A Work of Art Isn’t Always
What It Appears to Be
by Elizabeth Kendall
Parma Conservation, Ltd
Over time a painting undergoes many
changes; the varnish may darken and
yellow, the paint may begin to flake,
there may be buckling or bulges, there
could be holes, tears or paint loss, or
maybe simply a grimy, dirty surface on
the paint layer.
The reasons for changes in a painting are
endless; fluctuations in temperature and
humidity, accidental damage, poor
storage, flood or fire damage, insect
infestations, mold colonies, exposure to
direct sunlight, etc. The biggest culprit to
change, damage and deterioration in a
painting, however, is human negligence.
Well meaning, but unprofessional
cleaning or restoration is one example.
Invasive methods and materials, such as
overpainting, inappropriate coatings, non-
reversible linings, and excessive flattening
are all familiar examples of what a painting
should not undergo.
In the history of painting restoration, one
centuries-old practice was to re-work a
painting in order to make it fit into the
framework of a particular time period.
The featured painting is such an
example. When first brought to the
laboratory, it seemed to be a typical late 19th century Victorian portrait.Sideburns
on a man’s face were common to the
period, as was the dark, discolored varnish, and the weave of the retro
canvas.
Upon closer examination, however, a
very different scenario emerged. It was
found that the painting had been “lined” with an old canvas
that was not original
to the piece. Through the meticulous
removal of this lining, the original canvas
was uncovered, and found to be 100
years older.
Even more revealing was the precise
examination of the paint and varnish
layers. With the aid of a microscope and
ultraviolet light, the presence of
“overpaint” on the man’s face became
very evident. Overpaint is a term we use
to describe unoriginal paint. Solubility
testing also confirmed two distinct and
grossly discolored layers of varnish.
Using low polarity gels and precise
timing, the topmost varnish was
removed, one thin layer at a time.
With the original varnish still intact, it
became clear that the sideburns were
painted on top of the original varnish,
meaning that they were not original to the painting.
The overpaint was carefully removed and
what lay beneath proved to be far more
valuable, clearly not from the Victorian
Era. It was then decided to remove the
original varnish, as it too was discolored
(being a natural resin) and had greatly
obscured the details in the painting.
In the end, proper conservation had
revealed the truth, not a 19th century
Victorian portrait, but an exceptionally
beautiful 18th century portrait from the
English Colonial Era, attributed to the
School of Gilbert Stuart. 
Elizabeth Kendall,
Director and Chief Conservator