Delaminating paint films at the end of 1950s:

a case study on Pierre Soulages

Pauline Helou-de La Grandière, Anne-Solenn Le Hô and François Mirambet

ABSTRACT This paper discusses a particular phenomenon observed in some paintings by Pierre Soulages where the paint
layer is separating from the ground layer. As revealed by a survey, severe delamination between the ground and paint layers
is often observed in paintings by Soulages dated to 1959. This problem appears to be due to drying defects resulting from the
artist’s choice of materials for both ground and paint, but it also seems to be related to the supplier of the ground, Lefebvre-
Foinet. Analyses revealed the presence of lead carboxylates in the ground of paintings with delamination, with an unexpected
needle-like shape.

KEYWORDS Pierre Soulages, Lefebvre-Foinet, ground layer/priming, thick oil paint, painting techniques,
artists’ materials, lead white, delamination, cleavage, metal soap, lead carboxylate

Introduction Six months later, the conservation of Soulages’ Peinture, 114

During 2004, Peinture, 200.5 × 162 cm, 8 décembre 1959
(Kunstsammlung Nordrhein Westfalen K20-K21, Düsseldorf,
Germany) by Pierre Soulages, one of the most problematic
paintings for the conservation department, was studied and
treated (de La Grandière 2004). Many cracks in the thick
black areas were visually disturbing, and delamination was
visible in numerous areas between the priming and the paint
layer (Fig. 1). Two previous attempts to treat the painting had
been carried out but unfortunately they were unsuccessful.
× 165 cm, 16 décembre 1959 (Musée d’ Art Moderne de la
Ville de Paris) was described (de La Grandière 2005). The
technique and state of preservation of the painting was very
similar to the painting in Düsseldorf (Fig. 2).
A correlation between lifting paint with the artist’s tech-
nique had been documented from an early date. The process
of delamination of the paint from the ground is currently
being researched through the study of several paintings
owned by French museums and displaying the same kind of
damage. The first results are presented here.

Figure 1 Pierre Soulages, Peinture, 200.5 × 162 cm, 8 décembre 1959, Figure 2 Pierre Soulages, Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16 décembre 1959, Musée
Kunstsammlung Nordrhein Westfalen K20-K21, Düsseldorf (Germany): detail d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris (France): detail of a cleavage in 2005 (© La
of a damaged area in 2004 (© La Grandière/Kunstsammlung Nordrhein Grandière/INP /MAMVP).
Westfalen).

