly be discerned from the original in design, colour and texture. Reweaving requires a significant tension of the tapestry on the loom. Adjusting the tension to that necessary for warp couching and a tension that would not damage the tapestry further was difficult to accept and control. The spaced couching stitches were considered not to be as aesthetically satisfying to many restorers. On the other hand, some members of the personnel welcomed this new approach, having concluded from their hands-on experience that the majority of restoration techniques were intrusive, damaging and unethical. Neither were conservation techniques readily accepted by many curators. Used to seeing the results of reweaving, many found the new approach ethically correct, but visually disturbing. In the early years of change, the spacing of the couching stitches tended to be much closer than that of the warp couching techniques used in other workrooms, where the technique had been practised for many years and had not replaced previously used methods. Closely spaced stitches were worked not only as a result of the difficulty that an experienced restorer experienced with the change of techniques, but were also made at the request of curators who, although sensitive to the reasons for the change, faced the same difficulty in the visual acceptance of this technique. Twenty years on, the training of both conservators and curators has evolved and conservation techniques are the accepted form of treating a tapestry.

Exceptions A textile conservation approach Laid-couching stitches are the most regularly used stitch in the conservation of textiles. In certain cases this technique of consolidation is used with success on tapestries. The tapestries on which such an approach is used present the following problems: areas where the silk weft is fragile and where warp couching is not possible, as it brings about a significant loss of the original weave; and areas of bare warp where the

need to reconstruct the missing aspect is not considered to be a priority. The thread generally used is a fine cotton or linen lace-making thread. It is dyed the colour of the area to be consolidated (warp or weft). Regularly spaced vertical support lines are stitched around the consolidated area for additional support. This technique is not adaptable to all and any tapestry. It has been used on tapestries of significant dimensions and on tapestry fragments. In the case of the former, an inclined rigid support is strongly recommended for its presentation. Ensuring the correct lighting of tapestries conserved in this manner is of prime importance. Any raking light source renders the stitching obvious and unsightly. A combination of restoration and conservation techniques Two Brussels tapestries from the series of the Fructus Belli were woven after the cartoons of Giulio Romano, Musée National de la Renaissance, Ecouen; they measured 5.42 m by 8.60 m. The overall condition of these tapestries was fair. Numerous small holes were present all over the surface, a result of moth damage (Lion and Mocanu, 1992). Two identical areas, on the upper and lower edges of both tapestries and running their full width, presented a significant loss of weft, broken warps and a general fragility of the weave. The borders had been cut away from the upper and lower edges of the two tapestries. Fourteen fragments of the borders were delivered to the workrooms with the tapestries. Their overall condition was poor, presenting significant areas of loss of warp and weft and angular tears of the weave. Following wet cleaning, the tapestries were conserved using warp couching on to a partial linen support. This support was positioned behind the two areas on each tapestry that presented a general and significant fragility. Due to the monumental size of these tapestries, it was felt unnecessary to add additional weight by the use of a full support. Patches were used for other areas requiring consolidation. The border fragments were conserved separately. Using a warp couching technique, the different fragments were consolidated onto a dyed linen support. Once assembled, the fourteen fragments constituted two of the four missing borders. It was decided to place them on the lower edges of the tapestries. Due to their height and weight, it was determined that the tapestry should not hang from a border of assembled fragments. The upper edge of the tapestries remained visually unbalanced. In collaboration with the curator,

Tapestry conservation techniques at Chevalier Conservation 147

Figure 20.1 Needle weaving of the galloons for two tapestries from the Fructus Belli series.

the decision was made to weave a replica of the galloon of the borders to lend an aesthetic and harmonious finish to the tapestries (Figure 20.1). The galloon was woven in the workrooms. A needleweaving technique was preferred to loom weaving. Needle weaving is the same technique used in the reweaving of missing areas in restoration. Although time-consuming when compared to loom weaving, this technique allows greater control of grain, subtleties of colour and irregularities of weft thickness, thereby imitating the quality and aspect of the original weave. Wool yarns and silk threads were dyed, a cartoon made from the galloon of the tapestries and a 20 m length woven.

Cotton warps are preferred to wool in the restoration of tapestries for reasons of tension. If weaving has taken place under tension in a localised area, buckling of the weave can occur once the tension is released. In this case, cotton warps were preferred to wool, not in an attempt to avoid any confusion as to the authenticity of the galloon but because cotton was preferred by the weaver/restorer. Reweaving of areas of loss Le Pêcheur is an Aubusson tapestry woven in 1946 after a cartoon by Jean Lurçat, owned by the Richemont Art Foundation, London; it measures

148


2.80 m by 2.75 m. This tapestry was seriously damaged in a fire, as were two other tapestries by the same artist (Cussell and Lion, 1996). The latter were destroyed on the instructions of Mme Simone Lurçat, the artist’s widow, which allowed them to be rewoven after the original cartoons. At the time of the fire the Le Pêcheur tapestry was rolled (in the direction of the weft and not the warp). The right-hand side of the tapestry presents repeated areas of loss of warp and weft where the wool weft was consumed and the cotton warps burnt as a result of the cardboard tube catching fire. This represented the height of the tapestry and was between 400 and 500 mm in width. Smoke damage and scorch marks were present on the areas of weave that remained intact. Dye bleeding had occurred following attempts to extinguish the fire. The conservators in charge of the project presented the different treatment options to Mr Ivan Piercy, representing the owners, and to Mme Lurçat. Mme Lurçat strongly felt that, unlike the two other tapestries that had been destroyed, this tapestry was worthy of being treated in such a manner that it could be rehung and exhibited. It was decided that the missing areas would be rewarped and rewoven. Other areas with dye-bleeding, smoke damage and scorch marks would be unwoven and rewoven using the original warps if their strength permitted. Recreating the missing areas did not present a problem as other examples of the tapestry, woven after the same cartoon, could be studied and copied. After wet cleaning the preparatory work was undertaken on a table. The weave of the burnt areas was removed. Cotton warp threads were attached to the original warp by means of a knot. The type of knot used remains relatively flat and is used by weavers when warps break during weaving. The new warps were secured to a width of cotton/linen fabric. This technique allows the spacing of the warps to be respected as well as determining their length in relation to the measurements of the finished tapestry. The tapestry was mounted, right side facing, to a two-beamed restoration loom. The wool weft yarns were dyed and the missing weft needle woven. The tapestry was lined after treatment. Spaced, stitched support lines fixed the lining to the tapestry. Additional support lines were made in the rewoven area to ensure that the tapestry would hang correctly (Figure 20.2). Technical expertise in weaving and restoration techniques enabled this treatment to be undertaken successfully. Conservation techniques on this particular tapestry would not have achieved the same

result. The availability of other tapestries woven after the same cartoon enabled the original work to be respected and any artistic interpretation on the part of the weaver/conservator was eliminated. On completion of the work Mme Lurçat signed the bolduc (a certificate of authenticity and identification), recognising the tapestry as that of her late husband and mentioning the restoration and the extensive documentation. The use of printing pigments and the technique of serigraphy The use of pigments mixed with a solvent and applied to a tapestry itself or to support patches is not a new invention. Such treatments are difficult to date with precision, but many are from the nineteenth century and were used to highlight, to transform or to add details to a tapestry. More recent treatments on tapestries of this type are poorly documented, if at all (Pertegato, 1996). Anne-Rose Bringel undertook the conservation of a printed textile for her final year project at the IFROA.1 The scientific part of her dissertation deals with the use of printing pigments in textile conservation in a manner that is straightforward and does not require expensive or technical equipment.2 From the various printing pigments available, UNISPERSE, from Ciba Geigy, was selected. Tests were undertaken in collaboration with the Ciba Geigy laboratories to determine the stability of the chosen pigments to light exposure and to humidity and wet cleaning. Their pH was also tested. The results proved to be an improvement on those of the direct dyes frequently used by conservators for the dyeing of cellulosic fabrics (Ciba Geigy Solophenyl). A protocol for the use of the pigments and additives was defined. The equipment necessary for their application and fixing is basic: precision scales for weighing the additives and pigments, a screen, a rubber spatula, brushes, a table prepared with different layers of tensioned fabric to create slight padding and a plastic film. A domestic oven can be used for fixing the pigments to the fabric. To create a stencil the design or detail to be printed is drawn onto and cut from Melinex. The protocol defined by Bringel was adapted by the Aubusson studios of Chevalier Conservation for the conservation of the tapestrywoven objects described below: tapestry-woven curtains and a seventeenth-century tapestry. Nineteenth-century tapestry-woven curtains hang in the bedroom of Emperor Napoleon III in the Chateau de Pierrefonds, Oise. The curtains,


Figure 20.2 The tapestry Le Pêcheur after treatment.

measuring 2.50 m by 2.25 m, were woven in wool and chenille yarns on cotton warps. They were in poor condition with tears, areas of missing weft and broken warps. One curtain presented a large area of loss that appeared to have been cut away. An inserted dyed patch would have remained very obvious as the missing area was in the band of geometric design. The repeated geometric motifs lent themselves to the technique of serigraphy (Figure 20.3). A scoured wool rep fabric was chosen as the support fabric. Melinex stencils of each colour were prepared by placing the film over an area of the decorative band

that corresponded to the missing motif and copying the design. The pigments were prepared and each colour printed separately onto the wool fabric. After fixing the pigments the printed patch was stitched to the reverse of the curtain. The printing technique was also used on one of four seventeenth-century tapestries representing scenes of the life of Eli’jah, 1st Book of Kings, Chapter 18, from the Musée Crozatier, Le Puy en Velay, Haute Loire. The upper and lower borders of these tapestries were missing although the side borders were still intact. After presenting different

150


Figure 20.3 Printed patch used to infill area of loss on nineteenth-century tapestry-woven curtains. Left: before treatment. Right: after treatment.

conservation solutions to the treatment of the missing borders to the curator, it was decided that the missing borders should be recreated by the use of printing pigments onto a wool rep fabric. The principal motifs of the border were reproduced and simplified. In all six, colours were used to recreate the theme of the border. The side borders of the other three tapestries and photographic documentation of tapestries presenting the same or similar borders were used to create a cartoon from which the templates could be prepared. The printed border was stitched in position to the tapestry (Figure 20.4). The advantages of this technique are numerous. The preparation of the stencils can be time-consuming if the design or motif to be copied is complex. However the printing procedure is straightforward. There is little change between the mixed colour and its printed form. Obviously, tests have to be performed on the chosen support fabric prior to printing in order to evaluate the results since the colour and nature of the support can alter the colour slightly. In the case of the examples given, the wool rep fabric gave excellent visual results with the tapestry. The dyeing of this type of fabric often alters its original appearance but the wool rep remains unchanged, although a slight shrinkage is encountered. The matt quality of the printing pigments and the lack of suppleness of the support after treatment can be a disadvantage in the treatment of certain textiles. However, this aspect is appropriate in support fabrics for tapestries. Like dyed supports, the printed

support fabrics are in contact with the object but are also stitched in place and therefore can be easily removed. At a time when the use of direct dyes on linen and cotton support fabrics has been questioned3 (Farnsworth and Brooks, 1996; Von Lerber, 1996) and acquiring new stock is no longer possible, printing pigments appear to be an appealing and satisfactory solution to the treatment of large areas of loss in tapestries. The disadvantages of the technique have also been evaluated. Whilst studying the possibilities for the treatment of tapestries where the area of loss was not a repeated motif, tests were undertaken using the pigments with brushes and freehand painting. The results were disappointing; they had a decorative appearance and resembled nineteenth-century restorations. It is felt that the success of the treatment of the previous examples lies partly in the fact that the missing motifs could be recreated by copying the motifs present on the tapestry/object. No artistic interpretation was involved. The treatment lacks a textile quality that is obvious when the treated area is examined at close quarters. It can be successful on tapestries due to their monumental size, but does not have the same success on smaller tapestries or where the treated area is viewed at close quarters. The recipe for the colour can be recorded in the same manner as a dye recipe. However conservators who regularly use this technique have encountered problems in reproducing the colours at a later date.


Figure 20.4 Printed replacement border for a seventeenth-century tapestry representing scenes from the life of Elijah. Left: top right corner of the tapestry before treatment. Right: after treatment.

Conclusion The treatment options presented in this chapter are exceptions to the general practice of warp couching. This widely used technique aims to consolidate areas of weave that are fragile, weak or lost whilst treating the loss of the original design. Reversibility of the conservation treatment in the event of physical or visual problems is possible. On the majority of tapestries this technique is successful and achieves its aims. However, as illustrated in this chapter, there are tapestries where this technique is not appropriate and other conservation solutions have been sought, such as the use of printing pigments. In the Chevalier Conservation studios their application is used in particular circumstances and is extensively documented. This is also true of reweaving techniques. It is fortunate that the strong needle reweaving skills that the workrooms possess have not been abandoned or lost in favour of conservation techniques, but can be used independently of or alongside conservation treatments.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Pierre Chevalier for permission to publish. I would also like to thank the following

curators and clients for allowing me to present objects belonging to their collections: Madame Isabelle De Gourcuff, Administrator of the Chateau de Pierrefonds; Monsieur Erlande-Brandenburg, Musée de la Renaissance; Monsieur Gilles Grandjean, Musée Crozatier; Mme Simone Lurçat; Mr Ivan Piercy, Richemont Art Foundation. And to my colleagues at the Paris and Aubusson Studios, who worked on the tapestries mentioned in this chapter, notably Carole Chiron and Violaine Lion. Special thanks go to Anne-Rose Bringel for her professional and personal generosity in sharing her work and research.

Endnotes 1.

2.

In 1984 the Institut Français de Restauration des Oeuvres D’Art (IFROA) was situated in the buildings of the Mobilier National, Paris. It later became the Institut de Formation des Restaurateurs des Oeuvres d’Art (IFROA). The title IFROA no longer exists but is referred to as the Département des Restaurateurs du Patrimoine of the Institut National du Patrimoine (INP). Bringel, A-R. (1997). Etude et Restauration d’un Palampore Fin XVIIème–Début XVIIIème Siècle. Musée de l’Impression sur Etoffes de Mulhouse (No inv. 996 –15 –1). Recherche sur l’impression

152

3.

Treatment options – Image reintegration pigmentaire au cadre plat manuel appliqué aux tissus de support de coton utilisé pour la consolidation. Ecole Nationale du Patrimoine. Institut de Formation des Restaurateurs d’Oeuvres d’Art. Section des Arts Textiles. Oger, B. (1995). Rapport No 929 B Solidité à la lumière et au lavage des colorants directs. Laboratoire de Recherche des monuments Historiques.

References Cussell, S. and Lion, V. (1996). The tapestry imposes its own treatment. In ‘The Misled Eye . . .’ Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds.) pp. 81–91, TRON. Farnsworth, J. and Brooks, M. (1995). Light-fastness and stability of reactive dyes (eg: Cibacron) versus direct dyes (eg: Solophenyl) and the implications for dyeing

support fabrics for textile conservation. ICOM CC Working Group of Textiles Newsletter, 1995.2, 5. Fiette, A. (1997). Tapestry restoration: an historical and technical survey. The Conservator, 21, 28 –36. Lion, V. and Mocanu, G. (1992). La restauration des deux tapisseries acquises par le Musée National de la Renaissance. In Autour des Fructus Belli. Une tapisserie de Bruxelles XVIème Siècle, pp. 33 –37, Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Pertegato, F. (1996). Painting in tapestry conservation: Is it heresy? In ‘The Misled Eye . . .’ Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds) pp. 97–100, TRON. IFROA (1984). La Restauration et Conservation des Tapisseries Proceedings of the International Seminar 18 –20 June 1984 IFROA. Von Lerber, K. (1996). Research in progress. Cibacron F (reactive dye) versus Solophenyl (direct dye) for dyeing support fabrics for textile conservation. ICOM CC Working Group of Textiles Newsletter, 1996.1.

Part Four Treatment options – Different approaches


21 Tapestry conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Ronnee Barnett, A. Alice Blohm, Kathrin Colburn, Tina Kane, Midori Sato and Florica Zaharia

The Metropolitan Museum of Art opened in 1872 and by the early twentieth century it was building its outstanding collection of western European tapestries. Today, this collection, now numbering over 400 pieces, contains a wide array of important tapestries from different periods and workshops, ranging from the fourteenth to the twenty-first centuries. The subject of this chapter is how the Metropolitan’s Department of Textile Conservation, created in 1967, cares for this collection, and what principles subsist behind the various treatments employed. In the middle of the last century, museums began to re-evaluate their textile collections. Generally speaking, textiles were not as highly valued as paintings or sculpture for example, due in part to a preference for fine art over decorative or the applied arts. Tapestries, however, were always an exception because of their resemblance to paintings and because of their cultural prestige which they had retained since the Renaissance. Many historic tapestries would not have survived to be in museum collections today had they not been heavily restored in the past. Prior to the nineteenth century, restorers were highly trained craftsmen and their restoration work is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Unfortunately, the overall quality of restoration changed in the nineteenth century when synthetic dyes became widely available. Many of these dyes were not lightfast and carefully restored areas soon faded and stood out as discoloured patches. Although contemporary technology has overcome this difficulty, for this and other reasons tapestry restoration’s dubious reputation remained among modern textile conservators.

As museums came to value their textiles more, the problems involved in how to preserve and exhibit them came to the forefront. Textile conservation originated as a profession in response to this need. Certain principles were enunciated concerning proper care and maintenance of historic textiles as this profession developed. Some conservators felt that the practice of restoration was in conflict with these principles, reasoning that restoration tampers with the historic and artistic integrity of the object. This view holds that the job of the conservator is to preserve and stabilise the object when it enters a collection and that tapestries should be treated like other textiles in this respect. Missing areas can be compensated for, but not reconstituted. Tapestry restoration involving the replacement with new materials of damaged or missing warps and wefts, using the technique of needle weaving, is considered by many to be too invasive, while reconstructing images distorted or rendered illegible by lacunae, too interpretive. Yet, within the last twenty years, tapestries from the Metropolitan’s collection have undergone extensive restoration. The underlying philosophy behind this programme is that, in addition to its importance as an historical artefact, a tapestry is also a work of art, one that depends upon its pictorial integrity for its effect. If a tapestry’s images are incomplete, degraded or illegible, then its value to the viewer is significantly diminished. Restoration, when called for, literally restores the pictorial element and considers the images portrayed in tapestries to be as integral to the textile as the fabric itself. In the Department of Textile Conservation, the best available materials are carefully prepared and 155

156

Treatment options – Different approaches

tested and ongoing projects generously funded so that trained restorers have the time and the facilities to carry out extensive, long-term, and high quality restoration and conservation work. Of course, not all tapestries in the collection are considered for restoration. As this chapter will show, many are conserved according to more standard conservation practice.

Case study: Courtiers in a Rose Garden The subject of this case study is the third tapestry from the series, Courtiers in a Rose Garden, woven in the Netherlands in the middle of the fifteenth century (Figure 21.1).

All four tapestries in the series depict vertical stripes of red, white and green, and roses climbing around aristocratic courtiers dressed in fashionable costumes. The similarities of the tapestries’ tricoloured stripes with a miniature painted by Jean Fouquet in the fifteenth century, suggest the possibility that this series was commissioned by Charles VII of France (1422 – 61) (Cavallo, 1992). The tapestry under discussion measures 3.79 m high and 2.64 m wide. It consists of five fragments that had been joined previously and it is made of wool, silk and metallic thread. The warp count is five to six per 10 mm. The weft count is 20 to 24 for wool, 36 for silk, and 30 for metallic threads (Kajitani, 1993). The original brown wool, metallic and silk thread was disintegrating and the cut edges were fragile.

Figure 21.1 Courtiers in a Rose Garden, before conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Medieval Art collection, 1909 (09.137.3). The three restored areas: 1) the top edge; 2) the pink dress; 3) the vertical cut at the centre.

Tapestry conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art 157

Approximately 40 per cent had been restored before entering the collection. Some of these restorations were iconographically incorrect and the materials had discoloured and deteriorated. There were also tension problems. Three large areas were particularly affected: the vertical cut at centre, 3.79 m high and a maximum of 70 mm wide; the top edge loss, 120 to 200 mm high and 2.64 m wide; and the pink coloured dress, approximately 1.88 m high and 0.6 m wide. The purpose of the treatment chosen by the conservators and curators was to improve the tapestry’s strength and to reconstruct as much of the original design as possible. This involved several steps. The first was in-depth examination and documentation. The old lining was then removed and the raw edges unfolded. In preparation for wet cleaning, some of the previous restoration was removed, and the silk and metallic threads and fragile edges were protected with cotton netting. The tapestry was placed on a flat surface flanked by 100 mm aluminium tubes that allowed both sides of the tapestry to be rolled while the larger central area was opened and visible. Inserting pins into a small foam core board with a window created local tension. It was supported between the tapestry roller and the edge of the table. Creating and maintaining the correct warp tension throughout the reweaving process was essential. The wool yarn for both warp and weft used for tapestry restoration was made to the Department’s specifications in the 1980s, and was dyed in the laboratory with synthetic metal complex dyes, manufactured by Ciba Geigy, to match the naturally dyed and light damaged weft yarns of the original obverse. The damaged original warps (four singles spun Z yarn, plied S), were replaced using two strands of the new weft yarns (three singles spun Z yarn, plied S). Thicker, handspun yarn, closer to the original, was used for reconstructing the warp across the top of the tapestry. To reweave the missing silk (originally two strands spun S, plied Z), DMC mercerised cotton embroidery floss was used. Although cotton threads do not resemble old silk in texture, a mixture of two to three different shades can simulate the original and will last longer than modern silk. The missing metallic wefts made of S twisted silver gilt around a silk core, were replaced with a contrasting combination of one wool thread of a darker colour twisted with one or two cotton threads of a lighter colour. The rewarping was done on a flat surface with no tension, using a tapestry needle. Each warp was inserted approximately 10 to 30 mm into the original corresponding warp channel. To lessen the stress on

the original created by inserting consecutive new warps, the number of threads, usually two or three in a single warp, were varied. These threads were twisted together when they were exposed and untwisted when they were inserted into the original to lessen the friction. Calculating and correlating the tension between the new and the original warp was a challenge, especially when the new warp length could exceed 300 mm as in the rewarping of the pink dress. The new weft, mostly two strands of different hues, was tapestry woven with a number 24 tapestry needle. The weaving was intentionally irregular, sometimes exposing warps on the obverse, to imitate the appearance of the abraded original. Each weft insertion was done at different intervals, avoiding undue stress in any particular area. The concentration of the new weft was generally less than the original with the exception of the restored top edge. The ends of the original wefts were integrated into the new weaving by insertion into a warp channel or they were moved to the reverse side of the tapestry. Rewarping the tapestry’s top edge was difficult. Although the previous reconstruction had been carefully done, the colours and fibres had degraded to such a degree that the tensile strength and visual integrity of the piece was compromised. Consequently, the decision was made to completely reweave this section using the previous reconstruction as a guide. Since no original material had survived, the entire restored section was detached from the tapestry and kept as documentation, and the new warp positioned to replace it. The beginning of each warp end was secured by backstitching it onto a piece of cloth in an equal warp set to the original. Tension was created by attaching the ends of the new warps with running stitches, first to the previous restoration, and after the reweaving was started, onto thick cotton webbing. This webbing was pinned into a foam core board to maintain tension during the reweaving. The opposite warp ends were secured, first by attaching them to the piece of cloth, also pinned for tension to the foam core board, and later, as the reweaving progressed, to the newly restored material. The webbing could be moved the appropriate distance along the new warp as required. The newly restored section was connected to the original tapestry only by the new wefts (Figure 21.2). The previous restoration, although otherwise iconographically correct, had truncated the roses motif. Because the other three edges had similar unfinished motifs, the decision was made to suggest the same idea at this top edge.

158


Figure 21.2 Detail of the top edge of Courtiers in a Rose Garden. Above: the old restoration being removed and the rewarping and reweaving in progress. Below: the same area after reweaving.

The most complex reconstruction was of the pink dress. It was largely based on the fragmentary original material discovered underneath the old restoration, accompanied by research into period style and textile designs. The fabric pattern was originally metallic thread on a pink silk background. There were clear repeats, but the dress folds obscured the

repetition, making it difficult to follow. The previous restoration was also ambiguous. By carefully removing the old restoration, evidence of the original motifs was revealed, an invaluable assistance in the reconstruction of the design (Figure 21.3). The two cut sides were left untouched. Here, the warp ends were secured with DMC embroidery


Figure 21.3 Detail of the pink dress after conservation.

floss onto a worsted wool reps fabric, dyed in the department to match the background colour. This fabric supported the side from top to bottom while also serving as side support. In addition to these three areas, other parts of the tapestry were restored.

However, two major previously restored areas were not treated because of insufficient original material and time limitations. The overall aim of the treatment was to assure that the tapestry was strong enough for long-term exhibition, and to clarify and restore the emblematic images of the Courtiers in a Rose Garden in order to enhance the viewers’ appreciation and enjoyment. With the restoration complete, the tapestry was ready for the next step – preparing it for hanging (Kajitani, 1979: 55 – 6). The combination of deteriorated fibres, the fact that the tapestry hangs by its weaker element, the excessive use of slits and the fact that the newly restored areas are of different strength than the original, necessitates a system to support the tapestry’s weight, depending on its condition and size. Supportive straps answer this need by transferring the hanging weight of the tapestry from the old fibres to stronger new materials. These straps are strips of fabric, cut in the warp direction with raw edges on grain and placed at vertical intervals in the tapestry’s weft direction across the back. Straps must be the proper weight and weave structure in relation to the tapestry. Too heavy a fabric will stress and distort the tapestry rather than support it, and if it is too light or loosely woven, it will not provide sufficient support. Over the last 20 years, the materials used to strap tapestries in the Metropolitan’s lab changed from industrially produced 76 mm cotton upholstery webbing placed at wide intervals, to wider strips of cotton duck placed at much closer intervals, to strips of cotton sateen. The width of, and spacing between, these straps depends on the tapestry’s condition, the aim being to give the greatest support to the weakest or most vulnerable areas. The straps for the Rose tapestry measure from 180 to 430 mm in width and the spacing between them ranges from 25 to 130 mm. Initially, the straps are basted or pinned in place to the reverse of the tapestry while face down. Then the tapestry is placed face up on tension rollers. Each side of the strap is sewed with a zigzag stitch that comes through from the back of the tapestry to the front, where it goes over two warps. Sometimes an additional line of stitching is required in the centre of the strap, depending on the fragility of the tapestry and/or the width of the strap. The straps must be attached properly so that they provide sufficient support without constricting the drape of the tapestry. An additional strap or header is placed at the top edge of the tapestry perpendicular to the other straps, for additional strength; sometimes a footer is used as well. A loose lining, the dust cover, is then attached. It does not provide additional support. This fabric

160


should be lightweight, such as cotton sateen, with a smooth or slippery surface to repel dust. The lining is sewed to the tapestry on three sides, with the bottom edge turned under in a deep hem that hangs free. The bottom few inches of the tapestry are exposed and covered by a narrow strip of lining material sewed to the bottom edge and to the straps. About 50 mm in from either side, a row of stitching connects the dust cover to the straps to ensure that the lining does not show at the sides. After being strengthened by restoration, supported by straps, and protected by a lining, the tapestry is hung freely from the top edge by means of a slat and webbing hanging system. In most cases a strip of 50 mm wide Velcro is machine stitched to a 76 mm wide cotton upholstery or synthetic seat belt webbing and is positioned near the top edge of the tapestry on a line that is parallel to the floor as the tapestry hangs. This is sewn with a backstitch, alternating with a locking backstitch for safety, and passes through webbing, lining and header, and through to the face of the tapestry and over two warps. A slat of a low resin wood, like poplar, is cut to size and sealed with two coats of water-based polyurethane. The corresponding hook strip of Velcro is attached to the slat with a combination of staples and tacks. For added security, narrow tabs of Velcro are sewed to the top of the webbing in several places. These pass over the top edge of the slat and are secured to the back with a matching strip of Velcro. Altogether, the reweaving, support for the fabric and an appropriate hanging system prolong the tapestry’s life and make its exhibition possible.

