The Georgia Museum of Art kicked off the fall semester with “Conservation in the Galleries: Joan Mitchell’s ‘Close,’” a live art conservation exhibition that took viewers behind-the-scenes of a process that normally occurs in a lab. The Joan Mitchell Foundation funded the conservation of the painting in celebration of the 100th anniversary of Mitchell’s birth. The exhibition featured art conservator Larry Shutts at work, touching up paint, filling cracks and cleaning the painting’s surface — all in full view of the public. As he worked, he was available to answer questions about his process and the field of art conservation. The Georgia Museum purchased “Close” in 1974, a year after it was created. Despite the painting being kept in optimal environmental conditions, an assessment indicated damage including gaps in paint, abrasions, debris and cracking. A form of cracking known as “traction crackle” was most apparent within patches of thickly applied green paint. Shutts noted that it likely began peeling as a result of the primer below the paint absorbing extra pigment, thereby destabilizing the paint above it. It is unclear when the damage started, but the earliest available photograph of the painting, taken in 1987, indicates the cracking had already begun. Shutts found in his research that traction crackle was a common sign of deterioration across Mitchell’s works. At the beginning of the conservation project, Shutts noted that “Close” was in pretty good condition due to spending nearly its whole life — 53 years — in the museum’s care. Because the painting had only been handled by experts, he did not expect to see very much damage or challenges with restoration. It was clear that the damage was minor in comparison to restorations he has done before. “It worked out pretty well — a few surprises, but nothing that couldn’t be handled in the normal course of treatment,” said Shutts. His focus on preserving the original work, rather than altering it, was evident as he filled gaps in the painting. Shutts’ goal in restoration is for his strokes to go unnoticed. “I want my work not to show, my work not to be intrusive on visitors’ experience,” he said. “I don’t want them to see the restoration.” To achieve this, Shutts makes use of “fills,” or material that can be inserted into cracks to emulate the shape of the paint in the surrounding area. To get the correct shape, Shutts adds the fill into the hole, then presses it into the surface of the painting, checking that it aligns with the height of the surrounding area. He then embosses the surface of the fill to match the surrounding texture. This process allows Shutts to paint in a style consistent with the original without dramatically altering the artwork. From there, Shutts uses watercolor paint composed solely of pigment and adhesive, which prevents the newly embossed fill from being altered by the texture of the new paint.
Every conservator has a unique process influenced by who they learned under and what works best for them. It’s often a combination of different techniques derived from a variety of conservators they have studied under. When it comes to art restored after an artist’s death, it is largely up to the conservator to determine if touch-ups made during the restoration should be visible. As Shutts explained, “Different people have different working philosophies.” Shutt’s has previously restored other paintings for the museum, ranging from an early-19th-century oil portrait by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros to a mixed-media work of oil, wax, fiberglass and linoleum by Julian Schnabel. Shutts prefers to work with oils on canvas, but his background allows him to restore paintings on many different mediums, such as canvas, wood or glass. This was Shutts’ first time restoring a work by Mitchell, though he was familiar with her work. Mitchell painted in the period following World War II, a time characterized by shock and uncertainty. Many scholars attribute the development of modern art forms, such as abstract expressionism, to this postwar shock. Abstract expressionism is gestural, meaning that it focuses on the visible movement of paint strokes led by the artist’s impulses. Mitchell was among the first women to be classified as an abstract expressionist — along with Helen Frankenthaler and Elaine de Kooning, who also have works in the museum’s collection — and some argue that she is the best. Art historian David Anfam regards her as “the foremost female American abstractionist.” Much of modernist art centers on the belief that accurately conveying an object’s meaning is best done through abstraction, not direct depiction. Mitchell said that her paintings strived to “define a feeling” rather than a physical object, comparing her works to poetry. She often refused to explain her works, referring to herself as “a visual artist,” implying that her work speaks for itself and cannot be better explained in words. In 1974, just a year after she created “Close,” she told curator Marcia Tucker, “Music, poems, landscapes and dogs make me want to paint.” Many of her works reflect these inspirations in their titles and in her use of natural colors like browns, greens and pastels — such as “Sunflower” (1969), “Plowed Field” (1971) and “Heel, Sit, Stay” (1977). “Close” is thought to be inspired by “le clos jardin,” or the formal walled gardens characterized by neat lines, symmetry and paths that Mitchell would have seen while living in France. The colors in “Close” emulate patches of flowers and greenery, and the distinct space between each rectangular shape echoes a path running through the landscape. Freshly conserved, “Close” was returned to the museum’s Barbara and Sanford Orkin Gallery in November. Previously dedicated to displaying contemporary art, the gallery was reinstalled last fall and now includes a selection of late-modern and postwar art.
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator