The preventive conservation of antiques

 

Old things, just like old people, need looking after if they are to survive. Objects that have lasted for centuries may not last much longer if they are not treated with care and respect and protected from the threats that can cause damage.

The following factors are important elements in what can be called “preventive conservation”. Not every factor applies equally to every type of antique, but, for a general collector, they all have a role to play.

Relative Humidity

This is a major factor that hastens decay and deterioration in all sorts of materials, whether in a compost heap or a museum. Relative humidity refers to the wetness or dryness of the air surrounding an object, there being a safe range within which deterioration is halted or slowed. Some items are very sensitive to humidity, such as books that can show “foxing” or brown marks when exposed to damp, or wooden items that can disintegrate if allowed to get too dry.

A hygrometer can be used to measure relative humidity, and the values adjusted by changing the temperature or by using a humidifier or dehumidifier to add or remove moisture from the atmosphere in which the antique items are kept. As well as the actual value of the relative humidity, sudden change is another destructive factor, so any such adjustments should be made with care.

In museums, relative humidity can be controlled item by item, if each is enclosed in its own glass cabinet. However, this is not so easy to achieve in the home, so it might be desirable to keep antiques that require different relative humidities in separate rooms.

Water

Direct contact with water can come about as the result of flooding, which would have most relevance to furniture items. If there is a risk of flooding to a room, such as in a house near a river, for example, valuable items can sometimes be mounted on blocks that would keep them raised above likely flood levels. Alternatively, keeping such items in upstairs rooms might be advisable.

Another problem is spillage on wooden furniture, resulting in bloom or ring marking. Prevention is definitely better than cure in such cases, so placing flower vases on top of valuable pieces, for example, is to be avoided.

If water is to be used when cleaning an item, it is best to test the effects in an inconspicuous area before proceeding further, because water can dissolve adhesives, dyes, paints, etc.

Light

Excessive light can damage antique items, such as furniture or paintings, by causing fading or colour changes. It can also lead to deterioration in fabric items such as clothing, tapestries or book bindings. The damage is caused by the brightness or intensity of the light, such as through south-facing windows (in the Northern Hemisphere) and also by ultraviolet light, which cannot be seen but is just as destructive.

A lux meter can be used to measure the absolute amount of light entering a room, with this being controlled by the use of filters, dimmers, and so on. The positioning of light sources in a room is also important, so that bright light does not fall directly on to the objects. Ultraviolet light can be controlled by avoiding the use of fluorescent lighting, although sunlight also has a high UV content.

Insects and mould

Organic materials are excellent insect food and also for the growth of moulds, if the conditions are right. Moths do not damage fabrics, but their larvae do. Likewise, the larvae of the furniture beetle, commonly known as woodworm, make no distinction between floorboards and valuable pieces of Chippendale. Other pests include the carpet beetle and fur beetle and, in some parts of the world, termites.

Getting the relative humidity right, and making sure that ventilation is adequate, should prevent moulds and fungal growths forming. If there is a problem, the important thing is to dry out the atmosphere gradually and increase the level of ventilation. Fungicides should be used with care.

Insecticides should be used with great care, as they can also cause damage to the items you are trying to protect. It is better to examine objects carefully and regularly for signs of attack and deal with small problems rather than large ones.

Heat

As well as its role in relative humidity, mentioned above, excessive heat or cold can have a direct impact on antique objects, and should be avoided. For example, resins and waxes can melt, and paint can blister.

Dust and pollution

Keeping antiques dust free is not only important aesthetically but also in terms of preventing deterioration, because dust can attract moisture and chemical pollutants such as sulphides that tarnish silver and also form sulphuric acid. Dust can also act as an abrasive that weakens textile fibres.

The use of dust sheets and plastic coverings can prevent dust from reaching valuable objects, although this makes it less easy to appreciate the beauty of one’s antiques! Acid-free tissues can be used to advantage when cleaning.

Abrasion and over-cleaning

Despite the above note about the value of keeping items dust-free, it is also possible to overdo the cleaning and polishing of antique items. For example, the value of a piece of silver will be greatly reduced if the hallmarks are rendered unreadable by over-zealous polishing, and the loss of fine detail will in any case detract from the appeal of the item as a whole.

The use of abrasive cleaning materials can cause scratching, and, for many antique items, the patina of dirt acquired over centuries is part of their attractiveness and should not be removed.