Case studies: fragile tapestry fragments and small hangings Not all tapestries in the collection are large or relatively intact. There are fragile fragments and small hangings that are worthy of conservation and exhibition. These frequently require different conservation practices to large tapestries. Although every textile needs to be individually assessed, four generalisations can be made about the conservation of fragments and small hangings: there is less, or no, reweaving; fabric supports are used; they are encased in Plexiglas; and they frequently rotate between exhibition and storage. Three examples belonging to the Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters are illustrative. In 1994, the department was enriched by the gift of a small hanging titled Christ of the Mystic Winepress

(Metropolitan Museum, 1995: 27). This tapestry was woven in South Netherlands in about 1500 on a linen warp with wool, silk, and metallic weft yarns. The warp is 9 –10 yarns per 10 mm and the weft is 32 – 40 yarns per 10 mm. Prior to entering the collection, the hanging was subjected to various restoration treatments. After documentation, it was decided in consultation with the curator to remove only the restoration in Christ’s cloak. These ‘reweavings’ were discoloured and so disturbed the image. Resulting areas of loss were underlaid with wool worsted rep fabric, dyed in the laboratory to match the colour of the cloak. Given the fragile condition of the hanging, it was decided to pressure-mount it, a treatment never undertaken with larger tapestries. After conservation, the hanging measured 0.768 m in height and 0.845 m in width. It can now be exhibited vertically. In 1990, a fragment titled The Fabulous Beast was acquired (Metropolitan Museum, 1991: 18). This fragment was once part of a Rücklaken, a tapestry weaving that hung in a domestic interior at frieze level. It was woven in the Upper Rhineland region about 1420 to 1430. The warp yarn is a bast fibre and the weft yarn is wool. The warp is 7– 8 yarns per 10 mm and the weft is 32 – 44 yarns per 10 mm. It had been subjected to various conservation treatments, including reweaving and wet cleaning. All four edges were restored and so were areas of loss. The reweaving was crude and uneven and the colours of the replacement weft had faded. When the piece was wet cleaned, the restored areas had shrunk, so the fragment was uneven and pulling in various areas, impairing its visual impact. It was decided emphasis should be given to its original use and thus it should be treated so that it could hang as a tapestry (Colburn, 1997). The piece was surface cleaned with a low suction vacuum cleaner and prepared for wet cleaning. After wet cleaning, the warp and weft threads were aligned and the fragment placed on a support fabric. The support chosen was a worsted wool reps fabric, dyed in the laboratory to match the background of the Rücklacken. Minimal stitching was used to attach the fragment to the support. The exposed warp was couched down with wool yarn, the colour selected depending on the loss in the design. In making this loss more comprehensible, some lines were suggested. The beast’s claw, for example, was slightly redrawn with a few stitches. Otherwise, still intact warp threads were secured with some stitching to blend into the colour of the backing support. Once the fragment was ‘consolidated’, it was strapped and lined with cotton satin. A Velcro band was stitched to a cotton webbing to attach the now stabilised and supported fragment to


a fabric-covered, wooden support mount. It was further protected with a Plexiglas box. After treatment, the fragment measured 0.748 m in height and 0.865 m in width (Figure 21.4). In 1999, a small devotional tapestry called a Praetexta entered the collection (Metropolitan Museum, 2000). It was woven in Germany circa

1450 –75. A Praetexta hung just below the altar table and above the altar frontal. The panel is woven on a linen warp with linen, wool, silk and metallic weft yarns. It is in excellent condition. The warp is 33 yarns per 10 mm and the weft is 73 –300 yarns per 10 mm. A seventeenth-century Flemish woven border was sewn around all four sides, probably in the

Figure 21.4 The Fabulous Beast, before and after conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, 1990 (1990.211).

162


nineteenth century. It was decided to remove the border. Given the condition of the piece, only minimal treatment was necessary. To provide the Praetexta with the needed support, a lightweight cotton fabric was attached with minimal stitching in DMC mercerised cotton floss. The lining provides support and helps close visually degraded areas that were left untouched. The same fabric served as the webbing, to which a 2.5 cm wide Velcro band was hand stitched. The Praetexta was then placed on a fabric-covered, wooden support and further protected with a Plexiglas box. After treatment, the Praetexta measured 16.2 cm in height and 162 cm in width. These examples illustrate the care of fragments and small hangings in the Department of Textile Conservation.

A prominent conservator once said that restoration is a balance between hubris and humility. There is a bold presumption to intervene on the one hand and a deferential attitude towards the object on the other. But perhaps a neutralising element in this polarity is the professional devotion required to develop skills that encompass simultaneously the particular and the general. Or in other words, to work, over time, on the details of damaged warps and wefts, meticulously preserving as much of the original as possible, while deepening and broadening an artistic sensibility of the overall ‘drawing’ and iconography peculiar to the tapestry. In the end, however, it must be acknowledged that future generations will be the real judges of the success or failure of our decisions and our work.

References Conclusion When a tapestry comes to the Department of Textile Conservation, the treatment options considered range from standard conservation, usually involving cleaning, stabilising and preparing for storage and exhibition, to extensive programmes of restoration and additional elaborate support systems. Our effort is to grasp clearly the underlying principle of the treatment, based on an in-depth understanding of the nature of the object treated and to carry out the practice according to the highest possible standards. The decision whether to restore a tapestry, or to stabilise it as a fragment, depends primarily on whether there is sufficient information remaining in the original tapestry for the restorers to reconstruct the images. The historical significance of the tapestry is another consideration, as is whether its importance justifies undertaking such an expensive and timeconsuming programme. And there are also practical considerations within the laboratory, such as the feasibility of long-term use of space and personnel.

Cavallo, A. S. (1992). Medieval Tapestries in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, p. 174. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Colburn, K. (1997). The Fabulous Beast at The Cloisters: a recent acquisition of Medieval tapestry, Apollo, 145, 46 – 8. Kajitani, N. (1979). The preservation of medieval tapestries. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 45 – 65, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Kajitani, N. (1993). Conservation of Courtiers in a Rose Garden, a fifteenth-century tapestry series. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth to Nineteenth Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 79 –104, National Gallery of Art, Washington. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (1991). Recent Acquisitions: A Selection, 1990 –1991. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (1995). Recent Acquisitions: A Selection, 1994–1995. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (2000). Recent Acquisitions: A Selection, 1999–2000. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

22 Tapestries on long-term view at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: a synthesis of treatment options Kathy Francis, Tess Fredette, Bonnie Halvorson and Deirdre Windsor

This chapter describes the conservation goals and treatment rationale leading to two different support strategies for a group of six tapestries belonging to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (ISGM) in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. These sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Flemish tapestries, described in the catalogue of the museum’s textile collection (Cavallo, 1986) are: The Land Lord and the Woodcutters (T30w4); The Education of the Prince of Peace (T30w13); God Commands Noah to Build the Ark (T31e4); God Shows Noah a Rainbow (T27e31); Esther Fainting before Ahasuerus (T24w3); and Melintus and Ariane Fleeing from Rome (T27w11). The work, undertaken between 1997 and 2002, was carried out collaboratively by museum staff and conservators at the Textile Conservation Center (TCC), a regional conservation facility at the American Textile History Museum in Lowell, Massachusetts. The ISGM was created by Isabella Stewart Gardner to house her extensive collection of fine and decorative art. The museum, inspired by the architectural style of Venetian palazzos, operates under restrictions in the founder’s will state that the galleries must remain as she originally installed them and that the collection may not be expanded. Therefore her collection, which includes 37 tapestries, is on permanent exhibition. Gardner began collecting tapestries in 1872 and continued to purchase them from dealers over the next 35 years. Some of the tapestries have been on continuous display since the museum’s opening in 1903, others since 1915 when the tapestry gallery was created. Three of the tapestries discussed in this chapter date to the first half of the sixteenth century and were

purchased by Isabella Gardner in Paris during the 1890s; The Land Lord and the Woodcutters (1510 –20) and The Education of the Prince of Peace (1525 –50) were probably woven in Tournai. Esther Fainting before Ahasuerus (1510 –25), (from the Story of Esther) a Brussels tapestry, is related to Esther tapestries at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V & A). It has been suggested that the Gardner and V & A compositions are so close that they are likely to be from the same cartoons. Three tapestries from a popular series depicting the life of Noah (Book of Genesis) dating from mid seventeenth-century Brussels, were purchased by Gardner from a New York dealer in 1880. Two of these – God Commands Noah to Build the Ark, and God Shows Noah a Rainbow (1650 –75) – are discussed here. Melintus and Arianne Fleeing from Rome (1675 –1710) is reminiscent of tapestries from lesser Brussels workshops of the late seventeenth century, and was inspired by Ariane, a heroic romance published in 1632 (Cavallo, 1986). As was common in the past, the tapestries were supported with a variety of linen strapping techniques and hung from metal rings along the top edge (Figure 22.1). Prior to 1996, when state-of-the-art climate control was installed, environmental conditions in the museum fluctuated widely; the tapestries were subjected to high heat and relative humidity in summer, and low relative humidity in winter. Windows were sometimes opened in summer to increase air ventilation, while coal-fired furnaces and fireplaces were used for heat during winter months until the 1970s. Conditions could sometimes be extreme. An archived letter dated January 1921 notes that humidity dropped below 10 per cent, 163

164


Figure 22.1 Tapestry, The Education of the Prince of Peace (T30w13), ISGM Gothic Room, 1926. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston.

while in a study during the 1980s relative humidity levels over 90 per cent in July were not uncommon; two instances of 100 per cent relative humidity were noted in 1934 and 1986. With summer gallery temperatures above 90°F, reports of visitors becoming ill and fainting were also recorded.1

Early treatment campaigns Given the severe environmental conditions and the presence of sooty airborne soils, it is not surprising that treatment campaigns on the tapestry collection began as early as 1926 to 1931 when many were

cleaned and repaired. Various levels of treatment have been undertaken during the last 100 years, with the time between interventions ranging from 10 to 65 years. Conservation work has included wet cleaning, structural and aesthetic repairs, and the addition of structural supports such as straps or linings. Some work was contracted out and some was done in-house. However, when the collection was surveyed in the early 1990s it was clear that ongoing treatment efforts had been insufficient to keep up with the rate of deterioration. At this time, nearly one third of the museum’s tapestry collection was determined to be in urgent need of structural stabilisation. In addition to heavy soiling, 13 tapestries were insufficiently

Tapestries on long-term view at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum: a synthesis of treatment options 165

supported, five of which had been removed from display due to their fragile condition. Slit stitching was weakened and broken, and some slits were gaping. There were tears and open losses in areas of weak wool and silk weft. Structural damage along the top edges due to stress from hanging, and distortion caused by the ring hanging system were noted. Disfiguring old repairs also contributed to structural problems.

Long-range planning and the new treatment campaign The condition survey of the tapestry collection was undertaken to aid in the development of a conservation long-range plan, which had several objectives. One objective was to lower the rate of deterioration of the museum collection as a whole. As the collection is on permanent display, the most effective way to reduce deterioration was to improve environmental conditions in the galleries; funding was secured and climate control with air filtration was installed. Another objective was to accelerate the rate of care for works in urgent need of treatment. Addressing the backlog in tapestry treatments therefore became a priority. With climate control in place, the time was right to address both the immediate and long-term needs of the tapestry collection. Grant funding was secured for the treatment of six masterwork tapestries. The work was contracted to the TCC which allowed the lengthy treatments to be completed in a more condensed period of time than if done in-house. Other projects at the museum could then proceed as scheduled. The TCC was chosen as the museum’s partner in the project for a variety of reasons, among which were the highly regarded facilities and staffing at the TCC; effective professional relationships between conservators at the two institutions; and its location close to Boston, which facilitated frequent consultation visits by the museum’s curator and conservators.

Conservation treatment preferences, goals and rationale In addition to the restrictions expressed in Gardner’s will, there were curatorial and conservation preferences or biases that influenced treatment decisions for the tapestries (Orlofsky and Trupin, 1993). These included: a preference for the tapestries to be free hanging, draping naturally; avoidance of treatment or

installation methods that significantly changed Gardner’s original presentation of the tapestries; a treatment preference for separating repairs by function, and avoidance of combining local repair with support steps; and a preference for a minimal intervention approach. For structural support, a strapping system is usually favoured over a full support. Full supports are usually considered a greater intervention because they have a greater affect on the textile’s drape; they cover the entire reverse of the tapestry; and due to the large amount of stitching, they necessitate considerable work if removal is required for future cleaning. The treatment goals for the tapestries were established in discussions among conservation, curatorial and administrative staff from the ISGM and conservators at the TCC who were responsible for the work. In view of the important role of the tapestries as part of Gardner’s original decorative schemes, even tapestries in quite poor condition, which might otherwise be retired from display, were considered for full conservation treatment. Therefore, a conservation campaign was developed to allow conservators to achieve a comprehensive treatment plan for the group. The primary conservation goal was to arrest the ongoing deterioration and active physical damage of the tapestries. A systematic approach was developed to clean, stabilise and support the tapestries, thereby improving their condition to withstand long-term exhibition. Another aim of treatment for this campaign was aesthetic improvement. All six tapestries were vacuumed and wet cleaned to remove accumulated dust, soot and abrasive particulate soils. Wet cleaning was a standard treatment to lessen detrimental soils and degradation products and to diminish the acidity of the fibres, thus contributing to the tapestries’ preservation and improving their appearance. Aesthetic repairs were also made, although a full description of these is not within the scope of this chapter. Structural support of the tapestries was considered to be a critical objective and techniques evolved during treatment in relation to the individual structural weaknesses of each tapestry. Historically, the preferred methodology at the TCC for stabilising and supporting free hanging tapestries approached the work in phases and separated the functions of local stabilisation repairs from those of the structural support for the overall weight. Local stabilisation repairs are generally addressed first. Open or weakened slit stitching is repaired using a faggoting stitch. Small areas of minor weft loss are given vertical support with rows of twined darning around warps in areas of loss; the darning extends into the stronger woven area at each end.

166


Larger areas of weakness or loss in either the warp or weft are stabilised using fabric support patches that are attached to the tapestry in areas of strength; weak areas with loss are then secured to the support with couching. The rationale for this method is that it allows the structural integrity of the tapestry to remain as a single cloth rather than integrating it with a full support backing, thus allowing the natural movement of the tapestry. Future stitching and interventions such as wet cleaning can be accomplished without removing the integrated repairs. Structural support systems used at the TCC have historically consisted of a spaced strapping system, sometimes combined with a partial support at the top when needed for dimensional stability or additional repairs. The length of the support is determined by reviewing the length of the tapestry and the condition in the upper half, which takes more stress and strain from hanging. Generally it extends from the top edge downward for 380 –760 mm and is attached to the tapestry with vertical rows of zigzag stitching. Between rows of stitching, cotton canvas straps are positioned on the tapestry while clamped temporarily on a hoist, and weighted for at least one day, pinned and then attached with a running zigzag stitch. This approach provides good structural support for hanging and assists in re-establishing a more planar surface, while maintaining the natural drape of a free hanging tapestry.

Condition and treatment decisions for six ISGM tapestries In the treatment campaign under discussion only two of the tapestries, God Commands Noah to Build the Ark and Melintus and Ariane Fleeing from Rome were treated with the spaced strapping system. These two could be suitably stabilised with local stitching repairs and patches, and then supported with partial supports and strapping systems. The other four tapestries were larger and more severely weakened and damaged, presenting challenges that led to proposals for full support treatments, which at that time were far less prevalent in the United States (Hutchison, 1989).2 Although the Gardner tapestries exhibited damage commonly associated with long-term display, the nature and extent of damage varied considerably among the individual pieces. Because the tapestries are a part of a permanent collection and their condition was in an advanced stage of degradation, it was decided that the additional support provided by full fabric backings was warranted to withstand the stress

that permanent display imposes. The conditions that led to the choice of a full support were somewhat different for each. The Education of the Prince of Peace had numerous areas that had old rewarping and reweaving repairs made with cotton yarns, that had deteriorated so that they could not withstand twined darning without breaking. Some of the original wool warps were equally weakened. The Landlord and the Woodcutters suffered from severe elongation of the weave structure resulting in an overall loss of dimensional stability. God Shows Noah a Rainbow exhibited extensive areas of exposed warps, large areas of reweaving with cotton yarns in the sky area, and large sections, particularly along the top edge, repaired by overlapping tapestry fragments with severely weakened stitching. To replace the weakened stitching would have involved reconstructing part of the top edge and the museum wished to maintain a less interventive approach. Esther Fainting before Ahaseurus contained large areas of original silk that were so severely degraded as to be powdery. Proposals were made for these four tapestries to receive full supports, primarily because a significant area of each tapestry needed an attached fabric support. Local patch supports were rejected for three reasons. First, it was clear that the patches would cover nearly half or more of the reverse side of the tapestry. Second, due to the extent of structural instability it would be difficult to determine where each patch could safely begin and end. Lastly, with the tapestry positioned on the tensioning frame there is limited working space in which to position very large patches. It was therefore a logical decision to choose full supports for these tapestries.

Preparation for full support treatment: research and equipment Information on the application of full supports was sought in published literature and by consultation with colleagues in England, where this technique is a standard approach for many conservators. Several published articles available from 1997 to 1998 touched upon the principles and methods of applying a full support (Marko, 1995).3 However, no publications offered a comprehensive review of technical practice. Consultation4 and unpublished material5 provided TCC conservators with the technical details required for attaching a full support. This method was explored and adapted to determine the conservation intervention best suited for the four Gardner tapestries.


Equipment: modifications to the tapestry frame In order to attach the full backings, a tapestry frame was modified to accommodate a third aluminium roller between the two existing parallel rollers, which tension the tapestry during conservation. The original tapestry frame configuration included a centre mounted pin board assembly. The pin board assembly was removed and the main rail of each end of the frame was modified to accept a third aluminium roller to hold the support fabric. The support fabric was attached to the reverse of the tapestry in measured increments incorporating ease and consequently did not require tension. The pinning board and third intermediate roller are interchangeable depending on the tapestry treatment method chosen.

Stabilisation and full support The objectives identified before treatment for stabilisation and support were to: provide sufficient stabilisation and support to allow long-term exhibition; implement a thorough but minimal intervention treatment; maintain consistency among team members over a five-year period; maintain a unified treatment approach among the four tapestries, while addressing the individual needs of each; attach a full support to allow for future stabilisation without removal of the support; and communicate visually the method of attachment to facilitate evaluation or removal of the system by future conservators.

Local repairs: techniques and materials The first stage of stabilisation consisted of repairs integrated into the structure of the tapestry, including stitching of open slits, replacement of weakened slit sewing, and twined darning of small weft losses if the surrounding area was sufficiently strong to secure a repair. Aesthetic improvements, such as removal and replacement of old incompatible tapestry patches were also made. Small areas of loss requiring colour compensation were made by patching, using light to medium weight cotton fabric; larger fabric patches sometimes received embroidery stitches to further compensate for colour or texture, and to situate the compensation closer to the plane of the tapestry. Commercial six-stranded embroidery cotton was used for local stabilisation as well as for attachment

of the support to the tapestry. The adequacy of its strength as primary attachment has been questioned,6 however, the lower twist results in a softer thread that does not sever fragile yarns. Moreover, the twist can be retained by using shorter lengths, or may be increased by twisting to strengthen the thread. Lastly, if a repair comes under acute stress it is preferred that the repair fails before the textile.

Attachment of the full support: techniques and materials For the support fabric, conservators chose lightweight, plain weave linen with 17 17 threads per 10 mm. Because of the tapestries’ weakened condition and anticipated long-term display, it was decided to use a support with a higher thread count and greater dimensional stability than the linen scrim often chosen (Marko, 1995). Each full support was constructed by seaming the linen panels so that seam allowance thickness was minimised and seams remain flat; selvages were removed. Vertical guidelines were basted every 220 mm parallel to the warp, at the line where the support would be joined to the tapestry. Since each 220 mm segment of linen is paired with 210 mm of tapestry, width-wise fullness of 10 mm was built in to the support between guidelines. The support was attached to the tapestry by stitching through to the front with a double strand of cotton thread alongside each guideline. Guidelines were left in the linen support to serve as a future visual marker of orientation and to indicate the fullness calculation. Supplemental stabilisation was carried out between rows of attachment stitching. Large areas of exposed warps and areas of weak weft were secured by couching to the support with a stitching pattern that adequately supported these areas. In order to avoid overstitching, the distance between rows of couching varied depending on the nature and extent of damage. In areas that were not couched, the support was joined to the tapestry with three rows of a running zigzag stitch (Figure 22.2). The zigzag pattern was chosen as: a means of minimal attachment in areas where this would be sufficient stabilisation (for example, areas of tapestry fragments with weakened stitching); a method of joining the tapestry with the support, thus avoiding loose pockets when the tapestry is hung and facilitating rolling by preventing shifting of the layers; and because the easily removable stitches would allow future stabilisation into the support. After attaching the support and completing the supplementary stabilisation, the tapestry was

168


C

A B D

Figure 22.2 Drawing detailing linen support and stitch patterns. A Vertical running stitches; B Basting stitches in the linen support; C Running zigzag stitches; D Couching stitches.

removed from the tensioning frame. Edges of the support were finished. Final steps included attachment of a lightweight cotton dustcover and Velcro hanging system.

Tools for achieving consistency among team members In any large-scale project it is of critical importance to maintain consistent and efficient stitching. A few tools were designed to facilitate these goals. For example, a sewing frame cut of museum board and strung with evenly spaced thread lines assured correctly spaced and aligned stitching and precluded the need for pins or other guides. Also, a 210 mm template with three notches assisted in the positioning of zigzag rows of stitching, thus omitting repeated measuring for each pass.

Some differences between methods Several fundamental differences in material choice and the technique for stabilisation exist between the ‘British method’ tapestry supports and the approach taken at the TCC. The first difference is the choice of a support material. A sample of linen scrim fabric

with a thread count of 9 9 threads per 10 mm was provided by the Victoria and Albert Museum7 to consider for the support. Discussion between TCC and ISGM conservators about an open plain weave scrim fabric verses a more closed but lightweight plain weave determined the selection of the latter. Because the tapestries considered for the full supports were weak and lacked elastic recovery, extension of the weave structure needed to be minimised. The decision was made to use a lightweight linen fabric of 17 17 threads per 10 mm. This fabric had more dimensional stability than the scrim and would allow less movement of the tapestry structure. In this choice there was an attempt to control movement, and thus a sacrifice of more natural drape; however, the linen chosen still offers other important physical properties such as strength, softness, flexibility and ability to be moulded (Marko, 1995). A second difference is one of technique. The method used by the TCC stabilises open slit sewing separate from the support, while the British method stabilises the slits directly to the support. The treatment preference for local stabilisation as a function separate from overall structural support prevailed as a treatment objective for all tapestries receiving a full backing. All weakened or open slits, as well as small areas that could be stabilised by twined darning, were sewn prior to attaching the support.


Figure 22.3 Tapestry, The Education of the Prince of Peace (T30w13), ISGM Gothic Room, after conservation. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston.

As these previously repaired areas were not worked through the support, they were minimally attached with a general zigzag stitch across the back. When future deterioration or damage occurs, the full support is in place to receive couching repairs and the zigzag rows that currently join the two layers together can be removed. The treatments synthesised the principles and methods of the British and American approaches.

Conclusion and future planning The issue of permanent display inherent in the treatment rationale for this group of tapestries called for an expansion in the repertoire of support techniques used by the TCC. Combining elements of their established method with expertise from

England resulted in the development of a highly successful treatment protocol. The scope of this tapestry conservation campaign, completed in 2002, extends well beyond the treatments described in this chapter and reflects an ongoing commitment by the museum for the long-term care of its permanently displayed collection (Figure 22.3). The next step in the preservation of the tapestries will be to implement a schedule of rotational display. Devising a plan will require creative thinking to minimise the impact of missing tapestries in individual gallery installations, while balancing storage time with the amount of cumulative handling during deinstallation, storage, and reinstallation. The founder’s instruction that the museum should remain ‘for the education and enjoyment of the public forever’ is indeed a challenge to those entrusted with its care.

170


Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the work of all TCC staff that participated in the ISGM tapestry project and in particular conservators Patricia Silence and Susan Wellnitz, principal contributors to the conservation treatments. The conservation of the six tapestries discussed in this chapter was funded in part by the Getty Grant Program; the National Endowment for the Arts; the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a Federal agency established by Act of Congress in 1996 to improve museum, library and information services; the Gardner Family Fund for Conservation; and donors to The Second Century Fund.

Endnotes 1.

2. 3. 4.

Mangum, B. (1996). What do collections really need? Unpublished paper presented at The New Museum Climate: Standards and Technology. Symposium sponsored by the Northeast Document Conservation Center, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, April 25 –26. Breeze, C. M. (2000). A Survey of American Tapestry Conservation Techniques, American Textile History Museum, Textile Conservation Center. Putnam, G. (ed.) (1984). The Conservation of Tapestries Research Report, Textile Conservation Centre. Cogram, A. (1998). Personal Communication. Victoria and Albert Museum.

5.

6. 7.

Allen, R. (1997). The Conservation of ‘Triumph of Fortitude’ Tapestry from ‘The Triumph of the Seven Virtues’ Series Dated c. 1535. Report for the NEA, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, de Young Museum and Marko, K. (1986). Technical Instruction Sheets. Breeze, see note 2 above. Cogram, A. (1998). Personal Communication. Victoria and Albert Museum.

References Cavallo, A. (1986). Textiles, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Hutchison, R. B. (1989). Gluttony and Avarice: Two Different Approaches. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 89 –101, The Getty Conservation Institute. Marko, K. (1995). Tapestry conservation: a confusion of ideas? In Lining and Backing: The Support of Paintings, Paper and Textiles. Papers delivered at the UKIC Conference, 7– 8 November 1995, i–iv, UKIC. Orlofsky, P. and Trupin, D. (1993). The role of connoisseurship in determining the textile conservator’s treatment options. JAIC, 32,109 –18. Textile Specialty Group. (2002). Treatment of textiles: Stabilization by non-adhesive methods. Textile Conservation Catalogue VI. H. The Textile Specialty Group, AIC.

23 Wawel Castle tapestry collection: an overview of past and present conservation practice in Krakow, Poland Jerzy Holc

In Poland, the conservation of historic textiles such as tapestries and other large woven wall hangings is usually undertaken by conservation studios based within national and ecclesiastical museums. Large museums with varied and rich collections such as the two main royal palaces (in Warsaw and Krakow), as well as those museums described as ‘national’ (in Warsaw, Krakow, Poznan and Wroclaw) support their own dedicated conservation departments which are organised according to the specific profile of the institution and the needs of the collection. Such conservation departments include separate textile conservation studios. The largest tapestry collections in Poland are held in: The Wawel Royal Castle, Krakow (207 items); National Museum, Warsaw (approximately 110 items) and the National Museum in Poznan (approximately 40 items). Smaller collections, which do not support their own conservation departments include: Jaggielonian University, Krakow (19 items); National Museum in Kielce (13 items) and several others. It is also important to mention the Krakow Cathedral Museum, which includes 28 significant and valuable tapestries and which, despite the relatively small size of the collection, operates its own conservation department. Conservation of tapestries is also sometimes undertaken by the Warsaw Textile Conservation Workshop, which forms part of the Antique Conservation Workshop. This is a national institution without its own collection, which provides a commercial conservation service to small museums, other heritage institutions and private individuals. It is currently the last of several such institutions which operated throughout Poland during the second half of the twentieth century.

Wawel Collections The tapestry collection at Wawel Royal Castle in Krakow is the largest assemblage of decorative wall hangings in Poland, the pinnacle of which is a homogenous series of 136 tapestries referred to as the Sigismund Augustus Collection. These tapestries were commissioned by the Polish king, Sigismund Augustus II (the last of the Jaggielonian dynasty) from several workshops in Brussels sometime before the mid sixteenth century. They differ in size, intended function and subject matter and are grouped as follows: Group 1, 19 very large tapestries in three series describing scenes from the Old Testament namely Adam and Eve, The Story of Noah and The Story of the Tower of Babel; Group 2, 44 verdures of various sizes with extremely detailed portrayals of animals in wooded landscapes; Group 3, arrases showing the coats of arms of both Poland and Lithuania, then united as the Commonwealth of Two Nations, arrases showing the monogram S.A. (Sigismund Augustus), and others with coats of arms where the top edges were arched to fit around doors and windows within the castle. Some of the arrases in this group were woven especially for use as chair upholstery material. The significance of this collection, both artistic and historical, contributed to the use of specific terminology to describe woven wall hangings in Polish scholarly literature. The word ‘arras’ (referring to the city of Arras in Picardie) pertains to the Sigismund Augustus tapestries as well as other tapestries of similar quality created in Flanders during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They are very closely woven, often include a large quantity of metal thread (gold or silver) and are distinguished by the 171

172


sophisticated and subtly executed design. All other tapestries are described as Gobelin. The second group of Wawel Castle arrases is the result of the Museum’s post-war collection policy. Through purchases, donations and war restitutions this collection grew from 11 to 71 pieces in the first decades following the Second World War. It contains mostly individual tapestries, rather than series, varying in date, size and subject matter.

