Posted by John Fiorillo on August 15, 2000 at 04:37:01:
In Reply to: Another point of view... posted by Marc Kahn on August 14, 2000 at 22:37:41:
Marc,
Well, we have a tempest in a teapot this time, don't we?
It does little good for persons on both sides of this issue to accuse the other of bad intentions. I think it misguided to suggest that restorers are motivated by protectionist attitudes and thus attempt to scare unwitting amateurs into bringing their prints into conservator shops to pay high prices for repairs. The restorers I know are reputable professionals who would never behave in such an underhanded manner. They work by certain principles for the guardianship of prints and they abide by them. Besides, the good ones are so busy they certainly do not need to drum up business via scare tactics. I often have to wait 60-90 days before I can even get an estimate for what is possible in repair and its cost, as they are so busy with the prints owned by museums, dealers, and collectors that they take my occasional print only as a courtesy because they know me. If you have personally had some bad experiences with restorers, then I sympathize, but please do not toss around blanket accusations.
I agree with you about the value of information and the usefulness of the internet to provide some of it, but I emphasize here that the information on the internet is usually incomplete. Knowing too little can sometimes be as dangerous as knowing nothing at all. As for restorers refusing to provide information to amateurs, I have asked questions of experts about various restoration issues and they have answered them quite willingly. One art restorer I know even conducts free workshops to demonstrate and explain some of the techniques. In addition, if one really wants to know the technicalities of art restoration, there is information in professional conservation journals and books. Being well-informed is, of course, essential, but having information is not equivalent to knowing how to use it wisely, safely, and effectively. One must train the body to work in tandem with the mind, as well as make perceptive judgments, use intuition, and react to the unexpected, and such readiness comes only through extensive experience.
By the way, you mention that you used distilled water to dissolve the glue. Perhaps you should read Curatorial Care of Works of Art on paper (Anne F. Clapp, Nick Lyons Books, 1987), who writes on page 85 with respect to counteracting additives in tap water such as trace minerals or chlorine: "To counteract such additives, the conservator, under the belief that water that was cleansed as much as possible would be best for his paper objects, began to use distilled or deionized water. Then it was found that paper treated in distilled or deionized water was, after artificial aging, weaker than paper treated in tap water. This finding led to the realization that distilling and deionizing removed not only injurious ions but beneficial ones as well. Now many conservators still use distilled or deionized water, at least for final washings, but compensate for the loss of good ions by introducing small amounts of calcium or magnesium carbonate." Thus distilled water alone is not recommended.
Anders' comments might have been expressed more politely, but I agree with his basic premise: amateurs should not attempt to restore their own prints. When I read Andreas Grund's detailed description on the Shin Hanga site about cleaning Shin hanga, I worried, not because his intentions were bad or even because the basic information wasn't generally accurate, but because it would tempt the unprepared to use the do-it-yourself approach, which as Anders pointed out, results all too often in disaster. I hope I am not being dogmatic here. I understand your point about the monetary value of a print and the cost to repair it. I, too, would not (or almost never) pay $200 to repair a $100 print. But where do we draw the price-line? Do-it-yourself on a less than $300 print? Less than $500? Less than $1,000? What if today's $100 print is the $10,000 print of tomorrow? Kuniyoshi's sold for very little 40 years ago, and Yoshitoshi's 30 years ago. Jacoulet's once sold for $25 or less. Even Sharaku's were the equivalent of only some hundreds of dollars a century ago. Should we have tossed them in a water bath because they were not worth enough at the time we happened to own them?
I also worry that with the avalanche of information on the internet the unwise among us might go too far with information they understand too little. Yes, by all means, disseminate the information, but post cautions when needed!
John