www.sgemsocial.org 24.

Section
Contemporary Art

CONSERVATION OF CONTEMPORARY PAINTING: A COMPARTATIVE

STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF DRY CLEANING TECHNIQUES

Karen Golle Córdova

Profa. Dra. Rosario Llamas Pacheco
Prof. Dr. Juan Valcárcel Andrés.
Instituto Universitario de Restauración del Patrimonio
Departamento de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales
Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain

ABSTRACT
The goal of this study is to determine the effectiveness of different erasers in performing
dry cleaning on unvarnished monochrome samples (painted with acrylics, oils, alkyd
oils and gouache). These samples are representative of the problem with modern
monochrome works lacking any protective film that might prevent dirt from entering the
paint surface--they require careful cleaning procedures taking into consideration the
painting materials used, which in many cases are sensitive to certain solvents. For this
reason, the cleaning process must be carefully analysed and take into account the above,
in order to avoid causing any damage to the chromatic rhythm of the unflawed surfaces
created by the artist.
Through the use of photographs, a microscope and RTI (Reflectance Transformation
Imaging)--a technique underused in the recording of painted artwork--are used to
ascertain changes brought about from dry cleaning treatments, such as changes in the
gloss, texture, abrasion, erosion, polish, incisions caused by the materials and the
presence of residues that might trigger chemical problems on the paint surface. Keeping
track of these factors during a cleaning process is relevant since monochrome paints, in
addition to its flat colour scheme, also contain an intrinsic message that must be
transmitted to the public without interruption.
Keywords: dry cleaning, contemporary painting, eraser, monochrome, RTI.

INTRODUCTION.
Since monochrome art burst onto the art scene with its new aesthetic and discursive
visions, it has posed challenges for the field of conservation and restoration. These new
challenges stem from the unique quality of the technique, the aesthetic purpose of which
is closely tied to its symbolic and discursive connotation.
As for the painting materials that have gone into making monochrome works, the
industry in the nineteenth century began developing new materials for artistic and
domestic use that were unknown to restoration. In the nineteenth century, for example,
industrial oils appeared, alkyd resins were commercialized from the 1930s on into
synthetic enamels and the first acrylics in tubes were sold under the Liquitex brand in
1963.
4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM 2017

Restoration procedures were reinvented from the twentieth century on, as new works
with pathologies resulting from the use of the new materials began to emerge. One of
the intervention processes that has garnered the most reflection and analysis is the act of
cleaning, the central issue under study in this work. The mechanisms for cleaning
modern painting have been studied because artists often fail to apply a protective coat of
varnish as a final touch onto their work, allowing dust particles to get embedded into the
paint surface. Furthermore, the use of acrylic paints sensitive to wet cleaning procedures
became more widespread, meaning they had to look to new cleaning methods that
would fluctuate between cleaning with solvents, dry cleaning, or a mixture of both.
Studies on dry cleaning with different materials have looked to methods traditionally
used in paper and textile restoration treatments as a reference point and then applied
them to solvent-sensitive paintings, resulting in interesting advances in this type of
intervention. Despite this, there is still little research that has been done only recently to
further develop the application of dry (or slightly moistened) erasers.
Since studies on dry cleaning and its materials are scarce, this study is based on work by
M. Daudin Schotte for the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (2006-2009),
which characterizes and measures the level of efficiency of different cleaning materials
on gouache and oil paint samples.
The classification and description of the components of the materials in the research by
M.Daudin Schotte has been used for this study because that information is not usually
provided by manufacturers in the product labelling. Some of those dry cleaning
materials will be applied to monochromatic, unvarnished samples painted using the four
different techniques (acrylics, alkyd paint, gouache and oils). The changes in the paint
surface and the presence of residues with non-invasive methods will then be analysed,
most notably the use of RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging), an emerging
technique in the recording of paintings.
RTI is a computer-based photographic recording system that allows users to capture the
shape, texture and colour of an object's surface from different vantage points. As such, it
has become a useful tool for documenting cultural goods, thanks the wealth of
information that the texture of a cultural good can provide, though this new technology
has yet to be used to record the stages in a restoration procedure.
The captured images are similar to those of a photograph, except that they do not come
from a single capture, instead from several taken at the same distance from different
vantage points, thus providing each pixel in the photograph with information as to the
surface's capacity for reflecting light and making this kind of image look as though one
were looking directly at the object.

METHODOLOGY
Monochrome samples were created using different painting techniques (acrylics, alkyds,
gouache and oils), which will then be soiled and analysed using non-invasive analysis
techniques (photographs with a Nikon 5100 camera, Leica DM 750 microscope, RTI
and Multi Gloss 286 glossmeter). They will be cleaned using compact, malleable and
powder erasers and then re-analysed using the same techniques to determine the
effectiveness of the treatment, any morphological changes of the surface, the presence
 www.sgemsocial.org 24.Section
Contemporary Art

of residues and any variation in gloss that might affect the reading of the unvarnished
colour scheme.
Cleaning procedure and materials used during treatment
Each set of samples was cleaned with six different erasers, the cleaning done manually
at medium pressure by performing a uniform zigzagging motion. The cleaning materials
used in this work have been based on studies carried out by the Cultural Heritage
Agency of the Netherlands (RCE). The erasers used were:

Compact erasers
 Magic Rub® 1954: This is a sturdy eraser made of PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
the composition of which is phthalate plasticizer and calcium carbonate. In
some cases, they contain chalk as an abrasive.
 Bic Galet®: A more flexible eraser than the Magic Rub 1954, made up of
vulcanized vegetable oil (factis).
Powder erasers
 Cleaning cushion Milan gum eraser®: Cotton pouch with 120 g of fine
synthetic rubber powder inside.
 Akapad White®: Commonly known as Wishab®, this is a sponge eraser
filled with vulcanized latex with a neutral pH.
Sponges
 Smoke sponge distributor Stem®: This is a composite of vulcanized natural
rubber and a small amount of natural soap.
Malleable material
 Groom Stick distributor Stem®: This is a natural eraser made of rubber. It is
sticky and malleable, and adapts to the morphology of various surfaces.

RESULTS: RECORDING USING NON-INVASIVE TECHNIQUES AFTER THE

CLEANING PROCESS.

1. Results after cleaning the experimental models when studied using the
photographic record
A good level of cleaning and an equally good increase in gloss can be observed for all
the samples treated with the Bic Galet®and Magic Rub®. The oil samples, on the other
hand, do not show a good level of cleaning since small dust particles embedded in the
surface are observed.
The samples to which the Groom Stick® was applied show a good level of general
cleaning and some difficulties in removing localized and persistent dirt. No changes in
gloss can be seen and it was not possible to determine the presence of residues. The
samples treated with a smoke sponge show effectiveness in terms of general cleaning,
with difficulties in eliminating localized dirt. No changes in gloss or surface residues
were observed.
4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM 2017

The Akapad® white and Milan® cleaning cushion were effective at cleaning, with no
change in the gloss and in this case, surface residues were indeed detected.
The erasers have similar results in all the samples, with the Bic Galet® and Magic
Rub® being the ones producing the greatest variations in gloss upon inspection with the
naked eye. In second place would come the Smoke sponge, which left a ring of gloss
that was less noticeable than with those erasers, and very good results in the samples
with glossy finishes like the alkyd paint and oils. The Groom Stick®, Akapad ®White
and Milan Cleaning cushion® did not affect the gloss of the samples at first glance.

2. Results after cleaning the experimental models when studied under the optical
microscope.
It was observed that all samples have good levels of cleaning and that the greatest
efficiency in this action was determined by the type of dirt, surface morphology and
cleaning technique. The samples with localized dirt and a rugged surface, as in the case
of gouache, show lower levels of cleaning than those with smooth surfaces, as in the
case of acrylic paint samples. The oil samples show dust embedded in the paint surface.
As far as residues are concerned, the erasers that left behind the most dust particles on
the surfaces were those applied as powders (Akapad® and the Milan ® cleaning
cushion), followed by the Bic Galet® and Magic Rub® compact erasers, the Smoke
Sponge® left little residue and the Groom Stick® left no residue seen in this study,
however since it is a sticky material, it must deposit a small amount onto the paint
surfaces.

3. Results after cleaning the experimental models when studied using RTI
(Reflectance Transformation Imaging)
RTI makes it possible to observe changes in the topography of the samples (abrasions,
erosion, polishing and marks produced by the erasers when acting upon paint surfaces).
It is also possible to observe the amount of residue, its morphology and exact position in
the texture of the brushstroke.

3.1 Problems of abrasion, erosion and polishing in the samples depending on the
cleaning material used
With the exception of the Groom Stick®, all the erasers have been found to affect the
surfaces. The mechanical action of the cleaning treatment causes heating due to the
rubbing of the topography and the constant interrelation between the abrasive action,
which erodes and polishes the surfaces (Fig. 1 and 2).
 www.sgemsocial.org 24.Section
Contemporary Art

Fig. 1 RTI gouache prior to cleaning. Fig. 2 RTI of gouache treated with Milan ®
Cleaning cushion.
As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 showing the Milan® Cleaning cushion being used,
the treated surface has been eroded and appears to have "smoothed down" the brush
strokes.
Marks produced by cleaning materials on the paint surface
On all the samples treated with the Bic Galet® and Magic Rub® compact erasers, there
are small, shallow and almost imperceptible marks scattered around on the paint
surfaces (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 RTI with specular light of the gouache-painted sample cleaned using the Bic
Galet®
3.2 Analysis of the presence of residues on the paint surface after cleaning
The study of the presence of residues was carried out using a microscope and RTI, and
it is possible to conclude that the eraser that does not show any visible residues on the
surfaces is the malleable Groom Stick® material, and the ones that homogeneously and
generally leave the most residues on the surfaces are the Milan® and Akapad® white.
Followed by those to an intermediate degree, the Bic Galet® and Magic Rub ® compact
erasers, which leave behind residues but not excessively or uncontrollably. And last
comes the Smoke sponge which sheds off a moderate amount of isolated residues.
Regarding the type and time of extraction of the residues, these factors are important to
bear in mind with regard to the quantitative presence of these particles on a surface.
The texture of a layer of paint is also an element that interferes with the retention of
residues--the more rugged and / or porous the topography, the greater the possibilities of
having residue embed itself and produce chemical damage.
4. Results after cleaning the experimental models when studied using the
glossmeter.
Lastly, the gloss of each sample is measured again after the cleaning treatment. It has
been possible to determine that in all the samples, gloss increases as compared to the
control zone, though not all these variations are of the same magnitude nor are they
equally perceptible to the naked eye.
4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM 2017