156

Technical choices and artistic intention
Born in 1919, Soulages is a French painter described by
Sweeney (1972) as ‘the strongest and surest’ of the new gen-
eration of painters after World War II. His abstract paintings
are characterised by black lines formed of dynamic brush-
strokes applied to a ground of contrasting colour. His lines
resemble calligraphy without expression of feelings or ideas:
movements drive the artist and the effect is the result of tools,
brushes and paint textures.
Since the early 1950s, Soulages has earned international
success, thanks to exhibitions, mainly in France (Galerie
Lydia Conti, Paris, in 1949), in Germany (he participated
in 1948 in the first show of French abstract art in Germany
after the end of Nazism) and in the USA (Koots Gallery, New
York,1954–59). According to Soulages, one of the first exhibi-
tions entirely devoted to his art took place at the Galerie de
France in Paris in 1960 (Encrevé 1995) where he presented 15
paintings from 1959 and 12 from 1960. The paintings created
for this exhibition are the subject of this paper.
Soulages’ technique is known due to his active participa-
tion in the current research project as well as the testimony
of Vailland (1961) who observed the creation of a painting
in 1960. While Soulages has a solid technical knowledge of
traditional oil painting, he has expressed his artistic inten-
tions even though challenged by technical constraints. As
described by Soulages himself, his knowledge of painting
technique developed out of his own concern for using high
quality materials. He was more informed by his contact with
Hans Hartung (and the published lectures of Max Doerner)
and Marc Havel (an engineer from the Lefranc-Bourgeois
company) than by the École des Beaux-Arts in Montpellier,
where he studied. In the 1950s he was using materials, brushes
and home-made tools. As a support, he used non-absorbent
pre-primed canvases from Lefebvre-Foinet. These grounds
made of lead white were chosen because they were more
‘greasy’ than others, and they prevented the paint medium
from being absorbed by the ground. The artist noticed that,
during this period, the ground layer was especially greasy, so
he would usually ‘degrease’ the surface with soap or solvent,
to avoid adhesion problems.
Soulages spread the first paint layer (underlayer) in some
areas, in variable thickness. This underlayer was usually Mars
red, yellow ochre, brown, ultramarine blue or lead white oil
paint from tubes. The underlayer was then coated with a
brushed-on black or brown layer before it was completely
dry. A mixture with the underlayer appeared, with a striped
finish, often horizontal. Then a black ‘magma’ was spread
over the surface and traces were drawn with wood or leather
scrapers. These black lines were painted with bone black,
specially mixed to his order with linseed oil and ‘Flemish
Siccative’, a linseed oil boiled with copal resin (Lefranc-
Bourgeois 1974). Soulages invented this composition to
avoid drying problems linked to the slow drying of thick
paint layers. The artist applied very strong pressure during
the application of the black paint, enough to tear away paint
from the underlayer. Thus, contrasting shapes, textures and
colours appeared. The result was migration of the binding
medium through the canvas.
DELAMINATING PAINT FILMS AT THE END OF THE 1950 S
Varnish was sometimes applied on the surface of the
paintings, but, as can be observed under ultraviolet light,
the entire surface was not covered. The varnishes were made
of different resins and applied in some areas to create glossy,
satin or matt surfaces.
Before considering a painting as completed, Soulages
flipped the painting over, and waited for a few days before
looking again at his work: some repentirs (changes) were then
possible before the painting was signed and titled: ‘Peinture’,
followed by the dimensions and date as part of the title.
1959 paintings: recurrent alterations
In paintings from the end of the 1950s, specific alterations are
visible. They consist of cracks and deformations, preferentially
located in the scraped areas, following the direction that the
paint was applied and the relief of the impastos. Connected
to the cracks, loss of adhesion between the priming layer and
the paint layer produces severe flaking (Figs 1 and 2). In some
areas, cracks appear first in the underlayer and are visible
before the top layer cracks develop (Fig. 3). Stains in the
canvas systematically correspond to the damaged areas.
A survey carried out in 2004–05, which included exami-
nation of 16 paintings from 1959 stored or displayed in
museums, evaluated the occurrence of cleavage between
the ground and the paint layer (Table 1). With a high survey
return rate of 94%, the results give a good representation of
the condition of the paintings from 1959.
Half of the paintings are considered in good condition
today, but 71% display damage such as cracks (37%), separa-
tion between paint layers (21%), and loose paint (13%). The
more a painting is exhibited, the more severe is the damage,
despite being kept in similar locations between exhibitions.
In the case of two paintings both stored in the same collec-
tion (from the Soulages collection 1959–2006, today in the
Musée Fabre, Montpellier), one was shown in 18 exhibitions
(Peinture, 162 × 114 cm, 28 décembre 1959). It has been lined
and is now exhibiting flaking. The other painting (Peinture,
Figure 3 Detail of Peinture, 130 × 162 cm, 18 avril 1959. © La Grandière/Musée
d’art moderne St Etienne. (© La Grandière/INP/MAMVP).
157
PAULINE HELOU - DE LA GRANDIÈRE , ANNE - SOLENN LE H ô AND FRAN ç OIS MIRAMBET

