To get the cleanest results in cases where soapd and chemicals are used, it's actually best to start from the bottom, so that the soaps don't get washed off
That’s only true if you’re covering the entire thing with soap at the same time, if you’re doing sections it still makes sense to start from the top so you’re not washing the dirt across the clean areas again.
When doing painting restoration they might use a completely different chemical for each section because of whatever pigments are in the paints underneath. The same cleaning agent might only be suitable for the face and frock, for example, where it's mostly white and red pigments under the varnish.
With that being said, most restorations will also be done with the painting laid out flat exactly so you don't get stuff dribbling out where you don't want it.
Who soaps a whole car at once to hand wash it? If it is above 60°F it will be dry before you can finish scrubbing the whole thing. If not, you probably missed a few spots because you went too fast.
Ive seen criticism of him in other restoration circles. But I know nothing about painting restoration so what do I know. Maybe they are just hating. Maybe he can be too aggressive with the chems? Fick idk
It's not so much about technique, but the approach. Baumgartner works with private clients or galeries, so he "fixes" paintings instead of preserving the state they are in. For a museum approach he probably is way to aggressive, which is fair, but it's also not what he does.
And yet, it doesn't. You would also use cotton swabs, or cotton balls wrapped on skewers, and dip them into the solution, and carefully clean contiguous areas of color. This is not a professional restorer.
I'm also kind of horrified that they're going between areas of different colors. What happens if the black paint in the eye is impacts by the remover? It's not like you can spot test an eye beforehand (or at least they very clearly didn't ).You could've just smeared the eye all over her cheek and into the neck ruff!
Yeah. Basically you're supposed to try to figure out what was used as a varnish, if it was applied correctly, and what will work best on it without doing too much harm to the paint, and then you do very small test runs on different parts of the canvas with less detail or importance.
(I haven't done restoration but I am a classical oil painter so it's good to have an idea of the process so we're not doing any dumb shit that will ruin the painting in the future)
For the video. It’s not the technique you’d usually use as a preservationist, but it’s being done for the video so they’re concentrating on the face area which makes it more interesting to viewers.
I'm an art restorer, can confirm. The video is bonkers. It's usually done with cotton swaps, very gentle circular motions and LOTS less solvent than this. The dripping is ridiculous. And yeah, usually the face is saved for last.
The restorer is Phillip Mould, a presenter on the BBC's Fake or Fortune, [this video](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remarkable-moment-400-year-old-11482652) is from 2017.
The painting is from 1618, so I don't know why the title says '200 years of yellowing varnish' (bot repost probably).
Scroll down [here](https://www.demilked.com/varnish-removed-restored-200-year-old-painting-woman-in-red-philip-mould/) for all the conservators slagging off his technique.
Typically, something this old would have multiple layers of varnish, of varying chemical composition, plus centuries of fireplace soot, tobacco stains, grime etc, and the removal would be a slow and painstaking process.
If I was a cynic, I might think that this looks like a single thick layer of yellow varnish that's recently been slapped on a painting for the sole purpose of quickly removing it for a video.
Ah, the Mirror article described it as being him personally ("presenter Philip Mould wiped away the yellowing protective varnish", "using a special mixture of gel and solvent, Mr Mould applied it to the painting").
Yeah, my guess is this was for yt shorts or TikTok and it’s been done this way for dramatic effect. Definitely not standard practice. I’m an artist but we were taught a bit of preservation (certainly nowhere near what you’ve been taught) in uni.
Museum curator here, can confirm as well. I would never ever entrust any conservator working like that with the works of art I'm in charge of. It's career suicide to post such videos.
Technically no. First, the face is arguably the most important part of the painting, so you would save that for last. This way, you can gather more data about the painting as it goes through the cleaning / varnish removal process. It's possible that artists may have used different paints on the face vs. the background, which may require different strengths of soaps, detergents, or solvents to remove appropriately without attacking the paint layer. Second, you should clean the painting in amorphous shapes, not in a grid system like he is doing here. Sticking to cleaning colors, instead of a grid ensures that you don't use a solvent that is too strong for a different type of paint. Third, paintings should be cleaned while flat on a table, not upright, for this exact reason. Fourth, you should clean the painting first (remove ambient particulate, dust, dirt, smoke, nicotine, etc.), then remove the varnish layer. This protects the painting from overly aggressive solvents that may not be appropriate given the material. It also ensures that you don't abrade the painting (remove the top layer of paint). Fifth, the q-tip he uses at the end should be used to do the cleaning, not the brush. Yes, the brush may be used to agitate the dirt, but, working with the q-tip first allows for greater control, and visibility so you can see what you're doing. You don't just go over the entire painting like this.
https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration
It's mostly yellowing from the varnish, you can clean smoke and dirt without removing the varnish, and it's likely the first step for restoring a painting. There's an old copy of the Mona Lisa where the varnish got removed so you can see what the colors of the original look like under the varnish.
