I'm fascinated by the whole subject of "restoration" in glass. Several years ago I had to make new pieces to replace missing glass in the border of a window. Luckily they were a simple zigzag-and-stippling pattern. I very strongly believe that any such work should be invisible from normal viewing distance but detectable as non-original under magnification, so instead of stippling I did "spottling" as you refer to it in your instructional videos. The result was perfect without running the risk of anyone in future confusing the original pieces with my replacements. Carrying that one step further, I completely understand your position on the ugly dogs. I was reminded, though, of something I'd read in Ballantine's classic "Treatise on Stained Glass" where he said: "Never imitate such figures as No. 1. on Plate VI., or No. 1. on Plate VII., even although they may be genuine antiques. Should the costume belong to the period you have to illustrate, adopt it, but improve the drawing and proportions of the figure, and this will sufficiently represent the period, while, as a work of art, your design will be free from deformity. No. 2. on Plate VI., and No. 2. on Plate VII., give an idea of the change which can be effected by such treatment." The first of those two pieces showed a knight in armor that had awkward proportions and primitive execution, but that was original and contemporary with all of the rest of the window. The second showed something that looked refined and elegant and thoroughly modern in execution, utterly unlike the original. Had the first figure been a crude repair like the twin dogs in your example, the replacement would have been fine with me. But replacing a true original with something that's prettier is just wrong in my mind. I wonder how much of this sort of vandalism has gone on in the past, and how much of what we admire now might really be later "improvements on originals" made by followers of Ballantine's principles?
I would like to think with you on this issue of repainting. This was also a question that I had to analyze during a restoration.
It seems to me that the technique, how the pigments are mixed with a solvent and applied to glass and fixed with heat, has not changed much since Theophilus' manuscript in the 13th century.
So, during the restoration, if there is a glass fragment that has lost part of the design or it is light, would it be a problem to repaint or strengthen the design, following the same lines that the artist used? And why not fix this intervention in the kiln? If the intention is to retain the characteristics of ancient techniques, what is older than Theophilus' technical descriptions of glass and stained glass? Indeed, if the glass fragment with failure or loss of design undergoes a restoration reversal process, what is the chance of it getting worse?
I would like to discuss this theme present in our work. I do not intend to create controversy with the subject.
"I would like to discuss this theme present in our work": that's wonderful - how about you, we, and anyone else who's interested, give this topic some sustained attention between now and when our newsletter reaches the "milestone" of "re-painting"? In the meantime, we will also look around for how / where best to have that eventual discussion. Would that be a way forward? Please comment with any other ideas you might have about how to do this.
I remember the first ever stained glass restoration I did which needed releading. I was happily dismantling the pieces preparatory to soaking them to remove the grime and putty. 5 pieces in, I realised with a horrible lurch that I’d forgotten to take a rubbing of the panel for glass placement. Shock, horror!! 😱 It was a sobering moment when I realised I’d never have got the panel back together again if I’d continued. Not something I ever forgot again, so a salutary lesson!
On the subject of sympathetic restoration there was a lot of debate, during my learning, about historic restorations having become legitimate parts of the object’s history and whether they should be removed and redone or not. My own feeling is also on the side of common sense. If the historic restoration is physically sound and sympathetic to the object, then leave it alone. If it’s unstable and/or totally horrendous in terms of its appropriateness to the object, then remove and replace only if you can redo it better. We had the ethics of restoration and conservation drummed into us from the first day and it’s impossible to disregard that teaching once it’s embedded in you.
Lastly, longer letters make for more enjoyment!! 😊
Thank you for the honesty and openness of the confession in your first paragraph. Both of us here agree with you that the best way to learn is to not hide from the full shock or shame of a mistake but to face it full-on. There'll be times ahead when you see us doing exactly that.