Table 1 Survey results for 16 paintings (* several interventions were consolidation treatments, with impregnation of the entire
carried out on several paintings, so the percentage of answers exceeds surface, have been carried out on a painting since 1973;
100%).
paintings dated ‘8 décembre 1959, 15 décembre 1959 and
Application Answers Results
16 décembre 1959’ have been consolidated two or three times
Condition Good 50%
since 1994.
Medium 31% Information from colleagues indicates that other paintings
Bad 19% from 1956 and 1960 suffer from the same kind of alteration,
Damages No current alteration 29% but these alterations seem to be less systematic than in 1959.
Alterations A larger survey may be undertaken in order to understand
Cracking 37% the exact relationship between date, technique, history and
Separation between paint layer 21% alteration in paintings.
Loose paint 13%
Interventions No conservation treatment ever done 16%
Treatment done before 2005*
Unknown 19%
Drying process and stress development: a presumed
Consolidation with natural glue 16%
cause for degradation
Consolidation with polyvinyl acetate 9%
Consolidation with acrylics 9%
Because the damages are preferentially located in the black
(Plextol/Rhoplex)
impastos in the thickest areas, where the binding medium
Consolidation with wax or BEVA 25%
also goes right through the canvas, it can be supposed that the
Lining 3%
drying process is partly the cause of the degradation process.
Varnish removed 3%
Drying defects are common in thick oil paint layers, as the
drying process of the upper layers prevents subsurface layers
having access to oxygen (Mecklenburg and Tumosa 2001: 52).
The thickness of the paint may also prevent the migration of
oxidative products that promote the film-formation process
in depth (van den Berg et al. 1999: 249).
In Soulages’ black impastos, liberated fatty acids may be
enclosed because of the thickness of the paint, the presence
of bone black, and because the varnish may act as a barrier
to the migration of volatile compounds. If the priming is a
non-absorbent underlayer, as described by the artist, it may
induce drying problems by preventing evaporation through
the reverse (Götz 2003: 37). Moreover, the migration of
medium through the canvas might also induce changes in
drying. This would lead to a high proportion of medium
in the oil-based underlayer, and thus a lack of adhesion (de
Willigen 1999). The difference in drying may create stress
Figure 4 SEM–BSE image: lamellar structure in the ground/globular within the paint structure that can lead to cracking and cleav-
shape in the paint layer of Peinture from Figure 1 (© Le Hô/C2RMF). age where paint peels away from the priming (Moran and
Whitmore 1994: 293; Bucklow 2001: 52; Roche 2003: 116).
Stress induction during the drying process may be con-
162 × 130 cm, 2 novembre 1959) was included in three exhibi- sidered as a source of cracking and delamination but as the
tions, and has only three small areas of lifting paint. artist suggests, the priming may also be involved: those he
The majority of the paintings had been previously treated used at that time were very greasy (Soulages 1994). Since
(84%). The first treatments were begun in the 1970s (three the degradation occurs between the ground and the paint
paintings) or the 1990s (five paintings), but they were not layer, we can postulate that the priming is the cause of the
always dated (four paintings). Except for two paintings, which degradation. Analysis was undertaken in order to determine
have had varnish layers removed and were lined, the main the role played by the ground.
treatment was consolidation, usually done after softening the
paint by heating or humidifying, then applying the consolid-
ant with a syringe. In five cases, the consolidant is not known.
The use of a natural adhesive such as rabbitskin glue is less Examination and results of analysis
usual (16%) than that of synthetic adhesives (43%), such as
polyvinyl acetate, acrylics or BEVA. Thanks to the participation of Soulages, who described
It is unfortunate that five paintings are today in poor or his technique very precisely, time-consuming examination
average condition in spite of consolidation. Peinture, 195 was avoided. Samples of the priming were systematically
× 130 cm, 30 novembre 1959, has had seven documented taken from the tacking margin where their removal was
consolidation treatments since 1968. In another case, four less invasive and did not disturb the paint layers. For the

158
 DELAMINATING PAINT FILMS AT THE END OF THE 1950 S

most damaged paintings (paintings not exhibited because
of their condition), all the paint layers were sampled. After
examination with a stereomicroscope, all the samples were
analysed with scanning electron microscopy coupled with
energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM–EDX), Fourier trans-
form infrared–attenuated total reflectance spectroscopy
(FTIR–ATR) and transmission FTIR. The samples taken on
paintings from Paris and Montpellier were examined with
X-ray diffraction (XRD). Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16 décembre
1959 was also studied with gas chromatography–mass spec-
trometry (GC–MS).1 The results are presented in Table 2.
As expected, the priming is a conventional lead white in
oil ground with a thickness of 60–110 μm. The underlayers
are made of earth pigment, lead white, and in some cases
contain zinc oxide and bone black in oil. The thickness of
the underlayers is variable, ranging from 80 to 350 μm. The
black impastos contain bone black, with large (5 μm) and
coarse (10–15 and 25 μm) particles. The impastos are thick
(600 μm in the case of the painting from Paris) and very
rich in oil medium. GC–MS of Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16
décembre 1959 identified colophony and oil.
In the priming of some paintings, a yellowish fluorescence
is clearly visible in some samples. In all the cases studied
(except Peinture, 2 décembre 1959), small grains (length 1–
3 μm) with an acicular (needle-like) appearance and some
round aggregates (diameter 1 μm) are visible in the SEM
backscattered electron (BSE) image of the ground layer (Fig.
4) while the pigments in other paint layers are round. FTIR
clearly detected lead carboxylates in association with the
acicular areas. In only one painting (Peinture, 2 décembre
1959), is the ground layer granular: here alone no lead car-
boxylates were detected. This painting does not show flaking
at the interface between priming and paint.
In the stains visible in Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16 décembre
1959, GC–MS detected oil and colophony, the same com-
position as for the black impastos. The interface between
the priming and the paint layer was closely examined in
cross-section for traces of sprinkled powder or soap used
during the degreasing described by Soulages but none was
detected.
Discussion
The analytical results live up to expectations. The most
damaged areas, corresponding to black impastos and stains
on the reverse, contain bone black mixed with linseed oil and
colophony (containing abietic acid). Colophony, well known
for its brittleness, is known to have a strong solvent reten-
tion that may induce drying problems (Perego 2005: 223).
Due to composition, paint thickness and pressure applied