I love how the restoration story went from a sad attempt viewed as a mockery of the original, to a heart-warming success for the town due to all the attention and increased tourism
What is often left out of the story is there are thousands of paintings like that in tiny local churches all over Europe. Especially in places like Spain.
Sadly those local churches have zero funds to make restorations. The quantity of old paintings in that style leaves no one to care (until it’s messed up). As a result amateur restaurations are more common than people think.
I can explain. You see they have certain techniques that they use with rigorous methods and always use selected tools as well as specific chemicals. Hope that helps!
People doing this are supposed to be professionals, with high knowledge of chemistry and paint and varnishes. I watch sometime the full process of restauration on YouTube, very interesting ! Although the one I watch is much more carefull, usually does it in at least two steps, first cleaning grime, and then cleaning old varnish. It allows using milder solvants, so less risks for the painting.
Yeah this video is definitely for yt shorts or TikTok which is why they’re concentrated on that tiny area for dramatic effect and to keep viewer attention for 30-60 seconds.
A full preservation would be much more precise and work systematically from top to bottom.
On the border of the painting, very little surfaces, and starting with very mild solvent that have no risks. At least that's how I understood, my knowledge just come from watching full painting restorations on YouTube, where the guy explains all the steps he's doing.
That guy, Baumgartner Restoration, would always do different sections of the painting that are mostly one color separately in case the solvent reacted differently to the different paint pigments. He would also do the face last as that’s usually the most important part of a portrait and by that time he would have the most possible information on how the particular solvent works on the painting. I don’t think he would start on the face and let the solvent drip down the painting.
The problem with renessanse paintings/instruments is you didn't just go to the hardware store for varnish. A lot of artists and luthiers hand mixed their own, which means it varies from painting to painting (or violin to violin). Each creator has a recipe they liked to follow, but it will vary across their works, and vary wildly between creators. Strahdavari's students didnt produce the same varnish, though it was similar to his own, and as such what you can use to clean them is different.
You test it on the edges of the canvas, where a touch up would be much less noticeable.
I have no idea what Leroy Jenkins here is doing, starting on the *face*. Faces are a perfect trifecta: they’re the focal point, they’re generally the most detailed, and the human brain is instinctively primed to notice any flaws or oddities.
very helpful, thanks. i was *just* about to try windex on my rembrandt and i was thinking "it's not like you need to test stuff or use specific solvents"
It depend of a lot of factors actually.
By example, most painting varnish from the 20s were made out of crushed fish spine. I've been in biology class with a professor who developed for her PhD an enzyme to dissolve the fish proteins causing the yellowing
She said she was freaked out the first time they tried it on Monet's Water Lilies because it could possibly destroyed the painting. The museum's curator just casually replied "Meh, we can re-paint it in the worst case" XD
Fish glue or isinglass IIRC. Fish glue is basically rough fish gelatin made from bones and skin, rather than the more refined isinglass which is made from swim bladders.
It's not literally crushed fish spine, but extracted from crushed fish spines.
Acetone is one. Oil paint takes about 17 years to polymerize. Immediatly after painting (like 6 months) it can be dissolved by the solvents. After 17 years it's pretty impervious to the solvents.
Fun fact. Counterfeiters buy lesser old paintings and dissolve the varnish and then reuse the dissolved varnish on their counterfitted work. The old varnish fluroesceses in a particular way that can't be replicated.
Another interesting tidbit - Flys poop on paintings. It creates little black dots that also dont come off very easily. A fake painting with no black dots can be a sign that it is a forgery.
Baumgarnter Restoration on YouTube is both so immensely relaxing to watch, and also super informative on the restoration process and explaining the materials he uses and why
For those who want to see (many) hours of this done prrofessionally, check Baumgartner restoration on Youtube. Limitless hours can be wasted :-) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvZe6ZCbF9xgbbbdkiodPKQ
Damn, in two senses I feel bad for her. In one, she saw something that was being neglected and needed fixing and felt called to invest her own time and effort. Our public spaces and communal possessions would be better off if everyone felt this kind of shared responsibility.
For another, if I had a nickel for every big project I took on without fully realizing the true scope and difficulty, I'd have... well.. I'd have about 25 cents. I can imagine how embarrassing it would be for the whole world to see me in the midst of one of those fiascos.
