Coming up is the restoration of a fine art watercolor painting of a lady . Let's dive into the delicate, intricate process of fine art restoration on a watercolor painting. Restorer credit: emilyoreilly.c...
This is not a watercolour but a coloured lithograph print. That explains why it can handle multiple water baths. Lithograph prints are made with oil based inks.
Im not sure if the painting had darkened with age and the cleaning process returned it to its original condition or the cleaning bleached out what colour was remaining either way I preferred the before condition to the after condition, and Im surprised she used tap water , its not exactly chemical free these days .
I'm curious if you or anyone else here have seen a lot of conservation being done. Because the paintings often look dramatically different and brighter after conservation. Also, I have a feeling the narrator misspoke about it being tap water.
Love people mistaking ageing for colour 😂 so many experts here criticising the techniques of someone working for an institution when the closest they have come to preserving art is polishing their shoes.
Watercolors are made of pigment and binder... the binder is like a powder paraffin material... it's job is to transfer the pigment to the paper.. You give that pigment several years to adhere and you can dissolve all the paraffin powder material still attached to the surface... Other times the artist may have supplemented the surface of the watercolor painting with clear lacquer, latex or even egg-whites; water isn't getting through it... although you may notice that there is an apparent hydrophobic affect on the surface of the painting under water... This one didn't have that so it is just an old watercolor painting that has fully transferred it's pigment to the paper fiber. It'd be nice if the failed artist that runs this channel would explain while they worked right?
I wish more narration had been given about materials and techniques used, and the artist & age of the painting. Surprised she did not wear gloves throughout.
it can actually cause more damage to use gloves with paper since you have no touch sense and end up gripping too tight or loose and causing damage. As long as the hands are clean it is better to not use gloves.
As ErikBongers points out, this is a colored lithograph not a watercolor. It is not a "painting" as you say. Calling different genres of art a "painting" is like calling all music a "song".
There was a whole long segment of the white goop going through a strainer and getting sprayed. Like what was that? I never saw her do anything with it. If it was the adhesive for the tabs why was their so much?
Goop is wheat starch. Its kind of hard to make a 'small' batch functionally, kind of like cooking for one person. You can do it, but you often end up with leftovers. When doing paper-based conservation, including books, you tend to go through a lot of it between many projects. When I did book repair, my studio made batches every week or so to share between a dozen workers.
I am surprised that the color was waterfast. It must be because of it being such an old painting. All the pigments have oxidized and can no longer be dissolved into water.
I really thought the restorer was going to add paint to the picture to bring it alive again as it would have been originally and as I’ve seen many other restorers do. So I was rather disappointed at the very faded and lifeless result. Still I’m sure there’s good reason for that.
If this was a real watercolour painting, undergoing all those processes, then all that would be left is a blank sheet of paper with perhaps some stains from any staining watercolour pigment used in the painting.
Well , I suppose there is only so much (Restoration) that can be done to a watercolor. It's current condition is beyond Touching up. Pretty much just a cleaning and remounting .
For the art snobs out there that puts us commoners down because we have “modern eyes”doesn’t mean we’re blind. Or because we don’t have an art degree or are artists ourselves. You’d have to be a liar to say the picture looked better after “restoration.” That was a dismal failure in every possible way. Anyone with an honest opinion knows it. As an artist I can tell when someone is over their head. This woman was going through some learned process for the wrong print or lithograph or whatever that piece was. The more it faded it became the more she doubled down. Pathetic.
I find this painting absolutely superb. The softness of the execution is the signature of a great artist. I have been painting watercolors for about 50 years, and couldn't come close to this effect.
It seems this channel attracts many expert commenters. I mean experts of the same kind as the many coaches who sit on their couch in front of the TV drinking beer while watching a major sports event and find strong words for every mistake they believe to detect.
This is only the second watercolor video for me. I have watched Baumgardner do many oil restorations. This is totally boring to me with so many steps, so many water baths. The part about restoration of oils that keeps me watching is the cleaning, old varnish removal, old restoration removal, touching up and varnishing. The end result is transformation with the oil painting and I don't see much change with the watercolor.