Table 2 Summary of the results of analyses.

Title Location Condition Samples Composition Analysis
Peinture, 130 Musée d’Art Consolidation in 1994. Very Priming (tacking Lead white (acicular), lead SEM, FTIR
× 162 cm, moderne, Saint poor condition today (the margin) soaps
18 avril 1959 Etienne, France painting is not exhibited and Priming under Lead white (acicular), lead FTIR
facings are applied on the paint deteriorated areas soaps
layer) Underlayer + black Lead white (granular), bone SEM
impasto black, red earth (iron oxides +
aluminosilicate )
Peinture, 162 Soulages collection, Any previous treatment noted, Priming (tacking Lead white (granular) FTIR, SEM
× 130 cm, 2 Musée Fabre, good condition today margin)
novembre 1959 Montpellier, France
Peinture, 200.5 Kunstsammlung Three previous treatments Priming (tacking Lead white (acicular), lead SEM, FTIR
× 162 cm, 8 Nordrhein Westalen, since 1996. Very poor margin) soaps, barium sulphate, zinc
décembre 1959 Düsseldorf, Germany condition today (the painting is oxide
not exhibited) Priming under Lead white (acicular), lead SEM, FTIR
deteriorated areas soaps
Underlayer Lead white (granular)/oil, lead SEM, FTIR
soaps
Black impasto Lead white + zinc oxide, bone SEM, FTIR
black + iron + zinc
Peinture, 114 Musée d’Art Two previous treatments Priming (tacking Lead white (acicular), lead SEM, FTIR,
× 165 cm, 16 moderne de la Ville since 1998. The condition of margin) soaps, barium sulphate, zinc XRD
décembre 1959 de Paris, Paris, the painting is acceptable but oxide
France its presentation is strongly Priming under Lead white (acicular), lead SEM, FTIR,
disturbed by deformations deteriorated areas soaps
Underlayer + black Lead white (granular), lead SEM, FTIR
impasto soaps, red ochre, bone black, GC–MS
zinc oxide, oil and colophony
Peinture, 162 Musée Fabre, Previous treatment not Priming (tacking Lead white (acicular), lead FTIR
× 114 cm, 28 Montpellier, France documented (lining). Some margin) soaps
décembre 1959 small cleavages, but good
condition in general

