Mehra’s requirements for linings revisited

Aktivitet: Tale eller præsentation Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag

Beskrivelse

Following the flooding of Florence, the Italian conservator Giovanni Urbani called for a more systematic and rational approach to lining. In 1972 Vishua Mehra defined eight requirements for linings in an interim report for the ICOM-CC and Central Research Laboratory for objects on art and science, Amsterdam: “Comparative study of conventional relining methods and materials and research towards their improvement”. In this report Mehra discussed concepts that remain essential to conservation such as reversibility, flexibility, permittivity and compatibility. He argued that the traditional lining techniques glue-paste and wax-resin were too invasive and non-reversible as they caused the whole painting structure to become embedded in adhesive. He furthermore warned against the use of heat in linings, the forces exerted by re-tensioning a painting and the extra weight of a wax-resin lining. Mehra’s ideas inspired a whole generation of conservators and influenced best-practice considerations in structural conservation of canvas paintings for decades.
Many of the concepts introduced by Mehra are still debated and new ideas have evolved. This paper revisits the eight requirements and some of the well-known concepts discussed by Mehra and puts them into a modern context of lining canvas paintings. In particular, the concepts of flexibility and compatibility are reviewed and discussed in order to address their meaning in the context of in structural conservation. The review makes it clear that some concepts have shifted meaning over the course of the years. Some original ideas behind concepts have been forgotten or are no longer relevant as new knowledge points to miscomprehensions. One example is that Mehra measured stiffness in bending mode whereas later research on linings usually is concerned with one plane tensile tests. Such technical differences in understanding make a difference to the understanding of the function of a lining.
The highly influential work of Mehra offers a perspective on later requirements for and ideas about linings and other structural treatments to canvas paintings. When revisiting his eight requirements for linings after almost 5 deceades it becomes clear that conservators are still debating the same concepts without agreeing on accurate definitions. Best-practice requirements like “a lining has to be compatible/stiff/non-impregnating” can therefore become worthless or even misleading in worst cases. A dogma in conservation can be blind to the individual requirements of an object and should therefore be considered carefully. That way we can keep an open mind to the effect that any treatment will have on an object in a given situation.
Periode15 okt. 2019
BegivenhedstitelConserving Canvas Symposium
BegivenhedstypeKonference
PlaceringNew Haven, USAVis på kort
Grad af anerkendelseInternational

Emneord

  • Malerikonservering
  • dublering