Early history of the Wawel Conservation Department At the end of the eighteenth century, during the partition of Poland, The Wawel Castle Arras collection was removed to Russia (one of the partitioning powers) to decorate the Tsarist residences in and around St Petersburg. During the nineteenth century they were often cut or fragmented, with some of the sections kept in storage or used as upholstery material. When Poland regained independence following the events of the First World War, the Wawel Royal Castle was rebuilt. Its rebuilding came to symbolise the rebirth of a nation. The castle and its contents came to be regarded as a monument to Polish art, history and tradition. A special fund-raising scheme was established under which citizens were able to purchase symbolic bricks to help with the renovations. This scheme was also used to finance the newly established Wawel Castle Conservation Department, which began operation between 1927 and 1928 and included a separate Textile Conservation Studio. As a result of the 1921 Riga agreement, the Sigismund Augustus tapestry collection returned to the castle. There is limited documentation relating to the activities undertaken by the Conservation Department during the inter-war period. It is difficult therefore to accurately describe or assess specific conservation treatments. It is known that the textile conservation team (first three, then eventually four strong) carried out regular condition surveys, surface cleaning and removal of insect larvae. Attempts were made to secure and stabilise the condition of some severely damaged tapestries. Areas of deliberate mechanical damage, areas weakened through wear and storage conditions, as well as sites of 100 per cent textile loss were being supported onto cotton and linen fragments of varying texture, thickness and colour. Sections of antique textiles, pieces of passementerie and fragments of other unrelated tapestries were also used for this purpose presumably both to impart strength and provide visual infilling. Areas of

plain linen or cotton backing visible from the obverse were usually infilled using diluted oil-based paint. The stitching methods varied greatly. The finished tapestries were hung using metal hooks attached onto upholstery webbing which was sewn along the entire length of the reverse upper tapestry edge. The hooks were then used to hang the tapestry on horizontal metal poles fixed to the wall to facilitate quick and relatively safe removal in the event of an emergency. Some tapestries were provided with full linen backing but the majority were strengthened using upholstery webbing, stitched in vertical, regularly spaced strips onto the reverse of the tapestry itself.

Wartime evacuation of the textile collection The activities of the Textile Conservation Studio were interrupted by the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939. Again, the Wawel tapestry collection left Krakow in dramatic circumstances. Due to threat of an air attack it was transported by land to Southern Poland, then to Constantia (Romania) and then by sea to Marseilles. En route one container of tapestries suffered severe water damage. The unavoidably long delay in intervention led to partial fungal decay of ten of the tapestries, resulting in permanent damage. During the lengthy and complicated evacuation process the Wawel tapestries rested temporarily in Aubusson. There, in 1940, an attempt to save some of the waterdamaged tapestries was made. A local weaving workshop was charged with the reconstruction of some of the areas of complete textile loss. No documentation relating to this process survived the war. Two tapestries underwent full reconstruction while a further eight were subject to treatment intended to counteract the effects of mould growth. It is likely that very strong, chemically active substances with mould destroying properties were used. This is evidenced by the bleaching effect visible around the edges of some areas of loss. It is likely that this loss is the result of a combination of mould damage and the bleaching treatment itself. The need to evacuate the tapestries from France halted any further treatment. The collection travelled to Bordeaux, then via Falmouth, London and Glasgow, to Canada. During their stay, the tapestries were provided with a temporary full linen backing secured with long running stitch, with particular attention being paid to the areas damaged in Marseilles.

Wawel castle tapestry collection: an overview of past and present conservation practice in Krakow, Poland 173

New conservation problems After the Second World War, the Wawel Castle Museum was reopened and by 1947 the Textile Conservation Studio resumed its activities under the pre-war management and with the same number of conservation staff. In the continuing absence of the Sigismund Augustus tapestries, the textile conservators concentrated on the assessment and treatment of other newly repatriated objects. After lengthy and unexpectedly complicated negotiations with the Canadian government, the Sigismund Augustus tapestries arrived back in Krakow in 1961. The textile conservation team was faced with the difficult task of preparing most of the precious tapestries to be installed on permanent display within the castle. In addition it was necessary to prepare plans for the thorough and systematic conservation of the collection. This presented the conservators with a challenge of devising a conservation strategy compatible with the unfinished, wartime conservation attempts undertaken on the tapestries affected by water damage. Eight tapestries required immediate attention. Described as ‘verdures’, these tapestries measured

approximately 4 m by 1.5 m and were woven using beige, wool warp and polychrome, silk, wool and metal wefts. The water damage, mould and subsequent chemical treatment had caused numerous areas of 100 per cent textile loss, irregular in shape, size and distribution. As in Aubusson, a decision was made to reconstruct the lost sections. A thin, light coloured cotton thread was inserted along the entire length of each weft throughout the whole surface of the tapestry in order to support its structure. The areas of total loss were rewarped using a wool thread of compatible thickness which extended several centimetres into the more robust, surrounding area. This resulted in a grid in the areas of total loss which provided a ground upon which to reconstruct the missing design. The threads used for this were dyed in the conservation studio using natural dyes. The design was recreated on the basis of pre-war black and white photographs and detailed colour drawings (1:1 scale). This technique was applied to three further tapestries, two of which were successfully completed while the third one, representing a water bird and a crayfish remains unfinished despite a considerably advanced stage of reconstruction (Figure 23.1). Five further verdures await full conservation.

Figure 23.1 Detail from A Crayfish and a Heron during reweaving undertaken at Wawel Castle in the 1960s. The image shows the new wool/cotton warps in the centre of the crayfish claws and the new polychrome wefts which were replaced using a needle. The reweaving remains unfinished.

174


During the 1960s, the Wawel Castle Conservation studio also undertook the laborious task of conserving other Wawel Castle tapestries. The goal of this process was to secure the tapestries, most of which were in relatively good overall condition, for storage and display in their present state, without attempts at reconstruction. Many tapestries received a full or partial textile backing using cotton net. Simultaneously, the pre-war method of applying vertical lengths of upholstery webbing using stitching (as described above) remained in use to partially relieve pressure resultant from the weight of the tapestries while on display. Loops of upholstery webbing extended above the top edge of the tapestry through which a horizontal pole might be placed as a hanging device. This method was particularly prevalent throughout the 1970s. Another method consisted of applying a laid-couching stitch, described in Poland as the conservator’s ladder, net stitch or conservation stitch (Figure 23.2). For this purpose a variety of cotton threads was custom dyed in the conservation studio. Throughout the 1970s, thin linen fabric was increasingly used as either a full or localised backing. The linen was dyed at the Wawel Castle studio using chemical dyes. Solid blocks of single colour were used in order to blend into the general colour scheme of the conserved area. In some sections, such as tapestry borders, several linen strips in appropriate colours were chosen in order to simulate the overall geometric scheme of the design. At times, further small fragments of dyed linen were appliquéd onto the backing textile in order to blend in with a particularly contrasting design detail. A large quantity of woven wool tape of various widths in shades of brown and blue was produced for use within the corners and at the edges of the tapestry where the original border was lost or severely damaged. These were applied on top of the linen backing flush with the surviving tapestry surface to visually infill and to stiffen the edges and corners while the tapestry is on display. The type of infilling used was chosen on the basis that it should improve the overall visual cohesion of the tapestry by merely suggesting the more crucial aspects of the missing design and not, as previously, to reconstruct each detail of the composition. The use of upholstery webbing loops as a means of wall attachment was being abandoned in favour of continuous horizontal linen sleeves, running along the entire top edge of the tapestry, through which a wooden pole could be fitted. This system was used mostly for the very large or heavy tapestries. By the 1980s, the use of these sleeves was replaced by stitching continuous

Figure 23.2 Detail from Panther Fighting with a Dragon with the head of a young, winged dragon. The image shows laid-couching stitches in the background around the dragon’s head securing it onto full linen support. Conservation of this tapestry was completed prior to 2000.

lengths of Velcro along the reverse upper edge of the tapestry.

Future prospects In the mid 1990s, significant changes took place in the Wawel Castle’s display policy which affected the whole tapestry collection. Since the 1960s, the majority of the Wawel arrases have been on permanent display. Every year, the Textile Conservation Department conducts a month-long condition survey which includes taking down the tapestries, surface cleaning

Wawel castle tapestry collection: an overview of past and present conservation practice in Krakow, Poland 175

Figure 23.3 The new storerooms with roller racking at Wawel Castle.

using vacuum suction and undertaking any emergency treatments necessary for their continuing display. In addition, a rotation system was phased in which would allow for the exchange of whole series of tapestries over several years. The largest and heaviest tapestries were rehung using horizontal poles attached to a mobile pulley system allowing the tapestry to be raised and lowered quickly, safely and without the use of a ladder or a scaffold. The windows of the castle chambers were fitted with ultraviolet light filters and the amount of artificial display lighting was reduced. In the past, the exhibition environment suffered from excessive levels of dust. This problem was greatly alleviated when the castle courtyard, leading directly into the exhibition space, was resurfaced using stone slabs (rather than gravel), which was more consistent with its original Renaissance design. In addition, the Wawel Castle Museum began restricting the number of visitors present within the chambers, particularly during the summer tourist season. In 1998, the Textile Conservation Studio was moved to much larger premises within the Wawel

Castle complex. It now has two large conservation rooms, a washroom and a separate dye lab. The studio was furnished with several new pieces of equipment including a custom-made washbath with a perforated ‘false’ base, which assists in lifting heavy wet textiles out of the washbath safely. The bath has separate containers for clean and dirty water, which significantly increased the amount of available deionised water. This made the wet cleaning process quicker, more efficient and able to cope with larger objects (although the Textile Conservation Studio is not able, at present, to undertake wet cleaning of the largest Wawel tapestries). A 5 m wide tapestry frame with adjustable height and tilt was also commissioned, based on a similar example used by the Bavarian Museum in Munich. Plans for the construction of a new textile store, which will accommodate the entire textile collection, have recently been approved. It has three large storerooms with a specially designed storage system where the tapestries can be kept on mobile rollers within a controlled environment (Figure 23.3).

176


The Wawel Castle Textile Conservation Studio is currently the largest of its kind in Poland. In addition to caring for the Wawel textiles collection, the studio undertakes conservation and acts in an advisory capacity for several other departments, especially in relation to upholstery and saddle conservation. Despite over 40 years having passed since the Sigismund Augustus Collection returned from Canada, at least one royal arras is undergoing conservation at any given time. The conservation team is ever mindful of the unfinished work on the remaining six arrases damaged in Marseilles, particularly the large example where full restoration was only partially completed. As a result of developments in textile conservation methodology, a question arises as to the best way to continue the project. Should the conservation of each tapestry continue according to the methods already employed when it began in the 1960s? This would mean proceeding with complete reconstruction including rewarping and replacement of missing wefts. Alternatively, should less interventive techniques, more consistent with current conservation ethics and methodology, be employed? This needs careful consideration, especially in the case of the partially restored example. The current tendencies of the conservation department at Wawel Castle favour tried and tested techniques of stitched support using laidcouching with a full textile backing on the one hand, and a more recent ‘imitative’ technique, on the other. Amongst Polish conservators, this technique is called ‘loose weaving’. It involves replacing the missing sections of warp thread within areas of textile loss and imitating the missing design by embroidering it onto the linen lining.

providing assistance in the conservation of objects which include textile elements belonging to other departments. In recent years, the conservation of the Sigismund Augustus tapestries aimed at their balanced and cautious stabilisation, without excessive attempts to return them to their original appearance. In some cases, however, where the damage is particularly distracting, this may need to be supplemented with some form of infilling in order to make the tapestry visually more coherent. The decisions remain difficult. We must take into account previously employed methods and traditions but also be guided by the theoretical and practical advances in the field of textile conservation available to us today. The tapestries are divided into groups and series. This informs both their display and the way they function as artistic and historical objects. The methods we choose to continue the conservation of tapestries from any one group, especially in respect of the extent and method of visual infilling, must not depart too dramatically from those employed in the past, as this may adversely affect their reading as elements of a conceptual whole.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Natalia ZagorskaThomas for translating this chapter.

Bibliography Conclusion The Textile Conservation Studio at Wawel Royal Castle is currently the largest of its kind in the country, both in terms of physical space (approximately 220 m2) as well as the number of employees (10 full-time conservators). Apart from tapestries it is also responsible for the conservation of other textile objects (approximately 900 artefacts), as well as

Fischinger, A. and Piskozub, K. (1961). Problemy konserwatorskie arrasów wawelskich, Ochrona Zabytków 14, 3 – 4, 42 – 63. Hennel-Bernasikowa, M. (1998). Arrasy Zygmunta Augusta/ The Tapestries of Sigismund Augustus. Wawel Royal Castle. Hennel-Bernasikowa, M. (2000). Gobeliny XV-XIX wieku w Zamku Królewskim na Wawelu/Tapestries at Wawel Royal Castle in the Fifteenth to Nineteenth Centuries. Wawel Royal Castle.

24 The conservation of tapestries in Bavaria Cornelia Wild and André Brutillot

For historical reasons, the most important collections of tapestries are found in the south of Germany. While, up until the eighteenth century, the north of the country was made up of free towns or small, relatively impoverished states, the south was controlled by dynasties connected to the great noble families of Europe who adopted their way of life. The Wittelsbach family, which controlled Bavaria from the eleventh to the twentieth century, owned the most important collection of tapestries in Germany. The rulers of this duchy, who were connected to the great ruling families of Europe, particularly the Habsburgs and the Valois, collected an imposing number of these works of art through the course of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Wittelsbach collection of about 500 pieces is made up of prestigious sets of tapestries bought in Flanders, particularly in Brussels, made in the two manufactories founded successively – the first at the beginning of the seventeenth century which functioned for 10 years, the second at the beginning of the eighteenth century which lasted for 100 years. A very large part of this collection has been handed down to us. In 1855, King Maximilian II founded the Bayerisches National Museum in Munich and on this occasion he donated about 200 tapestries. The rest of the collection came into the ownership of the state with the end of the royal family after the First World War; it was entrusted to the Bayerische Verwaltung der Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. Added to these were tapestries produced in the convents of Franconia, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in particular, which generally belong to the state (they are mainly in the Bayerisches National Museum in Munich and the Germanisches National Museum in Nuremberg).

There are also a number of other pieces, the property of noble families linked to Bavaria throughout history, such as the Bishop Electors of Würzburg or the Margraves of Bayreuth, which were given into the care of the Bayerische Verwaltung der Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. Following use, a very large number of these works of art were exhibited for long periods in museums and castles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and suffered damage as a result. As the great collections of tapestries are concentrated in this region of Germany, it is here that methods of restoration have been developed and discussed; methods which are connected to these historic developments. As the majority of these sets of tapestries (generally the most valuable) have been exhibited for over a century almost without interruption, the most urgent requirement has been, as far as possible, to take them out of the rooms in museums and castles where they have been displayed and to place them in storage. Light, dust, climatic variations, unsuitable treatments and above all their own weight, have damaged them greatly. This work began in the early 1980s and is still going on, for it is not always easy to take down the tapestries without being able to replace them with others. Tapestries in store are placed on rollers. They are a little longer than the height of the tapestries and at least 400 mm in diameter. They are made of pH neutral card and are equipped with a system which allows them to be suspended. Before this the tapestries are surface cleaned and the linings and hanging systems are removed, as well as the strapping which is not original and the restorations, where they represent a danger to the original during its time in store. The tapestries are also documented and photographed. 177

178


Replication of tapestries Certain pieces hang in places other than museums or castles, for example in concert halls or in state rooms used for receptions. To take these down poses a problem because it is not always easy to replace them with equivalent works of art. In concert halls in particular, tapestries are not just decorative – they also play an important role in the acoustics of the room; replacing them with pictures, for example, is not sufficient. An original and satisfactory solution has been devised at Schlösserverwaltung: copies of the tapestries have been made with the aid of a process known as ‘scannerchrome’. The tapestries were photographed, the photographs were scanned into a computer and the colours were compared to the original and corrected. The image obtained is then read point by point on the computer; this is linked to a printer which reproduces it on a fabric of the same dimensions as the original work. With this process the tradition of the golden age of tapestry is rediscovered; these works of art are not left hanging too long and they are replaced with printed copies (Brassat, 1992). This method is sometimes used in exhibitions where certain tapestries cannot be exhibited because of their weakness. Only a very high quality of photography before printing, a close comparison with the original, and a very large number of colour corrections guarantee that this process is acceptable at close quarters to art historians and to the public (Heym, 1995; Horn, 2003).

Development of conservation It is, of course, more difficult to do the same thing in museums. Most museums of decorative arts in Germany, particularly in Bavaria, present their works by period rather than by theme. It goes without saying that it is difficult not to exhibit tapestries in rooms dedicated to the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo periods. On the other hand, these works of art were not made to withstand long periods of display. To the weavers, the tapestries they made were exhibited by their owner for short periods and then put into storage for long periods. The strength of the work of art that they were producing was not their prime concern; its beauty preoccupied them far more. The extreme weakness of the majority of tapestries in Bavarian collections, caused by their lengthy display in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, poses a real dilemma if one wishes to continue to display

these works of art in museum rooms arranged by period and not by theme. Therefore, conservation was undertaken alongside the storage work. In Germany after the Second World War, textile conservation studios were created gradually in museums. The first was established at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich by Madame Dr Sigrid Müller-Christensen who introduced modern methods of conservation. Her influence extended not only across Germany but also to other countries of Germanic culture such as Switzerland. The main requirement at the time was to conserve the textiles of the high Middle Ages such as the imperial treasures of Bamberg Cathedral. Because of their weakness, these fabrics could only withstand pure conservation providing support using appropriate stitching such as couching. Some German tapestries from the Middle Ages were conserved in the same way because of their extreme weakness. Later tapestries were entrusted to private restoration studios which employed traditional reweaving methods. This reweaving method of restoration was questioned very quickly. Was it usual to treat tapestries differently according to their place of origin and their date of manufacture? To this question was added a second far more important one: some tapestries had been restored at the beginning of the twentieth century following traditional methods of reweaving. Despite being carried out to a high standard, their condition had deteriorated enormously 50 years after their restoration. Not only had the colours of the new materials changed, harming the aesthetic quality of these works of art, but the areas surrounding the restorations had suffered greatly. In effect, the new threads used for the restoration had less resistance to the stress exerted by the weight of the tapestry on display and had reacted to variations in temperature and climate in a different way from the original material. For this reason, the restoration materials created tensions and caused damage. Removing this restoration proved to be very difficult because it meant a loss of the original fibres. It was therefore decided to abandon the traditional method of reweaving, which caused damage to the original over time, and to apply to tapestries the strict rules of conservation already used in the conservation of other textiles.

Cleaning In most cases a problem arises prior to conservation: that of cleaning tapestries. The cleaning of tapestries

The conservation of tapestries in Bavaria 179

with linen warps is problematic despite the introduction of the aerosol/vacuum suction method. The linen is sometimes so damaged that contact with water completely deteriorates the fibres, which are reduced to an agglomerated mass. When such a case arises only minimal conservation is envisaged – traditional vertical hanging is excluded and display is only possible on a very inclined plane. Fortunately, all the tapestries with linen warps previously encountered in Bavaria which were impossible to clean were small; this facilitated their display. Another problem is that of tapestries which still have strips of original lining such as, for example, the prestigious set of the Taten Otto’s von Wittelsbach displayed in the Residenzmuseum in Munich. Before making the decision to clean them, it was necessary to carefully study the degree of soiling, and the possibility of conserving them without first cleaning them. Cleaning tapestries by aerosol on a vacuum suction table is problematic when they have original strips of lining, because the dirt is removed less easily in the areas covered with strips of fabric than from unlined areas.

Conservation techniques The three objectives of the conservation methods used in German studios in general and in Bavaria in particular, are firstly to lighten the weight of the tapestry in weak areas during its display, then to consolidate threads and fibres in damaged areas. All supplementary intervention is forbidden if it causes excess weight for the tapestry or if it is likely to cause tensions in the original. The third objective is to ensure that interventions made to a work of art are perfectly reversible. A fabric support is placed behind the weak part of the tapestry. Evenly distributed running stitches (generally in staggered rows) attach the tapestry to the support. The function of the support and of the stitching is to remove the stress exerted on this area during display. The tension caused by the weight is supported by the fabric and the lines of running stitches. These lines are not very long so that they do not themselves create stresses on the original. If, for practical reasons, a certain length must be worked it is interrupted (cutting the thread or catching it on the reverse) before continuing the stitching. In many places additional consolidation of the warp yarns or of damaged wefts is necessary. This is carried out with the aid of laid-couching stitches (Figures 24.1 to 24.3). Their function is to attach the fragile threads to

the support so that they do not undergo further damage when the tapestry is handled, and are less affected by dust and climatic changes. One of their subsidiary functions is to support the weight of the weak areas of the tapestry. These conservation stitches themselves do not extend beyond a certain length so as not to produce harmful tensions. The running stitches and the laid-couching stitches are executed without knots; each thread is stitched independently so as to avoid all stress on the original. The selection of restoration materials is not always easy. New textiles fluctuate more quickly with climatic changes than old textiles. Tapestries are usually made of several materials: wool and silk, often metal threads and sometimes linen, or cotton in later tapestries. It is very difficult, indeed impossible, to match the support fabric to the original in each area that needs consolidating. It is necessary to choose a material which adapts itself to all areas of the tapestry. Wool is very sensitive to climatic variations and is therefore unstable; furthermore, experience has shown that new wool attracts insects, even when it is treated. Silk is also problematic as a support; it is difficult to find a quality which can support the weight of the tapestry. In most cases, linen seems to be the most appropriate material. It is fairly stable and resists strain in the long term. The choice of sewing threads is also difficult; they must be robust enough to fulfil their support function in weak areas and at the same time not be so strong that they cause tensions which damage the original work. The couching threads must also be as invisible as possible, and fine enough not to disturb the aesthetic quality of the tapestry, while supporting the areas to be consolidated without creating tensions in the original. Bavarian collections are certainly very weakened by the over-long display of the tapestries, but none of them has large losses, so the treatment of this problem has not presented itself yet. Small areas of loss are rendered less visible in the following manner: a small piece of fabric hardly bigger than the hole is placed between it and the support. This suitably coloured fabric reduces the visibility of the hole without eliminating it. This method offers a satisfactory compromise aesthetically and guarantees perfect reversibility. After conservation work the tapestry often needs a lining, which gives support to the whole piece. Here too, the aim is to free the tapestry from its own weight; the lining therefore ‘carries’ the tapestry. A system of short lines, generally in staggered rows, stitched in the same way as described above, seems to be the best way of distributing the weight

180


Figure 24.1 The Conversion of the Apostle Paul, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich, Inv. Nr. T 3844, one of the nine-piece set, The Life of the Apostle Paul, Brussels 1530 –50, after a design by Pieter Coecke van Aelst: detail showing laid-couching stitches.

of the tapestry over the lining. The fabric chosen for the lining must be light and dense at the same time; the lines of stitches are not very long, they are interrupted several times and do not have any knots or points of stitching likely to create tensions. A system of hanging with Velcro seems to be the best way of hanging in exhibition galleries. It is claimed that Velcro, a very rigid synthetic material, could cause distortions at the top of the tapestry. To avoid this disadvantage, the Velcro is not directly

stitched onto the original, but is applied to a strip of fabric fixed to the tapestry by lines of running stitch. When the height of the gallery allows, this fabric extends beyond the tapestry by the width of the Velcro. The extra thickness created by the strips of Velcro is therefore situated above and not behind the work of art. The fabric showing above the tapestry is rendered invisible by a cover, usually of fabric, the same colour as the wall of the gallery (Brutillot, 2000; Borkopp-Restle and Brutillot, 2003).


Figure 24.2 The Marriage, Residenzmuseum Munich, Inv. Nr. BSV.WA 0008, from the ten-piece set Die Taten Otto’s von Wittelsbach, Munich 1605 – 09 after a design by Peter Candid, from the workshop of Hans van der Biest: detail after conservation.

Display Parallel to the conservation, one of the constant concerns of tapestry conservators in Germany is to create optimum environmental conditions in the stores and in the exhibition spaces. The lighting in these rooms is reduced to the minimum. Display for short periods only, corresponding to the original use of the tapestries, is strongly recommended so as not to subject

the wefts to stress caused by the weight of the fabrics for too long. Unfortunately, given the actual state of the collections, it is not possible to rotate the tapestries in the display galleries at the moment; on the other hand it is desirable that these works of art are shown to the public. A compromise was found with the aim of reducing the weight of the tapestries; they are shown on slightly inclined boards. These boards are covered with rough textured fabric (molleton or

182


Figure 24.3 Detail from the same area as in Figure 24.2, showing the laid-couching stitching.

domette, for example); the combination of the angle and the force of friction reduce the weight and the tensions on the wefts, particularly in the upper part of the tapestry (Wild and Mauder, 1995). Regular examinations show that the effect of elongation due to weight is reduced this way. Observations on the degree of soiling on the tapestries displayed on the sloping board have been documented. These confirmed that air circulation between the front and the reverse of the tapestry was prevented by the sloping board and the fabric covering it, so that the tapestries become soiled less quickly. A test (documented by photomicrographs) carried out over three years on a

tapestry displayed next to a doorway leading to the entry staircase of the National Museum of Bavaria confirmed this theory. The handling of these very large sized works can also be stressful, particularly for the original wefts weakened by ageing and other factors described above. Different equipment has been employed to reduce this cause of weakening. A restoration table was built which allowed handling of the tapestry to be avoided during the entire conservation operation. Thanks to a large frame furnished with two rollers, adjustable in height and capable of turning through 360 degrees, all movement other than the


Figure 24.4 The Marriage: whole tapestry.

rolling of the piece as the work progresses is rendered unnecessary. The removal of old restorations harmful to the original, the placing of the support fabric and lining, the technical analysis, the documentation of the conservation and detailed photographs (particularly of the reverse), are carried out without additional handling of the tapestry (Wild and Brutillot, 1997). Equipment to hang and take down tapestries without subjecting them to tension has also been employed. The tapestry is rolled onto a cardboard roller; this is held on a detachable arm placed on a cart. The arm is

moved into a vertical position and the tapestry can be unrolled or rolled on the sloping board.

Conclusion The ruling families of southern Germany left as a legacy an important number of tapestries, the majority of very great artistic and historic significance (Figure 24.4). The hazards of history have greatly weakened them. The only goal sought by

184


the conservators entrusted with these works of art is to conserve them all, allowing them to be seen by the public without damaging them further by their intervention, so that these prestigious tapestries will be passed on to future generations in as good a condition as that in which they were received.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Frances Lennard for translating this chapter.

References Borkopp-Restle, B. and Brutillot, A. (2003). L’histoire de Saint Paul et ses Additions. Une série de tapisseries

du Musée national de Bavière. In Flemish Tapestry in European and American Collections. Studies in Honour of Guy Delmarcel (K. Brosens, ed.) pp. 185 –90, Brepols. Brassat, W. (1992). Tapisserie und Politik. Gebr. Mann Verlag. Brutillot, A. (2000). Analysis of tapestry techniques. Textile Conservation Newsletter, 38 (Spring), 5 –9. Heym, S. (1995). Herkulestaten Ersatz wertvoller Originale durch Reproduktionen. Ein Rückblick auf das Jahr 1994, München, Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, 70 – 6. Horn, F. (2003). Digitale Bildbearbeitung als ein Werkzeug der präventiven Konservierung. Siegl. Wild, C. and Brutillot, A. (1997). Zum Unterlegen und Sichern: Ein neuer Restaurierungsrahmen für Tapisserien. Resatauro, 1997.1, 22 –3. Wild, C. and Mauder, F. (1995). Neues System zur Hängung von Tapisserien. Restauro, 1995.4, 227.

25 Tapestry conservation in Italy: two case studies Claudia Kusch

Conservation of historic tapestries is undertaken both in institutional and private workshops in Italy. The tapestry restoration and conservation workshop of the Palazzo Vecchio, which forms part of the Opificio delle Pietre Dure (the Restoration and Conservation Laboratories) is based in Florence. The Palazzo Vecchio is the only public workshop in Italy and it has a long tradition of treating a wide range of tapestries, as well as playing a prominent role in training Italian tapestry conservators. The Italian presidential residence, the Palazzo del Quirinale in Rome, houses its own workshop that cares for its important collections of tapestries. The Vatican Museum’s workshop, the Laboratorio Restauro Arazzi e Tessuti, is in charge of the immense Vatican tapestry collections. The workshop has a long and important tradition of tapestry restoration going back to the eighteenth century. These three institutional workshops are central in the field of tapestry conservation and restoration in Italy. In addition, they actively undertake research in this sector, with each workshop developing a specific approach and methodology. The discussion about methods of consolidation of tapestries, either by reweaving or using conservation techniques, is still in progress. The debate in Italy began formally with the congress Tecniche di Conservazione degli Arazzi held in Florence in 1981. This congress resulted in a more scientific and systematic approach to tapestry conservation in Italy. Private textile conservation workshops are present in a number of Italian towns and they carry out tapestry conservation as well as restoration. These workshops undertake most of the conservation treatments carried out on tapestries in Italy because, of the institutional studios, only the Palazzo Vecchio workshop in Florence accepts private commissions. The commissions undertaken by private workshops come from national and local museums and galleries, as

well as from private collections. Unfortunately, there is rarely either any budget or time for research into the complex questions that can arise while the conservation is in progress.