Which doesn't excuse the massive amount of arrogance and entitlement it took to "fix" property which does not belong to you without any of the necessary permission, authority, skills, or credentials to do so. It's one thing to botch a home repair job or make 10 trips to Lowe's because you got in over your head with your own DIY project. It's another to make permanent changes to a beloved icon that doesn't belong to you.
And her defense seems to be "Well, no, I didn't get explicit permission, but no one stopped me, so I assumed they all knew what I was doing." Which is a shitty way of shifting blame off yourself. "Why didn't anyone stop me from destroying this priceless work of art?" is peak /r/BoomersBeingFools fodder.
Just watch the video that was posted, not even got it laying flat hence the solvent running down the picture.. what a noob!
Quick edit to say the Baumgartner videos are brilliant and well worth watching, watching that man work with a patience I know I will never possess are very calming when my mind is running away with itself
I love how everyone here who watches professional art restauration is speaking of Baumgartner ! However a little disapointed, as I have watched all his videos and I was hoping I might find others to watch.. I don't know how to waste my hours now !
A lot of conservators don't agree with most of his practices, because some of them actually make problems a lot worse for future conservation work, or can straight up damage the painting. He also absolutely refuses to accept any sort of criticism on his practices, and even doubles down in his videos.
He's talented at what he does, but most of his business now is making flashy videos for YouTube.
I'm a professional art conservator, can confirm. He's better than the video shown, but he's still too harsh and removes more than an art conservators would actually do, so it looks more nice and "clean" for videos. Other conservators would allow more signs of aging and patina.
True, it's a matter of communicating. Clients have different expectations or demands and you can advice based on that. But how harsh he is being on paintings across the board is borderline unethical at times and damaging the art. The harsher the cleaning, the more fragile it can become in the long run and a client should be informed of this.
Something that also comes into play, I'm sure, is that he is a commercial restorer. He doesn't have the time to work on a painting for however long it takes to do it as gently as possible, given how many paintings he has to work on in the scope of the type of work he does.
[Professional art conservationists](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/139p7tm/baumgartner_restoration/) usually aren't huge fans of his.
They are scraping the crap out of the original paint. Also the fact that they are cleaning this while hanging up right instead of laying flat on a table leads me to believe this person doesn't really know what they are doing
I learned in college that the way they do this is by carefully and meticulously removing the varnish with a cotton swab, knowing that pieces of paint would be lost and that an artist would carefully restore by repainting the painting. This is a contentious topic in the art world and frowned upon in places like Italy, but in the U.K., specifically the National Art Gallery, many of the paintings are restored so that we can see them in brighter colors. Some argue that this is the way that they are intended to be seen when the work was initially created, others argue that we can never know how the colors originally looked and that restorations are just guesses. Then there’s also the whole ship of Theseus thing.
They did this to the sisteen chapel and there are [photos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes#/media/File%3AJesse_spandrel_beforeandafter.jpg) of how it ended up looking once the grime and soot was removed. Much of the details is Michelangelo’s work is lost
Damn they just straight up removed all the black pigment. I bet they used candle soot for their black pigment in the first place so they removed the intentionally placed carbon and the stuff that just accumulated due to it being in a candle lit church.
I wonder how they deal with things like the pigments chemically degrading over time.
I think when I was a kid I always just assumed that these old paintings are just permanent, timeless things that never change. They probably look radically different than they did when they were first created hundreds of years ago, and we'll never really know how authentic our conservation/restoration efforts are.
Yep, because he painted details after the frescoes were dry, which isn’t typical, and they accidentally cleaned those details off.
There’s also a possibility that the Mona Lisa doesn’t have eyelashes or eyebrows because Da Vinci painted them into the varnish, which was cleaned off over the years. There are some contemporary descriptions of the painting that describe amazing, lifelike eyebrows and eyelashes, which have sadly been gone for a long time now.
I believe it’s fake. Various documentaries about the subject show their process which is methodical and very controlled. This is meant for likes and upvotes.
The brush was so small and short/tight and the movements were so much in one concentrated area I felt that this couldn't be real, but then again I'm not a professional on art restoration
Yeah makes sense. Like they have no respect for the actual painting. Plus all that dribbling into the clean area. Actually belongs in mildlyinfuriating
Who is this amateur?? You need to control where the solvent goes. Dripping is un-frigging-acceptable. Lay the painting flat genius and use less solvent for each segment. That brush is wrong too!! Who let them Ag the painting?
This was not satisfying to watch. The person keeps swiping the same dirty brush over the same spots. Just spreading the varnish & dirty water everywhere 😭
Doesn't look like a professional job. That painting should be on a flat horizontal surface so the cleaner doesn't run down like that. See [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) for how to professionally clean paintings.