4.1 Variations in gloss in the samples after the cleaning treatment

As can be seen in the graph, the data from the glossmeter is useful since it shows
variations in imperceptible gloss level. Nevertheless, the data will always be contrasted
with what can be perceived empirically, since in the samples the only surfaces that
generated visual changes were those treated with the Bic Galet® and Magic Rub®
erasers. At a much lower level of change comes the material Smoke sponge, which
produces changes that are almost imperceptible to the naked eye.

Promedio del incremento de valor del brillo producido por cada borrador
15

10
Promedio del brillo de
5
cada borrador
0
Bic Galet Magic Groom Milan Akapad E.de
Rub Stik humo

Graph 1 Average effect of each eraser on the samples.

STUDY OF THE EFFICACY OF CLEANING ON DIFFERENT PAINTING

TECHNIQUES
Cleaning efficiency can be determined by taking into account all the points previously
developed, i.e. abrasion, erosion and polishing of each eraser on the samples, surface
marks, variations in gloss and presence of residues.
A system for evaluation has been established by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the
Netherlands, which uses diagrams to indicate the cleaning effectiveness and
functionality of each eraser for the purpose of assessing the cleaning power of the
materials, the topography integrity of the paint surface (abrasion, erosion, polishing and
marks), gloss variation, presence of residues on the surface and level of precaution
when applying each eraser, graded on a scale of 0 to 10.

Fig.5 Graph for the Milan® eraser

Fig.4 Graph for the Bic Galet® eraser
 www.sgemsocial.org 24.Section
Contemporary Art

Fig.6 Graph for the Groom Stick® Fig.7 Graph for the Magic Rub® eraser
eraser

Fig.8 Graph for the Akapad® eraser Fig.9 Graph for the Smoke sponge eraser.

CONCLUSIONS
The presence of residues on a paint surface can be determined by the type of eraser
applied, by the type of extraction and time spent in removing the residues from a
topography, and by the texture of the paint surface, which can facilitate particles of
cleaning material getting embedded into it.
Abrasion, polishing and incisions are determined by the type of eraser used, the pressure
and movement exerted onto a surface and by the painting technique, since some paints
have less plastic underbinding and are more susceptible to abrasion, as in the case of the
gouache samples.
The most abrasive materials are the Magic Rub® and Bic Galet®. The first is a little
more abrasive since it is made of PVC. The least abrasive eraser is the Groom Stick.
The erasers that alter the gloss seen to the naked eye are the Bic Galet® and Magic
Rub®. The Smoke sponge changes it slightly.
When measuring the cleaning effectiveness (cleaning level, presence of residues,
morphological changes, variations in gloss and level of precaution during application)
of contemporary paints, it has been determined that the Bic Galet® and Magic Rub®
are probably not recommended as they are highly abrasive materials and vary the gloss
seen by the naked eye.
The remaining erasers might be adequate for cleaning contemporary artwork after an
evaluation process that must consider, in addition to the criteria of cleaning
4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM 2017

effectiveness, the morphological characteristics of the paint layer, technique, type of

dirt, paint stability and exhibition system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is part of a research project financed by the Office of the Secretary-
General for Research, Development and Innovation, within Spain’s Ministry for
Economy and Finance (HAR2013-41010-P).

REFERENCES
[1] CULTURAL HERITAGE IMAGING. Publications.
http://culturalheritageimaging.org/What_We_Do/Publications/. [Consulta: 4 de junio de
2016].
[2] CULTURAL HERITAGE IMAGING. RTI.
http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI/ [Consulta: 4 de junio de 2016].
[3] CLAVÍN TACÓN, J., La restauración en libros y documentos. Técnicas de
intervención, Madrid: Ollero & Ramos S.L., 2009.
[4] DAUDIN-SCHOTTE, M., VAN KEULEN. H, VAN DEN BERG.K.J., Analisys and
application of dry cleaning materials on unvarnished paints surfaces RCE Project from
2006 to 2009, Italia: il prato, 2014.
[5] DAUDIN-SHOTTE, M., Dry Cleaning Approaches for Unvarnished Paint Surfaces.
Proceedings from Cleaning 2010, New Insights into the cleaning of painting
International Conference Universidad Politécnica de Valencia and Museum
Conservation Institute, Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, 2010.
[6] LEARNER.T., Modern Paints: Uncovering the Choice en Modern Paints Uncovered
Symposium. Getty Conservation Institute. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute,
p.3-16, 2006.
[7] MILAN. Catálogo de productos Milán.
https://issuu.com/milan_erasers/docs/milan_general_catalogue_2016/4?e=4282515/330
92355. [Consulta: 4 de abril de 2016].