Waxing Historical | Conserving Canvas

Introduction

Motivated by an interest in past treatment techniques and a
desire to put current Brooklyn Museum (BkM) projects into a
historical context, BkM conservators are endeavoring to build
an internal database of wax-resin linings through a
comprehensive survey of the paintings collection. Using both
the conservation records and the paintings themselves, the
project aims to reconstruct the history of wax-resin lining
practices at BkM. The authors seek not only to identify trends
in lining application but also to evaluate the decision-making
process behind individual treatments and to assess how they
have aged. Because lining materials and techniques have
implications for collection care, another goal is to develop a
framework that will enable the adhesive recipe to be
characterized if only the conservator or date of execution is
known, aiding in the establishment of markers for paintings
that may warrant condition monitoring. This poster presents an
overview of the project and considers preliminary findings
from the ongoing survey.

History

Founded in 1934 with the hire of Sheldon Keck as restorer, the
BkM Conservation Department is among the oldest in the United
States and was the first established within a New York City
institution. The department, which has continuously employed a
paintings conservator, holds documentation for a wide range of
canvases treated by Keck, his wife, Caroline, who was also an
accomplished conservator, and their successors. Researching
the BkM conservation records together with the associated
paintings has the potential to reveal a great deal about both
the approaches to wax-resin lining at the museum and the
broader twentieth-century lining movement in the United
States.

Documentation has been integral to conservation practice at
BkM since the department’s beginning. Although reports have
become more nuanced over time, many early records were
abbreviated, rarely elaborating on the treatment rationale or
describing the materials and techniques in a way that would
allow the processes to be reproduced. Often reports were
unsigned, recipe components were not itemized or quantified,
and procedures were summarized using undefined terms (such as
“the Dutch method” for lining preparations). With a few
notable exceptions, this lack of detail presents challenges in
understanding the relationship between current condition
issues and previous treatments.

Archival research has provided valuable insights into BkM
treatment methods absent in the documentation. In 1954 and
1962, Sheldon and Caroline produced two films for a general
audience, both of which illustrate the complex operation of
performing a wax-resin lining. The earlier film features a
lining executed with a hand iron (fig. 41.1) (Keck and Keck 1954), and in the later one, conservators demonstrate the use of
a vacuum hot table (fig. 41.2) (Keck and Keck 1962). In both films, the narration illuminates the reasoning
behind each action and material selected. The filmed processes
are remarkably consistent with physical evidence of lining
observed on many paintings in the collection, such as paper
residues on the tacking margins or brush marks and
fingerprints on the versos of paintings lined by hand.

Methodology

BkM conservation records are kept as paper files and digital
assets on The Museum System (TMS) database. The survey to
identify wax-resin lined paintings began in 2018 and has
advanced according to the paper folder organization system,
progressing alphabetically by artist’s surname. An Excel
spreadsheet was developed to track progress and standardize
information gleaned from the records. At the time of
publication, over half of the approximately two thousand
painting conservation files had been evaluated, around 80% of
which pertain to paintings on canvas. The findings presented
here derive from the initial sample set of paintings by
artists who have surnames starting with A through
M.

Preliminary Findings

Wax-resin linings were performed at BkM over a nearly
fifty-year period from 1936 through the mid-1980s,
encompassing the rise and fall of the technique’s popularity
in the United States. Based on the records reviewed to date,
the authors hypothesize that 20%–25% of the canvas paintings
in the BkM collection are wax-resin lined. The earliest
linings were primarily done on paintings that had been in the
collection for decades. The institution, with roots dating
back to 1823, had been collecting paintings for nearly a
hundred years before employing a conservator. In his first
years on the job, Keck may have encountered a backlog of
paintings in unstable condition that he judged to be in need
of lining. The data appear to suggest that, starting in the
1940s, many paintings were lined as they were acquired. This
trend is consistent with the developing role of the
conservator within the museum. Annual reports from 1938 onward
emphasize the practice of examining all artwork considered for
acquisition “to make sure of their good condition and
authenticity” (Brooklyn Museum 1940, 23).

Most of the paintings wax-resin lined at BkM were between 50
and 125 years old at the time of lining (fig. 41.3), including paintings from the early nineteenth century
through the 1930s. Few paintings predating the nineteenth
century were lined at BkM, which likely reflects the strength
of BkM collection holdings in certain areas.

