Lovely description of the thinking underlying his process. I hadn’t realized the research behind these ancient windows. Which makes me wonder. Why, when you restore, do you need to make everything look old again? Surely the elements will do that for you, as they did with the originals?
I don't know if you have this problem in the US, but, here in England, there are many recent (e.g. 19th century) windows where the paint has failed for reasons other than the weather. There are various hypotheses as to the cause, such as an ingredient in the paint, or insufficient firing. Whatever the cause or causes, the paint has definitely failed throughout this project's windows, and the weather is unlikely to be a sufficient explanation. Now we don't know what to do to make our paint fail the way the original painting failed. Plus, going forward, the windows will be protected from the elements by secondary glazing. That's one reason why it is acceptable for us to age the forgeries that we make: it's unlikely the newly painted glass will age by itself. Another reason is that, if we don't age our forgeries, they would otherwise be more apparent than is strictly necessary. Indeed, they would be jarringly apparent.
I don't, however, want to take an absolute position on any of this. There are fashions in restoration and conservation in much the same way as there are fashions in clothing: one day an authority asserts that this is the only way to do it, then tomorrow a different person achieves power and pours scorn on yesterday's wisdom.
That £260 translates to nearly £36k today, which I guess would be a little bit more reasonable for all that work. I also note that I was born exactly 100 years after that bill was written - inconsequential in the scheme of things, but a rather nice coincidence all the same 😊
It’s very true about the meticulous processes and cleaning that conservators and restorers undertake, even on work that is so far away that it can barely be seen. Church ceilings come to mind - restoration work on a painted and gilded chancel ceiling 60 feet up between hammer beams is carried out as exactingly as if it could be inspected from a foot away on the floor below. We see everything we work on through a microscope (sometimes literally) and it all has to be as precise as we can make it. Even if nobody else ever sees it until the next conservation round, WE know it’s there and we take great pride in getting it right. We can never be ‘it’ll do’ jockeys!
Yes, get it right though none might understand the pains you took: well done.
£36k today ... hmmmm: I don't want anyone who might be planning to set up their own studio to imagine that even this adjusted sum of money would cover other than a fraction of the cost to design and make such windows today.
I have a question about the stippling process. The pounding in that video is astonishingly hard, which makes me think that you're using more gum arabic than I usually do. I say "usually" because there are times when I use more, for one reason or another, generally to make whatever piece I'm working on more resistant to handling during the creation process. But in those cases I find that the paint is also much more resistant to the process of cleaning up the edges of things via either a hardwood dowel or pointy steel needles, and likely to produce irregular tiny chips instead of a nice smooth edge. So could you expound a bit more about the stippling brushes you use?
For sure, it's definitely a pounding the inscription gets. Really, therefore, this is no more "stippling" than punching is tickling.
Concerning the brushes: the first one is a standard decorator's brush with natural bristle, the second one is a decorator's brush designed for stencilling with household paint, again with natural hair, probably hog.
Concerning the quantity of gum Arabic we use: it's possible this batch of paint contains a lot more gum than usual, but I believe it's unlikely. Each time we make a new batch of paint, we always perform the same tests to make sure we're happy with it. In particular, we lay down an undercoat, cut a few highlights, then soften them: the undercoat needs to hold back for several seconds, then finally and reluctantly to give in and let the highlights soften. That's how we know the paint we mix is fairly uniform from one batch to another. This batch would have been more or less the same.
And yes indeed: when there's more gum in your paint, then tidying up can be challenging, because flooded paint, being thick, is prone to splitting and cracking. However, flooded paint can be worn down gently from above, or gently carved at from the side - as opposed to "cut" in one go. That is, you apply the same pressure you would when cutting through an undercoat, for instance, but, to achieve the effect you want, you repeat the stroke until the paint begins to give way. Even with the quantity of gum we use, this steady-as-it-goes approach works well for us.
Now I know you know this point from our foundation course, Illuminate, but others might not know it until, in the other strand of these letters, we explain it fully there: flooded paint is no thicker than it needs to be - it is just thick enough completely to obscure the light behind, and not a jot thicker. If flooded paint is thicker than it needs to be, then cutting it will likely cause splitting and cracking, however gently one goes about it.