Context for the case studies This chapter presents details of the conservation treatment of two very different sets of tapestries. The first case study is a series of tapestries attributed to P. P. Rubens that were in very good condition until 1940 when they were badly damaged by external circumstances that interfered with the overall good conservation state. The second case study is the Reception with Nuptial Banquet, a tapestry that shows all the common types of damage associated with use, age, exposure to light and fluctuating environmental conditions. These projects were undertaken between the 1980s and the end of the 1990s and they highlight the range of conservation challenges that tapestries can pose for a private workshop. The underlying principle behind the treatments devised for both projects was that they should be based on sound conservation practices with the aim of making the tapestries strong enough to go back on display. Different solutions were found in response to the different conservation needs and aesthetic requirements of the two projects. The search for a suitable methodology was undertaken within the field of textile conservation and, in a wider sense, from the conservation principles devised by Cesare Brandi, the founder of the Istituto Centrale per il Restauro in Rome. Brandi laid down theoretical guidelines on how to conduct an interventive treatment while responding to the demands of conserving the historical, technical and aesthetic significance of a work of art. 185

186


Case study 1: the Rubens tapestries

Conservation treatment

The treatment of a series of tapestries attributed to P. P. Rubens was amongst the first major tapestry conservation projects carried out by the Arakhne workshop. The set of four tapestries, each measuring 5 m by 3.5 m, depicts the Institution of the Eucharist, the Assumption of the Virgin, the Resurrection of Christ and the Worship of the Shepherds. They were commissioned by the Confraternity of the S. S. Sacramento in c. 1630 to adorn their church in Ancona, a harbour town on the Adriatic Sea, capital of the Italian region called Marche. They were woven in Flanders but unfortunately the documents relating to the commission have been lost and the name of the weaver is not known. The tapestries, in their very fine and accurate execution and in their composition, resemble paintings. The two vertical edges of the central design are framed with just the blue galloon, which is missing on the horizontal edges. They were unlined. The tapestries were displayed in the dark church, mounted on arched frames, only on the feast day linked to the events that they illustrate. For the rest of the time they were kept rolled up, in the wardrobe of the sacristy. This has preserved the colours which are still very vivid and they are considered to be very close to their original state. In addition, being used only once a year means that they have no damage related to use, no repairs, and the structure and the materials used (wool and silk) are in very good condition. Unfortunately, the tapestries were seriously damaged during the Second World War when Ancona was bombed. The tapestries were stored in wooden boxes and splinters from these cut through the whole height of the rolled tapestries. The extent of damages varies from one tapestry to another. The most damaged is the Worship of the Shepherds, with a sequence of holes from top to bottom. The Assumption of the Virgin and the Resurrection of Christ have a succession of vertical cuts from top to bottom and a few areas of loss. The Institution of the Eucharist suffered very little damage. Since the Second World War, no restoration work was carried out on the tapestries, with the exception of the Worship of the Shepherds. Restoration was begun on the tapestry but it was left unfinished and there is no documentation. The tapestry had been divided in two parts and the vertical cut and some of the smaller holes have been restored by reweaving. New warp thread had been inserted into some of the bigger areas of loss but no reweaving had been carried out.

The main aim, when undertaking the conservation of the Rubens tapestries, was to make it possible to display them again. This meant it was necessary to find a way to bridge the cuts and fill the holes, thus re-establishing the image without reweaving the missing areas. The four tapestries were surface cleaned and wet cleaned before the stitched support was undertaken. The condition of Assumption of the Virgin and Resurrection of Christ was very similar. Both had a series of vertical cuts from bottom to top and so they were treated in the same way. The size of the cuts, working from small in the lower section to larger in the upper section, reflects the way in which the tapestries were rolled for storage. The lacerations on the tapestries have sharply cut warp and weft threads with loose ends. While there was no real loss of warp or weft, the image of each tapestry was hard to interpret and the structure was seriously weakened. The treatment selected to consolidate the holes had to be reversible, visible close up and had to maintain the history of the object. In addition, the treatment had to re-establish the image and to consolidate the overall structure. The cuts were supported by placing linen support fabric of a matching colour under every single laceration. The broken warp threads were aligned on the support fabric and then the loose weft threads were placed on top of the warp threads, thus covering them. Once positioned, the threads were anchored to the support fabric using laid couching: a couching stitch was placed between every second warp, spanning the cut and extending into the undamaged surrounding area on both sides. A commercial cotton thread was used for the stitching because it integrates very well with the fine weaving of the tapestry and it is available in a great variety of colours, so allowing good colour matching with the rich and vivid colours of the tapestries. In this way, the cuts and lacerations were closed and consolidated, the aesthetic integrity was reconstituted, but at a closer view a trace of the past events is visible (Figure 25.1). For the tapestry The Worship of the Shepherds, an integrative method had to be found to close the very regular pattern of holes present all over the tapestry. It was decided to maintain the same conservative principles as for other tapestries in the series as well as the methodology used. Areas of reweaving that had been completed were kept but in the unfinished areas, where only new warp threads have been inserted, the previous treatment was removed. In order to integrate, support and visually infill the missing parts of

Tapestry conservation in Italy: two case studies 187

Figure 25.1 Detail from the Resurrection of Christ, after conservation.

the tapestry, a cotton support fabric was chosen that had a similar surface structure weight to the tapestry. The support fabric was dyed in three different gradations of a neutral tone (Figure 25.2). Each hole was positioned onto a patched support in the correct shade of the neutral colour and secured in the same method of couching used for the other two tapestries. The neutral coloured support fabric was very effective in re-establishing the visual integrity of the image. In one of the holes, the missing section (the sky seen through an arch of a window) was reconstructed using a support fabric dyed the same colour as the surrounding area. This enabled a correct reading of the image and maintained the desired effect of perspective and depth. Since the tapestries were structurally sound, they were not lined, but supported on the back with a system of diagonal and vertical strips of linen fabric. The Worship of the Shepherds, the most damaged tapestry and the one which had already undergone partial restoration was supported by strips of linen positioned in a cross.

Assessment The workshop was set up in Ancona in order to undertake the conservation of the Rubens tapestries. Work began in 1984 and finished in 1992. At present, the tapestries are displayed mounted on slopping boards in the Museum of the Cathedral of Ancona. This is because the Cathedral Museum does not have a room high enough to display the tapestries vertically. This mode of exhibition is not ideal: the tapestries are more exposed to dust on the sloping boards than if they were hanging vertically.

Case study 2: the tapestry Reception with Nuptial Banquet The Reception with Nuptial Banquet forms, together with the tapestry Nuptial Procession, the so-called series of Priamo, which is housed in the Collegio Alberoni in Piacenza, a town in northern Italy. The College was founded by Cardinal Giulio Alberoni in his native town and currently contains his rich and important

188


Figure 25.2 Detail from the Worship of the Shepherds, after conservation: the use of a neutral coloured support to infill areas of loss.

art collections. Giulio Alberoni (1664 –1752), a cardinal and politician (he was Prime Minister to Philip V of Spain), was a passionate collector of fine arts with a special predilection for tapestries. The two Flemish tapestries, dated around 1520, woven in wool and silk, are precious and exceptional in their very detailed design and fine execution. The tapestry Reception with Nuptial Banquet measures 3.82 m by 5.85 m and is divided into four scenes representing two moments from the meeting between the spouses, the banquet and the musicians. A narrow border with a garland of flowers and fruits, and a final red galloon frame the tapestry. The poor condition of the two tapestries urged a systematic restoration. Two private Italian workshops were commissioned to undertake the work, on the understanding that they would take the same approach and principles of conservation. The conservation of the tapestry Reception with Nuptial Banquet was entrusted to the Arakhne workshop, on the condition that the work would be executed in Piacenza

in collaboration with a group of students, as the conclusion of a two-year course of restoration and conservation of tapestries. Condition assessment The poor condition of the tapestry was caused by having been on display for a long time, and suffering the typical patterns of damage and deterioration caused by use, prolonged exposure to light, dust, changes of temperature and fluctuations in relative humidity. This meant that the tapestry’s structure was very fragile; a considerable amount of loose particulate soiling was deposited within the fibres as well as between the tapestry itself, the patches and the lining. There was also widespread loss of warp and weft threads. In some areas, missing weft threads exposed bare warp, while in other areas both the warp and weft threads were broken and/or lost. Areas woven in dark brown wool and in cream coloured silk were in particularly poor condition.

Tapestry conservation in Italy: two case studies 189

The tapestry had already undergone several different phases of repair and restoration that had been carried out without a systematic approach or methodology, rather they were carried out as the tapestry required repair. The tapestry was fully lined. There were also numerous patches of linen and hemp fabrics that acted as a support for countless repairs. Holes and bare warp threads were restored by reweaving or placing patches taken from other tapestries under the missing area. During one of these former interventions, the border with the flower garlands on the left side was cut off and resewn to the tapestry after a section of the tapestry had been removed. Treatment issues The aim of the current intervention was to stabilise the structure of the tapestry and to re-establish the readability of the image. This called for the removal of all previous repairs that would prevent the conservation being carried out effectively or because of their negative effect on the iconography. However, some of the repairs should be kept as historical evidence. In light of these criteria, it was decided to preserve the scraps of other tapestries used to close some of the holes and those rewoven areas that were carried out in a manner that was sympathetic to the object. Moreover, those rewoven areas that were too extensive to be removed without damaging the tapestry were kept. All the mending, darning and reweave that had been carried out without reference to the original design or structure were felt to compromise the legibility of the tapestry’s design and were removed. Conservation treatment As preparation for wet cleaning, the lining was removed along with all repairs worked through the lining and the linen and hemp patches stitched to the reverse. The tapestry was then surface cleaned. During the dye-bleeding tests, many of the repair threads were not fast and so had to be removed if wet cleaning was to be undertaken. After the removal of the repairs, patches and the lining, the very poor condition of the tapestry was apparent. After a successful wet cleaning treatment, the tapestry was put onto a frame to avoid unnecessary manipulation while the conservation was undertaken. First of all, previous interventions were removed in line with the criteria stated above, and the warp and weft threads were realigned in the areas of damage. A linen fabric was selected as the support fabric because it was

lightweight yet closely woven. The linen was dyed to aid with the process of image reintegration. In this context, the large areas with loss of brown wool and cream coloured silk were the most considered in the search for a suitable colour. The support fabric, once prepared to the right size and dyed, was mounted on two beams that were fitted into the tapestry frame. The stitching securing the tapestry onto the support fabric started in the centre and worked out. The intervention preceded 100 mm at a time and was performed in the following way. A grid of vertical and horizontal running stitches was worked to anchor the surface uniformly to the support. Then, all the holes, weak areas and bare warp threads were stitched to the support fabric, fastening every warp thread with stitches worked across the warp and into the support fabric. Where patches taken from other tapestries had been used as part of the previous repairs to infill areas of loss, they were released and restitched in place. In addition, the border that had been cut and sewn to the tapestry, was unstitched, positioned correctly and attached by sewing again. Holes, where both the warp and weft threads were missing, were infilled using wool threads of a suitable weight and colour that were positioned on the support fabric, aligned and anchored to it using the same mode of stitching as described for the original warp threads. This was done to reduce the difference of the level, in case of holes, between the tapestry and the support fabric, to give visual continuity and to improve the reading of the image. The red galloons on both sides and on the lower border, being in reasonable condition, were given a stitched support. A new specially woven galloon, was used to replace the missing upper red galloon. The conservation of the tapestry Reception with Nuptial Banquet began in March 1999 and finished in January 2002. Currently, it is on temporary display in the Palazzo Farnese in Piacenza, waiting for a permanent display space in the newly adapted premises of the Collegio Alberoni in Piacenza.

Conclusion These two conservation projects have been an enriching challenge for the Arakhne’s workshop. The experiences gained have found application in other conservation projects. Moreover, the projects revealed the need for further study and research on better ways to hang and protect tapestries on display.

190


Acknowledgements This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Giovanni Urbani, Director of the Istituto Centrale di Restauro. The author would like to thank the staff of Arakhne and their collaborators, Elena Pinchera and Angela Mazza from the CESVIP course. The conservation of the Rubens tapestries would not have become a reality without the engagement of Don Cesare Recanatini, responsible for the cultural heritage of the Diocesan Curia of Ancona. Much encouragement and assistance was provided by Dott.ssa Maria Giannatiempo, Supervisor of Sopraintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici delle Marche, Urbino, who also financed part of the project. The region of Marche financed the other part. The CESVIP and the Opera Pia Alberoni, Piacenza, financed the conservation project of the Piacenza tapestry. The art historical directors were Dott.ssa Jolanda Silvestri, Istituto Beni Culturali Regione EmiliaRomagna, Bologna and Dott. Davide Gasparotto,

Sopraintendenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici di Parma e Piacenza. Very special thanks to the Dott.ssa Fornari Schianchi for her advice. Finally, thanks to Antonio Iaccarino Idelson for his help.

Bibliography Arisi, F. and Mezzardi, L. (1990). Arte e Storia nel Collegio Alberoni di Piacenza, Industria Cementi Giovanni Rossi, Piacenza. Brandi, C. (1977). Teoria del Restauro. Einaudi. Cuoghi Costantini, M. and Silvestri, J. (eds) (1991). Capolavori restaurati dell’arte tessile. Nuova Alfa Editoriale. Var. authors (1989). Arazzi rubensiani e tessuti preziosi dei Musei diocesani di Ancona e Osimo. Exhibition catalogue, Ancona, Confartigianto Prov. di Ancona. Pertegato, F. (1996). Il Restauro degli Arazzi. Nardini Editore. Tímár-Balázsy, A. and Eastop, D. (1998). Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Part Five Maintenance and display


26 Made to fit: reinstating a set of tapestries and painted panels into the Audley End Tapestry Room Michelle Harper and Karen Thompson

This set of hangings at Audley End, Cambridgeshire, date from the second half of the eighteenth century. They are unusual because they consist of three tapestries, three painted linen panels, narrow painted borders and smaller fragments of tapestry and painted linen joined together to form four hangings which are almost 21 m in length. The hangings have a chequered history and they have been altered and added to on several occasions. The tapestries were woven by Paul Saunders’ Soho studio and supplied to Audley End House in 1766. They represent romantic pastoral scenes and classical ruins typical of Saunders’ work (Marillier, 1930). Although there is no evidence that they were installed at this date, the house records show that they were used to decorate the newly built Tapestry Dressing Room in the 1780s. It is thought that the painted linen panels were made and joined to the tapestries at this time. It is assumed that painted linen is the work of Biagio Rebecca (1735 –1808) as there are bills from the house archives referring to payments for the work. He was an accomplished painter of the period and painted the linen panels to copy the pastoral scenes of the tapestries in order to give the impression that the room was completely lined with tapestries.1 The Tapestry Dressing Room was demolished in 1825 to create the present library. Following this, the tapestries were rehung (in 1836) in the ground floor Tapestry Room adjoining the Great Hall. One of the tapestry panels in the set was cut to fit across existing cupboard doors and a large section of tapestry was cut out to fit around a door case in order to fit into the new room setting. It is possible that further painted panels were added at this time as the

style and quality of painting varies. The tapestries and linen panels remained on display until 1978 (Figure 26.1), when the room was restored as an Ante Room to Robert Adam’s Dining Parlour by English Heritage. They were then put into storage. When the hangings were examined prior to conservation, tapestry fragments and painted linen borders were found with them. It was not clear at this stage how the pieces fitted together, but there was evidence that the fragments may have been joined to the hangings. It was an intriguing puzzle to be solved before the hangings were returned to the Audley End Tapestry Room. The tapestry and painted linen components have very different characteristics. The tapestry is made from wool warp and wool and silk weft yarns woven to create a dense weft-faced fabric. The linen panels consist of relatively open tabby weave linen, which has been painted with water soluble paint with no ground layer. The tapestry is heavy compared to the lightweight and flimsy linen. However, the linen panels were painted to infill the missing areas of tapestry creating the illusion of a complete wall covering. Having examined the tapestry and linen panels in close detail it was clear that, although in relatively good condition, they were showing signs of weakness and they were dirty. The key factor in the conservation of the tapestries and linen panels was to try to provide a consistent treatment for both types of objects. The aim was to conserve them using the same basic materials and methods, adjusting the treatment where necessary to suit the condition of each item. 193

194

Maintenance and display

Figure 26.1 Panel three (of four) in situ before 1978 showing the tapestry section with the door cut out and the cupboard door cut.

Cleaning The tapestry and linen panels required cleaning, but the build up of soiling was different on the two components. The tapestry fibres were stiff, dull and dehydrated; the soiling was visually disfiguring and harmful. Tests proved it was safe to undertake full immersion wet cleaning. Despite the fact that the linen panel would also benefit from wet cleaning it was decided that this was not advisable because of the water soluble paint. However, areas of water staining had caused the fibres to weaken and stiffen and needed to be cleaned to facilitate the support treatment. Tests indicated that a localised cleaning treatment could be carried out and would help to improve the condition of the fibres. The effect of approaching the cleaning of the tapestry and linen components in different ways was assessed. If the tapestry was given a full immersion wet cleaning treatment and the linen panels were not, this could potentially cause problems of differential shrinkage. Nevertheless, differential shrinkage could potentially be a problem even if they were both wet cleaned, because the fibres might react differently. It was considered that although the tapestry

might experience some shrinkage (particularly in the height) much of it would be regained over time while it was hanging. The possible difference in appearance of the two components also had to be considered. However, the nature of the soiling and the different characteristics of each component meant that they already looked different and cleaning would not significantly alter that balance. It was decided that in the interest of the preservation of the whole object, it was necessary to approach cleaning in different ways: the tapestry would be wet cleaned to reduce the ingrained soiling and improve the condition of the fibres; the linen panels would receive localised spot cleaning to reduce staining and improve the condition of the fibres in the worst areas of staining, and to enable the linen to be supported. It was necessary to separate the tapestry and linen parts to enable effective treatment.

Support It was evident that both the tapestry and the painted linen required a full support treatment. The question to be decided was whether it should consist of

Made to fit: reinstating a set of tapestries and painted panels into the Audley End Tapestry Room 195

a stitched support, adhesive support or a combination of the two. Experience suggested that the tapestry elements would benefit from a stitched support onto a linen scrim. The painted linen panel was more problematic. Often with painted textiles it is necessary to use an adhesive support treatment because of the risk of the stitching puncturing the paint. However, this was not a problem in this case. While the paint covered the fibres, it did not cover the interstices of the weave, and this enabled a needle to pass through the linen without damaging the paint. If both the tapestry and linen were given a stitched support they were more likely to be able to expand and contract similarly, whereas if the linen was adhered to a support fabric its movement may be more restricted (or different), creating further tensions in the object. If the linen panels were given an adhesive treatment, this could alter their drape and appearance. A stitched, rather than an adhesive, support was preferred for the reasons outlined above, and also because the panels were returning to a historic house on open display in a relatively uncontrolled environment that could potentially undermine an adhesive support. It was decided that both elements should be given a stitched support onto linen scrim. Linen scrim is a proven support for tapestries and it has the advantage of being similar to the painted linen fabric. The tapestry elements were supported separately to the painted linen components. Before the support work could be undertaken, fragments found with the tapestry and painted linen panels were studied to determine whether they belonged to the set of hangings. Fold lines and stitching threads remaining in the fragments provided clues to their location and with a careful study of the plans for the room it was possible to piece together the fragments and join them to the tapestry and painted linen. The framing up of the tapestry and linen panels was particularly challenging because of the cupboard door openings and door cut-outs. It was necessary to join the cupboard door opening on to the tapestry temporarily, during part of the support treatment, in order to enable it to be correctly stitched. It was important to be able to tension the tapestry on the frame and maintain an even tension while it was being worked on. The door opening was secured in such a manner that it could be tensioned but worked around, in order to allow all areas to be supported (Figure 26.2). This technique had been developed for other tapestries conserved at the Textile Conservation Centre that had similar cuts.2 The correct tension was achieved by attaching a series of tabs made from folded strips of down-proof cotton,

placed at close intervals vertically or crossed across the cupboard door cut, and stitched in place with herringbone stitch. The fabric strips were fine (so not adding too much bulk when the tapestry was rolled), but were also strong and did not stretch. The area of the tapestry and linen panel that had a cut-out for a doorway was temporarily filled with a large piece of down-proof cotton the same size as the door for the purposes of framing-up for stitching. A double layer of cotton was stitched to the tapestry and linen panel using a herringbone stitch. To ensure that the correct tension was maintained, the stitching was worked up to the down-proof strapping/insert, but the areas under these temporary supports were not worked until the whole tapestry had been treated. These areas were later returned to and the strapping/insert was released section by section as the tapestry was supported. The cupboard presented an added complication because it had to function as such once the tapestry was reinstated into Audley End, and the tapestry had been reattached to the cupboard doors. In order to do this, excess linen needed to be made available to fix the tapestry to the door after conservation. As a result, it was not possible to work the linen support continuously across the entire tapestry and an additional piece of scrim had to be inserted behind both the cupboard door cuts. For the support of the tapestry elements the slits were reinforced, weak areas of silk were supported using evenly spaced brick couching and holes in the tapestry were infilled with dyed wool patches which were secured using spaced brick couching. The support lines were worked through the tapestry to attach the scrim in areas where there was little or no other stitching, to ensure an even support. The support of the linen panel was considered relatively straightforward, but in practice it proved to be very challenging. Its open weave meant that it distorted very easily and it was difficult to achieve a balanced tension between the painted linen and its support fabric. Initially, the support treatment was worked on the table but because of the size of the object and the need to roll it during treatment, it proved to be too difficult to control; it was then mounted on a frame. A small amount of excess fabric was incorporated into the support fabric to allow for dimensional changes in the panel, allowing movement with changes in the environment. There were again initial problems obtaining the correct tension between the object and its support, but this was achieved once the critical amount of support fabric excess was determined, to be eased in for stitching.

196


Figure 26.2 The door cut of panel three strapped in preparation for support stitching.

The linen panel was supported with minimal stitching consisting of an interlocking grid of widely spaced running lines. In weak and holed areas, evenly spaced rows of laid and couched stitches were worked to provide support. In areas where the linen was very fragile or impregnated with adhesive, it was necessary to apply an overlay of dyed conservation net. All stitching was extended out into sound areas in order to provide adequate support, and the ends of the lines of stitching were

staggered to prevent the formation of stress lines. The edges of the linen were supported with an overlay of dyed net. This overlay created a strong handling edge and was a cost-effective method of supporting the numerous nail holes.

Installation The hangings had been taken off display in 1978, so it was not possible to see them in situ before


Figure 26.3 The team of conservators attaching Velcro to panel three.

conservation to assess how they fitted into the room and how they had been originally hung. Evidence of previous display was provided by documentation supplied by the curator, and from the information provided by the hangings themselves. In the nineteenth century, the tapestries and linen panels had been attached to the walls along the edges with nails that were covered by a gilt filet. Gold paint from the filet was evident in some areas of the tapestry and the colours of the yarns under the filet had been preserved. Narrow strips of linen stitched to the reverse face of the panels were also nailed to the walls around the cupboard door cuts, the corners of the room and at intervals along the height of two of the painted panels. The challenge was to install the hangings in their nineteenth century room setting using modern conservation techniques. It was deemed more suitable to line the walls instead of the tapestry and linen panels in order to reduce the amount of stitching to the painted linen panels and allow easier access for future research. The lining will not only protect the tapestry from abrasion by the walls on which they hang, it will also prevent the tapestry from acting as a filter for airborne particulates.

The tapestries and painted linen panels were to be attached to the wall using Velcro which provides a strong even means of hanging that will also allow the tapestries to be readjusted easily, if necessary (Figure 26.3). However, the final dimensions of the tapestry and linen panels had to be determined to see how the panels would fit back into the room before deciding the position of the Velcro. In order to determine the final dimensions of the tapestry and painted hangings, the panels were studied closely. The tapestry and linen panels had numerous nail holes around the edges, which provided evidence of previous turnings and cuts made in the tapestry which had enabled them to fit into their different locations. It was important to determine which holes were significant for returning the hangings to the tapestry room. Additional evidence was obtained from the differential fading observed on the panels. Equally, it was obvious where the tapestries had been in the corners of the room and this provided a set of fixed points to measure from. Finally, the walls of the room all varied in size which provided added complications. Consequently, a large set of accurate dimensions were taken as part of the process of matching the

198


hangings with the available wall space. By comparison of the dimensions and the other evidence, it was possible to identify the final dimensions of the panels when they were last hung in this room, with one exception: the side edge of the linen section of panel three. The linen panel was too large for the available space without turning the side edge under – however there was no evidence of a turning. The edge of the panel had been protected from the light but this unfaded strip was wider than the original gilt filet that had been used to cover the edges of the panel. As a consequence, it was decided to hang the panel and so determine the final size of the turning needed once it was in place and to attach the Velcro to this edge while the panel was in-situ. The Velcro was applied to the top and side edges of the panels and it needed to be carefully positioned. Where the tapestry and linen panels were joined, the Velcro was applied to the tapestry side only in order to reduce the quantity of stitching worked through the painted linen panel. The lightweight linen panels did not place any strain on the heavier and stronger tapestry sections. Velcro was also applied at the corner turnings of the tapestries, so enabling them to fit closely against the wall and where it covered the cupboard doors. The method of hanging the panels in the room was the cause of much debate. The most significant challenge was posed by the panel which covered two walls and so it needed to be hung around the corner of the room. It was important to minimise

any strain on the painted linen that could be caused by the heavier tapestry elements. So it was decided that the tapestry would be unrolled from a roller positioned vertically so that the panels could be unrolled around the corners of the room whilst supporting them evenly at all times. Each panel was attached to the roller using Velcro to stop the panel sliding down the roller when it was in a vertical position. The roller was positioned on a round trolley with wheels to allow the panel to be unwound smoothly. The height of the roller on the trolley was adjusted so that the top of the tapestry was in line with the top of the wall. This method provided a controlled and accurate method of hanging. Once in position the panels were adjusted to ensure they were hanging correctly. A team of five people, four conservators and the curator hung the panels. With the panels in position, the curator was able to commission the reproduction filet to complete the room.

Conclusion The conservation of the tapestry and painted linen hangings has been challenging and rewarding. The problems faced at the outset were successfully resolved and the tapestry and linen panels are cleaner, well supported and are now safely reinstated in their original setting (Figure 26.4) and have returned the room to its former appearance. The hangings will be monitored in the future and it may be

Figure 26.4 Panel three after conservation and prior to installation showing the tapestry and painted linen sections.


necessary to adjust their hanging position as they settle into their former setting once again. The client will be encouraged either to stop using the cupboard or to reduce its use, as the tapestry will suffer over time.

Endnotes 1. 2.

Personal communication, Gareth Hughes of English Heritage. Conservation projects undertaken at the Textile Conservation Centre: The Burne-Jones tapestry (TCC 2088.4) and the Cotehele tapestry (TCC 0769.e).

Acknowledgements The conservation was carried out in 2003-2004 by Michelle Harper and Karen Thompson with assistance from Amber Rowe, Anne Kvitvang, Sung-Hyun Im and Lisca Wurfbain (TCC 0631).

Reference Marillier, H.C. (1930). English Tapestries of the Eighteenth Century. The Medici Society.

27 Maintenance and first aid Ksynia Marko

The National Trust (for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty) faces conservation problems not commonly met by museums and galleries. One of the responsibilities of this charitable organisation is to care for the fixtures, fittings and decorative contents of 230 or so historic buildings, allowing objects to be displayed in context, rather than by date, type or material as often occurs in museums. This varied collection includes approximately 500 tapestries (see Chapter 18) found in various locations throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The National Trust policy paper Historic Buildings: The Conservation of their Contents states that, ‘the appearance of a conserved object must not be such as to render it out of key with other objects or the decorative scheme of a room or building . . . the Trust’s general philosophy is one of minimum intervention, providing always that this approach is consistent with preservation. Wherever possible, original materials and components are preserved, with minimal repair where necessary.’1

afforded such luxury and only because of its association with the King’s Bed on display in the same glass-protected room. The tapestries, which date back to the late seventeenth century, were made in London and are signed with initials T.P. for Thomas Poyntz. They represent scenes from The Story of Nebuchadnezzar and formed part of the goods brought to Knole from Copt Hall in 1701. Another single piece of tapestry is displayed in the same house as a backdrop to important pieces of furniture in a small ‘museum room’. Otherwise, the Trust’s whole collection is on continuous, permanent, open display, there being no reserve to allow a rotation. This applies both to smaller tapestry pieces used for seat upholstery and soft furnishings and large tapestry hangings. Managing visitor access, preventive conservation, good housekeeping and condition monitoring are essential prerequisites to the Trust’s programme of care and maintenance, with first aid being a logical step before major treatment (Figure 27.1).