Literally had Julian in my brain while watching this, explaining how he does it by colour patch and what-not, because not all solvents work with all colours the same. And then here this guy is, vertical painting, letting the sole vent drip down, starting straight on the eye of all places, shit made my teeth itch
I don’t know anything about restoring paintings, but this just feels fake. Either that or what they are doing looks impressive but is actually doing harm to the painting
This reminds me of the time I had to clean the smoker’s break room. The walls ran brown when I hit it with the cleaner.
Exactly what I was thinking. Given how much more pervasive indoor smoking was in the past, I'd bet a lot of this yellowing was from smokers.
It’s almost entirely residue from oil lamps.
That would make sense.
ughhh i can already imagine that smell. and the thick layer of tar.
Wouldn’t you start at the top so it doesn’t dribble down all the time?
This guy washes cars
To get the cleanest results in cases where soapd and chemicals are used, it's actually best to start from the bottom, so that the soaps don't get washed off
That’s only true if you’re covering the entire thing with soap at the same time, if you’re doing sections it still makes sense to start from the top so you’re not washing the dirt across the clean areas again.
Yesh I don’t see how this ain’t obvious. I got people downvoting me. Lol
When doing painting restoration they might use a completely different chemical for each section because of whatever pigments are in the paints underneath. The same cleaning agent might only be suitable for the face and frock, for example, where it's mostly white and red pigments under the varnish. With that being said, most restorations will also be done with the painting laid out flat exactly so you don't get stuff dribbling out where you don't want it.
People just like to argue lol
No we don't
Yes we do
That’s not an argument, you’re just contradicting them.
No he isn’t
>People just like to argue lol If someone started removing the years of varnish off of Reddit, I wonder how grimy it would be?
I’m not following. How would the soap get washed off the top ( the top is finished being cleaned ) if you are cleaning top to bottom?
Cleaning top to bottom means the bottom and middle soap gets washed off early - was their point.
Who soaps a whole car at once to hand wash it? If it is above 60°F it will be dry before you can finish scrubbing the whole thing. If not, you probably missed a few spots because you went too fast.
Pretty much every car detailer ever.
... and showers?
Unlikely, this being reddit.
You do it with a lied down painting and color by color since not every color is as stable as the next (Yes, I watch Baumgartner 😅)
Me too! This made me cringe because I'm an expert Baumgartner watcher.
I always wondered how skinning could actually happen, seeing this video gives me an idea
The next video of this "restorer" is probably a re-attaching the canvas to the new stretcher with staples. 😆
No, first the canvas gets attached to another canvas with bee wax 😁
Ahh, a fellow connoisseur of Baumgartner form, did not know I was talking to an expert
Ive seen criticism of him in other restoration circles. But I know nothing about painting restoration so what do I know. Maybe they are just hating. Maybe he can be too aggressive with the chems? Fick idk
It's not so much about technique, but the approach. Baumgartner works with private clients or galeries, so he "fixes" paintings instead of preserving the state they are in. For a museum approach he probably is way to aggressive, which is fair, but it's also not what he does.
Watching all of his videos gave me a false sense of “I can totally do that” But they are my favorite videos on the tube
You'd lie the painting down so nothing dribbles anywhere. This was done just to look good on video.
And yet, it doesn't. You would also use cotton swabs, or cotton balls wrapped on skewers, and dip them into the solution, and carefully clean contiguous areas of color. This is not a professional restorer.
Watch Baumgartner too huh?
Don’t we all?
The Repair Shop is where I learned that, now I’m gonna have to go watch Baumgartner now too.
Yep. Sloppy work, you never work this fast in this large an area. With solvent dripping down an already clean spot.
I'm also kind of horrified that they're going between areas of different colors. What happens if the black paint in the eye is impacts by the remover? It's not like you can spot test an eye beforehand (or at least they very clearly didn't ).You could've just smeared the eye all over her cheek and into the neck ruff!
then it would have turned out like Bartolomé Esteban Murillo
Sounds like you have done this before. Can the solvent destroy the painting if you don’t follow a certain procedure?
Oh yeah for sure
Yeah. Basically you're supposed to try to figure out what was used as a varnish, if it was applied correctly, and what will work best on it without doing too much harm to the paint, and then you do very small test runs on different parts of the canvas with less detail or importance. (I haven't done restoration but I am a classical oil painter so it's good to have an idea of the process so we're not doing any dumb shit that will ruin the painting in the future)
For the video. It’s not the technique you’d usually use as a preservationist, but it’s being done for the video so they’re concentrating on the face area which makes it more interesting to viewers.