One final point: even the pounding which this inscription gets might be less punishing than what it would get from a needle or a stick: after all, despite the thumping noise we make, hair is softer than metal or wood.
After trying a number of different stippling brushes, I finally found that I got the best results from the very cheapest ones I could find at our local craft store, cut down to 1/3 their original length to make the bristles stiffer. For virtually no cost, I've gotten an array of tools from very large to very tiny in size, and it's easy to cut them to spherical shape or flat or chiseled or pointed, which gives a wide range of effects on the glass. And if (or rather "when") they shed a few bristles, as cheap brushes do, it makes no difference because using them on dry paint means I can just puff the strays away with a single breath.
Thanks for clarifying the gum arabic question. When I deliberately add more to reduce the risk of losing paint due to handling, it certainly does make it less flooding-friendly, and also makes blistering a real possibility during firing. Maybe I should stop doing that, and be a bit more careful with how I let fingers and glass interact so I'd have less need to worry about it. Once a bad (lazy) habit gets developed, it's mighty hard to get rid of it!
That's it: it will dissolve the glue and, overnight, dry out, which will help with stippling. (There's no magic event which happens 'overnight'. It's just that it was late in the day when we made the film.)
No specific reason: we just "reclaimed" the wood and used it for a bridge.
But, Hugo, I will take this opportunity to say that the "feet" are attached in such a way that we can turn them independently of the bridge itself. This means we can always angle them so that they rest on the lead and never on the glass.
Thank you for such exquisite posts. For the explanations and the last ending word about solitude and doubts. Loved the investigation part, since i have been confronted to that for the last year almost.
Lovely description of the thinking underlying his process. I hadn’t realized the research behind these ancient windows. Which makes me wonder. Why, when you restore, do you need to make everything look old again? Surely the elements will do that for you, as they did with the originals?
I don't know if you have this problem in the US, but, here in England, there are many recent (e.g. 19th century) windows where the paint has failed for reasons other than the weather. There are various hypotheses as to the cause, such as an ingredient in the paint, or insufficient firing. Whatever the cause or causes, the paint has definitely failed throughout this project's windows, and the weather is unlikely to be a sufficient explanation. Now we don't know what to do to make our paint fail the way the original painting failed. Plus, going forward, the windows will be protected from the elements by secondary glazing. That's one reason why it is acceptable for us to age the forgeries that we make: it's unlikely the newly painted glass will age by itself. Another reason is that, if we don't age our forgeries, they would otherwise be more apparent than is strictly necessary. Indeed, they would be jarringly apparent.
I don't, however, want to take an absolute position on any of this. There are fashions in restoration and conservation in much the same way as there are fashions in clothing: one day an authority asserts that this is the only way to do it, then tomorrow a different person achieves power and pours scorn on yesterday's wisdom.
That £260 translates to nearly £36k today, which I guess would be a little bit more reasonable for all that work. I also note that I was born exactly 100 years after that bill was written - inconsequential in the scheme of things, but a rather nice coincidence all the same 😊
It’s very true about the meticulous processes and cleaning that conservators and restorers undertake, even on work that is so far away that it can barely be seen. Church ceilings come to mind - restoration work on a painted and gilded chancel ceiling 60 feet up between hammer beams is carried out as exactingly as if it could be inspected from a foot away on the floor below. We see everything we work on through a microscope (sometimes literally) and it all has to be as precise as we can make it. Even if nobody else ever sees it until the next conservation round, WE know it’s there and we take great pride in getting it right. We can never be ‘it’ll do’ jockeys!
Yes, get it right though none might understand the pains you took: well done.
£36k today ... hmmmm: I don't want anyone who might be planning to set up their own studio to imagine that even this adjusted sum of money would cover other than a fraction of the cost to design and make such windows today.
Good Lord no! I wasn’t suggesting that £36k is anything like enough, just somewhat better sounding than £260!! 😁
I have a question about the stippling process. The pounding in that video is astonishingly hard, which makes me think that you're using more gum arabic than I usually do. I say "usually" because there are times when I use more, for one reason or another, generally to make whatever piece I'm working on more resistant to handling during the creation process. But in those cases I find that the paint is also much more resistant to the process of cleaning up the edges of things via either a hardwood dowel or pointy steel needles, and likely to produce irregular tiny chips instead of a nice smooth edge. So could you expound a bit more about the stippling brushes you use?