Cleaning must therefore be done with great care, only using mild cleaning agents and gentle pressure. The whole point of owning an antique object is that it does NOT look like new!

Handling and storage

The more that fragile items such as glass or porcelain are moved or handled, the greater their chance or being dropped. Excessive handling can also cause finger-marks which could in turn attract mould. The leather bindings of books can be damaged when pulled from a shelf, and ancient manuscripts should only be touched when wearing soft gloves.

Likewise, an antique’s safety may depend on how secure the surface is on which it is displayed. The top of a wobbly bookcase is probably not the best place for your priceless Ming vase!

Items in storage are also not safe from deterioration if the conditions of storage are incorrect. For example, an attic is quite likely to suffer from extremes of heat and cold or to be damp. Materials in which items are wrapped can also have an adverse effect, as such things as newspaper or foam rubber can release harmful chemicals when they deteriorate.

With all these factors to bear in mind, it sounds as though collecting antiques is an activity that is fraught with peril! However, the responsible collector appreciates that he or she holds these items on trust for future generations, and has a duty to posterity to ensure that they are preserved as carefully as possible.

That said, the above precautions should not be too arduous to take, and, as said earlier, not every hazard applies to every type of antique. It does, however, behove the collector to be aware of the threats that apply to the objects he or she wishes to collect, and to act accordingly.

© John Welford

St Roch: a legend featured in many works of art

 

The legend of St Roch begins in Montpellier (on the south coast of France) in the late 13^th century with the birth of a boy bearing a cross-shaped birthmark on his left shoulder, this marking him out as being blessed by God.

As a young man he set off on pilgrimage to Rome, with his dog, but on his journey he came to a town in Italy that was stricken by plague. He found that he had the gift of healing but also became a victim of the disease himself. However, when wandering outside the town he was found by a dog that took care of him, bringing him bread every day and healing him by licking his wounds.

When he got home to Montpellier he was not recognised by his friends and family because of the ravages of the disease, and was thrown into prison for being an imposter. When he died, still in prison, a tablet of stone was found in his cell on which was a statement to the effect that anyone who prayed for his soul would be protected against the plague.

At a later date, Roch’s remains were stolen and taken to Venice, where they lie today in the church of San Rocco.

St Roch is the patron saint of dogs, invalids, bachelors and much else besides. In recent years AIDS has been added to his portfolio. His feast day is 16^th August.

As a subject for art, St Roch is usually shown in the company of a dog, sometimes with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he is showing somebody the mark he bears of the plague, namely a bubo on his upper thigh. At a time when bubonic plague was rampant in Europe, these images were very significant to people of all classes, because the plague spared no-one. Pictures and statues of a saint who had cured others of the disease, and survived it himself, were therefore a cause of hope.

However, it has been remarked that several artists overplayed their hand somewhat by giving Roch not only the buboes of bubonic plague but also the leg rashes and bumps that are associated with septicaemic plague, from which recovery was exceptionally rare.

Another typical feature of artworks featuring St Roch is the pilgrim’s staff he carries, this being a reminder that Roch was on a pilgrimage when his encounter with the plague took place.

However, one aspect of the legend that is not represented in art is the facial disfigurement that caused him not to be recognised. The Roch we are shown is generally smooth-skinned and, one would assume, instantly recognisable to anyone who had known him only a few months previously. It would seem that saints can be crippled or otherwise handicapped, but, if young, must never be ugly.

A typical painting is that by Parmigianino (Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola, 1503-1540), which shows St Roch, accompanied by dog and bubo, healing a sufferer.

Tinteretto (Jacopo Robusti, 1518-1594) had a particular association with St Roch, because he was commissioned to decorate the church of San Rocco in Venice and also the neighbouring Scuola (Brotherhood) di San Rocco, a building dedicated to caring for plague victims.

For the latter, the four leading painters in the city were invited to compete for the honour of painting the round centerpiece of the main ceiling, by producing designs which would then be considered by the Brotherhood’s committee before the winner was given the commission. While the other three painters went away to work on their designs, Tintoretto measured the space in question, painted a canvas in double-quick time, and stuck the result in place. Naturally, the other artists were furious, and the head of the Brotherhood angrily enquired why Tintoretto had broken the rules. All he could reply was that that was how he worked. If the Brotherhood were not happy, he would make a free gift of the painting. As the Brotherhood’s policy was never to reject a gift, they had no choice but to accept, and so Tintoretto’s “San Rocco received into Heaven” (otherwise titled “The apotheosis of St Roch” - see illustration above)) is there to this day.

