Vandalism

Mark Clarke is correct in noting that there was a project done at
the Courtauld Institute a few years ago on dealing with chemical
attacks to paintings.  The project was carried out by Lynne Harrison
and its purpose was to prepare a set of response protocols for
dealing with a potential chemical attack in the Institute's
Galleries, plus the preparation of a response kit.  The response
protocols recognised the need for immediate action, for example, by
security attendants; and the outcome was a simple decision-making
flow chart (plastic laminated!) aimed at minimising damage.  The
general responses were established on the basis of practical tests
to examine the factors influencing the degree of damage caused by a
range of common corrosive chemicals. The general policy of the
Conservation & Technology Dept. of Courtauld was that these
protocols should not be widely circulated for reasons of security,
but I don't think that there would be any problem with them going
the National Gallery of Victoria [subject, of course to copyright
approval from Lynne Harrison]. I will pass on contact information
directly to Tom Dixon.

A few further words about chemical attacks are pertinent. Chemical
attacks were covered, along with many other agents of disastrous
decay, in a meeting held in London some years ago.  As I understand
it, considerable preparations were made to compile a manual of
response protocols for dealing with all kinds of disaster, which was
to be published by UKIC.  It is perhaps timely to express the view
that it is a shame that this publication has not yet seen the light
of day; 'The Disasters Manual' would provide a valuable reference
source for problems such as those raised by Tom Dixon.  It is a
shame also that the considerable amount of work done by contributors
to the manual has not been rewarded by seeing the project come to
fruition.   Perhaps someone from UKIC might comment on the state of
play of production of the 'The Disasters Manual'.

I think also a word of caution is necessary regarding the use of
water in the immediate response, particularly to an attack with
concentrated acid. This matter has been debated before, notably at
the IIC conference, Brussels 1990, and I do not wish to pass
judgement on the relative merits of water-quenching or not.  It is,
however, important to relay an important observation from Lynne
Harrison's work; namely that the conservation history of a painting
may significantly influence its vulnerability to corrosive
chemicals. In particular, wax impregnation was found to very much
retard damage caused by strong acids. In relation to the attack on
the Night Watch referred to by Ton Cremers, the reported safe use of
water, in this instance, was undoubtedly aided by the fact that this
picture is well and truly wax-impregnated.  For a non-wax
impregnated painting, the use of water to dilute and remove the acid
might not be so benign.

Containment is a key factor in immediate response.  Each event will
be different, and some crucial judgments must be made in the first
few minutes after the attack, based on observations on the nature of
the chemical involved, the extent of immediate damage and the risk
of further damage caused by remaining (mobile)chemical. The
protocols developed by Lynne Harrison were based on recognition of
the need to facilitate and inform the critical early
decision-making, so as to ensure that the damage is not actually
exacerbated by the response. It is essential to have a range of
options at ones disposal.

Alan Phenix
FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics
Amsterdam

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 11:33
                 Distributed: Thursday, October 9, 1997
                       Message Id: cdl-11-33-001
                                  ***