Context

Managing visitor access

The display of objects in their original context exerts a profound influence on the Trust’s approach to conservation (Landi and Marko, 1980). Tapestries are not only art objects in their own right but also provide a backdrop to a room, helping to create a unique atmosphere. Important examples in a museum may be on permanent display but protected behind glass or in a controlled environment, and others may only be seen during temporary exhibitions. Within National Trust houses the majority of objects are not protected behind glass – only one set of tapestries, in the King’s room at Knole in Kent, is

Historic houses have always been open to visitors, but today visitor figures to a single property will be in the tens of thousands, normally during eight months of the year. Tapestries may be displayed along the visitor route, as at Lyme Park (Cheshire), Powis Castle (Wales), Castle Drogo (Devon) and Blickling Hall (Norfolk) or close to it, perhaps draped over doorways, as at Knole and Cotehele House (Cornwall). As with all tactile objects they may suffer from either deliberate or accidental visitor handling.2 Ropes and stanchions afford some protection and room stewards tell people not to touch, 200

Maintenance and first aid 201

Figure 27.1 Ksynia Marco stitching during the winter closure with the tapestry laid flat on a table.

but there are always vulnerable areas which have to be monitored. Preventive measures, such as covering weak areas on a seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestry depicting Nebuchadnezzar Warned with fine, dyed nylon net (as at Powis Castle) or where possible repositioning the tapestry or changing the visitor route, will all help to prevent damage (Figures 27.2 and 27.3).

to handle and surface clean tapestries, together with advice on the frequency of cleaning. Information is kept in a house manual. Tapestries are normally surface cleaned by rotation every three, five or ten years, depending on their location and condition. The use of brushes on the surface of tapestries is normally not advised as this can cause damage to vulnerable silk. Tapestries are generally surface cleaned whilst they are hanging, as removing a tapestry from display may itself cause damage.

Preventive conservation and housekeeping Condition monitoring The National Trust’s team of Area and Regional Conservators coordinate environmental monitoring and the training of house staff in conservation matters. They are assisted by the Textile Conservation Adviser and the team of textile conservators in the monitoring and maintenance of tapestries and other textiles. Training is given to house staff in the appropriate way

House staff are the people who have day to day care of objects and may be the first to notice changes or new damage which is reported to the Regional Conservator and Adviser who then action any necessary treatment. In addition, the Trust aims to undertake textile condition surveys every five to ten years.

202


Figure 27.2 The position of this late seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestry, displayed along the visitor route at Powis Castle, makes it vulnerable to visitor handling. Its condition is regularly monitored.

This is essential to monitor condition, the ongoing effectiveness of preventive measures, surface cleaning regimes and first aid treatments. The need for first aid or major interventive conservation treatment is also identified. Core data relating to stability, condition and treatment priority are coded and recorded. In order to compete for funds, information is gathered to establish conservation priority, which also includes environmental factors, local or national significance, research opportunities and public benefit. Tapestries are amongst the most expensive of objects to conserve, as treatment is lengthy and labour

intensive. First aid is primarily carried out for structural integrity, and will help to prevent losses in the short term, the aim being to allow a tapestry to remain safely on permanent display whist awaiting remedial conservation.

Historical precedents Tapestries have been subjected to continual maintenance since they were woven and purchased. The yeoman taylor was an important member of the household, responsible for the maintenance of these


Figure 27.3 Detail of the same tapestry at Powis Castle showing damage to silk weft where the area has been covered with conservation net as protection, whilst funds are awaited for full treatment. This has remained effective over several seasons.

expensive luxury items. He would ensure they were properly lined and hung, and oversee their care. Hanging from nails, hooks or rods, these heavy textiles would have initially suffered damage along the top edges, which would require reinforcement from time to time. The treatment of the Gideon tapestries at Hardwick Hall (possibly woven at Oudenarde in 1578, depicting the story of Gideon and his triumph over the Midianites), has shown evidence of the original linen linings, folded over several times along the top edge and reinforced with a linen tape for added strength to take the enormous weight of the hangings once nailed. Tapestry manufacturers offered a repair and alteration service, ranging from cleaning to altering pieces to fit different locations, an activity which formed a large part of their business (Hefford, 1979). During the first half of the

twentieth century Lady Meade-Fetherstonehaugh at Uppark (West Sussex) and Duchess Evelyn at Hardwick Hall (Derbyshire) both worked tirelessly undertaking and organising repairs in their respective houses. The most common form of repair is the repeated restitching of woven slits and the replacement of galloons. A simple stitch in time can mean that a tapestry, which might otherwise have to be put into store, can remain on display.

First aid treatments The following are examples of the first aid measures undertaken in the care of the Trust’s tapestry collection.

204


Tapestry upholstered furniture First aid to a piece of tapestry upholstered furniture can be approached in the same way as for other types of upholstery textile. As for any piece of upholstered furniture, damaged areas will occur on armrests and at the fronts of seats and tops of inside backs. The weft may be worn or splitting, exposing the warp, both of which are under extreme fixed tension (unless it is a loose cover). It is often difficult or impossible in these circumstances to insert a patch support or infill behind the weak area without causing further damage. If woven slits have opened, again the fabric tension may not allow these to be closed and restitched. Dyed conservation net can be applied over the surface as protection, which will also help to contain any upholstery stuffing and allow for easier surface cleaning. In some cases laid couching, worked through to the underlying upholstery, may help to contain the damage and ease the effect of tension in the short term (see Chapter 16). Tapestry hangings First aid to large tapestry hangings can be carried out whilst the tapestry remains on display. However, this option may not be easy and may require working from scaffolding or ladders. Surface cleaning Tapestries can get as dirty on the back as on the front. A good lining offers some protection, and will itself show the extent of the dirt. The front face of a tapestry can be cleaned easily with a hand-held, variable suction controlled vacuum cleaner. The crevice tool is held at a 45° angle to the surface of the tapestry so that the surface beneath can be clearly seen. The crevice tool can be covered with a layer of fine net or used over a screen of monofilament net if the surface is particularly vulnerable. In open display conditions surface cleaning is carried out once every three to five years, depending on location. This approach is designed to keep surface dust down to acceptable levels. A textile conservator may be required to carry out more detailed inspection and cleaning every few years. The verso is inspected and surface cleaned as is practical, but at least once every ten years. Hanging mechanisms A good hanging mechanism is one that allows the even distribution of weight along the top edge, so that distortions and localised stresses are avoided.

Tapestries have been variously hung from nails, looped cords and hooks, rings, headless tacks and eyes, studded popper tape and fabric ‘sleeves’ through which a batten can be slotted. Over the last thirty years it has become common practice to hang tapestries from Velcro, also considered an advantage for emergency procedures. The soft loop side is first machine sewn to cotton webbing tape and then hand sewn to the tapestry; the hard, hook side is tacked or stapled to a wood batten or framework attached to the wall. Research has shown that Velcro needs to be replaced approximately every 15 to 20 years.3 During such inspection and maintenance however, and with regard to context, it is important to recognise when the method of hang may be historic and therefore important to retain. It may be possible to modify the hang whilst retaining the visual impact or evidence of the original technique. For example the use of visible spaced rings, which correspond with fixed hooks in the wall, may be significant within the context of a room setting where other objects are similarly hung. The tapestry can be rehung using Velcro carried on a batten. The batten is then hung from rings using the same hooks, as with five tapestries at Owletts (Kent) including a seventeenth-century Mortlake fragment and verdures from Oudenarde and Brussels. In other instances, tapestries have been found to be hung from rows of headless tacks, which relate to metal eyes sewn to the tapestry galloon on all four sides. The original intent was to tension the tapestries flat like paintings. Subsequent shrinkage can mean that fixings no longer align properly, requiring modifications to resecure the tapestry without losing evidence of the original hang. In 1908, a patent was taken out by John Heizmann, Cabinet Maker, for an invention to improve the method of hanging valuable tapestries.4 This was cotton tape set with large press studs which corresponded to similar fixings on the wall. Whilst this replaced earlier fixings like the headless tacks and eyes, it is itself of historic significance and should not be replaced if it is not causing damage. At Blickling Hall, the Peter the Great tapestry, originally tacked to a wood frame in the eighteenth century, had not been disturbed until it became necessary to carry out first aid repairs. The tapestry was woven in St Petersburg in 1764 and depicts Peter the Great triumphing over the defeated Swedish army at Poltawa in 1709. It was given to John Hobart, 2nd Earl of Buckinghamshire by Catherine the Great. The original wood frame had been specifically engineered to tension the tapestry absolutely flat. Insect damage required repairs to the galloon and


the tacks were replaced with Velcro, but the wood frame was retained, allowing the appearance of the original hang. Galloons Original galloons may be damaged by previous fixings or inappropriate handling. They provide a border around the edge of the tapestry and their repair is normally part of a full conservation treatment. Small repairs may be required along the top edge or along the lower edge where the galloon is often joined to the main border by a long woven slit. Because of previous damage new or ‘false’ galloons may have been applied. These false galloons are generally woven in a narrow strip of one colour of wool and applied to one or all sides. This means that those along the side edges are attached with the warp running vertically, rather than horizontally as for the warp of the main tapestry. This can give rise to a differential in ‘drop’ between the tapestry and galloon, the tight galloon causing distortion in the hang and subsequent damage, as seen on the Chinoiserie tapestries at The Vyne (Hampshire), made by John Vanderbanc, Chief Arras Worker of the Great Wardrobe circa 1720 at his Soho workshop, and the Mortlake tapestries at Blickling Hall. The removal or adjustment of false applied galloons allows the tapestry to hang evenly. Linings Along with hanging mechanisms, linings need to be regularly inspected, repaired or replaced. Different methods of lining are designed for different purposes and a tapestry may be partially or fully lined. It is important to understand the intention and therefore any significant impact on the tapestry. For example a partial or full lining may be closely sewn to the tapestry and be designed to support its weight, rather than to act solely as a dust barrier. It may therefore be inappropriate to remove it until full conservation is undertaken. Old linings are not discarded as a matter of course. They may be rare original survivals and offer important historical information. Partial or strip linings can be converted to full linings by simply adding fabric or a full lining placed over the top. First aid may simply involve the adjustment of linings that have become too tight, either in the width or height. There may be ample fabric in the turnings which can be let out at the edges, or a narrow width of new fabric can be attached to the sides or lower edge without disturbing the whole lining.

However, it is often necessary to remove old rotten linings, especially of the hessian type, and apply new linings to improve the hang and to prevent dust and dirt ingress from the reverse. The fabric chosen for a new lining must be an efficient dust inhibitor and not add undue weight to the tapestry. Whilst plain weave linen has been, and still is, used as a traditional material for linings, evidence and tests show that linen is not necessarily a good dust barrier (Hartog, 1993). For practical reasons the National Trust uses starch-free, down-proof cotton cambric, regarded as sacrificial, and readily replaced. There are varying views as to how linings should be attached. The Trust uses a series of vertical lock stitch lines with a small pleat in the fabric set horizontally above the lower hem edge. A calculated amount of extra fabric in the width and height, together with the pleat, ensures that the lining allows the tapestry to hang without distortion, anticipating any future dimensional change. It is not intended as a support for the tapestry itself. Stitch in time First aid repairs to the tapestry structure take various forms, from the sewing of open woven slits, attaching patches of pre-shrunk linen fabric to the verso in order to support laid couching worked over small areas of weak weft, to the application of dyed net over the surface. Such repairs are normally carried out in situ in the houses and may require the tapestries to be removed temporarily from display (Figure 27.4). Building and redecoration projects often provide the opportunity to carry out first aid to objects. Twelve tapestries at Polesden Lacey (Surrey), including three Flemish tapestries depicting the story of Dido and Aeneas, a Brussels tapestry by Leo van der Hecke depicting the story of Ceasar and Cleopatra and two Flemish tapestries designed after Teniers by P&V de Borcht of peasant scenes, were afforded first aid treatment in January 2000. This required a team of six conservators on site for a period of two weeks. Each tapestry was removed from the wall and the hanging mechanism changed to Velcro. Each was extremely dusty and required detailed cleaning on both front and back. Linings were checked and adjusted, woven slits were checked and sewn, and weak silk weft areas were given support by inserting linen patches beneath the linings in order to carry out laid couching repairs. On completion, notes were made of their condition with a view to future treatment or concerns.

206


allows the Trust’s tapestries to remain on permanent display in the houses for which they were bought.

Endnotes 1. 2.

3.

4.

National Trust Policy Papers. (1996). Historic Buildings, The Conservation of Their Fixtures, Fittings, Decorations and Contents. For example, at Lyme Park, three tapestries from the Cadmus series woven in Antwerp in the 1670s by Michael Wauters, a rare survival in England of a set once common in country houses, are affected; at Powis Castle, a seventeenth-century Mortlake depicting Nebuchadnezzar Warned and Worship of the Golden Image; an Armorial tapestry La Portiere de Char de Triomphe, Gobelins circa 1662 – 80, at Castle Drogo, and two Brussels early eighteenth-century verdure tapestries at Blickling Hall. Leath, K. (1995). Hook and Loop Fasteners: Their Deterioration and Degradation with Relevance to Textile Conservation. (Unpublished Diploma Report, Textile Conservation Centre.) Heizmann, J. (1906). Patent reference No. 13,191. Provisional Specification. Improvements in Fixing and Hanging Tapestry and the Like.

Figure 27.4 Frances Hartog stitching while the tapestry is still hanging.

References Conclusion A fully conserved tapestry will still require maintenance and ongoing care in order that the treatment remains effective in the longer term. The quantity of remedial studio and in situ treatment required to maintain the Trust’s tapestry collection in perpetuity is considerable. Both interventive and preventive conservation techniques are continuing to evolve. Considered maintenance and first aid buys time and

Hartog, F. (1993). Tapestry linings. Conservation News, 51, 48. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes, and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Landi, S. and Marko, K. (1980). The maintenance in situ of architecturally related textiles. In Conservation within Historic Buildings. Preprints of the Contributions to the Vienna Congress, (N. S. Brommelle, G. Thomson and P. Smith, eds.) pp. 151– 4.

28 Removing large tapestry hangings from display Fiona Hutton, Frances Lennard and Ksynia Marko

Chapter 27 discusses the maintenance and first aid treatments that are sometimes carried out on tapestries while they remain on display. However, it is more common to have to remove a tapestry from display in order to carry out full conservation treatments. At this point the size and weight of a tapestry become important considerations; at the same time, a tapestry in need of full conservation can be extremely weak and easily damaged. These factors mean that the act of removing a tapestry from a wall is a major operation which must be carefully planned and executed. Textile conservation departments which are responsible for the care of many tapestries have developed procedures to handle these large, heavy textiles safely; Allen (1999) outlined the methods used by the team responsible for the tapestries within Hampton Court Palace. On other occasions conservators have had to respond to the demands of a particular situation; Windsor (1991) discussed the methods used to remove a set of tapestries from display and to reinstate them at a height of 30 feet (approximately 9 m) in the Rhode Island State House. A procedure has evolved within the Textile Conservation Studio of the National Trust to ensure that tapestries are handled in as safe a way as possible for both object and personnel when they are taken down from a wall or rehung, although it is important to modify the procedure according to each individual situation. The major aim of handling is to ensure that the weight of the tapestry is supported at ground level, even though the conservators may need to access its upper edge from scaffold towers or ladders. Where possible a roller is supported vertically on a wheeled trolley and used to roll the tapestry off the wall, or to unroll it when the tapestry is being rehung. The height of the top edge of the tapestry when hung must correlate with its position on the roller and with this in mind one side edge of the tapestry is fixed to

the roller by means of Velcro before rolling. This prevents the tapestry from slipping down the roller when vertical and is vital in ensuring full control throughout the procedure, which can be paused at any time. Personnel are forbidden to manually pick up and support the roller during the removal as this is unsafe for both people and object (Figure 28.1). This is a particularly important issue where tapestries are hung at a very high level, above head height. In a few cases tapestries are already hung from beams which incorporate hoist mechanisms, as on some tapestries at Powis Castle, but these are rare in historic houses. In the absence of a permanent hoist mechanism, a temporary one can be devised using the wooden batten onto which the tapestry is fixed, or a secondary substitute batten prepared with a length of hook Velcro on one side which matches a length of loop Velcro pinned to the tapestry. This method has proved extremely successful at both Hardwick Hall and Packwood House in Warwickshire. A good hoist mechanism allows easy removal by simply lowering the tapestry onto the prepared floor area, laying it flat or carefully folding it onto a cotton or polythene sheet. Preparation and planning are key issues. In order to remove a tapestry from a wall it is important to make sure there is sufficient space in the room, moving furniture and carpets if necessary. The work is planned in advance, so that the condition of the tapestry, its shape and its position on the wall can all be taken into account when moving it. Health and safety requirements must be adhered to, with a risk assessment carried out beforehand. Tapestry hangings should never be handled by just one person; two to six people may be required depending on the size and location. Where possible, and particularly when a large team is needed, it is useful for one person to stand aside and direct operations as they will have a 207

208


Figure 28.1 A team of conservators rehanging a seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestry at Blickling Hall. A bookcase prevented the use of a wheeled trolley to support the vertical roller. The roller was placed on top of a pad of downproof cambric which allowed it to be turned whilst sliding easily along the top of the bookcase.

clear view of the proceedings. Communication between the team members is vital; the procedure is discussed before commencing so that all personnel know what is expected of them.

The tapestry Alexander Visiting Diogenes at Dyrham Park As already indicated, the characteristics of individual tapestries mean that it is necessary to be flexible and resourceful when planning their handling. A tapestry from the National Trust property, Dyrham Park, had to be taken down from the wall so that it could

undergo full conservation treatment in the late 1990s. The late seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestry depicted the meeting of Alexander the Great and the philosopher Diogenes (Figure 28.2). It was obvious that a previous adhesive treatment had left the tapestry in a generally stiff and brittle condition, but as it was fixed to the wall around all four edges within a decorative frame, it was impossible to know in advance of removing it from the wall whether it would be possible to roll it or not. A method of removing the tapestry from the wall and transporting it to the conservation studio was devised which would allow it to remain flat, so that it did not need to be rolled.

Removing large tapestry hangings from display 209

Figure 28.2 The late seventeenth-century Mortlake tapestry, Alexander Visiting Diogenes from Dyrham Park.

The tapestry was large – it measured almost 6 m wide by almost 3 m high. It had been repaired in the late 1950s and again in the 1960s by the Rural Industries Board. A very thick coating of adhesive had been applied to coarse hessian and adhered to the back of the tapestry. This had hardened over time and was now shiny brown and stiff. Later tests carried out on the adhesive found that there were two types: animal glue and rosin. The difficulties of removing the tapestry from the wall were compounded by the tapestry’s position within the room; it hung on two adjacent walls, and the lower edge was above dado height. The room itself was not large, and space was at a premium even after furniture and other objects had been removed from the tapestry’s vicinity. The decorative frame around the tapestry was first removed by a furniture conservator. The method of removing the tapestry from the wall was carefully planned. Scaffolding was placed as near to the tapestry as possible. Nails holding the tapestry to the wall were removed from the sides and bottom, and loop Velcro was pinned to the front edge of the tapestry (Figure 28.3). A batten the length of the tapestry was attached to the scaffold tower with calico stapled to it to isolate the tapestry from the scaffolding. Hook Velcro had been previously stitched to the calico just below the batten. As the nails were removed from the top edge of

the tapestry, the two sides of the Velcro were pressed together so that the tapestry was eventually suspended from the scaffold tower. Another piece of calico was then stapled to the batten to protect the back of the tapestry. Velcro had been previously stitched around the edges of both pieces of calico; these were pressed together so that the tapestry was enclosed. A sleeve had been stitched along the bottom edge to allow a batten to be slipped in to help with the handling. A very large packing case had been made up on the floor in an adjacent room; this was brought to the house in sections and assembled on site. The case was made of ply board joined together with battens. Polyester wadding was stapled across the board to allow the tapestry to rest on a padded surface. The tapestry was lowered from the scaffold tower using ropes attached to hooks on the batten until the tapestry was just off the ground. Lifting poles were screwed onto the batten at the front and these were used to keep the tapestry vertical while the scaffolding was dismantled. There was no room to manoeuvre the tapestry through the door with the scaffolding still in place. The tapestry was then carried through the door at a slight angle and lowered onto the padded boards. The batten was screwed to the case so that the tapestry would be safely suspended within the case once the case was lifted. Another previously

210


Figure 28.3 Velcro being pinned to the front upper edge of the tapestry to allow it to be taken down from the wall.

prepared board was positioned on top and screwed on to the back board making a very large and secure packing case for the tapestry. It was carried through the front door of the house and transported to the conservation studio in a large van (Figure 28.4). This operation was successful in avoiding the need to roll the tapestry; it was possible to remove it from the wall and transport it while keeping it flat the whole time. The operation underlined the importance of planning such an undertaking carefully and thinking through every stage in advance; it was necessary, for example, to plan the route which the packing case would take through the house, and to make sure that all the doorways it would have to pass through would be large enough to accommodate it. A considerable amount of preparation was involved: it took several days to assemble and prepare the materials such as the packing case and the calico covers with Velcro fastenings. Close liaison between the freelance conservators, National Trust house staff and an external removal company was

also necessary to ensure the availability of space and manpower. A large number of personnel was involved; it took eight people to move the packing case from the house to the van. The tapestry’s return to display was far less eventful. After the removal of the adhesive and the provision of a full support it was possible to roll the tapestry safely; satisfyingly, only two people were needed to carry it back into the house. However it was still necessary to plan the rehanging carefully. As the tapestry had to be replaced on the wall within its frame, it was important to ensure that its dimensions did not change following treatment. Velcro strips were stitched around all four edges of the tapestry so that the tapestry did not have to be nailed back in position. It was necessary to measure and calculate carefully to make sure the corresponding strips were attached to the walls in the right place. The work all had to be carried out from scaffold towers. The gilded filets of the frame were finally replaced to cover the edges of the tapestry.

Removing large tapestry hangings from display 211

Figure 28.4 The tapestry being transported to the conservation studio in a large packing case.

Conclusion Not all occasions when tapestries are removed from display are as complex to manage as in this illustration. However, it is always necessary to plan carefully when tapestries are taken down from display or when they are replaced. The National Trust and other organisations have devised protocols to ensure that tapestries and other large heavy objects are handled safely but there are always exceptions to the rule and any procedure requires modification depending on the context. It is important to ensure that there is sufficient space and personnel for the

operation to be accomplished safely, for both the tapestry and for the people involved. Good communication between all personnel is vital so that removal is properly coordinated and controlled, whatever the method used for removal. It is apparent that a tapestry being removed from display in order to undergo conservation treatment is weak and is in need of careful handling to prevent its large size and weight causing further damage. However it is important to handle tapestries with equal care after conservation; although they may look much more complete and robust after treatment, conservators are now much more aware that

212


this appearance is deceptive and masks the fragility of the aged silk and wool fibres.

Acknowledgements The conservation of the tapestry was carried out by Fiona Hutton, Frances Lennard, Kim Leath, Jane Mathews and Caroline Clark. Identification was carried out by Dr Leon Black from the Interface Analysis Centre, University of Bristol.

References Allen, R. (1999). Some observations on the display of largescale tapestries: project planning, attrition management and object longevity. In Solutions – the influence of locations on treatments. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section forum, 19 April 1999 (S. Howard, ed.) pp. 36 – 43, UKIC. Windsor, D. (1991). A view from the top: reinstallation of the Rhode Island State House tapestries. In Textile Specialty Group Postprints. Papers delivered at the Textile Subgroup session. AIC 19th Annual Meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1991, Vol 1 pp. 6 –16, AIC.

Fiona Hutton 1958-2005. It is with great sadness that the editors report that Fiona Hutton died suddenly after contributing to this chapter and before the book was published. She graduated in 1981 from Froebel College, University of London, with a combined degree in Art and Education specialising in textiles. From 1981 to 1985 she trained and worked as a tapestry conservator at the Textile Conservation Centre, Hampton Court Palace, under Karen Finch and Caroline Clark. On completing her apprenticeship she consolidated her experience in private practice with Ksynia Marko at the Textile Conservation Studio in Poplar, London. In 1989 she and Frances Lennard set up in partnership as Textile Conservation in Somerset. They worked together for 11 years carrying out the treatment of tapestries and other textiles for a wide range of clients including the National Trust, the Wallace Collection and Kensington Palace. Fiona continued the business after Frances left in 2001. From 2003 onwards Alison Lister began working with her on a regular basis. This chapter is dedicated to her memory.

29 Ephemeral or permanent: environmental decisions for textiles Boris Pretzel

The last two decades have seen significant developments in the understanding of the effect of variations of temperature and humidity on museum collections. Tightly controlled environmental specifications have been shown to be resource intensive and of limited benefit to the majority of artefacts. The resilience of collections in general to moderate variations has been shown to be quite high, together with a realisation that very tight performance specifications are very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in old buildings where air conditioning units are retrofitted. This has led to more realistic and relaxed climate specifications being accepted in museums. There is a risk however that lighting specifications will also be relaxed with an underestimation of the associated long-term damage to artefacts. In particular, there appears to be a drift away from the 50 lux criterion, suggested, for instance, in Thomson’s ground breaking book The Museum Environment (1986) as the maximum level consistent to the longterm preservation of light-sensitive material, to an assumption that material illuminated at 50 lux cannot be enjoyed adequately under any circumstances. Whilst it is generally accepted that there is no threshold for the onset of light-induced damage and, therefore, there is no safe lighting level below which damage will not occur, light-sensitive material will have a rather limited life if continuously exposed even at 50 lux. The challenge for any lighting decision becomes one of finding the right balance between long-term preservation of, and access to, artefacts. This chapter discusses the impact of the environment on museum collections. The first section deals with illumination and the cumulative damage that will ensue from exposure to light. The second section discusses the effects of temperature and humidity. The

illustrated examples are not for work on tapestries at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) but will apply to all manner of artefacts. The effects for tapestries, however, are likely to play a significant part in decisions surrounding their display and care as this type of artefact was, in general, intended to be on open display in stately homes and palaces. In any case, the response of large woven structures, such as tapestries, wall hangings and even paintings on canvas to their environments will be similar.

Illumination The V&A has a large collection of textiles, including many important carpets, tapestries and other hangings. Examples include the delicate eighteenthcentury Stoke Edith silk wall hanging, perhaps controversially on open display in the British Galleries; the collection of fifteenth-century Devonshire Hunting Tapestries; and the Raphael Cartoons (not tapestries per se, but Raphael’s designs for tapestries intended for the Sistine Chapel). All these objects are large, severely restricting the potential of their rotation on and off display to limit long-term exposure. An example is presented below in more detail to illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate illumination for such objects.