This is a very complicated way of framing a picture, but the lady herself was washed and bleached like an old sock. I do not think she was well taken care of.
Maybe because your modem eyes expect colour vibrancy. Evidently that is not what the original artist had in mind, as determined by the style, and the paper, and artwork restoration done by an internationally recognised expert.
@@daniellamcgee4251 Nope. I don't need vibrancy to value a picture, but the focus in this clip was absolutely on the frame, and not on the painting- but in my opinion she needed more care. I don't want to invalidate the framers work, but would have liked to see an expert for the lady as well, and not only for her casing.
You are correct, keep! She applied the wrong cleaning technique to the wrong art piece. That was a lithograph or a chromograph. Wrong treatment for that type of print. There is literally no way to restore that print unless you repaint it. That’s what my “modern eyes” know for a fact.
This is why this internationally recognised conservator is an expert, and you are not. Maybe learn a bit more before you judge if someone has 'really restore(d) it' , or not. Everyone thinks they know better than experts these days. 🙄
@@daniellamcgee4251I’m skeptical that the painting originally had less contrast than the painting did prior to the “restoration”. That doesn’t make sense.
I'm sorry, but there's no way this 'restoration' has, in any way, enhanced this water colour painting. In fact, it appears to have removed a great deal of detail as an example, look at the image at 24.50. Those eyes are genuinely MISSING more detail after the 'restoration! very sad indeed.
'Colours that honour its original condition'. That is why the artisan featured in this video is an internationally recognised expert conservator, who was selected to do restoration work for the UK National Trust, and I am guessing that the same doesn't apply to you. Maybe stick to judging what you know.
This channel doesn’t always have the best restorers with the most up-to-date materials. I had an oil painting that was over cleaned and lost some of its color.
She destroyed this painting. She should have never saturation cleaned this. Part of the yellowing was intentional. Especially in the hair and in the skin. The light blue of the shadows of her white dress are nearly completely gone now. I’m actually stunned. Had this been my property, I would have been furious! The age alone of this pigment should have been the first clue that TAP WATER(which contains trace amounts of chlorine) is a terrible thing to use! This painting should have been blot cleaned with diluted alcohol only to minimize lifting pigment. I’m actually so disappointed.
This artist is an internationally recognised expert conservator. I suspect you are not. You have clearly expected the artwork to be more vibrant. Evidently, that was not the original artist's intention as determined by the style, and restoration.
@@daniellamcgee4251 Maybe he is an artist in attracting media coverage, but in his job he seems to be an artisan like thousand others. It looks like he has gathered a group of loyal fan boys and fan girls who like bullying other restorers on YT. What you call evidently, is just your arbitrary judgement of taste.
So many silly people in the comments thinking that because the restored painting looks 'washed out' to their modern eyes, they assume that it isn't what the artist originally painted, and intended. That is the problem with the increasing trend of undervaluing of experts, and non-experts thinking they know better.
It’s not that it now looks washed out as water colours are often subtle. The point is the contrast has been reduced by the restoration. If anything, if the original pigment wasn’t reduced by the process, the contrast should have increased since you would have a greater contrast between white (un-pigmented) areas and the painted areas than with the yellowed paper and the painted areas.
Just because they’re using their eyes and logic doesn’t make them “silly.” Everyone complaining have very valid points. You obviously have a vested interest in this conservator or channel. Your multiple attempts to gaslight everyone by implying they’re not cultured if they can’t see what you see is not working
Whole lot of comments for one picture...perhaps your the person who 'restored' it. Being pretentious doesn't mean you are correct or that you know more than anyone else who can obviously see it's done it not much good. I recognize that hand, I am not a fan of any of this person's work. It all seems to fall short and is disappointing at the end.