Tintoretto also painted, for the church of San Rocco, “St Roch presented to the Pope”, “St Roch taken to prison”, “St Roch curing the plague victims”, “St Roch comforted by an angel”, “St Roch in solitude” and “St Roch healing the animals”.

St Roch is sometimes shown alongside other figures such as the Madonna and Child, as he is begging for their help on behalf of plague victims. An early example is by Giorgione (1470-1510), which also incorporates an image of St Anthony, and there is a much later one by Jacques Louis David (1748-1825), who is normally associated with depictions of classical subjects and the glories of the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte.

In David’s “St Roch and the Virgin” he is shown as the intercessor between the plague victims at the foot of the rock on which the Virgin sits, and the Madonna and Child. Although Roch is shown with the pilgrim clothes and staff, and the dog’s head can just be seen, we are spared the bubo this time.

Many other artists have portrayed St Roch in various guises, a short list of these artists being: Giuseppe Angeli, Carlo Crivelli, Giambattista Pittoni, Bernardo Strozzi, Bartolomeo Vivarini and Girolamo Pellegrini.

Portrayals of saints and miracles have gone out of fashion over recent centuries, although images of suffering have not. With the addition of AIDS to St Roch’s list of responsibilities, perhaps it is time for a modern artist to revive the tradition and produce a modern take on an old legend.

© John Welford

Sergei Korolev and Sputnik

 

Sputnik 1 was launched on 4th October 1957, thus giving the Soviet Union the lead in the superpower space race. This achievement was primarily due to the drive and genius of one man – Sergei Korolev, the scientist who masterminded the top-secret space programme.

Born in 1906, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was the chief engineer at Russia’s Jet Propulsion Research Institute in the mid-1930s. However, in 1938 he became a victim of Stalin’s purges and was tortured and sent to the eastern Siberian gulag, where he worked in a gold mine and suffered from scurvy. He also suffered a heart attack during his time there.

Released in 1944, he was appointed head of the secret Soviet space programme. It was his idea to launch a satellite that was heavier than anything the Americans could have considered launching at that time. It was a relatively simple craft, comprising a metal sphere containing a radio transmitter and  batteries. For three weeks it orbited Planet Earth sending out a simple beep that was designed to be heard by every territory over which it passed and which chose to tune in, with the United States being the chief intended target.

After the batteries ran out, Sputnik ran in silent mode until 4 January 1958, when it re-entered Earth’s atmosphere and burned up. By this time it had completed 1440 orbits and travelled some 43 million miles.

On 3 November 1957 Sputnik 2 was launched. This was a larger satellite, particularly notable for carrying a dog into space. Named Laika, the three year old female mongrel had been picked off the streets of Moscow to become the first living creature to leave Earth’s atmosphere. There was never any possibility that she would return to Earth, but she actually died sooner than expected when a system aboard Sputnik failed and the capsule overheated.

Korolev continued to have many successes with Soviet space missions, each one having the desired effect of catching the United States by surprise. He designed the Vostock spacecraft that launched Yuri Gargarin into space on 12th April 1961 and brought him back safely. In 1963 Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space, and two years later the first two-man crew was able to complete the first spacewalk.

The United States could only play catch-up with the Soviet Union at this time, but all that changed after 1966, when Korolev died. He had suffered poor health for many years as a result of his earlier ill-treatment in the gulag, and he died on the operating table during colon surgery.

Korolev had always been a magnetic personality who was able to control a highly complicated enterprise, but without him everything became embroiled in politics and bureaucracy. The Soviet space programme thus came to a virtual halt while the Americans went from strength to strength, culminating in the Apollo moon missions that landed a man on the moon in 1969.

© John Welford

Virginia Satir's five family roles

 

A healthy family life involves open and shared displays of affection and expressions of positive regard and love for one another. Compassionate, nurturing relationships play vital roles in developing well-adjusted psyches.

This was emphasised by the American psychologist Virginia Satir (1916-1988). Born to a farming family in Wisconsin, the fact that her father was an alcoholic gave her a strong awareness, from her childhood onwards, of the dynamics of caretaking, blaming and pleasing that were involved in family development, especially in families under stress. Originally trained as a teacher, Satir took a master’s degree in social work and developed the first formal family therapy training programme in the USA, which became known as the Satir Model.