Determination of lightfastness The Bullerswood carpet, designed by William Morris (1834 –96), is currently on display in the V&A’s British Galleries (Parry, 1983). Before being moved to its current location, it was only rarely displayed 213

214


and is still in excellent visual condition. Due to the size of the carpet (4 m wide by 7.5 m long), it is displayed near vertical, with only the lower half on view. As only half the carpet is illuminated, it is crucial to be able to predict in advance the effects of the illuminant on the artefact and to be able to model how long it would take before these effects result in a shift in colour balance and obvious differences between the two halves of the carpet. The variation in lightfastness of a number of natural dyes and colorants has long been recognised but even the most lightfast dye will eventually fade (causing a distortion in the appearance of the artefact in question and usually also, in time, changing the balance between different colours). Traditionally, the lightfastness of textiles has been assessed using sacrificial models made, as far as possible, from the same dyes used in the artefact in question. These are exposed at very high illuminance and the colour changes thus produced are observed to estimate the response of the artefact to illumination. However, this approach has several drawbacks: lightfastness depends not only on the substrate and dye product but is also critically dependant on the exact dyeing process. Also, the lightfastness of most dyes is not a constant but will change with their exposure history: most fugitive dyes will become increasingly lightfast in the course of their fading. An alternative approach that has gained popularity over the past few years is to expose discrete areas of an artefact being examined to intense illumination and to monitor the resultant changes. The technique was first described by workers at the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI), using visual assessment of colour changes and focused light sources. Although the use of areas on an artefact for accelerated fading tests deliberately causes damage on the artefact, judicious choice of appropriate areas can limit the impact of this damage to acceptable levels. For instance, areas under a frame or mount of a painting or on the reverse of a textile may be suitable. The information from accelerated fading tests on the artefact itself is directly relevant to its fading in real situations. This approach has been refined by Paul Whitmore and colleagues at the Carnegie Mellon Research Institute to construct apparatus allowing rapid determination of the relative lightfastness of several areas of an artefact (Whitmore et al., 2000). It uses the same light source to expose an area and, by collecting the reflected light, to determine the colour changes instrumentally. However, as a consequence of the intensity of the illuminant and uncontrolled variations therein, the results cannot be used accurately to

predict the response of the artefact to illumination at more reasonable levels, such as those likely to be used in museums. The instrumentation adapted at the V&A was chosen specifically to allow accurate prediction of the response of artefacts to illumination under museum conditions. Selected areas are exposed to high doses of illumination and, at selected periods during the exposure, reflectance spectra are collected from the area being exposed, without requiring that the sample spectroscopic measurement alignments be moved in any way between exposure and measurement periods. A further refinement that has significant effect on the validity of data and extrapolations was the facility to continuously monitor and record the illumination falling on the sample during the exposure (Pretzel, 2000a). The final system is shown in Figures 29.1 and 29.2. It comprises a dual beam uv-visible-near infrared spectrometer (Hitachi U4000) optically coupled to an external integrating head (Lapsphere) to take diffuse reflectance measurements from the sample area and using the same integrating head to focus the ageing illuminant on to the sample. Intense illumination is provided by a Schott microscope illuminator with two fibre-optic tails, one used to illuminate the sample and the second to monitor illumination levels throughout the experiments. To allow remote operation the spectrometer is controlled by a PC with modem and appropriate remote access software and the lamp is controlled with suitable telephone activated switches. The recorded reflectance spectra have a precision of better than 0.2 per cent reflectance over the course of a 10-day experiment. The spectra are used to calculate the tristimulus coordinates and, from there, chromaticity coordinates and colour difference values as a function of exposure. The high precision allows confident extrapolation even beyond twice the actual exposure. The technique is, however, rather time-consuming and can only be used on a single area of an artefact at a time. The total exposure is limited to about 8 Mlx.h in view of the life of the lamps used for the illumination and it takes a total of one week to reach this exposure (allowing for an appropriate number of intermediate measurements). The technique and instrumentation were developed specifically to establish the lightfastness of the Bullerswood carpet in preparation for its display in the British Galleries. A summary of the results for this artefact is given in Figure 29.3 and Figure 29.4. The carpet is dyed entirely using natural dyes. In advance of the measurements, there was considerable fear

Ephemeral or permanent: environmental decisions for textiles 215

Figure 29.1 Lightfastness determination equipment at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The figure shows the Bullerswood carpet by William Morris undergoing investigation by the author in preparation for its display in the British Galleries at the V&A.

that these dyes would be of limited lightfastness and that the carpet could not safely be placed on continuous exposure for prolonged periods in the gallery without causing significant distortion in the colours. Surprisingly, the different coloured areas all showed themselves to be reasonably lightfast. More surprisingly, the blue areas, dyed with woad (indigo) and traditionally considered to be quite lightfast, were found to be the most fugitive areas on the carpet (Pretzel, 2000b). Since this initial set of experiments, the technique has been used on a number of different artefacts, including Amazonian featherwork and a set of standards used in an interlaboratory set of comparisons of light-fading equipment (Solajic et al., 2002; Saunders and Kirby, 2001). Tests to establish the behaviour of the Ardabil carpet and its response to light are currently underway. Work on tapestries is not currently planned, but the technique adapts itself very well to this type of collection.

Interpretation The technique described above, and other similar procedures, can determine the response to exposure

of different artefacts. Results can be expressed in a number of ways including colour change and rate of loss of colorant as a function of exposure. However, in order to use the results to determine, for instance, acceptable exposure regimes or the duration of display of an artefact, an acceptable rate of colour change (or dye loss) needs to be established (setting the limit to zero change or no loss would mean not exposing any artefacts). Early fading studies used the grey scale to quantify changes on fading or staining. The scale has five graduations (optionally with a further four intermediate ones), going from grey scale five (no change) to grey scale one (very obvious change). Grey scale four has long been used as a measure of a ‘just noticeable difference’ ( JND), although this represents a shift in greys that, on direct comparison at least, is noticeable. Colour difference equations have been developed to quantify colour changes in terms of their appearance to humans. The equations are designed so that, ideally, a colour change of one should be perceptible and changes below one should not. However, the eye is very complex in the way it determines colour and even the most recent colour difference models are not particularly well correlated to human vision.

216


Figure 29.2 Close-up of the integrating head used both to take spectral reflectance measurements and to focus the intense illumination on to the sample area.

This explains, at least to some extent, the discrepancy in lightfastness tables produced by different authors (some using visual matches to grey scales, others using instrumental determinations of colour changes compared to the colour difference corresponding to the different pairs of tiles making up a grey scale). The most recent ratified and best correlated colour difference model is CIEDE2000, published in

2000 and adopted as a standard by the Commission Internationale D’Éclairage (CIE) in 2001. This model addresses two colour areas where previous equations have had particular weaknesses (differences between blues and those between greys) in order to improve the correlation to human vision. Adoption of this newest colour difference model has some unexpected benefits: when colour differences and the grey scale are recalculated with this model, for instance, the

Ephemeral or permanent: environmental decisions for textiles 217 Burgundy fading curve

Colour change, ⌬E00

0

2

1.5

1.5

0.5

1

0.5

0.5

1.5

0 0.E0

2.E6

4.E6

6.E6

8.E6

10.E6

12.E6

Delta a*

Delta b*

14.E6

⌬L*, ⌬a*, ⌬b*

7 000 000

14 000 000

2.5

Exposure, lux hours CIE00 colour difference

Delta L*

Figure 29.3 Results from one colour (burgundy) from the Bullerswood carpet. The equipment depicted in Figure 29.1 is used to determine spectral reflectance curves and their changes as a function of exposure. These curves are used to compute the tristimulus values of the area being investigated and, from there, the colour coordinates and the colour change as a function of exposure. 45

8 000 000

40

7 000 000

30 5 000 000 25 4 000 000 20 3 000 000

15

2 000 000

Years at 500 lx.h per day

Exposure, lux hours (lx.h)

35 6 000 000

10

1 000 000

5 0

0 Red

Green

Blue

Burgundy

Colour balance

Colour

Figure 29.4 The graph shows the exposure leading to one perceptible change (PC) in colour (1.5 CIEDE 2000 colour difference units) for each of the colours examined on the Bullerswood carpet. The last bar refers to the colour balance; this is a measure of the change in colour difference between the different colours. The colour balance changes more slowly than the most fugitive of the colours; the behaviour of the most fugitive colour should therefore be used to evaluate the response of the artefact.

218


discrepancy between instrumentally measured blue wool fading data published by Bullock and Saunders (1999) and reference data derived from early visual assessments (Michalski 1987 and 1997) disappears and the data sets converge. The question of what is a perceptible colour change remains open to debate. Experiments at the V&A have shown that the onset of perceptibility is quite broad, with perhaps a 40 per cent chance of recognising differences as low as 0.6 CIEDE2000 units; 100 per cent recognition occurred only for colour differences greater than two. The midpoint of this range, a change of about 1.5 CIEDE2000 units, approximates the colour difference (expressed in this model) between the two tiles forming grey scale four. This is perhaps fortuitous and ratifies the use of grey scale four as defining the onset of visual changes in early studies. It is therefore with some confidence that this experimentally established value has been adopted at the V&A to mark a perceptible change and has been used to derive the exposure recommendations in the V&A’s lighting policy (Ashley-Smith et al., 2002). The policy further establishes an acceptable level for the rate of changes (one perceptible change in 50 years) consistent with the aim of the museum to display its collection and the requirement to ensure that rates of damage are slow enough to ensure the collections will be there for future generations to enjoy. Combining the experimentally determined value for the onset of visually perceptible changes, and changes in reflectance spectra as a function of exposure, allows the data to be interpreted in terms of the time for which artefacts can be displayed under any given illuminance before any light-induced changes become apparent. This, in turn, allows appropriate rotation strategies to be established, together with acceptable maximum illumination levels consistent with the duration of display. The result is a greater degree of flexibility in deciding the display conditions for artefacts, which enables the museum to re-evaluate appropriate lighting levels for artefacts in order to be able to display them in more innovative ways.

Climatic environment Climatic parameters (temperature and relative humidity [RH]) affect artefacts in three fundamentally different ways: mechanical (changes occurring in materials in response to changes in climate); chemical (the effect of the climate on the rate of deleterious reactions); and biological (supporting the growth

of fungus mould and encouraging insect attack). Mechanical considerations concern mainly fluctuations in the parameters whereas chemical considerations concern their absolute magnitude. Biological hazards are outside of the scope of this chapter and are abundantly covered elsewhere. Museums have traditionally stipulated ever tighter specifications for the ranges of temperature and humidity that should ideally be tolerated in galleries. Historically, these specifications were based on the limits of what might be achieved by ever more sophisticated equipment coupled with an uncertainty about the effects of all but quite large fluctuations observed in traditional living spaces. Fluctuations in climate can lead to mechanical damage in artefacts. This is caused by expansion and contraction of the materials of which the artefact is composed. Unless all of the adjoining components of an artefact respond in a uniform manner, changes in climate will result in the build up of internal stresses that may lead to cracking and rupture. Generally, any dimensional changes in materials due to changes in climate will either be small or will be dominated by the response of the material to changes in relative humidity. It is rare for mechanical damage in artefacts to be due solely to moderate fluctuations in temperature. Over the last decade or so, the requirements for tight limits on allowable fluctuations have been re-examined (Erhardt and Mecklenburg, 1994) in terms of mechanical models of the behaviour of materials. The consensus of professional opinion now is that there is little to be gained from overly tight restrictions which are in any case very difficult and costly to achieve (Orsezcyn et al., 1994). These difficulties are most obvious for historic buildings where any air conditioning systems have to be retrofitted and are unlikely to be particularly efficient. In any case, fluctuations of 5% RH (the limit proposed in BS 5454:2000 [BSI, 2000] and many museums’ environment policies) are unlikely to cause significant damage even to vulnerable artefacts, while low vulnerability artefacts are likely to be able to withstand fluctuations of 20% RH or more (Michalski, 2000; ASHRAE, 1999). Textiles, including tapestries, are reasonably tolerant to fluctuations in relative humidity. Although the dimensional response to varying relative humidity is different for different textiles, the materials are relatively unconstrained and therefore stresses that occur due to the changes are small (although tapestries and wall hangings may be constrained by being


fixed around their edges). The major influence of climate on the longevity of this type of collection is therefore going to be the effect on the rates of deleterious reactions. Museums and galleries tend to specify environments acceptable to them in terms of ranges of temperatures and relative humidities (and, perhaps, acceptable rates of change of these parameters). Such specifications usually give these ranges as two independent targets. This suggests that temperature will affect reaction rates independently of humidity (and vice versa), which is indeed broadly the case. However, recent work has focused on the effects on longevity of artefacts of varying climates and, for such calculations, the combined effect of particular temperature and humidity paired values needs to be evaluated. A policy stating temperature and relative humidity ranges (say the BS 5454:2000 range for frequently accessed archives of 16°C to 19°C, 45 – 60% RH) will cover a range of longevities (in the case of this example, a textile at constant conditions at the lower extreme of the range would be expected to last over twice as long as if it were stored at the upper extreme). Interpreting climate parameters in terms of their effect on longevities (permanence) of artefacts is a fairly recent development. It would, of course, be a big challenge to work out actual rates of all deleterious reactions for the variety of artefacts that museums collect, but the task is greatly simplified by considering only relative changes in the rates of these reactions on changes in climate. The effect of temperature on reaction rate was established in the nineteenth century and is encompassed in the Arrhenius equation (this states broadly that the rate of reaction will vary exponentially with increasing absolute temperature). The effect of relative humidity is still being debated, with different researchers proposing different models. The rates of chemical reactions depend on the concentration of reactants raised to some power. By analogy, Michalski (2002) suggests that the predominant reaction involving relative humidity for many natural fibres is acid hydrolysis and that the role of relative humidity (RH) on degradation should be related to the proportional change in RH raised to a power of 1.3. Indeed, he goes on to argue that a power law for relative change in RH with an index of 1.3 holds true for the vast majority of deleterious processes affecting museum collections. Using these two models, the change in longevity in response to a change in climate is straightforward

to calculate. At the V&A, this approach was used to devise a benign climate strategy for the Royal Institute of British Architects collection which is moving to the V&A. Initial discussions centred on the climates that could be provided at the V&A without resorting to full air conditioning. However, the Heritage Lottery Fund, assessors for this scheme, insisted that conditions recommended in BS 5454 should be maintained in the spaces to house the collection. Achieving such conditions is not possible without installation of significant air conditioning equipment. In a move away from the assessor’s initial request, the V&A developed a strategy based solely on permanence calculations. This would allow air conditioning to be used in the most cost-effective manner to maintain conditions giving at least the longevity equivalent to the upper limits set out in BS 5454. Additionally, in view of the stability of this collection with respect to RH variations, the upper and lower limits for RH were extended to 70 per cent and 30 per cent. Subject to these outer limits, prevailing conditions will be interpreted in terms of their influence on permanence of the collection compared to the reference permanence set at 19°C and 60% RH (the upper end of the conditions in BS 5454). When conditions leading to a lower permanence than the reference value occur, the mechanical plant will calculate the most resource-efficient manner in which to alter the climate to bring the rates of deleterious reactions back in line with the strategy, limiting, in particular, the reliance on humidification/ dehumidification cycles. In addition, the system will allow controlled reduction of heating in periods when the museum is closed, with the heating during such periods being used merely to prevent RH exceeding the upper limit. This, again, will enable a significant improvement in longevity and allow considerable saving of resources. A summary of the conditions falling within these parameters is presented in Figure 29.5, which shows lines of equal permanence (based on materials with activation energies of 100 kJ/mol, a good average for cellulosic and similar materials, and an RH dependence following a power law with an index of 1.3) plotted against temperature (abscissa) and RH (ordinate). Of course, introducing an unorthodox strategy such as this in a complex environment like a museum requires the organisation to have the tools to continuously monitor and assess the system’s performance. At the V&A such a system has been in development over the last two years.

220

Maintenance and display Reference isoperm

RIBA

100

4

8

90

2

1

80

Relative humidity (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0

5

10

15 20 25 Temperature (ⴗC)

30

35

40

Figure 29.5 Graph showing isoperms (temperature and humidity paired data values giving the same relative stability) for cellulosic objects, relative to the reference point of 19°C, 60% RH (the upper limit of the recommendations in BS 5454:2000 for frequently accessed archives).

Conclusion The display of artefacts inevitably involves an increase in the rate of their deterioration. Understanding the interaction between collections and their environments is an essential element in determining display strategies that adequately balance the needs of current visitors (in terms of the ability to see, enjoy and understand the exhibits available to them), with long-term preservation issues for the

artefacts. Factors with the largest impact on rates of deterioration will depend on the type of collections under consideration. Tapestries, and other large coloured artefacts, will tend to be on long-term display, given the difficulties that rotation of such objects entails. Further, in common with other large artefacts, their illumination will present particular challenges; for instance, given their size, they are likely to have to be viewed at a greater distance than smaller artefacts and may


therefore require brighter illumination to be able to see them in detail. One of the factors of principal concern for the display and care of such artefacts will therefore be their colourfastness. Chemical stability in the climates in which they are kept is a further significant factor for all artefacts. Approaches to establish appropriate conditions in relation to these parameters are presented in this chapter.

References Ashley-Smith, J., Derbyshire, A. and Pretzel, B. (2002). The continuing development of a practical lighting policy for works of art on paper and other object types at the Victoria and Albert Museum. In Preprints of the 13th ICOM-CC Triennial Meeting Rio de Janeiro, 22–27 September 2002 (R. Vontobel, ed.) pp. 3 – 8, James & James Ltd. ASHRAE Handbook (1999). Museums, libraries, and archives. In Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Applications, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers. BSI (2000). BS 5454:2000. Recommendations for the storage and display of archival documents. British Standards Institution. Bullock, L. and Saunders, D. (1999). Measurement of cumulative exposure using blue wool standards. In Preprints of the 12th ICOM-CC Triennial Meeting Lyon, 29 August – 3 September 1999 ( J. Bridgland, ed.) pp. 21– 6, James & James Ltd. CIE (2001). Improvement to industrial colour-difference evaluation, CIE 142–2001, Commission Internationale D’Éclairage. Erhardt, D. and Mecklenburg, M. (1994). Relative humidity re-examined. In Preprints of the Ottawa Congress (A. Roy and P. Smith, eds) pp. 32 –7, UKIC. Michalski, S. (1987). Damage to objects by visible radiation (light) and ultraviolet radiation (uv). In Lighting in Museums, Galleries and Historic Houses, pp. 3 –16, The Museums Association. Michalski, S. (1997). The lighting decision. In Preprints of Fabric of an Exhibition: An Interdisciplinary Approach, pp. 97–104, CCI.

Michalski, S. (2000). Guidelines for Humidity and Temperature in Canadian Archives, Technical Bulletin 23, CCI. Michalski, S. (2002). Double the life for each five-degree drop, more than double the life for each halving of relative humidity. In Preprints of the 13th ICOM-CC Triennial Meeting Rio de Janeiro, 22–27 September 2002 (R. Vontobel, ed.) pp. 66 –72, James & James Ltd. Orsezcyn, T., Cassar, M. and Fernandez, K. (1994). Comparative study of air-conditioned and non airconditioned museums. In Preprints of the Ottawa Congress (A. Roy and P. Smith, eds) pp. 144 – 8, UKIC. Parry, L. (1983). William Morris Textiles. Weidenfield & Nicolson. Pretzel, B. (2000a). Acceptable rates of fading, Accelerated light ageing in the UK. Meeting of the Conservation Scientist Group Meeting, Tate Britain, February 2000. http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/csn/boris.ppt Pretzel, B. (2000b). Determining the lightfastness of the Bullerswood carpet. In Tradition and Innovation: Advances in Conservation, IIC Melbourne Congress, (A. Roy and P. Smith, eds) pp. 150– 4, IIC. Saunders, D. and Kirby, J. (2001). A comparison of lightaccelerated ageing regimes in some galleries and museums, The Conservator, 25, 95 –103. Solajic, M., Pretzel, B., Cooper, M., Townsend, J., Seddon, T., Ruppel, J., Ostapkowicz, J. and Parker, T. (2002). A collaborative examination of the colourfastness of Amazonian featherwork: assessing the effects of exposure to light and laser radiation. In Preprints of the 13th ICOM-CC Triennial Meeting Rio de Janeiro, 22–27 September 2002 (R. Vontobel, ed.) pp. 701–7, James & James Ltd. Thomson, G. (1986). The Museum Environment, 2nd edn. Butterworths. Whitmore, P., Bailie, C. and Connors, S. (2000). Microfading tests to predict the results of exhibition: progress and prospects. In Tradition and Innovation: Advances in Conservation, IIC Melbourne Congress, (A. Roy and P. Smith, eds) pp. 150–4, IIC.


Part Six Current research projects


30 Monitoring of damage to historic tapestries (MODHT): a European research project Kathryn Hallett

This project was the first at a European level to address the issue of damage assessment in historic tapestries. The collaborating partners were Historic Royal Palaces, University of Manchester, University of Edinburgh, National Museums of Scotland, and Birkbeck College (University of London) in the UK, Koninklijk Instituut voor het Kunstpatrimonium (KIK-IRPA), Belgium and Patrimonio Nacional, Spain.

Its main aim was to obtain an understanding of the degradation processes in the wool, silk, and metal threads, dyes and mordants – all integral components of the woven structure (Figure 30.1). A project of this complexity requires an interdisciplinary approach and the team involved curators, conservators and conservation scientists working with major tapestry collections, and analytical and textile chemists. The project identified and developed novel markers of

Figure 30.1 MODHT team taking a sample for analysis from a historic tapestry in Brussels. 225

226

Current research projects

damage in terms of the following: amino acid compositions; silk molecular weight distributions; surface analysis; and thermomechanical properties. These parameters were used to describe differences between model and historic tapestry samples and then to establish a link between chemical composition and physical properties such as tensile strength. The scientific assessment of damage will assist the conservator in making decisions concerning treatment, conditions of display and storage. The project finished in June 2005, with a final workshop for dissemination held at Hampton Court Palace. During the project, many aspects of this wide-ranging research project were published in journals and conference proceedings, a selection of which is shown below. This research project was supported by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Programme and contributed to the implementation of the Key Action ‘The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage’ through the subsection ‘Improved Damage Assessment of Cultural Heritage’ within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme, contract number EVK4 –CT–2001– 00048.

Bibliography Carr, C. M., Mitchell, R. and Howell, D. (2004). Surface chemical investigation into the cleaning procedure of ancient tapestry materials. Journal of Materials Science, 39, 7317–25. Hacke, A.-M., Carr, C. M., Brown, A. and Howell, D. (2003). Investigation into the nature of metal threads in a Renaissance tapestry and the cleaning of tarnished silver by UV/Ozone (UVO) treatment. Journal of Materials Science, 38, 3307–14. Hacke, A.-M., Carr, C. M. and Brown, A. (2005). Characterisation of metal threads in Renaissance tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds), pp. 71–78, Archetype. Hallett, K. and Howell, D. (2005). Size exclusion chromatography as a tool for monitoring silk degradation in historic tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Intercretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds), pp. 143 –150, Archetype.

Hallett, K. and Howell, D. (2005). Size exclusion chromatography of silk – inferring the tensile strength and assessing the condition of historic tapestries. In Preprints of ICOM Committee for Conservation, 14th Trienniel Meeting, The Hague, Netherlands (in press). Hulme, A. N., McNab, H., Peggie, D. A., Quye, A. (2005/6). The Chemical Characterisation by PDA HPLC and HPLC ESI MS of aged and unaged fibre samples dyed with sawwort (Serratula tinctoria L.). In Dyes in History and Archaeology 22. Switzerland 23rd–24th October 2003, (in press). Hulme, A. N., McNab, H., Peggie, D. A. and Quye, A. (2005). The application of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and accelerated light ageing for the analytical identification of yellow flavonoid dyes in historical tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13–15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds), pp. 208 –213, Archetype. Hulme, A. N., McNab H., Peggie, D. A. and Quye, A. (2005/6). Negative ion electrospray mass spectrometry of neoflavonoids. Phytochemistry (in press). Hulme, A. N., McNab, H., Peggie, D., Quye, A., Vanden Berghe, I. and Wouters, J. (2005). The analytical characterisation of the main component found in logwood dyed textile samples after hydrochloric acid extraction. In Preprints of ICOM Committee for Conservation, 14th Trienniel Meeting, The Hague, Netherlands (in press). Odlyha, M., Wang, Q., Foster, G. M., de Groot, J., Horton, M. and Bozec, L. (2005). Monitoring of damage to historic tapestries: the application of dynamic mechanical thermal analysis to model historic tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds), pp. 126 –134, Archetype. Odlyha, M. et al. (2005/6). Damage assessment in historical parchments and tapestries: Application of thermal and spectroscopic techniques. In AIC Abstracts, American Institute for Conservation 32nd Annual Meeting Portland, Oregon June 9–14, 2004 (in press). Vanden Berghe, I. and Wouters, J. (2005). Identification and condition evaluation of deteriorated protein fibres at the sub-microgram level by calibrated amino-acid analysis. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds), pp. 151–158, Archetype.

31 Mechanical testing and its role in the condition assessment of tapestries Melin Sahin, Alan Chambers, Leonidas Dokos, Janice Dulieu-Barton, Jacqueline Earl, Dinah Eastop and Frances Lennard

The deterioration of tapestries can be attributed to the combined effects of external environmental conditions, such as fluctuations in relative humidity and exposure to light, and inherent factors, such as the nature of their component materials and the effect of supporting their own weight over long periods of time. As the environmental conditions fluctuate and the tapestry deteriorates, the effects of their own weight on its integrity will also change. Ultimately failure, to use an engineering term, will occur when the weight of the tapestry exceeds its strength. In conservation, it is commonplace to evaluate the condition of an object by assessing the integrity of its structure and its chemical stability. In engineering, mechanical testing is an essential part of assessment as it provides important information about the materials and structure under investigation. The authors, an interdisciplinary team from the University of Southampton, are investigating the application of non-destructive strain monitoring techniques to historic tapestries. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the testing approaches used in engineering and to relate these to tapestries. In order to facilitate cross-disciplinary exchange, the technical language of engineering is explained to make it accessible to conservation specialists. The major objective of a mechanical test is to determine the mechanical properties of a material (in this case a textile). One of the mechanical tests most commonly used in engineering is performed under tension and is therefore known as a tensile test. The tensile test is generally performed on flat specimens using a specialist test machine. This test is well known to engineers, textile technologists and textile

conservators; however, its application to historic textiles is relatively uncommon. This chapter provides a description of a typical machine, test pieces and material properties derived from such a test. It is shown how the derived material properties are used in the condition assessment of tapestries and their usefulness in this context is explained. A further mechanical test, known as the ‘creep test’, is also described. This test models the material behaviour under a constant load over an extended time period, such as that experienced by a tapestry on display as it deforms due to its own weight. Engineers use mechanical tests to characterise materials. In tapestries it is particularly important to identify the properties in both the warp and weft directions as they may be different. Therefore, a further objective of this chapter is to explain isotropic and anisotropic material behaviour in terms of a tapestry. The derived properties must be attributed to the structure correctly so that the behaviour of the tapestry under its own weight can be established. Various condition monitoring techniques are introduced below and their suitability for application to tapestries is discussed. The potential for the application of these techniques to the conservation of historic artefacts has been recently reviewed (Dokos et al., in preparation).

Isotropic and anisotropic materials The purpose of so-called structural materials is to support mass, or more correctly weight (i.e. the product of mass and gravitational acceleration). This weight is 227

228


termed ‘applied load’ and will cause the material to deform. The deformation is dependent on the material properties, the component geometry and the magnitude and direction of the applied load. In the case of a pressurised drink container, the cylindrical form will simply expand. In the case of a bridge or an aircraft structure, the material will distort as a function of the geometry and loading regime. In engineering, the distortion is termed ‘deflection’ and is critically dependent on the material properties. For metallic material the properties are independent of direction and will distort in a uniform manner regardless of the direction of application of the load. This makes material behaviour relatively simple to deal with and the material is termed ‘isotropic’. On the other hand, a tapestry consists of two series of threads (warp and weft) woven using materials which have different physical properties, e.g. fibre type, spin and thickness, and therefore will exhibit different mechanical properties. When a tapestry material is loaded (i.e. subjected to an applied load) in different directions, the amount of deflection will depend on the loading direction. In other words, the deflection of the tapestry in the warp direction will be different from that in the weft direction when subjected to the same applied load. This kind of material

behaviour is called ‘anisotropic’, as the mechanical properties of the material are directionally dependent. Anisotropic material behaviour is not only a characteristic of tapestries, but is experienced in engineering structures, particularly those made from fibrereinforced plastics known as ‘composites’ (Daniel and Ishai, 1995; Agarwal and Broutman, 1980).

Stress–strain behaviour In order to understand the load carrying ability of any material and to determine the amount of deformation it can withstand before failure, the first step is to determine the properties of the material. To obtain these, a sample of material (often referred to as a ‘test specimen’ or ‘coupon’) is tested by loading in tension, i.e. stretching the material until failure occurs. In the case of a highly anisotropic material, e.g. tapestry, the tensile test should be performed in two separate directions (usually parallel to the warp and parallel to the weft) to fully understand the behaviour. A specialist machine is used to conduct the tensile test and to apply the load in a controlled manner. A schematic of a typical tensile test machine is shown in Figure 31.1.

Metal columns

Crosshead Load cell Jaw

Test specimen Grip Table

Actuator (Servo-hydraulic) Controller

Base

Figure 31.1 Schematic representation of a typical test machine.

Mechanical testing and its role in the condition assessment of tapestries 229

A tensile testing machine’s main components are the frame, load cell, grips and an actuator. The frame is equipped with two metal columns, a base and a moving crosshead. The crosshead is a rigid metal block located on the columns that connects to a piston and slides up and down. It can be positioned according to the length of the specimen and can move to any position within the available range of the column length. Two grips, one mounted on the base, the other on the crosshead, are equipped with jaws that are used to mount and hold the specimen during the test and after fracture. While the upper grip is fixed, the moveable lower grip is controlled by an actuator providing a constant rate of motion, hence loading the specimen. A load cell is mounted on the crosshead and it measures the magnitude of the applied load as it increases as the specimen is stretched. All control operations are carried out via a separate control panel installed near the testing machine. The most commonly used specimen geometries for engineering materials are the ‘dog-bone’ with wide ends and a narrow middle, and the ‘straight-sided specimen’ with end tabs (BSI, 1977; BSI, 1990). The purpose of the end tabs is to protect the material from the gripping force and hence prevent premature failure at the jaws. A specimen is gripped by the jaws of the tensile test machine and simply pulled in tension. Proper alignment of the grips and the specimen when clamped in the jaws is very important as offsets in alignment will create bending in the specimen and therefore change the loading regime and lead to inaccurate measurements. For most textiles the

dog-bone specimen is of little use, as cutting the textile to shape will cause fraying and introduce artificial weakness, particularly in woven materials such as tapestries. Therefore a simple strip should be used. Attaching end tabs may be difficult and therefore specialist grips should be designed. For example, Instron (Instron, 2004) recommend flat faced pneumatic grips. In the authors’ current work a set of self-tightening mechanical grips have been designed. These are shown in Figure 31.2 and comprise a roller clamping mechanism that holds the material in the grip and applies a gripping load to the ends of the sample as the material is stretched. This type of grip reduces the likelihood of material damage at the grips and ensures even application of the load across the width of the sample. Tensile test machines can be categorised on the basis of load generation mechanisms: hydraulic and mechanical. The hydraulic test machine is capable of applying tension via an adjustable crosshead driven by a piston at static or very slow loading rates. In contrast, in a mechanical test machine, a screw jack system is controlled by motors that drive the crosshead up and down. In both cases, a ‘servo system’ can be introduced that utilises a feedback control system (Ogata, 2001). This servo control system allows the amount of displacement to be controlled accurately and is termed ‘position control’. The main advantage of current servo machines is that the applied load can also be controlled in load control mode (i.e. the force is measured from the load cell attached to the fixed crosshead); this is particularly useful for testing time-dependent behaviour (as seen

Applied load

Roller clamping mechanism

Textile sample

Clamped to machine (a)

(b)

Figure 31.2 Self-tightening grips and textile sample: (a) front view; (b) side view.