I'm fascinated by the whole subject of "restoration" in glass. Several years ago I had to make new pieces to replace missing glass in the border of a window. Luckily they were a simple zigzag-and-stippling pattern. I very strongly believe that any such work should be invisible from normal viewing distance but detectable as non-original under magnification, so instead of stippling I did "spottling" as you refer to it in your instructional videos. The result was perfect without running the risk of anyone in future confusing the original pieces with my replacements. Carrying that one step further, I completely understand your position on the ugly dogs. I was reminded, though, of something I'd read in Ballantine's classic "Treatise on Stained Glass" where he said: "Never imitate such figures as No. 1. on Plate VI., or No. 1. on Plate VII., even although they may be genuine antiques. Should the costume belong to the period you have to illustrate, adopt it, but improve the drawing and proportions of the figure, and this will sufficiently represent the period, while, as a work of art, your design will be free from deformity. No. 2. on Plate VI., and No. 2. on Plate VII., give an idea of the change which can be effected by such treatment." The first of those two pieces showed a knight in armor that had awkward proportions and primitive execution, but that was original and contemporary with all of the rest of the window. The second showed something that looked refined and elegant and thoroughly modern in execution, utterly unlike the original. Had the first figure been a crude repair like the twin dogs in your example, the replacement would have been fine with me. But replacing a true original with something that's prettier is just wrong in my mind. I wonder how much of this sort of vandalism has gone on in the past, and how much of what we admire now might really be later "improvements on originals" made by followers of Ballantine's principles?
Thank you, Steve: we've added the illustrations which Ballantine refers to over here: https://substack.com/chat/1176004/post/1a1bb95d-0aa4-47fc-8b12-f8b32afd503c
I would like to think with you on this issue of repainting. This was also a question that I had to analyze during a restoration.
It seems to me that the technique, how the pigments are mixed with a solvent and applied to glass and fixed with heat, has not changed much since Theophilus' manuscript in the 13th century.
So, during the restoration, if there is a glass fragment that has lost part of the design or it is light, would it be a problem to repaint or strengthen the design, following the same lines that the artist used? And why not fix this intervention in the kiln? If the intention is to retain the characteristics of ancient techniques, what is older than Theophilus' technical descriptions of glass and stained glass? Indeed, if the glass fragment with failure or loss of design undergoes a restoration reversal process, what is the chance of it getting worse?
I would like to discuss this theme present in our work. I do not intend to create controversy with the subject.
"I would like to discuss this theme present in our work": that's wonderful - how about you, we, and anyone else who's interested, give this topic some sustained attention between now and when our newsletter reaches the "milestone" of "re-painting"? In the meantime, we will also look around for how / where best to have that eventual discussion. Would that be a way forward? Please comment with any other ideas you might have about how to do this.
Hello Stephen!
You're right, perhaps this is not the time to address this issue.
Maybe a few comments about the re-painting during your presentation of the restoration steps will be enlightening.
I realized that when there is legislation on how to carry out restoration work, the artist is somewhat limited in the actions he can take.
Thanks.
We'll find a way to have a conversation about this topic. Here, we've already started to make some notes.
I remember the first ever stained glass restoration I did which needed releading. I was happily dismantling the pieces preparatory to soaking them to remove the grime and putty. 5 pieces in, I realised with a horrible lurch that I’d forgotten to take a rubbing of the panel for glass placement. Shock, horror!! 😱 It was a sobering moment when I realised I’d never have got the panel back together again if I’d continued. Not something I ever forgot again, so a salutary lesson!
On the subject of sympathetic restoration there was a lot of debate, during my learning, about historic restorations having become legitimate parts of the object’s history and whether they should be removed and redone or not. My own feeling is also on the side of common sense. If the historic restoration is physically sound and sympathetic to the object, then leave it alone. If it’s unstable and/or totally horrendous in terms of its appropriateness to the object, then remove and replace only if you can redo it better. We had the ethics of restoration and conservation drummed into us from the first day and it’s impossible to disregard that teaching once it’s embedded in you.
Lastly, longer letters make for more enjoyment!! 😊
Thank you for the honesty and openness of the confession in your first paragraph. Both of us here agree with you that the best way to learn is to not hide from the full shock or shame of a mistake but to face it full-on. There'll be times ahead when you see us doing exactly that.
If you’ve never made a mistake, you’ve never made anything. It’s learning by them that counts.