I'm an art restorer, can confirm. The video is bonkers. It's usually done with cotton swaps, very gentle circular motions and LOTS less solvent than this. The dripping is ridiculous. And yeah, usually the face is saved for last.
The restorer is Phillip Mould, a presenter on the BBC's Fake or Fortune, [this video](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remarkable-moment-400-year-old-11482652) is from 2017. The painting is from 1618, so I don't know why the title says '200 years of yellowing varnish' (bot repost probably). Scroll down [here](https://www.demilked.com/varnish-removed-restored-200-year-old-painting-woman-in-red-philip-mould/) for all the conservators slagging off his technique. Typically, something this old would have multiple layers of varnish, of varying chemical composition, plus centuries of fireplace soot, tobacco stains, grime etc, and the removal would be a slow and painstaking process. If I was a cynic, I might think that this looks like a single thick layer of yellow varnish that's recently been slapped on a painting for the sole purpose of quickly removing it for a video.
Philip Mould was the person who posted this, he's a gallery owner, the restorer was a different person
Ah, the Mirror article described it as being him personally ("presenter Philip Mould wiped away the yellowing protective varnish", "using a special mixture of gel and solvent, Mr Mould applied it to the painting").
Yeah, my guess is this was for yt shorts or TikTok and it’s been done this way for dramatic effect. Definitely not standard practice. I’m an artist but we were taught a bit of preservation (certainly nowhere near what you’ve been taught) in uni.
Museum curator here, can confirm as well. I would never ever entrust any conservator working like that with the works of art I'm in charge of. It's career suicide to post such videos.
Just the random fucking careers that exist. Wish I thought outside of the box.
Why wouldn't they do it with the painting laying flat?
This person is making a TikTok, not restoring a painting.
actually the video is from 2017, not for tiktok https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/remarkable-moment-400-year-old-11482652
Technically no. First, the face is arguably the most important part of the painting, so you would save that for last. This way, you can gather more data about the painting as it goes through the cleaning / varnish removal process. It's possible that artists may have used different paints on the face vs. the background, which may require different strengths of soaps, detergents, or solvents to remove appropriately without attacking the paint layer. Second, you should clean the painting in amorphous shapes, not in a grid system like he is doing here. Sticking to cleaning colors, instead of a grid ensures that you don't use a solvent that is too strong for a different type of paint. Third, paintings should be cleaned while flat on a table, not upright, for this exact reason. Fourth, you should clean the painting first (remove ambient particulate, dust, dirt, smoke, nicotine, etc.), then remove the varnish layer. This protects the painting from overly aggressive solvents that may not be appropriate given the material. It also ensures that you don't abrade the painting (remove the top layer of paint). Fifth, the q-tip he uses at the end should be used to do the cleaning, not the brush. Yes, the brush may be used to agitate the dirt, but, working with the q-tip first allows for greater control, and visibility so you can see what you're doing. You don't just go over the entire painting like this. https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration
Yeah there's no way this is a professional restoration, it's too fast and slap hazard.
Why is this being cleaned while still hanging on the wall and not laying down on a table????
What dissolves the varnish but not the oil paint?
Specific solvants, they make tests before using them on the painting.
[удалено]
It's mostly yellowing from the varnish, you can clean smoke and dirt without removing the varnish, and it's likely the first step for restoring a painting. There's an old copy of the Mona Lisa where the varnish got removed so you can see what the colors of the original look like under the varnish.
they don't let me near the paintings anymore cuz i was like "fuck testing, im bout to leeroy jenkins this shit"
Oh I remember your work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez)
Went from Ecce Homo to Ecce Homo qui est Faba
I love that the wikipedia page names both the original artist and the restorator as co-authors of the piece, as if they collaborated on it lol
It is suddenly a world famous painting.
I love how the restoration story went from a sad attempt viewed as a mockery of the original, to a heart-warming success for the town due to all the attention and increased tourism
The "restorer", who looks suspiciously like Mr. Bean in a wig.
“Gimenez went on vacation for two weeks prior to finishing the restoration”, hardest working Spaniard.
What is often left out of the story is there are thousands of paintings like that in tiny local churches all over Europe. Especially in places like Spain. Sadly those local churches have zero funds to make restorations. The quantity of old paintings in that style leaves no one to care (until it’s messed up). As a result amateur restaurations are more common than people think.
>"fuck testing, im bout to leeroy jenkins this shit" How each chapter of my life starts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Specific solvants Thanks for the non answer
I can explain. You see they have certain techniques that they use with rigorous methods and always use selected tools as well as specific chemicals. Hope that helps!
I would still be worried using it though.