230


in tapestries). During a test, simultaneous measurements are made of the applied load from the load cell, the displacement of the actuator or crosshead and the increasing length of a selected portion at the middle of the specimen, called the ‘gauge length’. The change in the gauge length is measured by external sensors attached to the specimen known as ‘extensometers’. For application to engineering materials, a mechanical extensometer is normally used. However, because of the flexibility of textiles, a non-contact extensometer, based on lasers or using a video camera, is recommended. The tensile test provides load-deformation characteristics of the specimens via the computer-based recording system. The magnitude of the deformation for a constant load depends on the geometry of the material tested. Equally, the magnitude of the load required to cause a given deformation depends on the geometry of the specimen. This raises the question of how structures of different shapes and sizes, but made from identical materials, can be compared. In order to compare different materials and eliminate the effect of sample dimensions, the engineering quantities ‘stress’ and ‘strain’ are much more frequently used than load and deformation. Stress is defined as the load on a specimen per unit crosssectional area; it is independent of test specimen geometry. Expressing the load that a material can withstand in this manner allows a direct comparison

of the strength of all materials and hence appropriate material choices can be made. On the other hand, strain is deformation per unit length and is therefore a non-dimensional deformation. (The term ‘percentage elongation’ is often used and also denotes tensile strain.) Strain is measured using a set length or gauge length on a specimen. If the gauge length changes then the amount of deformation changes but the percentage deformation remains constant. For example, if a specimen with a gauge length of 0.1 m stretches by 0.01 m under load then the elongation is 10 per cent. Similarly, for the same material under the same load but measured over a gauge length of 0.2 m, a 0.02 m deformation would occur, i.e. 10 per cent elongation. In order to visualise the behaviour of a material under tensile load, a graph of stress versus strain, i.e. a stress–strain curve, is used. Figure 31.3 shows stress–strain curves for three textile materials – wool, cotton and silk (Morton and Hearle, 1993: 282). In general, the stress–strain curve can be divided into two main regions, namely the elastic and plastic regions. When the deformation (or strain) is approximately proportional to the load (or stress) and if the strain disappears when the load is removed, then the deformation is non-permanent and therefore it is called ‘elastic’. All three materials in Figure 31.3 show clear linear regions with the approximate transition point, known as the ‘limit of proportionality’,

Approximate limit of proportionality

500 Silk

Specific stress (mN/tex)

400 Cotton 300

200 Wool 100

0 0

10

20

Figure 31.3 Stress–strain curves of various yarns.

30 Strain (%)

40

50

60

Mechanical testing and its role in the condition assessment of tapestries 231

indicated in the figure. While the relationship between the load and deformation depends on the geometry of the material, the relationship between the stress and strain is geometry independent and hence this relationship represents a material constant within the elastic region. This constant of proportionality is called the ‘elastic modulus’ (‘Young’s modulus’ or ‘modulus of elasticity’) in engineering and it can be defined as the rate of change of stress with respect to strain for the condition of tension. For textile yarns, this property is related to the initial modulus of the yarn. When the material is deformed beyond a point where the stress is no longer proportional to strain, non-recoverable plastic deformation occurs, which remains even after the load causing it is removed. The stress level at which the plastic deformation is initiated is referred to as the ‘yield stress’ (or ‘yield strength’) of the material. This is very important for design purposes as it provides a limit to the amount of stress a material can sustain without becoming permanently stretched. In Figure 31.3, it appears that the cotton does not have a plastic region; this type of material is termed ‘brittle’ in engineering. The wool and silk have clear plastic regions when the stress increases up to a maximum point that a material can withstand before failure in tension; this maximum stress in engineering is termed ‘ultimate tensile strength’ and is where fracture occurs. For textile yarns, this property is related to the tenacity of the yarn. The amount of strain up to fracture is considered as the total elongation of the material. Note that the silk material fails at a lower strain compared to the wool but can withstand a much higher stress before failure. This introduces the concept of ‘ductility’, which indicates the ability of a material to be plastically deformed without fracture. Usually, the stronger the material, the more brittle it is. The three materials shown in Figure 31.3 exhibit this universally understood pattern of material behaviour. In conservation it is well known that environmental variations affect tapestries, e.g. changes in temperature and relative humidity (RH) cause differences in the mechanical behaviour of materials. In order to demonstrate the effect of the environment on the behaviour of tapestry materials, stress–strain curves of wool and cotton yarns at a variety of temperatures and RH are shown in Figure 31.4 (Morton and Hearle, 1993: 297 [a], 294 [b]). Here the values of temperature and RH were chosen to show typical and extreme display conditions. It can be observed in Figure 31.4 that an increase in temperature and relative humidity leads to a reduction in the strength

of the wool. In contrast, the percentage elongation (i.e. strain) increases with a rise in temperature and relative humidity as the wool becomes more ductile. For the cotton there is also a reduction in strength as temperature rises, but an increase in strength as relative humidity rises. Temperature increases have little effect on the ductility of the cotton, however increasing relative humidity results in increased ductility. In order to apply engineering monitoring procedures to tapestries in situ it is essential that the behaviour of the fabric is understood. It may be possible to monitor the deformation of an actual tapestry using appropriate sensors, which will provide information related to the material characteristics. However, if the material behaviour is not understood it will be impossible to relate the information gathered from the sensors to the condition of the tapestry. However, if the information can be related to the stress–strain behaviour of the tapestry material, established from mechanical tests, it will be possible to define the condition of the tapestry in terms of final material failure strain and take appropriate action.

Long-term strain behaviour The previous section considered the behaviour of the material under increasing load and the corresponding increase in deformation over a short period of time. If a material experiences a constant load or stress at given temperature over a long period of time, it may also exhibit a time-dependent deformation known as ‘creep’. This phenomenon causes a significant and gradual deformation with a small load that is less than the yield strength of the material. Determination of creep properties merits special attention as this type of deformation is common in tapestries because of their large size and weight. Figure 31.5 presents the typical creep curve of strain versus time (Morton and Hearle, 1993, p. 350). Although nylon is still not widely used in tapestries, in the literature this material has the best established reference database with regard to creep and is therefore used here for the purpose of illustration. In this curve, there are three distinct regions: primary, secondary and tertiary creep. Before primary creep occurs, there is an instantaneous extension that is elastic and not time-dependent. In the primary region, a state of plasticity has been achieved and the material deforms slowly until the material extension is such that the secondary region is

232

Current research projects 500

Wool Cotton


400

300 ⫺57⬚ 200

21⬚

⫺57⬚ 21⬚

99⬚

100

205⬚ 0 0

10

20

(a)

30 Strain (%)

40

50

500

60

Wool Cotton 100%


400

66%

300 0%

25% 200

68%

100%

100

0 0

10

20

(b)

30

40

50

60

Strain (%)

Figure 31.4 Stress–strain curves of new wool and cotton material in air: (a) effects of temperature; (b) effects of relative humidity (RH).

reached. At this stage the material deforms rapidly, but in a linear manner that can be predicted. In the tertiary region the rate of deformation becomes more rapid and failure is imminent for most engineering materials. However, for the material shown in Figure 31.5 (i.e. nylon) this is not the case. It is important to note that if the temperature increases or RH changes this will also have an effect on the creep behaviour of the material. It is clear that the

secondary linear region is the most important for monitoring historic textiles.

Sensors for strain monitoring Several techniques are used for the non-destructive evaluation and condition monitoring of engineering machines and structures. The majority of these techniques rely on changes in the dynamic behaviour of

Mechanical testing and its role in the condition assessment of tapestries 233 3 Secondary creep

Primary creep

Tertiary creep

Strain (%)

2

1

Instantaneous extension 0 10⫺3

10⫺2

10⫺1

100 Time (min)

101

102

103

Figure 31.5 Creep curve for nylon at 36°C and 30% relative humidity (RH).

the structure; as tapestries are stationary these are not applicable unless some external excitation can be provided. However, techniques that are dependent on changes in strain may prove a useful means of monitoring deformation under self-load. It may also be possible to relate the strain change to other material behaviour such as changes in the thermal or radiometric response. To measure strain, a device must be used that responds to changes in deformation. The most common engineering device is the electrical resistance strain gauge (Dally and Riley, 1991). This consists of an electrical wire bonded to a foil that is then adhesively bonded to the structure. Apart from the obvious difficulty of bonding a gauge to a tapestry, reinforcement would also be a major problem (Little et al., 1990). A further device, which is much less invasive in terms of reinforcement, utilises optical techniques and is known as the optical fibre strain gauge (Rao, 1997; Othonos and Kalli, 1999). Both the optical and electrical strain gauges take point measurements; this has the major disadvantage that the gauge needs to be located in the near vicinity of the damage. However, this type of device could be useful for monitoring changes in strain at a point, as a result of creep in the entire tapestry rather than changes in strain related to localised damage. A further technique that requires a surface modification is reflection photoelasticity (Cloud, 1998).

Here, a polymeric coating is applied to the entire surface and deformation can be observed via the coating using polarised light. This technique is a wholefield technique, i.e. measurements are obtained from the entire structure not just single points. However, the application of the coating could cause reinforcement and most importantly, in the context of historic textiles, would be ethically unsound although it could be applied to repair patches. Other strain monitoring techniques are available that allow the whole-field to be observed in a non-contacting fashion. These rely on the measurement of a strain change and use light intensity or light interference. There are some excellent examples of their application to panel paintings (Brewer and Forno, 1997), canvas paintings (Young, 1999) and frescos (Spagnolo et al., 1997). Notably, an early publication addresses the issue of statue conservation (Asmus et al., 1973) using light interference. Current light-based techniques employ a laser and interferometer ( Jones and Wykes, 1989; Steinchen and Yang, 2003) or use optical image correlation (Pieraccini et al., 2001). An understanding of material behaviour is essential for all strain-based techniques. Simply recording data at a single point in time will not be sufficient to predict life expectancy. It is necessary to collect data at regular time intervals and relate this data to a database of material behaviour obtained in the laboratory from mechanical tests.

234


Relevance of mechanical testing in tapestry monitoring In this chapter, the heterogeneous nature of tapestry has not been discussed. However it is well known that textiles manufactured from nominally the same materials behave differently; this can be a function of the weave, the fibres, dyes and finishes and many other variables. This situation is not particular to tapestries and is analogous to the problem engineers experience with composite structures. To combat this, extensive material testing programmes are the norm in engineering. It would be interesting to know whether a similar approach could be adopted in conservation in order to help determine the optimum type and timing of conservation interventions. The deterioration of a tapestry could be predicted by performing tests on artificially aged materials. The results from these tests could then be related to the deformation of the actual material in order to predict its likely future behaviour. Appropriate changes could then be made to its display conditions and hence failure of the tapestry could be avoided or delayed. Detection of the early stages of deformation would inform effective intervention before deterioration becomes structurally damaging and disfiguring. Monitoring the behaviour of tapestries could be used as part of routine condition assessments to aid collection management and care.

References Agarwal, B. D. and Broutman, L. J. (1980). Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Asmus, J. F., Guatarri, G., Lazzarini, L., Musumeci, G. and Wuerker, R. F. (1973). Holography in the Conservation of Statuary. Studies in Conservation, 18(2), 49 – 63. Brewer, A. and Forno, C. (1997). Moire fringe analysis of cradled panel paintings. Studies in Conservation, 42, 211–30.

BSI (1977). BS 2782 –10: Method 1003, Methods of Testing Plastics – Part 10: Glass reinforced plastics – Method 1003: Determination of Tensile Properties. British Standards Institution. BSI (1990). BS EN 10002 –1:1990, Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials – Part1: Method of Test at Ambient Temperature. British Standards Institution. Cloud, G. L. (1998). Optical Methods of Engineering Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Dally, J. W. and Riley, W. F. (1991). Experimental Stress Analysis. McGraw-Hill Inc. Daniel, I. M. and Ishai, O. (1995). Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials. Oxford University Press. Dokos, L., Chambers, A., Dulieu-Barton, J. M., Earl, J. S., Eastop, D., Lennard, F. and Sahin, M. A Review of Techniques for Inspection of Structural Damage in Works of Art. Reviews in Conservation. In preparation. Instron. (2004). Accessories for Material Testing. (WB1180). Instron Corporation. Jones, R. and Wykes, C. (1989), Holographic and Speckle Interferometry. Cambridge University Press. Little, E. G., Tocher, D. and O’Donnell, P. (1990). Strain gauge reinforcement of plastics. Strain, 91–98. Morton, W. E. and Hearle, J. W. S. (1993). Physical Properties of Textile Fibres. The Textile Institute. Ogata, K. (2001). Modern Control Engineering. Prentice-Hall. Othonos, A. and Kalli, K. (1999). Fiber Bragg Gratings: Fundamentals and Applications in Telecommunications and Sensing. Artech House Publishers. Pieraccini, M., Guidi, G. and Atzeni, C. (2001). 3D digitizing of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2(1), 63 –70. Rao, Y. J. (1997). In-fibre Bragg Grating sensors. Measurement Science and Technology, 8(4), 355 –75. Spagnolo, G. S., Paoletti, D., Ambrosini, D. and Guattari, G. (1997). Electro-optic correlation for in situ diagnostics in mural frescoes. Pure Applied Optics, 6, 557– 63. Steinchen, W. and Yang, L. (2003). Digital Shearography: Theory and Application of Digital Speckle Pattern Shearing Interferometry. The International Society for Optical Engineering. Young, C. (1999). Measurement of the biaxial properties of nineteenth-century canvas primings using Speckle Pattern interferometry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 31, 163 –70.

Select bibliography

Note: This bibliography contains only material published in English, although there is much literature on tapestry conservation in other European languages.

Abbreviations AIC BSI CCI CIE ICOM IFROA IIC JAIC TRON UKIC

American Institute of Conservation British Standards Institution Canadian Conservation Institute Commission Internationale D’Éclairage International Council of Museums Institut Français de Restauration des Oeuvres d’Art International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works Journal of the American Institute for Conservation Textiel Restauratoren Overleg Nederland United Kingdom Institute for Conservation

Tapestry weaving Beutlich, T. (1967). The Technique of Woven Tapestry. Batsford. Burnham, D. (1980). Warp and Weft: A TextileTerminology. Royal Ontario Museum. Emery, I. (1966, reissued 1980). The Primary Structures of Fabrics. Thames and Hudson. Jobé, J. (ed.) (1965). The Art of Tapestry. Thames and Hudson.

History Bennett, A. (1976). Five Centuries of Tapestry. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco.

Campbell, T. (2002). Tapestry in the Renaissance. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Delmarcel, G., Van Tichelen, I., Volckaert, A. and Maes, Y. (1993). Golden Weavings. Flemish Tapestries of the Spanish Crown. Gaspard de Wit Foundation. Delmarcel, G. (2000). Flemish Tapestry. Harry N. Abrams. Hefford, W. (1979). ‘Bread, brushes and brooms’: aspects of tapestry restoration in England, 1660 –1760. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 65 –75, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Thomson, W. G. (1930, rev. 1973). A History of Tapestry from the Earliest Times until the Present Day. Hodder and Stoughton. Thompson, F. P. (1980). Tapestry: A Mirror of History. David and Charles. Thurman, C. (1979). Tapestry: the purposes, form and function of the medium from its inception until today. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 3 –19, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Van Tichelin, I. and Delmarcel, G. (1993). Marks and signatures on ancient Flemish tapestries: a methodological contribution. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth- to Nineteenth-Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 57– 68, National Gallery of Art, Washington.

Conservation treatment De Boeck, J., De Bruecker, M., Carpentier, C. and Housiaux, K. (1989). The treatment of two sixteenthcentury tapestries at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 113 –17, Getty Conservation Institute. Borg Clyde, N. (1992). The Roman de la Rose tapestry. In The Art of the Conservator (A. Oddy, ed.) pp. 151– 62, British Museum Press. 235

236

Tapestry conservation

Bosworth, D. (1984). The problems of ethics and aesthetics. In Seminaire International la Restauration et la Conservation des Tapisseries, Paris 18 –20 June 1984 pp. 102 –3, IFROA. Bosworth, D. (1997). The conservation of four tapestries from Hardwick Hall. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 142 – 6, Archetype. Bosworth, D. (2000). Tapestry repairs: for better or for worse. In Textiles Revealed. Object Lessons in Historic Textile and Costume Research (M. Brooks, ed.) pp. 89 –92, Archetype. Brooks, M., Clark, C., Eastop, D. and Petschek, C. (1994). Restoration and conservation – issues for conservators: a textile conservation perspective. In Restoration: Is It Acceptable? (A. Oddy, ed.) pp. 103 –22, British Museum Press. Brutillot, A. (2000). Analysis of tapestry techniques, Textile Conservation Newsletter, 38 (Spring), 5 –9. Cichrova, K. (2002). Tapestry restoration in the Czech Republic using the ‘extra little loom’. In Home and Away: Approaches to Textile Conservation around the World. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section Forum, 2002 (V. Allan, ed.) pp. 14 –17, UKIC. Clarke, A. and Hartog, F. (1996). The cost of tapestry conservation. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett, and S. Cok, eds) pp. 69 –72, TRON. Cousens, S. (1984). The effects of old repairs on the choice of conservation treatment of tapestry. In Seminaire International la Restauration et la Conservation des Tapisseries, Paris 18 –20 June 1984 pp. 138 – 43, IFROA. Cousens, S. (1989). Second sight: further investigation into the construction of ecclesiastical embroideries and tapestries. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 49 –51, Getty Conservation Institute. Cousens, S. (1996). The conservation treatment of a heavily restored fragment of a Hercules tapestry: a method of approach. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett, and S. Cok, eds) pp. 131– 40, TRON. Dolcini, L. (1989). The tapestries of the Sala dei Duecento in the Palazzo Vecchio. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 81–7, Getty Conservation Institute. Fiette, A. (1997). Tapestry restoration: an historical and technical survey. The Conservator, 21, 28 –36. Finch, K. and Putnam, G. (1977). Caring for Textiles. Barrie and Jenkins. Finch, K. (1982). Problems of tapestry conservation. V&A Conservation Newsletter, 16, 40 –3. Finch, K. (1984a). Evolution of tapestry repairs: a personal experience. In Seminaire International la Restauration et la

Conservation des Tapisseries, Paris 18 –20 June 1984 pp. 125 –32, IFROA. Finch. K. (1984b). Special problems. In Seminaire International la Restauration et la Conservation des Tapisseries, Paris 18 –20 June 1984 pp. 144 – 6, IFROA. Finch, K. (1986). Problems of tapestry preservation. In Tecniche di Conservazione degli Arazzi (L.S. Olschki, ed.) pp. 39 – 45, Firenze. Finch, K. (1989). Tapestries: conservation and original design. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 67–74, Getty Conservation Institute. Finch, K. (1996). The history and development of tapestry conservation. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds.) pp. 45 –58, TRON. Flury-Lemberg, M. (1988). Textile Conservation and Research. Abegg-Stiftung. Hutchison, R. B. (1989). Gluttony and Avarice: two different approaches. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 89 –94, Getty Conservation Institute. Hutchison, R. B. (1990 –91). From restoration to conservation: parallels between the traditions of tapestry conservation and carpet conservation. Textile Museum Journal, 29 –30, 9 –12. Jakobiec, W. (1993). Treatment of a 16th-century tapestry. CCI Newsletter, 12, 1–3. Kajitani, N. (1979). The preservation of medieval tapestries. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 45 – 63, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Kajitani, N. (1989). Conservation maintenance of tapestries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 53 – 66, Getty Conservation Institute. Kajitani, N. (1993). Conservation of Courtiers in a Rose Garden, a fifteenth-century tapestry series. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth to Nineteenth Century Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 79 –103, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Landi, S. and Marko, K. (1980). The maintenance in situ of architecturally related textiles. In Conservation Within Historic Buildings. Preprints of the Contributions to the Vienna Congress, (N. S. Brommelle, G. Thomson and P. Smith, eds.) pp. 151– 4. Landi, S. (1985). The Textile Conservator’s Manual. Butterworth-Heinemann. Landi, S. (1998). Polypropylene: a fresh approach to the problem of support for tapestries. In International Perspectives on Textile Conservation (A. Tímár-Balázsy and D. Eastop, eds.) pp. 13 –17, Archetype.

Select bibliography 237 Lemberg, M. (1977). The problem of brown wool in medieval tapestries: the restoration of the fourth Caesar tapestry. In Studies in Textile History. In Memory of Harold B. Burnham (V. Gervers, ed.) pp. 178 – 83, Royal Ontario Museum. Lion, V. and Cussell, S. (1996). The tapestry imposes its own treatment. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds) pp. 81–9, TRON. Lugtigheid, R. (1996). The eye deceived: camouflage techniques used at the ‘Werkplaats tot Herstel van Antiek Textiel’ in Haarlem. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994. ( J. Barnett and S. Cok, eds) pp. 59 – 67, TRON. Maes, Y. (1989). The conservation/restoration of the sixteenth-century tapestry The Gathering of the Manna. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 103 –12, Getty Conservation Institute. Marko, K. (1989). Two case histories: a seventeenthcentury Antwerp tapestry and an eighteenth-century English Soho tapestry. In The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries. Proceedings of Meetings at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, Brussels, September 21–24, 1987 (K. Grimstad, ed.) pp. 95 –101, Getty Conservation Institute. Marko, K. (1993). All or nothing – or something. A flexible approach to tapestry conservation. In Compromising Situations: Principles in Everyday Practice. Postprints of the Forum held at the Museum of London, March 1, 1993 (F. Lennard, ed.) pp. 33 – 4, UKIC. Marko, K. (1995). Tapestry conservation – a confusion of ideas. In Lining and Backing: the Support of Paintings, Paper and Textiles. Papers delivered at the UKIC Conference 7–9 November 1995 i–iv, UKIC. Masschelein-Kleiner, L. (1993). Study and treatment of tapestries at the Institut Royal de Patrimoine Artistique. In Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth- to NineteenthCentury Tapestry (L. Stack, ed.) pp. 71–7, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Masschelein-Kleiner, L. and De Boeck, J. (1984). Contribution to the study of the conservation of monumental tapestries. In Preprints of the ICOM Committee for Conservation 7th Triennial Meeting Copenhagen 10 –14 September 1984 (D. de Froment, ed.) pp. 9.33 –37, ICOM. Pertegato, F. (1996). Painting in tapestry conservation: is it heresy? In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett, and S. Cok, eds) pp. 97–109, TRON. Phillips, K. (2004). Treatment of two tapestries: Flight to Egypt and Carlo and Ubaldo at the Fountain of Laughter.

In Preprints of the AICCM Textile Symposium, 22 –23 November 2004, AIC. Pow, C. V. (1970). The conservation of tapestries for museum display. Studies in Conservation, 15, 134 –53. Reynolds, A. (1997). The Playing Boys tapestries from Cotehele House: camouflage techniques. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 189 –90, Archetype. Shephard, L. (1995). Coping with fire and its aftermath. In Coping with Emergencies. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section Forum, 9 March 1995 (F. Lennard, ed.) pp. 2 –7, UKIC. Shephard, L. (1996). The conservation treatment of two partially restored 18th-century Brussels tapestries. In Preprints of ICOM-CC 11th Triennial Meeting Edinburgh 1– 6 September 1996 ( J. Bridgland, ed.) pp. 721–5, James and James. Thompson, K. (1997). The History of Caesar tapestries from Powis Castle: the treatment of previous repairs and alterations. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 195 – 6, Archetype. Ward, S. and Ewer, P. (1988). Tapestry conservation at Biltmore House. The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, 381– 8.

Adhesive support and removal Langley, R. and Sanders, P. (2003). Developing a practical method for the removal of previous adhesive treatments from large-scale textiles. In Dust, Sweat and Tears: Recent Advances in Cleaning Techniques. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section forum, 7 April 2003 (L. Dawson and M. Berkouwer, eds) pp. 3 –13, UKIC. Leach, M. (1997). Blickling Mortlake tapestry – adhesive removal treatment. In Textiles in Trust (K. Marko, ed.) pp. 176 – 8, Archetype. Marko, K. (1978). Experiments in supporting a tapestry using the adhesive method. The Conservator, 2, 26 –9. Seth-Smith, A. and Wedge, T. (1996). Animal glue removal from 16th-century Flemish tapestry fragments: a comparative study of three cleaning methods. Conservation News, 59, 65 –7.

Cleaning Haldane, E. A. (1999). So that’s why Textile Conservation has such a big studio!. V&A Conservation Journal, 32, 17–20. Hartog, F. (2004). An away day to Belgium – washing tapestries. V&A Conservation Journal, 48, 6 –7. Maes, Y. (1998). Tapestry cleaning by aerosol suction. In International Perspectives on Textile Conservation (A. Tímár-Balázsy and D. Eastop, eds) pp. 32 –35, Archetype. Marko, K., Blyth, V. and Kendall, J. (1981). Three methods of handling and washing large tapestry hangings. The Conservator, 5, 1– 8.

238


Hanging and display Allen, R. (1999). Some observations on the display of large-scale tapestries: project planning, attrition management and object longevity. In Solutions: The Influence of Locations on Treatments. Postprints of the UKIC Textile Section Forum, 19 April 1999 (S. Howard, ed.) pp. 36 – 45, UKIC.

Lining Hartog, F. (1993). Tapestry linings. Conservation News, 51, 48. Troon, S. (1995). Conservation conversations. International Tapestry Journal, 1.1, 10 –14.

Volunteers Biddulph, F. (1988). Point counterpoint. Behind the scenes at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, skilled volunteers conserve the finest early 17th-century English tapestries. Traditional Interior Decoration, April-May 1988, 108 –16. Reeves, P. (1975). Conserving tapestries with volunteer energy. Curator, 18/3/1975.

Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds) pp. 143 –150, Archetype. Hansen, E. F. and Derelian, S. (1991). Conservation I: Effects of wet cleaning on silk tapestries (Getty Conservation Institute). Museum Management and Curatorship, 10.1, 93 – 6. Hulme, A. N., McNab, H., Peggie, D. A. and Quye, A. (2005) The application of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and accelerated light ageing for the analytical identification of yellow flavonoid dyes in historical tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004, Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds) pp. 208 –213, Archetype. Maes, Y. (1996). The comparative analysis of the light resistance of original tapestry dyestuffs and modern dyestuffs used in reconstructions. In ‘The Misled Eye. . .’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation. Papers given at the TRON Symposium, Amsterdam 10 October 1994 ( J. Barnett, and S. Cok, eds) pp. 111–29, TRON. Masschelein-Kleiner, L. (1979). Dyeing techniques of tapestries in the Southern Netherlands during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, San Francisco, November 1976 (A. Bennett, ed.) pp. 29 – 40, The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco.

Analysis Carr, C. M., Mitchell R. and Howell, D. (2004). Surface chemical investigation into the cleaning procedure of ancient tapestry materials. Journal of Materials Science, 39, 7317–25. Cooke, W. D. and Howell, D. (1988). Diagnosis of deterioration in a tapestry using scanning electron microscopy. The Conservator, 12, 47–51. Hacke, A., Carr, C. Brown, A. and Howell, D. (2003). Investigation into the nature of metal threads in a Renaissance tapestry and the cleaning of tarnished silver by UV/Ozone (UVO) treatment. Journal of Materials Science, 38, 3307–14. Hacke, A-M., Carr, C. M. and Brown, A. (2005). Characterisation of metal threads in Renaissance tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile Conservation and Textile Studies First Annual Conference, 13 –15 July 2004 Winchester (R. Jannaway and P. Wyeth, eds) pp. 71–78, Archetype. Hallett, K. and Howell, D. (2005). Size exclusion chromatography as a tool for monitoring silk degradation in historic tapestries. In Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation. AHRB Research Centre for Textile

Mechanical properties Ballard, M. (1996). Hanging out with tapestries, carpets and quilts: the effect of textile properties on appearance. The Textile Conservation Group Newsletter, 18.3, 1– 4. Ballard, M. (1999). Hanging out: strength, elongation, and relative humidity: some physical properties of textile fibres. In Preprints of ICOM-CC 11th Triennial Meeting Edinburgh 1– 6 September 1996 ( J. Bridgland, ed.) pp. 665 –9, James and James. Bilson, T., Cooke, B. and Howell, D. (1997). Mechanical aspects of lining ‘loose hung’ textiles. In Fabric of an Exhibition: An Interdisciplinary Approach – Preprints, pp. 63 – 69, CCI. Howell, D. (1996). Some mechanical effects of inappropriate humidity on textiles. In Preprints of ICOM-CC 11th Triennial Meeting Edinburgh 1– 6 September 1996 ( J. Bridgland, ed.) pp. 692 – 8, James and James.