For sure, it's definitely a pounding the inscription gets. Really, therefore, this is no more "stippling" than punching is tickling.
Concerning the brushes: the first one is a standard decorator's brush with natural bristle, the second one is a decorator's brush designed for stencilling with household paint, again with natural hair, probably hog.
Concerning the quantity of gum Arabic we use: it's possible this batch of paint contains a lot more gum than usual, but I believe it's unlikely. Each time we make a new batch of paint, we always perform the same tests to make sure we're happy with it. In particular, we lay down an undercoat, cut a few highlights, then soften them: the undercoat needs to hold back for several seconds, then finally and reluctantly to give in and let the highlights soften. That's how we know the paint we mix is fairly uniform from one batch to another. This batch would have been more or less the same.
And yes indeed: when there's more gum in your paint, then tidying up can be challenging, because flooded paint, being thick, is prone to splitting and cracking. However, flooded paint can be worn down gently from above, or gently carved at from the side - as opposed to "cut" in one go. That is, you apply the same pressure you would when cutting through an undercoat, for instance, but, to achieve the effect you want, you repeat the stroke until the paint begins to give way. Even with the quantity of gum we use, this steady-as-it-goes approach works well for us.
Now I know you know this point from our foundation course, Illuminate, but others might not know it until, in the other strand of these letters, we explain it fully there: flooded paint is no thicker than it needs to be - it is just thick enough completely to obscure the light behind, and not a jot thicker. If flooded paint is thicker than it needs to be, then cutting it will likely cause splitting and cracking, however gently one goes about it.
One final point: even the pounding which this inscription gets might be less punishing than what it would get from a needle or a stick: after all, despite the thumping noise we make, hair is softer than metal or wood.
After trying a number of different stippling brushes, I finally found that I got the best results from the very cheapest ones I could find at our local craft store, cut down to 1/3 their original length to make the bristles stiffer. For virtually no cost, I've gotten an array of tools from very large to very tiny in size, and it's easy to cut them to spherical shape or flat or chiseled or pointed, which gives a wide range of effects on the glass. And if (or rather "when") they shed a few bristles, as cheap brushes do, it makes no difference because using them on dry paint means I can just puff the strays away with a single breath.
Thanks for clarifying the gum arabic question. When I deliberately add more to reduce the risk of losing paint due to handling, it certainly does make it less flooding-friendly, and also makes blistering a real possibility during firing. Maybe I should stop doing that, and be a bit more careful with how I let fingers and glass interact so I'd have less need to worry about it. Once a bad (lazy) habit gets developed, it's mighty hard to get rid of it!
Thank you for the helpful points you make concerning craft store brushes.
Interesting: you leave the glycol wash overnight, in order to dissolve partially the previous paint, softening therefore the whole inscription ?
That's it: it will dissolve the glue and, overnight, dry out, which will help with stippling. (There's no magic event which happens 'overnight'. It's just that it was late in the day when we made the film.)
Wow! Dont remember you talking about DaVinci 5519. Never used but looks damn cool!
It is.
Expensive :) but looks so cool to work with !
Up-front expense: that's true. However, a brush might last for 20 years or more.
Agree :)
Will you touch on it eventually?
Yes, we'll contrast and compare how we load our three main brushes.
Thank you
Any specific reason for the grooves (sides) on the bridge?? Except that it was just...there !?;)
No specific reason: we just "reclaimed" the wood and used it for a bridge.
But, Hugo, I will take this opportunity to say that the "feet" are attached in such a way that we can turn them independently of the bridge itself. This means we can always angle them so that they rest on the lead and never on the glass.
So they pivot ….?
Yes.
Hum... brilliant .
Question : why haven’t you ever worked with an easel ?
We often do.
Never saw a video from you working with it !?
Thank you for such exquisite posts. For the explanations and the last ending word about solitude and doubts. Loved the investigation part, since i have been confronted to that for the last year almost.
Cheers!