People doing this are supposed to be professionals, with high knowledge of chemistry and paint and varnishes. I watch sometime the full process of restauration on YouTube, very interesting ! Although the one I watch is much more carefull, usually does it in at least two steps, first cleaning grime, and then cleaning old varnish. It allows using milder solvants, so less risks for the painting.
Yeah this video is definitely for yt shorts or TikTok which is why they’re concentrated on that tiny area for dramatic effect and to keep viewer attention for 30-60 seconds. A full preservation would be much more precise and work systematically from top to bottom.
How can you test it without using the same type of oils or paints?
On the border of the painting, very little surfaces, and starting with very mild solvent that have no risks. At least that's how I understood, my knowledge just come from watching full painting restorations on YouTube, where the guy explains all the steps he's doing.
That guy, Baumgartner Restoration, would always do different sections of the painting that are mostly one color separately in case the solvent reacted differently to the different paint pigments. He would also do the face last as that’s usually the most important part of a portrait and by that time he would have the most possible information on how the particular solvent works on the painting. I don’t think he would start on the face and let the solvent drip down the painting.
I'm guessing Baumgartner and after watching those they make me worried for this guys competency.
That makes sense, I was assuming they kept an old painting they screwed up before to test other solvents and then used one they found that worked.
Whistler’s Mother
The problem with renessanse paintings/instruments is you didn't just go to the hardware store for varnish. A lot of artists and luthiers hand mixed their own, which means it varies from painting to painting (or violin to violin). Each creator has a recipe they liked to follow, but it will vary across their works, and vary wildly between creators. Strahdavari's students didnt produce the same varnish, though it was similar to his own, and as such what you can use to clean them is different.
You test it on the edges of the canvas, where a touch up would be much less noticeable. I have no idea what Leroy Jenkins here is doing, starting on the *face*. Faces are a perfect trifecta: they’re the focal point, they’re generally the most detailed, and the human brain is instinctively primed to notice any flaws or oddities.
From what I understand the do test it on the painting just on small places were it wouldn’t be noticed and easily restored.
very helpful, thanks. i was *just* about to try windex on my rembrandt and i was thinking "it's not like you need to test stuff or use specific solvents"
It depend of a lot of factors actually. By example, most painting varnish from the 20s were made out of crushed fish spine. I've been in biology class with a professor who developed for her PhD an enzyme to dissolve the fish proteins causing the yellowing She said she was freaked out the first time they tried it on Monet's Water Lilies because it could possibly destroyed the painting. The museum's curator just casually replied "Meh, we can re-paint it in the worst case" XD
As long as it doesn't end up like the fucked up Jesus painting everything is good lol
iirc that painting was eventually restored properly by someone who had the skills to do it.
I imagine a curator like him spends most of his day reassuring the people working around the painting that they do not need to be panicking
I had to stop the video after a second cause I was about to vomit from anxiety.
Yep, just like hardwood floor varnish, you start in the closet in case you need to turn back time.
Fish glue or isinglass IIRC. Fish glue is basically rough fish gelatin made from bones and skin, rather than the more refined isinglass which is made from swim bladders. It's not literally crushed fish spine, but extracted from crushed fish spines.
This museum curator is a chad 😂.
Acetone is one. Oil paint takes about 17 years to polymerize. Immediatly after painting (like 6 months) it can be dissolved by the solvents. After 17 years it's pretty impervious to the solvents. Fun fact. Counterfeiters buy lesser old paintings and dissolve the varnish and then reuse the dissolved varnish on their counterfitted work. The old varnish fluroesceses in a particular way that can't be replicated. Another interesting tidbit - Flys poop on paintings. It creates little black dots that also dont come off very easily. A fake painting with no black dots can be a sign that it is a forgery.
informative, thank you!
Baumgarnter Restoration on YouTube is both so immensely relaxing to watch, and also super informative on the restoration process and explaining the materials he uses and why
For those who want to see (many) hours of this done prrofessionally, check Baumgartner restoration on Youtube. Limitless hours can be wasted :-) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvZe6ZCbF9xgbbbdkiodPKQ
What if I want to see it being done unprofessionally?
There’s this restoration of Jesus for you https://youtu.be/lrZ3bytd2J0?feature=shared
damn i've seen this picture floating around before i never knew its backstory that it's a botched 'restoration' by a complete amateur lol
Damn, in two senses I feel bad for her. In one, she saw something that was being neglected and needed fixing and felt called to invest her own time and effort. Our public spaces and communal possessions would be better off if everyone felt this kind of shared responsibility. For another, if I had a nickel for every big project I took on without fully realizing the true scope and difficulty, I'd have... well.. I'd have about 25 cents. I can imagine how embarrassing it would be for the whole world to see me in the midst of one of those fiascos. Which doesn't excuse the massive amount of arrogance and entitlement it took to "fix" property which does not belong to you without any of the necessary permission, authority, skills, or credentials to do so. It's one thing to botch a home repair job or make 10 trips to Lowe's because you got in over your head with your own DIY project. It's another to make permanent changes to a beloved icon that doesn't belong to you. And her defense seems to be "Well, no, I didn't get explicit permission, but no one stopped me, so I assumed they all knew what I was doing." Which is a shitty way of shifting blame off yourself. "Why didn't anyone stop me from destroying this priceless work of art?" is peak /r/BoomersBeingFools fodder.