Unpublished reports Hofenk de Graaff, J. and Boersma, F. (1996). Tapestry Conservation. Support Methods and Fabrics for Tapestries.

Select bibliography 239 Results of the Questionnaire on the Subject of Tapestry Conservation. Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage. Hofenk de Graaff, J. and Boersma, F. (1997). Tapestry Conservation. Support Methods and Fabrics for Tapestries. Part I Tapestries. General Background Information. Part II Chemistry and Physics of Flax (Linen) and Cotton. Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage. Hofenk de Graaff, J., Boersma, F. and Roelofs, W. (1998). Tapestry Conservation. Support Methods and Fabrics for

Tapestries. Part III Scientific Research ‘Linen versus Cotton’. Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage. Gentle, N. and Drysdale, L. (1983). Initial Results of Tapestry Conservation questionnaire. Victoria and Albert Museum. Putnam, G. (ed.) (1984). The Conservation of Tapestries Research Report. Textile Conservation Centre.


Glossary

French: tapisserie; German: Wirkerei; Italian: arazzo, tappezzeria; Spanish: tapiz Border – a decorative band that frames the central design while being integral to it Cartoon – the full scale preparatory drawing of the design which is positioned behind the loom. Because of the way in which tapestries are woven, the cartoon is a reverse of the final image Couching or warp couching – the remaining warp threads are treated as laid threads (see laid thread couching) and they are secured with rows of small stitches which are often c. 5 mm apart; also called brick couching Dovetailed wefts – where blocks of colour meet, the wefts are turned in groups of two or more alternately around a common warp or end Galloon – narrow strip usually found on the outermost edges of tapestries, often woven in a plain, dark colour Hatching/hachures – a method of shading or changing colours to give a strong contrast High warp loom – a loom used for tapestry weaving where the warp runs in a vertical plane; the weaver works from the reverse of the tapestry Interlocking (single and double) – where blocks of colour meet, the wefts are linked together either around a common weft or around adjacent wefts in either a single or double interlock Laid thread couching/laid and couched stitching – a thread is laid in a straight line either in the warp or weft direction and then secured using small stitches placed over the laid thread; also called span stitching Lining – a tightly woven fabric (linen and cotton fabric are often used) which is stitched to the reverse of the tapestry, usually simply as a dust cover. Linings can be full or partial, loose-hanging or secured along all four sides to the tapestry

Low warp loom – a loom used for tapestry weaving where the warp runs in a horizontal plane; the cartoon is laid underneath the loom Minimum intervention – a style of conservation treatment that concentrates on improving storage and mounting systems, and keeping cleaning and stitched supports to a minimum Outlines – a fine line usually worked in dark brown placed around shapes to give definition to the design; especially characteristic of the medieval period Plain weave – see Tabby Rep/reps – a plain weave textile with a ribbed or corded surface Reversibility – the aim of being able to remove a conservation treatment without leaving any trace of it on the object Rewarping – introducing sections of new warp yarn in areas of loss Slits – where blocks of colour meet and the weft threads turn back around adjacent warps, resulting in a slit Scrim – a plain woven fabric, usually linen, used to provide a full or patched support for tapestries Scrim lines – a series of lines worked regularly across the tapestry, extending from the top edge to the bottom edge, to attach the tapestry to the support Strapping – a method of supporting tapestries by applying bands or straps of support fabric evenly across the back of the object; a technique prevalent in the USA Support ( full or patches) – a fabric used to reinforce tapestries either overall or in patches Support lines – a series of lines worked to secure the tapestry to the support fabric 241

242


Tabby – a simple/plain weave or binding system based on a unit of two warps and two wefts where each weft passes over one and under one warp; a tapestry is a weft-faced tabby where the spacing and weight of the warp and weft mean that only the weft is visible Tapestry – weave with one warp and a discontinuous weft, which is made up of blocks of colour, which do not pass from selvedge to selvedge but only interweave with the warp as required for a particular part of the design. The binding is usually tabby and weft-faced but a twill binding can also be used

Mortlake weaver’s mark.

Velcro – proprietary name of hook and loop contact fastener Verdure – a tapestry with a design predominantly of plants and trees, often as a landscape Warp – the longitudinal threads of the tapestry Weft – the transverse or latitudinal threads of the tapestry; in a tapestry, the weft is not continuous but made up of blocks of colour Weft-faced weave – a weave where the weft predominates

Index

N.B. Individual tapestries are not included in the index as they appear in the tapestry timeline (pp. xxiii–xxv). Key terms are introduced in the glossary (pp. 241–242). Adhesive support and removal, 136, 209, 237 animal glue and rosin, 209 embrittlement, 208 latex, 136 shellac, 136 Agents of damage: fire, 15, 24, 25, 29 light, 33 moth, 15, 22 pollutants, 24 water, 29 –30 Alterations, see Remodelling Architectural features, 11, 193 see also Frames and hanging Arras, 13, 14, 171 makers, 15, 21 workers, vii, 23 Artists/designers/weavers, ix, x, 16 van der Biest, Hans, 181; Figure 24.2 de Borcht, 205 Boucher, vii le Brun, Charles, ix, 29 Burne-Jones, Edward, 140 Candid, Peter, 181; Figure 24.2 Cleyn, Francis, 136 Coecke van Aelst, Pieter, 180; Figure 24.1 Giulio Romano, 146 Henning, Gerda, ix Hubbard, John, Figure 1.3 Judocus ( Josse) de Vos, 28 Lurçat, Jean, 147–148 Michaelangelo, 21, 23 Moore, Henry, 9; Figure 1.5 Morris, William, 213 Musting, Cornelius, 33 van Orley, Bernaert (Bernard), ix, 136 Poyntz, Thomas, 200 Raphael, vii, 9, 20, 22 –23, 213 Rogoyska, Marta, Figure 1.6 Rubens, P.P, ix, 185, 186 –188

Saunders, Paul, 193 van der Strete, Cornelius, 13, 17 Teniers, 205; Figure 11.2 de Vos, Judocus ( Josse), 28 Aubusson, 29, 147, 172 Beauvais, Figure 1.4 Brick couching, see Support techniques Brussels, 29, 97, 132–133, 136, 146, 163, 171, 177, 204, 205; Figures 10.3 and 10.4; Figure 5.4; Figures 12.2 and 12.3; Figure 13.1 Cartoons, vii, 9, 12, 21, 23, 132, 134, 146, 147–148, 150, 163, 213 see also Loss compensation (infilling), evidence for Cleaning, 7, 22 –23, 30, 178 –179, 237 and relining, 23 and repair, ix, 7 breadcrumbs and brushes, 23 brushes and brooms, ix, 13, 15, 23, 30, 201 in situ cleaning, 29, 30; Figure 11.1 mechanical action, 7 non-aqueous cleaning, Chapter 11 absorbent pad/poultice, Figures 11.1 and 11.4 bread as absorbents, 7, 23 solvent immersion, Figures 11.5 and 11.6 surface cleaning, 160, 172, 174, 177, 201, 204 records of, 30 Saponaria, 30 soap, 30 soiling, 6, 7, 163 staining, 134 stain removal, ink, Figure 11.1 stain removal, water marks, 194 wet cleaning (washing), 7, 25, 33, 165, 194; Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 aerosol suction, 179; Chapter 10

colour fastness tests, 189 deacidification, 33, 165 duration, 7 EDTA (ethylenediaminetetra acid disodium salt), 35 encasing in net, 33 fibre loss, 33 preparation, 157 shrinkage, 194 shrinkage of cotton warps, 9 shrinkage of restored areas, 160 specialist facilities, 25, 33, 175; Chapters 7, 9 and 10; Figure 7.1; drum, Figure 8.1 Colour change differential change, 33, 178 discolouration, 6 documentation, 33 dye bleeding, 148 fading, 5; Figure 4.5 monitoring, 33 Condition assessment, ix, 5 –7, 11, 16 –17, 21, 22 –23, 28, 29, 30, 34 –35, 131, 132; Chapters 30 and 31 acidic, 33 ‘bleaching’ from biocide use, 172, 173 bomb damage, lacerations, 186 brown wool outlines, 139, 140; Figures 19.1 and 19.2 coal-fire soiling, 163 colour change, fading/discolouration, 5, 20, 132, 140, 172; Chapter 29; Figure 4.5; Figures 29.1, 29.2, 29.3, 29.4 condition survey, 174 cuts/cut out areas, 132, 136, 140, 146, 148, 156, 157, 172, 189, 195; Figure 19.3; Figure 21.1 damage assessment, 225

243

244

Index

Condition assessment (contd) damp conditions, 140 elongation, 166 fire-damage, 24 –25, 132, 148 dye-bleeding, 148 scorch and smoke damage 148 holes caused by pull of lining, 134; Figure 18.3 insect damage, 6, 22, 132, 140, 146, 172, 204, 218 light-induced damage 213 mechanical properties, 218; Chapter 31 monitoring programme, 32 mould, 140, 172, 173, 218 nail holes, 24 original condition, x physical damage, 5 – 6 record of, 14 –15 rodent damage, 132; Figure 18.1 silk degradation, Figure 4.2 scorch and smoke damage, 148 slit stitching weak, 165 soiling, 140, 182, 189 stress monitoring, 7; Chapter 31 urine, 132, 134 visual examination, 6 water damage, 172, 194 see also Tapestry maintenance and display, condition survey Conservation plan, 20, 30 see also Tapestry conservation, prioritisation; Tapestry maintenance and display Cotton warps, 9, 43, 72, 81, 85, 86, 92, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149 Couching, see Support techniques Display, 11–12, 16 –17, 163, 181–183, 204 –205, 238 as backdrop for paintings, 24, 29; Figure 3.3 behind glass, 200 boards, use of, 161, 162, 181–3, 188 context, 12 covered with papered linen, 29; folded under, 25 frame, filet, 197, 204 free hanging/‘loose hung’, 33, 160, 165, 218 –219 hanging via cloth loops/sleeve, 174, 204 hanging from headless tacks, 204 hanging from metal hooks, 172, 203, 204 hanging from pole/rod, 172, 174, 203 hanging with press studs, 204 hanging from rings, 163, 165, 204 hanging from slats, 160 in Plexiglass (Perspex) box, 160 –161, 162 installation, 183; Chapter 26 nailed, 197, 203, 204, 209, 218 –219 on inclined board, 179, 181, 188

open display, 131, 178, 179, 200 original method of display, 204 –5 over-long display, 178, 181 pressure-mounting, 160 remounting onto stretchers, 29 removing from display, Chapter 28 shrinkage, 197, 204 strategy, 220 temporary hoist, 209 ‘tight hung’, 28 ‘Velcro’, 33, 160 wall lining, 197 Wolsey’s palace, 15 see Frames and hanging, Dye analysis, see Tapestry materials EDTA, (ethylenediaminetetra acid disodium salt) see Cleaning English Heritage Audley End, Chapter 26; Figures 26.1 and 26.4 Luton Hoo, Wernher Collection, 97 Rangers House, 97 Environmental monitoring and control, see Tapestry maintenance and display Fading, see Colour change Frames and hanging, 11, 209 taking down, 15 ‘tight hung’, 28 see also Architectural features Galloons, replacement, 190, 203 first aid, 205 loss compensation, 133, 143, 147, 174, 190; Figure 20.1 Gobelins Tapestry Manufactory, France, 5, 25, 29, 30; Figure 15.3 Great Wardrobe, 13, 15, 17, 23, 27, 28, 29 Grid stitching, see Support techniques Hampton Court Palace, UK, 12, 13, 16 –17, 136, 207; Chapters 3, 4; Figures 2.1; 3.3, 3.4; 4.1; 7.1 Bickham’s guidebook of 1742, 23 Henry Cole’s handbook, 24 Historic Royal Palaces, 25 –26 Marillier’s guide to tapestries, 30 resident housekeeper, 29 restoration after 1986 fire, 25 Textile Conservation Studio, 25, 30 Wardrobe of the Beds, 15 Hanging, 6, 11–12, 165, 203, 204 –205, 238; Figure 28.1 contact fastener (Velcro), 33 elastic recovery, 168 hoist/pulley system, 175 original method, 204 research needed, 190 use of scaffolding, 207–208; Figure 28.1 weavers’ intentions, 178 see also Display; Strapping; Velcro

Holes and areas of loss, x, 23 See also Loss compensation Infilling areas of loss, see Loss compensation Lightfastness, Chapter 29; Figures 29.1 and 29.2 acceptable rate of colour change, 215 –218 colour difference model, 215 –218 Grey scale, 215 –218 light-fading equipment, 215 perceptible change in colour, 217–218; Figure 29.4 woad, 215 Lining, 14, 16, 17, 148, 179, 205, 238 and blocking, 9 and hanging, 11–12 and parchment labels, 14 and repair, vii, 13, 15, 16, 22 and support, 11–12, 148 causing holes, Figure 18.3 choice of materials, 17, 159 –160 costs, 17 dust barrier, 11, 159 –160, 168, 204, 205 piecing, 17 quarter-lined, 17 release of, 33 relining, 23, 30 removal, 177 stamps, 22 unlined tapestry, 17 wall lining, 197 Loss compensation (infilling), ix, x, 5, 8 –9, 31, 101, 131; Chapters 18, 19, 20 by adhered patches, 136 by embroidery, 133, 167, 176; Figure 18.2 by full support of dyed linen, 189 by needle weaving, 140, 147, 148, 173; Figures 19.2; 20.1 by patches, plain, 140 –141, 142 –3, 145 –146, 179; Figures 18.1; 19.4 by patches, ribbed weave (rep), 133, 136, 187; Figures 18.2 and 25.2 by printed patch, 143; 148 –151; Figures 20.3 and 20.4 protocol for use, 148 by rejoining panels, 140 –143; Figures 19.4 and 19.5 by rewarping, 157 by rewarping and couching, 132 –133, 134, 136, 138 –140; 140 –143, 151; Figures 18.3 and 18.4; 19.2 by reweaving, 147–148, 157; Figures 20.1 and 20.2; Figures 21.2, 23.1 by reweaving dark outlines, 140; Figure 19.2 by serigraphy, 148 –151; Figure 20.3

Index 245 evidence for, 132, 133 –134, 136, 139, 140, 141, 148, 150, 172 legibility, 26 missing borders, 149, 174 missing galloons, 133, 143, 147, 174, 190; Figure 20.1 need for interlining, 140, 143 old repairs, Figure 19.1 via full support of plain fabric, 97, 100; Figure 19.3 with tapestry weave patches, 136, 139, 172 see Cartoons see Painted components see Reweaving Missing areas, see Loss compensation MODHT (monitoring of damage in historic tapestries), 6, 26; Chapter 30 Monitoring condition assessment, engineering, 201–202; Chapter 31 dimensional changes, 9 environment, 11–12; Chapter 29 MODHT, 6, 26; Chapter 30 non-destructive method, 7 pollutants, 24 Mortlake, 21, 201, 204; Figure 27.2; Figure 28.1 The National Trust, 211; Chapters 18, 27, 28 Blickling Hall, 200; Figure 28.1 Castle Drogo, 200 Cotehele House, 131, 140, 200 Dyrham Park, 208; Figure 28.2 Hardwick Hall, 111, 131–2, 137, 203, 207; Chapter 18 Knole, 111, 131, 200 Lyme Park, 200 Owletts, 204 Packwood House, 207 Petworth House, seat covers, Chapter 17 Polesdon Lacey, 205 Powis Castle, 200, 201, 207; Figure 5.3; Figures 27.2 and 27.3 Textile Conservation Studio, Chapters 18 and 27 Uppark, 203 Oudenarde, 203, 204 Painted components, ix, 10 –11, 25, 139, 172; Chapter 26 Patches, see Support techniques Preventive conservation, Chapter 27; Chapter 29 climate strategy, 219 environmental specifications, Chapter 29 lighting specifications, Chapter 29 markers of damage, Chapter 30 relative humidity control, 218 –221

resilience of collections, 213 see also Tapestry maintenance and display Previous repairs, 9 cotton yarns, 166 distortion, 9 fugitive dyes, 9 see also Tapestry repairs; Reweaving Remodelling, 11, 17, 32 –33, 193, 203; Figures 4.4 and 4.5 borders, adding new, 23 borders, cut off, 146 borders, reapplying, 98 borders removed, 161–162 cutting, 22, 32 –33, 98 to fit door/cupboard, 193, 195; Figures 26.1, 26.2 and 26.4 pleating, 33; Figures 4.4 and 4.5 reassembly, 17; Figures 19.4 and 19.5 replacing borders and coats of arms, 16 reversing, 16 without cutting, 28 woven extensions/‘grafting’, 33 Repairs and alterations, 16 –17, 26, 97–98 adhered repairs, 136 cotton yarns, 166 required conservation, 132 retained as evidence, 132 selective removal, 98 –99, 132, 139, 167 see also Remodelling; Reweaving; Tapestry repairs Research: damage detection by mechanical testing, 238; Chapter 31 digital printing for infills, 143 environmental protocols, Chapter 29 hanging methods, 190 markers for chemical degradation, 238; Chapter 30 unpublished reports, 238 –239 Reweaving, ix, 7– 8, 9, 16, 17, 30 –31, 98, 146,178 detection of, 7– 8 outlines, 98 removal of weak wefts, 31 removal of damaged areas and reweaving, 148 tapestry weavers, 7– 8, 9 see also Tapestry repairs and Loss compensation Rollers for storage, 148, 174, 177 for removing tapestry from display, Chapter 28; Figure 28.1 Seat furniture, Chapters 16 and 17; Figures 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4 Significance assessment, 20, 27, 34, 162, 171, 202, 204 see also Tapestries, role Spectrometry, UV-Visible-NIR, Figures 29.1, 29.2, 29.3 and 29.4

Soho tapestry-weave seat covers, Chapter 17; Figures 17.1 and 17.2 Strapping, 12, 159, 160, 163, 165 –166, 172, 177, 179, 187; Figure 5.1 Stress monitoring, Chapter 31 stress-strain curves of yarns, Figures 31.3, 31.4 and 31.5 see also Condition assessment Support techniques, 7, 8 –9, 97–98, 146, 167–168, 179 –180 adhesive, 10, 136 adhesive removal, 136 choice of materials, 9, 32, 136, 145, 157, 167–168, 168 –169, 179 continuity within sets, 33, 176; Chapter 4 consistency, 195 –196 cotton net, 174 couching/brick couching/warp couching, 8, 32, 97, 117–121, 151; Chapter 12; 38 –140 differences between UK and USA, 168 –169 full support, 8, 32, 33, 97, 166 –167, 172, 176, 189, 194 –196; Figure 22.2; Figure 23.2 full support versus patches, 32, 146, 165 –166 laid-couching, 145, 146, 174, 176, 179 –180, 186; Figure 23.2; Figures 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 minimal stitching, 160, 162 net overlay, 196, 201 obscure reverse, x, 8 patches, 8, 10, 186 slit-stitching, 145, 167, 195 stitching pattern, 97, 179, 189; Figure 22.2 strategy, Chapter 22 structural support, 5, 31 support stitching lines, 97 grid stitching, 8, 32, 97, 196; Chapter 13 excess support fabric for stitching, 195 temporary, 172 tension control, 194 –196 twined darning, 165 –166, 167, 168 use of tapestry frame, 145, 167, 182, 189 weight of full support, 146 via high warp loom, Figures 15.1 and 15.2 Tapestries certificate of authenticity, 148 connoisseurship, 165 role as aid to acoustics of room, 177 as artworks, 148, 176, 200 as furnishing/historic interior, ix, 4, 11, 15, 21, 24, 131, 138, 165, 171, 197–198, 200

246

Index

Tapestries (contd) as kingship/magnificence, Chapters 2, 3 as pictorial image, 5 – 6, 21, 100 –101 as national assets/symbols, 26, 171 as relics of antiquity, 25, 29 as seat covers, see Upholstery as status symbol/resource, 4, 5, 26 –27, 137, 138 as street decoration, 21 changes in use, 178, 186 Royal collection, UK, ix, 15, 17; Chapters 2, 3, 4 sets, 12, 14, 15, 16 –17, 176, 177, 180 shaped to fit architecture, 171; Chapter 26 storage, 17, 24, 186 types altarfrontal, Chapter 6; 161–162 arras, tapestry, verdure, 14 barge decoration, 21 bed-pieces, 21 chimney pieces, 13 curtains, 148 –149; Figure 20.3 over-doors, 13, 200 post-pieces, 21 upholstery, see Upholstery window pieces, 13, 2 Tapestry conservation, ix, 5, 140, 235 –237; Chapter 1 aims, 5, 7– 8, 11–12, 24 –25, 97–98, 100, 131–132, 139, 157, 159, 162, 165, 179, 183, 186, 189, 193 aligning loose warps, Figures 4.2 and 4.3 changes in approach, x, 7, 8, 12, 24 –25, 30 choice of materials, 99 consistency, 12, 33, 134, 137, 168, 176, 186, 188 –189, 193 cost, 7, 8, 9 –11, 12, 29, 202 couching pattern, Figures 16 a-d and 16.7 cut edges, 141–142, 158 decision-making, 97, 136 –137, 138 artist’s intent, 148 connoisseurship, 165 consultation with client, 143 curatorial collaboration, 143, 145, 146, 160, 165, 198, 225 institutional policy, 165 documentation, 151, 177, 205 annual work programme, 17 certificate of authenticity, 148 cross-section diagram, Figure 16.5 effectiveness, 6 ethics, 7, 8, 31, 146, 155, 176, 185 minimum intervention, x, 97–98, 100, 165, 200 preventive conservation, see Tapestry maintenance and display restoration, 7

retention of original materials, 31 reversibility, x, 7, 31, 151, 178, 179, 186 examination/inspection, 157, 193 financial constraints, 132, 137 integrating re-weaving, 31 labour-intensive/time-consuming, 9 –11, 131, 139, 142 missing areas, see Loss compensation preservation strategy, 35 preventive conservation, see Tapestry maintenance and display prioritisation, 14, 16, 20, 34 –35, 131, 136, 202 remounting for rapid removal, 29 rewarping, see Support techniques slit stitching, 98 –99, 145, 162, 203 specialism/skills/education, 5, 9, 15 –16, 27, 31, 34 –35, 97, 189 stabilisation, 29, 97–98, 131–132 stitching, grid, 99 –100; Figures 13.2 and 13.3; Figure 17.3 stitching, spacing, 99 –100 use of template, 134 strategy, 138, 173 structural support, 5, 7 tapestry frame, 145 treatment context, 12, 138 use of replica tapestries, 178 weight reduction, 179 Tapestry fragments, 146, 156, 160 –162, 172, 193, 195, 204; Figure 19.3; Figure 21.1; Figure 21.4 Tapestry maintenance and display, 131, 155; Chapters 2, 3, 27 collection care programme, 131, 137, 234 condition monitoring, 201–202 condition survey, 164 –165, 172, 200, 201–202 conservation policy, 200 disaster preparedness, 172, 175, 197–198 dust control, 175 environmental issues, x, 9, 30, 131, 163 –164, 165, 188; Chapter 29 light and RH, 5, 131 lighting, 146, 175, 181 soiling, see Condition assessment first aid, 33, 131; 203 –206; Chapter 27 handling, 169, 182; Chapter 28 hanging and mounting methods, 98, 196 –198 hanging mechanisms rings, Figure 5.1 Velcro (contact fastener), 197– 8; Figure 26.3 historical precedents, 202 –203; Chapter 2 housekeeping, 29, 200, 201 in situ work, 201, 206; Figures 27.1 and 27.4 installation, 183; Chapter 26 lighting, 146

managing visitor access, 131, 175, 200 –201 net overlay, 201; Figure 27.3 packing case, 209; Figure 28.4 poor maintenance, 14 –15 preventive conservation, 200, 201 re-display, Chapter 26 rigid supports, 146 sloping boards, 145 taking down and re-hanging, Chapter 28; Figure 28.1 replicas, use of, 178 research, 25; Chapters 29, 30 and 31 rotation of exhibits and limitations to, 169, 175, 177, 181, 200, 213, 218, 220 scaffolding, Figures 28.1 and 28.3 storage, 17, 25, 132, 169, 177, 186; Figure 23.3 card roller, 148, 177 roller racking, 174 surface-cleaning, 201 transport, 20; Figure 28.4 see also Condition assessment; Strapping Tapestry materials, 228, 234, 238 amino acid composition, 226 bast fibre warps, 160 chenille, 148 cotton warps, 9, 43, 72, 81, 85, 86, 92, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149 dyes, analysis, 28, 35, 155, 214 –215 instrumental analysis, Chapter 6; Chapter 29 linen warps, 6, 160, 161, 179 mechanical properties, Chapter 31 metallic threads, 6, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 156, 160, 161, 171; Chapter 6; Figures 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 silk molecular weight distributions, 226 silk yarns, bleaching, 6 slit stitching, 6 substitute for metallic wefts, 157–158 surface analysis, 226 testing, 155 –156 thermo mechanical properties, 226 wool yarns, dyeing, 5 – 6 Tapestry repairs, ix, x, 5, 6, 13, 16, 22, 25, 26, 29 –30, 32 cobbled stitching, 32 patches, cloth patches, adhered, Figure 11.3; Figures 1.2 and 1.3 selective removal, 189 worked through lining, 32 Tapestry restoration, 9, 25, 31, 145 criticism of, 155, 178 expertise, 145, 151, 155 partial restoration, 176, 186; Chapter 4 removal of rewoven parts, 158; Figure 21.2 see also Reweaving; Tapestry conservation, ethics; Tapestry repairs

Index 247 Tapestry storage, see Tapestry maintenance and display Tensile strength, 226; Chapter 31; Figures 31.1 and 31.2 Terminology, 14, 172 –3, 241–242 Tournai, 163 Upholstery, tapestry-weave, 171, 172, 204; Chapters 16 and 17 net overlay, 204 Soho seat covers, Chapter 17 UV-visible-near infrared spectrometry, 214; Figures 29.1, 29.2, 29.3 and 29.4

Velcro (contact fastener), 33, 168, 174, 180, 205; Figure 28.3 deterioration of, 204 stitched to cotton tape, 33, 160, 197– 8; Figure 26.3 temporary application, Chapter 28 Victoria and Albert Museum, x, 7, 9, 25, 30, 141, 168; Chapter 8; Chapter 29 climate strategy, 219 environmental issues, Chapter 29 lighting policy, 218 washing facilities, Figures 8.1 and 8.2

Visual reintegration, see Loss compensation Volunteers, 11, 136, 238 West Dean Studio, UK, 5, 9; Figure 1.5; Figure 1.3

Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice

Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation

Privatization: principles and practice

Osteopathy; Principles and Practice

Metallography: Principles and Practice

Allergy principles and practice

Chemistry Principles and Practice

Astronomy. Principles and Practice

Pharmacology: Principles and Practice

Hypertension: Principles and Practice

Astronomy: Principles and Practice

Hydrogeology: Principles and Practice

Paleomagnetic principles and practice

Orthokeratology: Principles and Practice

Paleomagnetic Principles and Practice

Neurosurgery: principles and practice

Ethical principles and practice

Aeration: principles and practice

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths

Principles of Soil Conservation and Management

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Solvent Extraction Principles and Practice

Nurse Prescribing: Principles and Practice

Principles and Practice of Bioanalysis1

Principles and Practice of Bioanalysis

Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice

Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation

Privatization: principles and practice

Osteopathy; Principles and Practice

Metallography: Principles and Practice

Allergy principles and practice

Chemistry Principles and Practice

Astronomy. Principles and Practice

Pharmacology: Principles and Practice

Hypertension: Principles and Practice

Astronomy: Principles and Practice

Hydrogeology: Principles and Practice

Paleomagnetic principles and practice

Orthokeratology: Principles and Practice

Paleomagnetic Principles and Practice

Neurosurgery: principles and practice

Ethical principles and practice

Aeration: principles and practice

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths

Principles of Soil Conservation and Management

Tapestry

Tapestry

Tapestry

Solvent Extraction Principles and Practice

Nurse Prescribing: Principles and Practice

Principles and Practice of Bioanalysis1

Principles and Practice of Bioanalysis

Recommend Documents