@@kh7794 Just in case you wanted an essay response 😅: No, I am not a restorer. The people commenting that they don't like the washed out final image are not professional restorers, either. However, I can appreciate that experts know more than people just commenting on what they like the look of, in this modern age of vivid colour, rather than the historical context of what was aesthetically pleasing. I am not disappointed if it looks washed out, if the artwork has been restored by an expert to more closely resemble the original artwork, and the artist's intent. I would aesthetically like medieval babies to look more like babies, but I prefer the original artwork being represented artistically true to the artists' intentions. Much the same way as being a musician, I consider it my responsibility to play the music as closely as possible to the composer's intent. This professional restorer obviously knows more about revealing and restoring the artist's intent than us. They are unlikely to be motivated to make the image look to their bias of what is pleasing, but to find and restore original image. The number of people commenting that they don't like the washed out image is just a reflection of society at this time. We are exposed to bright colour stimuli, and clear definition, as part of life. Also, we live in a world where many people don't value experts, and trust their own feelings more. We live in a time where many people don't bother learning about context, evidence or facts, and will trust their feelings more. We live in a time where people reject what is true, for something that is more pleasing to them. This comment section seemed to reflect that. I prefer authenticity and truth within the original context, even if it is not so pretty to me, rather than something altered to make me feel more comfortable with the familiar.
Fortunately, this artwork was restored by an internationally recognised expert conservator, who knew exactly what was required to return to artwork to as close as possible to its original form, and preserved for many years to come. Obviously, AI could not accomplish this task with the full range of artisan manual skills demonstrated. You, as a human were not even able to perceive improvement, and AI is unlikely to be able to assess and perform what is required of an original artwork.
@@daniellamcgee4251nice misdirection. You are obviously a bot designed to protect the reputation of this conservator at all cost! Honestly though, I hope you’re ok. I don’t mean malice by my responses to you, but you do seem determined to contradict what is clearly visible to the majority of commenters in a very condescending and, frankly, snobbish manner… Not cool. Even an ‘expert’ can make mistakes and get it wrong. I’m sure the restorer of “Ecce Homo” thought she was up to the task when she started.
Maybe learn more, and you will appreciate more of this expert conservator's skill. She restored it to closer to the original artist's colour, and preserved the art work for many years to come. ✨️😀 🎉
@daniellamcgee4251 well I agree I probably don't know as much as this professional, but I disagree that the colours were anything like the original and I don't particularly like the way the art was treated. But of course this is just my personal opinion and you know what they say about opinions right? Just like ar***oles..everyone has one!
If by 'destroyed' you mean restoring the artwork to the original artist's softer, more Impressionistic colours, in keeping with the style of the art work, and then reframed it to be preserved for many more years to come, then yes! It was 'destroyed'! ✨️😀 🎉
This reminds me of the story of " TheEmperors New Clothes".... All of the crowds were amazed at his new clothes, made by the "finest craftsmen" until a young child shouted out, "The Emperor is naked!". Everyone looked at each other and realised that indeed, the Emperor was naked.... 1) This is not a watercolour but a lithograph as many have pointed out. It's also quite average by my estimation, if it were in a charity shop, nobody would buy it. 2)Yes, she used Japanese tissue paper to affix it to the frame that she made with wonderfully sharp tools and measured the frame with beautiful precision. The glue took hours to pass through the finest muslin using wooden tools from the galapogos islands. However, this so called "art restorer" literally gave the piece multiple-multiple baths in MUNICIPAL tap water! Total charlatan! 3) That was the heavy breathing of a person who knows they are about to get away with something and starting to panic in case anybody spots their deception. I'm only here for the comments 😂
And what art restoring education, experience and credentials do you have? Have you ever been employed by the U.K National Trust? Have you co-written a book about art conservation and art restoration? Have you ever found previously undiscovered techniques and presented your findings at an international conference of conservators? Has a university referred someone to your services? Have you ever restored 17th Century art work? Well, I know nothing of the narrator, but this conservator is considered an expert internationally, so I think your assessment is primarily only of value as entertainment for yourself, but of little relevance to people genuinely interested in art restoration.
Я всё ждала когда они будут чистить лак и тем самым возвратят картине её чистый цвет. А потом восполнят утраты и покроют свежим лаком. Как обычно. А всё из-за обложки. Эх. Разочарование.😅 Но с другой стороны они по крайне мере не повредили хрупкую картину.🤔