159
PAULINE HELOU - DE LA GRANDIÈRE , ANNE - SOLENN LE H ô AND FRAN ç OIS MIRAMBET
Figure 5 In some areas, cracks appear first in the underlayer and are visible
before the layer on the top cracks (© La Grandière /K20-K21).
by Soulages during painting, there is high stress in the black
impastos, the origin of the cracks.
The delamination may be due to a stress imbalance
between the upper layers (highly stressed) and the priming,
where the lead soaps are known to be plasticisers (Carlyle
1999; Zweifel 2001: 454–5; Mecklenburg et al. 2005). In an
acicular arrangement (Stewart 1950; Perego 2005: 96–7), as
observed with SEM, this conformation can reduce internal
stresses in the layer and increase resistance to shear forces
(Stewart 1950; Delcroix and Havel 1988: 122). In addition
to this mechanical behaviour, the presence of lead carboxy-
lates in unusual levels solely in the ground was investigated.
Fatty acids in lead white grounds are potentially an important
source for lead soaps (Boon 2006: 27). It is possible that the
lead carboxylates form preferentially in the priming because
of the nature of the black impastos: first, the black pigment,
containing few ionisable cations, cannot form stable fatty
acid soaps (Ordonez and Twilley 1998). On the other hand,
according to Doerner (1934: 55): ‘Acid resin varnish or a sic-
cative which contains colophony may congeal white lead.’ We
suggest that colophony prevents the migration of the fatty
acids and their salts in the black impastos, explaining the
quasi-absence of lead soap in the paint layer.
The location and the higher concentration of lead carboxy-
lates at the interface of the lead white ground and paint may
also suggest an efflorescence of lead soap before the painting
was carried out. To investigate this, the commercial grounds
used by Soulages in 1959 were studied.
Are grounds from Lefebvre-Foinet involved in the
degradation?
According to the artist (Soulages 1994), the priming he used
at the end of the 1950s was especially greasy, a factor that
might explain the conservation problems experienced with
his paintings. Indeed, it is noteworthy that in the grounds
from the paintings of Borduas and Riopelle, two painters
who purchased their canvases from the same supplier at the
end of 1950s, similar cleavages between the ground and the
paint layers are visible.2 In both cases, lead carboxylates have
160
been detected in the grounds (O’Malley and Moffat 2001;
Corbeil et al. 2004).
The pre-primed canvases used by Soulages, Borduas,
Riopelle and many other painters at the end of the 1950s
were purchased from Lefebvre-Foinet, a colourman located
in Paris, well known for his prestigious customers and for
the good quality of his products (Corbeil 2004; Helou-de La
Grandière 2006: 53). At the time, canvases were prepared on
stretchers of dimensions 10 × 3, 10 × 2 and 10 × 1.5 m. After
sizing with glue, a layer of lead white was applied, followed
by a second layer as soon as the first one was dry to the touch
(one or two weeks, depending on the relative humidity and
temperature in the workshop). From information provided
by his son, we know that Lefebvre-Foinet tried to reduce the
manufacturing time, but it is not known if he added driers to
the lead white.
Edouard Adam and Dominique Sennelier, two colourmen
working in Paris at that time, informed us that the quality of
lead white was very inconsistent at the end of the 1950s, and
the pigment volume concentration (PVC) varied from one
batch of lead white to the next. This was already clearly noted
by Doerner in 1921 (Doerner 1934: 53) and was not a new
problem even then (Zucker 1999). Many new manufacturing
processes for lead white were developed after World War
II and it is known that the method of manufacture imparts
variable properties to lead-based grounds (Leback-Sitwell
1989: 9; van Alphen 1998; Carlyle 1999; Carlyle and Witlox
2005; Tumosa and Mecklenburg 2005: 41–2). The smaller
particles of lead white are the first to react away to form
lead carboxylates (Noble et al., in this volume, pp. 68–78);
if new manufacturing processes induce smaller particles of
lead white, we can assume that saponification may be facili-
tated.3 We can also postulate that impurities such as lead
oxide or lead acetate might be present in higher levels than
usual, provoking for instance faster reactions of saponifica-
tion (Tumosa and Mecklenburg 2005: 42). The addition of
many other compounds – such as metal soaps to catalyse
the drying of the priming, or sprinkling powder to prevent
the priming from sticking when rolled (Caldwell 2001: 11)
– were common at that time and could induce many chemi-
cal or physical changes in the priming.
It can be assumed that moisture played a role in the devel-
opment of lead soaps in the pre-primed canvases. Indeed, it
has been suggested that lead whites form lead soaps under
damp conditions (Boon et al. 2002: 405; Noble et al. 2005:
497; Tumosa and Mecklenburg 2005: 44; Boon 2006: 27).
According to Soulages, during a conflict between Lefebvre-
Foinet and his employees, water was added in the paste used
to make the grounds as retribution. This happened at the
period when Soulages found it necessary to degrease the very
oily priming before painting. This addition of water may have
promoted the formation of lead carboxylates.
The nature of the lead white (perhaps due to its fabrica-
tion process) or a defect during the laying of the priming
or its storage may explain the particularly high level of lead
soap in the grounds from Lefebvre-Foinet at the end of the
1950s. Noble et al. (in this volume, p. 77, note 11) suggest that
lead soaps occupy much more space than lead white, which
could account for flaking problems. It cannot be asserted that

