Conservation Treatments and Reports as an Integral Part of Provenance Research

Conservation Treatments and Reports, an Integral Part of Provenance Research

Often forgotten in the midst of perusing archives, sales catalogues, ownership titles, and transportation documents, conservation treatments and their accompanying reports are also an important asset to provenance researchers. These reports are written and photographic witnesses to the state of an artwork at a specific point in time, with relevant details on any damages, changes, place(s) of conservation, and history.

Until relatively recently, conservation treatments and reports were scarcely, if ever, taken into consideration as part of a more scientific approach to provenance research. In the past few years though, these documents have slowly been added to the materials helping experts in the field retrace a piece´s origin. Even so, many collectors, and some researchers, still have not fully adopted these reports as an integral part of provenance documentation.

Though it remains rare in practice, the importance of using past and current conservation treatment data in provenance research has been increasingly acknowledged. The International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR), for instance, included it in its 2017 Provenance Guide. IFAR considers, and rightly so, that conservation reports are part of a collection’s records, and added them under the conservation files category along with X-ray imagery and Infrared (IR) Reflectography. Returning to the object itself and using data on its conservation derived from past reports and ongoing work can enhance provenance research. 

The added value of conservation data 

A conservator’s job is complex. Treating an object not only requires extensive historical research on the piece (on the artist, the techniques, the materials; any photographs, preparatory sketches, copies or other images of that piece) but also scientific research, ranging from image analysis, e.g. X-ray imagery, UV photography, IR Reflectography, to chemical analysis, e.g. the study of samples under a microscope to comprehend the stratigraphic structure of the paint layers. These data help conservators understand the artwork and choose the right treatment for it, and are included in the reports prepared afterwards by the conservator. But they can have a value beyond the conservator’s job. 

It should be noted that not all artworks undergo in-depth scientific analysis before conservation. While a study under UV light will happen consistently, all other tests are done on a case-per-case and need basis. This means that for many artworks it is the conservator who discovers an inconsistency or detail which will lead to a request for further scientific research, which in turn can lead to discoveries that may affect the attribution, dating, or provenance of the piece.

Any conservation report begins with a detailed condition report: a description of the piece that includes not only basic information such as measurements, author, and techniques, but also information about the state the piece was in at the time the report was created. This is all accompanied by photographs (front, back, sides, and important details) as well as annotated diagrams of damages, findings, and any note-worthy changes done to the surface of the piece, e.g. over-painting or oxidized varnish hiding part of the image.

Looking back at older treatment reports can provide great amount of information, not only about technical aspects of the work, but also historical research findings. The report will, for instance, include the details on where the object was held at the time of a past treatment, in whose collection it was, etc. All this provides information on ownership and/or past places of conservation that can help bring together a history of the object.

The close and comprehensive examination of the object, and research on it (technique, artist, image that is being represented, history of the piece itself) that is done prior to conservation and noted in the condition and treatment report can reveal details that written sources about the object cannot. These layers of data enrich the conservator’s understanding of the object’s history and allows them to put forward an informed history of the piece. It is almost like a conversation with the artwork, which they then transcribe onto the report. The document is thus an in-depth analysis revealing not only how the object was created, but also what traces are left of its history.

With this information in hand, a conservator can then propose a treatment procedure, which may reveal further details, such as:

·       Inconsistencies in the purported age of the piece and artist, which can lead to the piece being revealed as a fake, a forgery, or simply misdated and misattributed.

·       Indications of past changes in size or shape that the work has undergone, which may indicate that there are either parts of it that may be found elsewhere, or that a lost piece that was only known with a specific dimension or format has thus changed and would have been difficult to find otherwise.

·       Hidden discoveries: For instance, aged varnishes and overpaints can hide parts of the image, from backgrounds and buildings to important characters and other representations, and treatments may reveal original layers. 

·       Traces of prior treatments, and with it any possible changes to the aspect of the piece itself.

·       The existence of an underlying painting, which in some cases has led to the rediscovery of “lost” artworks.

All of the above findings are normally included in the final conservation report, with photographs to document them. Hence, when conducting provenance research, these data can add considerable information to what is already known, or provide a whole new line of research possibilities. 

The element of surprise: rediscovering lost masterpieces

There are plenty of examples of reattributions and provenance confirmation thanks to restorations and notes on a piece’s condition. Two well-known cases are the recently reattributed portrait by Rembrandt in Pennsylvania (USA)  and the Thomas Couture painting in the Gurlitt trove.

In February 2020, the Allentown Art Museum in Pennsylvania (USA) found that the “Portrait of a Young Woman” (1632) which up until then had been attributed to Rembrandt’s studio was actually painted by the artist himself. The artwork was donated to the museum in 1961, and in 1970 the Rembrandt Research Project had ruled that it was not painted by Rembrandt himself . The decision was made based on an existing X-radpgraph from the late 1920s. It seems no further analysis was done at the time the artwork was presented for attribution.

It was the latest restoration, which included removing several layers of yellowed varnish and overpainting, that revealed the brushstrokes and light that are characteristic of Rembrandt. It also rendered the face of the woman more visible and confirmed that she is the subject of several other works by the artist. Further scientific analyses, including IR reflectography and electron microscopy, also confirmed what the conservation treatment had revealed.

Regarding conservation reports, the most well-known example on the use of these kinds of documents, or notes by people who wanted to ensure that important details of the work could later be used to prove provenance, is the case of the famous Thomas Couture painting "Portrait of a Seated Young Woman". 

The artwork was property of Georges Mandel, a French Jewish politician and member of the resistance, until it was looted by the Nazis in 1940, and remained lost until it was found in the Gurlitt trove in 2012. The artwork had a small hole that had been restored, but the damage had been added to the notes on the piece when the painting was reported stolen after the war. 

Following the 2012 find, experts were able to identify the provenance of this particular piece thanks to precisely this damage remark. The description as well as the exact location made the strongest argument as to where the work had come from and who the rightful owners were.

These are just two examples of how a treatment and simple note on damage can help researchers confirm authorship and provenance. It also illustrates why information obtained from past treatments can be so useful, as they leave a permanent mark on the history of the artwork and allows for its past to be more easily traced.

The need for conservation reports

Conservation and condition reports are some of the most complete research documents available, as technical analyses and historical research can only reveal so much and are always in need of expert interpretation. While analysis can show underlying drawings and pentimenti (changes made by the artist, hidden under the final layers of the work), they will not show any of the actual restoration done on the piece, such as the removal of overpaints or varnishes which led to the rediscovery of hidden images. Simple analysis will thus not be able to inform us of any surface changes that the work underwent before being restored, only that which came after, e.g. retouching, applying a new varnish, relining. Without the reports, this added information on the history and life of the piece would be lost.

The treatment can help rediscover and retrace artworks that were thought to be lost or whose existence was unknown, while the accompanying reports bring together a large amount of data, including some that cannot easily be obtained through other means. Very few other documents will be able to deliver the same amount of combined in-depth information: current ownership, historical and scientific data, condition reporting, and changes in the aspect of the work throughout its history. This makes condition and conservation treatment reports comprehensive yet underestimated and underused provenance research tools.