When family members lack the ability to openly express emotion and affection, Satir suggested that personality roles tend to emerge in place of authentic identities. She noted five commonly played roles that individual family members are likely to adopt, especially in times of stress.

These are:

The blamer - he or she constantly finds fault and criticises other family members. They do this to hide their own feelings of unworthiness.

The computer - he or she is cold and unemotional, showing no affection. They use their intellect to stop them acknowledging their feelings.

The distractor - the person who stirs things up in order to shift the focus away from emotional issues. They believe that they will only be loved if they are seen as likeable and harmless.

The placator - the apologetic people-pleaser who is afraid of disapproval.

The leveller - the person who is an open, honest and direct communicator. Levellers maintain a healthy position and their inner feelings match their communications with other family members.

When family members adopt these roles, the family may continue to function, but at the expense of each individual’s authenticity. Satir maintained that it was important to accept one’s own self-worth as the means of casting aside a false identity. She believed that love and acceptance are the most potent healing forces for any dysfunctional family.

© John Welford

St Basil's Cathedral, Moscow

 

St Basil’s Cathedral has to be the most recognisable church in the whole of Russia, being a focal point of Moscow’s Red Square. It ceased being a place of worship after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became a museum, but masses have been permitted to be held in the cathedral since 1991.

The cathedral is officially the Cathedral of the Intercession of the Mother of God, although the dedication to St Basil relates to a holy man who prophesied the Great Fire of Moscow in 1547.

The cathedral was built by Ivan IV (the Terrible) to commemorate his victory over the Tatars in October 1552. There is a legend to the effect that, after the building was complete, Ivan lived up to his name by having the architect blinded so that he would no longer be able to create anything to compare with it. However, given that the same man is recorded as having designed and erected many buildings in other towns after that time, the truth of the story has to be in doubt.

The cathedral has nine main domes, each with a different coloration and shape. The domes are supposedly a reference to the turbans of the Muslim princes defeated by Ivan during his reign. Unlike many Russian churches, St Basil’s is not painted on the outside but has retained a simple redbrick exterior.

The four octagonal towers surrounding the main church indicate the four cardinal points of the compass. Four further square towers standing at the diagonals between these complete the star-shaped layout. Four and eight were considered sacred numbers in the Middle Ages – there were four elements and eight was a somewhat obscure reference to Christ’s Resurrection and the Last Judgement.

The star forward by the architectural elements, connecting earth and sky, points towards the Holy Land and there is a small chapel at each of the eight corners, each commemorating one of Ivan’s battles.

© John Welford

Les Desmoiselles d’Avignon, by Pablo Picasso

 

Les Desmoiselles d’Avignon, by the Spanish painter and sculptor Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), is generally regarded as a cornerstone in the history of art and the seminal work of Cubism.

The oil on canvas painting, which measures 8 feet by 7 ft 8 ins (244 x 235 cm), dates from 1907 and was first exhibited at Bateau-Lavoir, a celebrated avant-garde studio in Paris. It was not shown in public until 1916. It can now be seen at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

The title was given to the painting by Andre Salmon, a contemporary art critic, and refers to “Avignon” as a street in Barcelona that was the location of a well-known brothel.

The painting is of five prostitutes (the “demoiselles”), although Picasso originally intended to include two male figures, namely a sailor and a medical student holding a skull. The violently jagged bodies of the five women face the viewer head-on, two of them pushing aside curtains and the others in erotic poses.

The painting is remarkable for several reasons. For example, Picasso flouts two of the conventions by which a painter creates an illusion of reality, namely shading to convey mass and perspective to give space. Where there is a shading, it contradicts itself and refuses to convey any three-dimensional effect, and there is no use of traditional perspective. The fragmented figures are what make this painting the foundation stone of Cubism.

The painting combines completely different styles within the same image. The three faces to the left are modelled on ancient Iberian sculptures, whereas the other two come from African tribal masks.

Les Desmoiselles d’Avignon marks a transitional phase in the evolution of Picasso’s art, towards the complex geometries of full Cubism.

Picasso was arguably the single most influential artist of the 20^th century, playing a major role in its artistic development. Even those artists not directly influenced by his work could not avoid its many implications.

© John Welford

Trying to Better Michael

 

If Michael Young hadn’t started it, there is every possibility that I wouldn’t have done it. But he did, so I followed his lead.