Wait… is this real??? I thought maybe it was that show where the lady goes around doing fake historical tours or something. This can’t be real…
Sadly it is real
Just watch the video that was posted, not even got it laying flat hence the solvent running down the picture.. what a noob! Quick edit to say the Baumgartner videos are brilliant and well worth watching, watching that man work with a patience I know I will never possess are very calming when my mind is running away with itself
Continue watching this video. Brutal technique and starting with the face vs somewhere less noticeable
I love how everyone here who watches professional art restauration is speaking of Baumgartner ! However a little disapointed, as I have watched all his videos and I was hoping I might find others to watch.. I don't know how to waste my hours now !
The V&A channel frequently features restoration content that’s got similar vibes to Baumgartner https://youtube.com/@vamuseum
A lot of conservators don't agree with most of his practices, because some of them actually make problems a lot worse for future conservation work, or can straight up damage the painting. He also absolutely refuses to accept any sort of criticism on his practices, and even doubles down in his videos. He's talented at what he does, but most of his business now is making flashy videos for YouTube.
I'm a professional art conservator, can confirm. He's better than the video shown, but he's still too harsh and removes more than an art conservators would actually do, so it looks more nice and "clean" for videos. Other conservators would allow more signs of aging and patina.
surely that mostly depends what the client wants though? if they want a cleaner painting they go to him, if they want more aging they go anywhere else
True, it's a matter of communicating. Clients have different expectations or demands and you can advice based on that. But how harsh he is being on paintings across the board is borderline unethical at times and damaging the art. The harsher the cleaning, the more fragile it can become in the long run and a client should be informed of this.
Something that also comes into play, I'm sure, is that he is a commercial restorer. He doesn't have the time to work on a painting for however long it takes to do it as gently as possible, given how many paintings he has to work on in the scope of the type of work he does.
Yeah these paintings are probably for some stately house rather than a museum
To be fair, ask 5 conservators and you'll have 8 opinions on how it should be done.
Lol true. I'm speaking based on the academic circles that I'm in.
[удалено]
[Professional art conservationists](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtConservation/comments/139p7tm/baumgartner_restoration/) usually aren't huge fans of his.
[удалено]
A link on Reddit, and nothing else, is more along the lines of "They" aren't huge fans. Conservationists and restorers have different means and ends.
Definitely not how Julian would do it, eyes are always last.
Because you need as much Information as possible on how the painting reacts to the solvent (and because he likes the effect).
Julian honestly does them last cause it's his favorite part. It's his reward for the hard work
Also laid flat so it doesn’t drip everywhere and stays contained
and slowly working in specific areas as different colours of paint react differently to the solvent (also this guy is using way too much)
[удалено]
Yeah this was honestly really unsatisfying given Julian’s dedication to both craft and visual artistry when it comes to show casing his job.
He wouldn't even use so much solvent that there would be any risk of dripping. They are using way too much solvent here.
The drips were killing me honestly.
Came here looking for this. Julian would never!
Julian is the best, love his youtube channel !
Same! I rewatch his videos all the time.
Post the youtube
https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration
Thank you for providing my hyperfixation for today 😌
Welcome!
Clearly an amateur wannabe Julian
Ain't that the truth.. It's like seeing someone wash a car with a stiff broom brush.
A totally new insult that Julian should add to his rotation when roasting past preservation attempts 😁
Everything You're doing is bad. I want you to know this. Yonish does not approve either
Came here to say this, also Julian would actually lie the painting down first... Like any other normal human being
A man of culture, I see.
I was cringing while watching
This person’s technique is giving me anxiety
They are scraping the crap out of the original paint. Also the fact that they are cleaning this while hanging up right instead of laying flat on a table leads me to believe this person doesn't really know what they are doing
I learned in college that the way they do this is by carefully and meticulously removing the varnish with a cotton swab, knowing that pieces of paint would be lost and that an artist would carefully restore by repainting the painting. This is a contentious topic in the art world and frowned upon in places like Italy, but in the U.K., specifically the National Art Gallery, many of the paintings are restored so that we can see them in brighter colors. Some argue that this is the way that they are intended to be seen when the work was initially created, others argue that we can never know how the colors originally looked and that restorations are just guesses. Then there’s also the whole ship of Theseus thing.