the same phenomenon is found in the paintings by Soulages
because this suggests that the saponification of lead white
occurred during the drying process (for which we have no
evidence), but the occurrence of flaking when the ground
contains lead soaps is noteworthy.
In our case study, it is our contention that the high pro-
portion of lead soaps in the ground induces an imbalance
in stress between the lower and upper layers, leading to the
delamination of the highly stressed paint layer. Since the con-
version of the ground layer to a soap-rich layer may result
in the swelling of the layer (Noble et al. 2005: 501), the pres-
ence of lead carboxylates at the interface of flaking may have
repercussions on the consolidation, which would explain the
unsuccessful repeated consolidation treatments on paintings
by Soulages.
Conclusion
The cracks observed in some paintings by Pierre Soulages
are correctly attributed to drying processes. Thanks to the
active participation of the artist, interesting hypotheses
concerning the materials responsible for inducing defects
in the 1959 paintings in particular have been formulated.
Discussions with the artist led us to study the grounds from
Lefebvre-Foinet, revealing that the quality of lead white was
particularly inconsistent during this period. Analyses of
five paintings from 1959 show that lead carboxylates were
detected in the grounds of the most damaged paintings, espe-
cially in the most severely affected areas.
This phenomenon is still being studied but the current
explanation is that the stress imbalance induced by the acicu-
lar lead carboxylates forms a soft layer under a thick, brittle
layer. Other hypotheses on questions such as the increase
in volume of lead soaps forming beneath the brittle paint
layer may be also made. On this point and the solutions for
treatment, work is still in progress.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Pierre and Colette Soulages for their help and
participation in this longue haleine research; Werner Müller and the
Kusntsammlung Norfrhein Westaflen staff; the Institut National du
Patrimoine conservation staff as well as curators who arranged for closer
examination of the paintings; Dominique Gagneux (Musée d’Art Moderne
de la Ville de Paris), Sylvain Amic (Musée Fabre, Montpellier), and Jacques
Beauffet (Musée d’Art Moderne, St Etienne). For the survey replies we
thank these individuals and in addition: Maike Grün (Doerner Institut,
Munich); Ursula Reuther (Sprengel Museum, Hannover); Hans Peter
Marty (Kunsthaus, Zurich); Eva Götz (Instituut Collectie Nederland,
Amsterdam); Ingrid Skard Skomedal and Walfried Brandt (Sonja
Henie Onstad Kunstsenter Foundation); Kirsti Harva (Finnish National
Gallery); Virginia Rasmussen (Los Angeles County Museum of Art); Jay
Krueger (National Gallery of Art, Washington); Mariya Rivera (Aldrich
Contemporary Art Museum); Allison Langley (Art Institute of Chicago);
Sara Hignite (Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, St. Louis University);
Michael Duffy (Museum of Modern Art, New York); Julie Barten (Solomon
R. Guggenheim Museum, New York); Fátima Noronha (Museu de Arte
Moderna, Rio de Janeiro); Ayumi Yoshikawa (Ohara Museum of Art,
Okayama); Jeannine Howse (Johannesburg Art Gallery).We thank particu-
DELAMINATING PAINT FILMS AT THE END OF THE 1950 S
larly Marie-Claude Corbeil for her help and her time, and we are very grate-
ful to the anonymous referees of this paper, and to Dominique Sennelier
and Edouard Adam who actively participated in our investigation. This
paper was written with the close cooperation of Juliette Jacqmin, to whom
we address sincere thanks. We are grateful to the Centre national des Arts
Plastiques for financial support and to Pierre Encrevé.
Notes
1. Examinations on Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16 décembre 1959 were
carried out in the laboratory of the Institut national du Patrimoine,
GC–MS by Karim Dif and SEM–EDX by Marie-Christine Papillon.
Anne-Solenn Le Hô studied all the paintings with SEM–EDX and