It all began over coffee in the cafeteria at the College of Librarianship Wales, which is on a windy hillside just outside Aberystwyth. This was in 1975, when we were both doing our postgrad diplomas and were two members of a little group of friends who had got together soon after the course started.

Michael told us that we should all listen to Radio 4 that evening at a particular time. This we did, and were astonished to hear Michael’s voice as he appeared as a contestant on the long-running quiz Brain of Britain. The recording had been made shortly before we started the course and Michael had said nothing about it until the day that his particular round was broadcast.

He scored seven points on the quiz, which was not enough to get him through to the next round, but we were all very impressed that he had at least got as far as being selected to take part. As I listened to the programme it struck me that there were several questions that Michael got wrong that I would have got right, and admittedly there were some answers that he knew but I did not. Even so, on balance I reckoned that I could have done better than he did.

The idea of applying to take part myself was one that lingered in the back of my mind for some time afterwards, but it was not until about three years later, when I was working at a college library in Bognor Regis, West Sussex, that I actually did so. I wrote to the BBC and had a reply inviting me to an audition.

This took place at Broadcasting House, or rather in one of the buildings to one side that were later demolished to make room for the modern extension to the BBC’s classic HQ. The audition took the form of a one-to-one general knowledge quiz. I was told that there was a magic pass mark that would guarantee me a place on Brain of Britain, but I was not told what this was.

Things got off to a reasonable start, such as identifying which country had a flag consisting of red, gold and green horizontal stripes with a black star at the centre. I had cause to be thankful that my family had fostered a boy from Ghana for four years during my childhood, because that was the flag in question!

It struck me that the person asking the questions was going out of her way to be helpful, without actually telling me the answers. I was asked which French department had Nice as its capital. I said I didn’t know, but she suggested that I might be able to work it out.

“OK”, I said. “Nice is close to the Alps, and it’s by the sea, so how about Alpes-Maritime?” Honestly, I just made that up on the spot, but it turned out to be the right answer! I had a funny feeling that I could not expect such generosity on the quiz itself, were I to get that far.

The next thing to happen, a week or so later, was that a letter arrived at my home in Bognor Regis to say that I had been accepted for the London and South-East first round heat, to be held at a date a month or so later. The letter included three tickets for family members, should they wish to attend.

The event took place at the BBC Radio Theatre on Haymarket. Two quizzes are recorded on the same day, so eight competitors turned up. We were given the usual BBC welcome of a cup of tea and a plate of sandwiches and the redoubtable Robert Robinson introduced himself to each of us in turn. He was very good at putting everyone at their ease and made it clear that it was the general policy that everyone’s first question was an easy one so that we were virtually guaranteed a point apiece after Round One.

My appearance was on the second quiz of the evening, so my colleagues and I had front row seats during the first quiz. The questions were the usual mixture of easy and difficult, so I had no real reason to fear what would come my way when it was our turn.

The first quiz ended, the name plates were changed, and we took our places on the stage. The music played, Robert Robinson announced our names, and we were off.

The way Brain of Britain works is that each competitor is asked up to five questions in their turn. If you get the first one right you are asked a second, and so on. Get all five correct and you are awarded an extra bonus point. When someone makes a mistake the other competitors can buzz in and hope to gain a bonus point by getting it right. I was fourth in line and was just too late to pick up bonuses when two of the others failed to answer correctly. I soon realized that it paid to buzz in as soon as you knew that an answer was wrong and not wait for Mr Robinson to say that it was.

Then it came to my turn. What would my easy first question be?

“Which European capital city is served by Kastrup Airport?”

What? That was supposed to be easy? I hadn’t a clue! I guessed at Budapest, which was wrong. I was relieved that nobody else knew either, so it wasn’t as though I was woefully ignorant about something that was common knowledge. The answer was Copenhagen – a fact that I have never forgotten since!

People say that taking part in radio or TV quizzes is much more difficult than answering them at home, due to the pressure of the situation. However, I didn’t find that to be true. I didn’t fluff any questions to which I should really have known the answer or which led me to kick myself afterwards for having known the right answer but been unable to give it at the time.

It did not go well. I was never able to get more than one correct answer in my turn and most of my points came from bonuses earned when other competitors went wrong. Just like Michael Young, I went no further in the competition, although the modest cheques that later arrived in the post were very welcome. These were for the original appearance fee, another one for the repeat broadcast and a third one courtesy of World Service.

However, there was one other thing worth celebrating. I had managed to score eight points, which was one more than Michael Young!

© John Welford