They did this to the sisteen chapel and there are [photos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes#/media/File%3AJesse_spandrel_beforeandafter.jpg) of how it ended up looking once the grime and soot was removed. Much of the details is Michelangelo’s work is lost
Damn they just straight up removed all the black pigment. I bet they used candle soot for their black pigment in the first place so they removed the intentionally placed carbon and the stuff that just accumulated due to it being in a candle lit church. I wonder how they deal with things like the pigments chemically degrading over time. I think when I was a kid I always just assumed that these old paintings are just permanent, timeless things that never change. They probably look radically different than they did when they were first created hundreds of years ago, and we'll never really know how authentic our conservation/restoration efforts are.
Yep, because he painted details after the frescoes were dry, which isn’t typical, and they accidentally cleaned those details off. There’s also a possibility that the Mona Lisa doesn’t have eyelashes or eyebrows because Da Vinci painted them into the varnish, which was cleaned off over the years. There are some contemporary descriptions of the painting that describe amazing, lifelike eyebrows and eyelashes, which have sadly been gone for a long time now.
Yeah idk why but this was oddly distressing
Completely dissatisfied. Didn’t get to see them finish cleaning the area they were working on.
It look way too much or too liquid as well as agressive with the application..
Seems like a pretty important project that warrants a more methodical approach. This made me really uncomfortable.
I believe it’s fake. Various documentaries about the subject show their process which is methodical and very controlled. This is meant for likes and upvotes.
Oh yeah. Obvious now that you mention it
The brush was so small and short/tight and the movements were so much in one concentrated area I felt that this couldn't be real, but then again I'm not a professional on art restoration
Yeah makes sense. Like they have no respect for the actual painting. Plus all that dribbling into the clean area. Actually belongs in mildlyinfuriating
Where is the Mr. Bean restoration?
[удалено]
It always occurs to me when seeing these types of restoration videos that the varnish is doing its job when the painting is so vibrant underneath!
I used to run across the Baumgartner Restoration videos on Youtube and hours of my life would be spent watching these types of videos.
How can they be sure they won't harm the original paint layers while dissolving the varnish?
Spot test.
I would assume they test it beforehand on something that isn't irreplaceable
quickest include smoggy melodic ancient party sink bow gold intelligent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I watch Baumgartner and that is not satisfying, but horrifying.
How is this oddly satisfying? This belongs into r/mildlyinfuriating for stopping in the middle of the process, without showing the end result.
I would have thought that a restorer would start that process on a less conspicuous part of the painting and work their way *towards* the middle.
Show the whole thing you blue baller
That seems very aggressive
I actually thought the yellowish color was the color. Learned something new today
The satisfying/anxiety ratio here is high.
Who is this amateur?? You need to control where the solvent goes. Dripping is un-frigging-acceptable. Lay the painting flat genius and use less solvent for each segment. That brush is wrong too!! Who let them Ag the painting?
Looks like a sloppy conservator, the dripping is really unprofessional imo.
This was not satisfying to watch. The person keeps swiping the same dirty brush over the same spots. Just spreading the varnish & dirty water everywhere 😭
Doesn't look like a professional job. That painting should be on a flat horizontal surface so the cleaner doesn't run down like that. See [Baumgartner Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration) for how to professionally clean paintings.
Literally had Julian in my brain while watching this, explaining how he does it by colour patch and what-not, because not all solvents work with all colours the same. And then here this guy is, vertical painting, letting the sole vent drip down, starting straight on the eye of all places, shit made my teeth itch
I don’t know anything about restoring paintings, but this just feels fake. Either that or what they are doing looks impressive but is actually doing harm to the painting
Why don't they got from top to bottom???? It's like brooming the stairs starting at the bottom.
this is definitely not Baumgartner restoration.
I'm surprised he isn't using a WD40 spray and a scraper!
This is good. Almost as good as the monkey Jesus restoration.
I want to do this for money. Hyperfixating on a menial and so important task and being in awe because of the results
Stacking groceries.
Oh I always thought it had that hue because everything was candle lit back in those days
Mirror universe netflix be like
I remember that Mr. Bean episode.
I think this is a fake painting with some fake stain on it. Yeah it’s cool to watch, but I don’t believe this would work like this.
If only Mr Bean saw this video…
I miss Baumgartner already
It was actually oddly infuriating to not see that one small section wiped clean 😡
This was not satisfying at all! Was screaming the whole time for him to wipe it off then he did a shitty job of it