FTIR at the Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de
France, and François Mirambet performed the XRD at the Laboratoire
de Recherche des Monuments Historiques.
2. Noted by painting conservators Michael O’Malley and David
Aguilella-Cueco.
3. The same experience of an unexpected ‘oily’ ground was related in
the correspondence of the artist Gluck with her supplier Winsor &
Newton in 1954.: ‘The persistence of a “shine” on the final priming
continued to be a problem regardless of the changes in the formula-
tion. However, in August 1954 it was discovered that the ground stack
white lead which had been used in both the first colour and the flat-
ting had been replaced in 1949 by an Octagon process, medium stain
white lead. Unfortunately, the suppliers of the white lead had failed
to notify Winsor & Newton of the change. The pigment particle size
of the white lead from the Octagon process was smaller than that of
the stack-process white lead. The oil absorption rate was also higher.
This was felt to be the explanation of the persistent “shine” as the
“flatting” coat formulation would have contained a higher proportion
of oil than anticipated’ (Leback-Sitwell 1989: 9).
References
Boon, J.J. 2006. ‘Processes inside paintings that affect the picture: chemical
changes at, near and underneath the paint surface’, in J.J. Boon and
E.SB. Ferreira (eds), Reporting Highlights of the de Mayerne Programme,
MOLART report 13. The Hague: NWO, 21–32.
Boon, J.J., van der Weerd, J., Keune, K., Noble, P. and Wadum, J. 2002.
‘Mechanical and chemical changes in Old Master paintings: disso-
lution, metal soap formation and remineralization processes in lead
pigmented ground/intermediate paint layers of 17th century paint-
ings’, in R. Vontobel (ed.), ICOM-CC 13th Triennial Meeting Preprints.
London: James and James, 401–6.
Bucklow, S. 2001. ‘Pigment-medium interaction: the visible evidence’, in
A. Phenix (ed.), Deterioration of Artists’ Paints: Effects and Analysis.
London: UKIC and British Museum, 52.
Caldwell, M. 2001.’Some developments in British paint manufacture over
the last two hundred years, and the occurrence of white surface depos-
its on paintings’, in A. Phenix (ed.), Deterioration of Artists’ Paints:
Effects and Analysis. London: UKIC and British Museum, 9–12.
Carlyle, L. 1999. ‘Paint driers discussed in 19th-century British oil paint-
ing manuals’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 38(1):
69–82.
Carlyle, L. and Witlox, M. 2005. ‘Historically accurate reconstructions
of artists’ oil painting materials’, in M. Clarke, J.H. Townsend and A.
Stijnman (eds), Art of the Past: Sources and Reconstructions. London:
Archetype, 53–60.
Corbeil, M-C. 2004. ‘Considérations sur la technique picturale de Riopelle
et la restauration’, in Riopelle, Y. Moudan, Acatos and Montréal (eds),
Jean Paul Riopelle, vol. II: 1954–1959. Montréal: Hibou, 19–25.
Corbeil, M-C., Helwig, K. and Poulin, J. 2004. ‘Analysis of the painted
oeuvre of Jean-Paul Riopelle: from oil to mixed media’, in A. Roy and
P. Smith (eds), Modern Art, New Museums. London: IIC, 170–73.
de La Grandière, P. 2004. Conservation Report of Peinture, 200.5 × 162
161
PAULINE HELOU - DE LA GRANDIÈRE , ANNE - SOLENN LE H ô AND FRAN ç OIS MIRAMBET
cm, 8 décembre 1959, by Pierre Soulages. Unpublished dissertation,
Kunstsammkung Nordrhein Westfalen Conservation Department,
Düsseldorf (Germany); Institut National du Patrimoine.
de La Grandière, P. 2005. Technique classique – problèmes contemporains,
étude et traitement de Peinture, 114 × 165 cm, 16 décembre 1959,
Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, unpublished dissertation,
département des restaurateurs, Institut National du Patrimoine.
de Willigen P. 1999. A Mathematical Study on Craquelure and other
Mechanical Damage in Paintings. Delft: Delft University Press.
Delcroix, G. and Havel, M. 1988. Phénomène physique et peinture artis-
tique. Puteaux: Erec.
Doerner, M. 1934. The Materials of the Artist and their Use in Painting,
with Notes on the Techniques of the Old Masters, E. Neuhaus (tr.).
