Category → photography
In the 1990s the market for photos exploded. As snapshots started selling for millions of dollars, sham photos also slipped into the fray before the art world had any way to authenticate originals.
And so cultural heritage researchers had to play some serious catch-up, and quickly.
That’s the gist of my recent cover story on photo conservation. It explores how two fraud cases helped turn the field from a niche research area to a mature science.
And as always happens when reporting, many cool tidbits didn’t fit in to the final piece… In this case, the pivotal role eBay played to help researchers develop ways to catch fakes.
But first, a bit of background on photo fraud:
In the photo market, people will pay more money for an image when it was actually printed on paper by the photographer himself or herself. The price can also increase when the print is older.
So, for example, the Getty Conservation Institute’s Art Kaplan told me that an Ansel Adams photograph printed in the 1920s can sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the exact same photograph printed a few decades later (say, the 1970s) can sell for just tens of thousands of dollars. Continue reading →
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit the Getty Conservation Institute with videographer Kirk Zamieroski.
This is a cool video he made about the photo conservation research that takes place in the GCI’s Los Angeles laboratories.
It features the GCI’s Art Kaplan talking about a few of the 100+ different photo-making processes (wowsers!) used since the dawn of photography.
PS: ….And if you want to know why some old photos have a brownish “sepia” look, check out this piece about the research of GCI’s Dusan Stulik and Tram Vo.
Around 1889, Gertrude Käsebier, a 37-year-old, unhappily married mother of three, decided to go to art school.
A decade later, around 1900, Käsebier’s photo studio in New York City was so successful that her platinum print portraits were “the thing to have,” in turn-of-the-century socialite circles, says Tram M. Vo, an independent conservator who has been collaborating with Dusan Stulik at the Getty Conservation Institute.
“At the time, photographers charged about $12 for 12 prints,” Vo says. “Käsebier charged people $25 just to sit for a photograph and $5 for a single print.”
There’s not a lot known about Käsebier’s techniques in the dark room because she didn’t leave many notes behind. So Vo is trying to learn about her methods using an analytical technique called X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF). Conservation scientists use XRF to get a list of the chemical elements present in an artwork using X-rays—all without touching or destroying the artwork.
In particular, Vo wants to learn more about the so-called sepia look in many of Käsebier’s prints. Sepia is the word used to describe when black and white photographs have a brownish tint that gives the shots a warm feeling.
In today’s digital world, giving a photo a sepia look is just a Photoshop click away. But when Käsebier wanted to give her platinum prints the sepia look she had to use dark room chemistry.
Continue reading →
One of the coolest talks I saw at the ICOM-CC conference in Lisbon last week came from Jens Stenger, a conservation scientist at the Harvard Art Museums in Boston. He had the tricky task of figuring out what to do about five paintings by Mark Rothko in the museum’s collection that were so damaged from sunlight exposure that crimson paint on the canvas had turned to blue.
If just a tiny corner of the paintings were light damaged, museum staff might have considered retouching the artwork with a little paint. But a massive fraction of the massive panels were seriously light-damaged.
And these days the trend in art conservation is to minimize interventions on art, especially contemporary art. So a team of curators, conservators and scientists decided that, “repainting was NOT the way to go,” Stenger said.
But everyone thought museum visitors would want to know how the artwork had looked before the light damage. So what to do?
The solution Stenger came up with is pretty cool: Figure out the exact coloration of the originals. Display the artwork as is, but set up a digital light projector that can cast an image on to the canvases. This projected image temporarily makes the paintings appear as they did when Rothko finished them in 1963. Switch off the projector and the paintings are returned to their current-day states. It’s effectively restoration with an undo button. (And as an aside, the amount of light delivered by the projector is not sufficient to continue to harm the painting.)
Continue reading →