Fluctuations in the number of linings performed each year may
correspond with significant events (fig. 41.4). Keck performed the first wax-resin lining on record at BkM
in 1936, two years after he was hired.
This initial delay may relate to setting up a new laboratory
rather than a concerted effort on his part. In 1943, Keck left
to serve in World War II as one of the Monuments Men in the
U.S. Army’s Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program (Monuments Men Foundation n.d.). Few paintings were lined until Caroline assumed his museum
duties and resumed the practice.

Some variations in lining frequency may be linked to new
technology, such as the vacuum hot table acquired in 1961,
and/or staffing changes that occurred in the department over
the decades. The apparent increase in numbers observed in the
late 1970s and early 1980s warrants further investigation,
considering the critical attitudes against lining that
developed in the field of conservation at this time.

The most common motivations given for lining include a
“cupped” or “cracked” paint film; a “dry,” “brittle,” or
“slack” canvas; and the failure of an old glue-paste lining.
Significantly, not all paintings called to the laboratory were
lined as a matter of course; many underwent less-invasive
treatments or were left untouched. This was sometimes
attributed to lack of time, but also occurred if it was
determined that no intervention was required, particularly in
cases where a stable lining was already present.

There were significant periods when adhesive components were
not listed each time a lining was performed (fig. 41.5). The earliest reports, dated 1936–40, reliably include the
same formula of 60 parts beeswax, 35 parts dammar resin, and 5
parts Canada balsam. In 1941, the terms wax resin and
wax were used alone, without specifying components.
Reports from 1942–44 contain a similar recipe to the earlier
one, with slightly different proportions: 65 parts beeswax, 30
parts dammar resin, and 5 parts Canada balsam. The term
wax resin predominates again from 1945 to 1946, and
from 1961 onward. These trends indicate that generic language
was common once the same formula had been used for a while,
with little variation.

Starting in 1949, Multiwax W-835 was added to some wax-resin
mixtures, marking the beginning of an experimental period with
different materials, which included microcrystalline wax, gum
elemi, and turpentine. On occasion, current or former trainees
lined paintings at BkM using distinctive recipes. In the early
1950s, Louis Pomerantz treated at least one painting as a
student volunteer using 6 parts beeswax, 6 parts Multiwax
W-835, 6 parts dammar resin, and 1 part Canada balsam.
In 1971–72, BkM contracted Bernard Rabin, who used an adhesive
made from 3 pounds unbleached beeswax, 5.5 pounds Multiwax
W-445, 1 1/2 pounds Piccolyte S-85, and 2 pounds dammar
resin.
References to “Bernard Rabin’s wax-resin mixture” appear in
later reports, suggesting his 1971–72 formula was reused.

The majority (approximately 80%) of the linings assessed to
date remain stable and have not required later treatment to
address adhesion failure or other structural issues. Some
exhibit local delamination along the tacking margins or around
the perimeter of the picture plane. Surface residues, likely
wax-resin and/or facing adhesives, have been found on many
paintings, suggesting inadequate clearance was common.

Conclusions and Future Steps

Preliminary findings challenged preconceptions about
historical BkM lining practices. Prior to starting this
project, the authors assumed a majority of canvas paintings at
BkM were wax-resin lined and that paintings routinely
underwent lining treatments as a preventive measure regardless
of their condition. The survey has revealed what seems to be a
more discerning and varied approach. Decisions over whether or
not to line a painting appear to have been carefully weighed,
even if the rationale was not described.

Upon completion of the survey, the influence of BkM collecting
and exhibition practices on lining treatments will be
evaluated. Further consideration will be given to age at the
time of lining to determine if the treatment approach differed
between newer paintings and those that had been through the
restoration cycle many times. Data regarding the replacement
or reuse of auxiliary supports and the method of canvas
attachment are also being gathered with the intent to link
individual conservators with idiosyncratic techniques.

The authors hope to inspire similar studies of wax-resin lined
paintings in other collections, creating the potential to
trace the exchange of lining materials and techniques across
laboratories.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the many people who contributed to this
project, including Maribel Vitagliani, Scott Aaronson, Lisa
Bruno, Jessica Ford, Terri O’Hara, Elaine Miller, Ellen Nigro,
Victoria Schussler, and Molly Seegers, in addition to
acknowledging the Getty Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation for funding support.

Notes