New York: Harcourt and Brace [translated from the original German
edition of 1921].
Encrevé, P. 1995. Soulages, L’œuvre complet - Peintures 2. 1959–1978.
Paris: Seuil.
Götz E. 2003. Zur Trocknungsproblematik pastoser Leinölfarben, unpub-
lished diploma dissertation, Fakultät Kulturwissenschaften, Institut
für Konservierungs- und Restaurierungswissenschaft, Fachhochschule
Köln, Cologne.
Helou-de La Grandière, P. 2006. ‘La restauration de Peinture, 114 × 165 cm,
16 décembre 1959 de Pierre Soulages’, Patrimoines, Revue de l’Institut
National du Patrimoine 2: 50–55.
Leback-Sitwell, C. 1989. The Dilemma of the Painter and Conservator in
the Synthetic Age: The Papers and Correspondence of the Artist, Gluck.
Brighton: Elwick, Grover Aicken.
Lefranc-Bourgeois, 1974. Notes techniques sur la peinture à l’huile, com-
mercial pamphlet.
Mecklenburg, M. and Tumosa, C. 2001. ‘Traditional oil paints: the effects of
long-term chemical and mechanical properties on restoration efforts’,
MRS Bulletin 26(1): 51–4.
Mecklenburg, M., Tumosa, C. and Erhardt, D. 2005. ‘The chang-
ing mechanical properties of aging oil paints’, in P.B. Vandiver, J.L.
Mass and A. Murray (eds), Materials Research Society Symposium
Proceedings 852. Warrendale, PA: Materials Research Society,
OO3.1.1-OO3.1.12.
Moran, D. and Whitmore, P. 1994. ‘The development of internal stress
in films of thermoplastic polymers cast from solution’, in P.B.
Vandiver, J. Druzik, J.L. Galvan, G.S. Wheeler and I.C. Freestone
(eds), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology IV, Material Research
Society Symposium Proceedings 352. Pittsburgh, PA: Materials Research
Society, 293–303.
Noble, P., van Loon, A. and Boon, J.J. 2005. ‘Chemical changes in Old
Master paintings II: darkening due to increased transparency and metal
soap formation’, in I. Verger (ed.), ICOM-CC 14th Triennial Meeting
Preprints. London: James and James, 496–503.
162
O’Malley, M. and Moffat, E. 2001. ‘Paul-Emile Borduas: the blacks
and whites of the later paintings (1955–1960)’, in A. Phenix (ed.),
Deterioration of Artists’ Paints: Effects and Analysis. London: UKIC
and British Museum, 84–7.
Ordonez, E. and Twilley, J. 1997. ‘Clarifying the haze: efflorescence on
works of art’, Analytical Chemistry 69(13): 416–22A.
Perego, F. 2005. Dictionnaire des matériaux des peintres. Paris: Belin.
Roche, A. 2003. Comportement mécanique des peintures sur toile, dégrada-
tion et prévention. Paris: CNRS.
Soulages, P. 1994. ‘Le point de vue des artistes’, Conservation et restaura-
tion des œuvres d’art contemporain. Paris: La documentation française,
52–6.
Stewart, A. 1950. ‘Lead pigments and paints’, Official Digest 311:
1100–13.
Sweeney, J.J. 1972. Soulages. Neuchâtel: éditions Ides et Calendes.
Tumosa, S. and Mecklenburg, M. 2005. ‘The influence of lead ions on the
drying of oils’, Reviews in Conservation 6: 39–47.
Vailland, R. 1961.’Comment travaille Pierre Soulages’, in L’œil, 77. Paris:
Le Temps des Cerises [2nd edn 1998 Comment travaille Pierre
Soulages].
van Alphen, M. 1998. Paint Film Components: National Environmental
Health Forum Monographs, General Series No. 2. Austria: National
Environmental Health Forum.
van den Berg, J.D J., van den Berg, K.J. and Boon, J.J. 1999. ‘Chemical
changes in curing and ageing oil paints’, in J. Bridgland (ed.), ICOM-
CC 12th Triennial Meeting Preprints. London: James and James,
248–53.
Zucker, J. 1999. ‘From the ground up: the ground in 19th-century American
pictures’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 38(1):
3–20.
Zweifel H. 2001. Plastics Additives Handbook. Munich: Hanser Gardner.
Authors’ addresses
Pauline Helou-de La Grandière, 11 avenue de la Chasse royale, 37360
Semblançay, France. (lagrandiere@gmail.com)
Anne-Solenn Le Hô, Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées
de France, Quai F. Mitterand, 75001 Paris, France. (anne-solenn.leho@
culture.gouv.fr)
François Mirambet, Laboratoire de Recherche des Monuments Historiques,
29 rue de Paris, 77420 Champs-sur-Marne, France. (francois.miram-
bet@culture.gouv.fr)