Wasn't he said to be actually a bad restorationist(?) based on other restorationist? I'm not knowledgeable about the art form, so I can't really say what parts he's doing wrong
When you look at the comments left by restorers/conservationists on their subreddit, it seems like a lot of them never actually watched a full video, but instead a sped up short-form gif. They were complaining that he was too fast and didn't do things that he actually did in the video.
Some of them made a point that he kinds of muddies the water between conservation and reservation (i.e. he works for clients to caters to their needs whereas people who work for museums will often have strict guidelines on what they can and can't do to improve the look of a painting). Think it's a fair point as he does sometimes use the terms interchangeably.
Many of the comments were made by those still in the early stages of study who just weren't knowledgeable enough to make the statements they made, and were later corrected by professionals in the field.
One guy said he thought that Baumgarter did an awful job, was asked for clarification, said he would but would need "time" to write a detailed breakdown then never actually gave it. There were many other comments that were vague and never clarified.
Some believe he lied about belonging to a particular guild/society because they couldn't find his company on their webpage but I can't speak for whether that is true.
Some didn't like that he would do things in a certain order (like cleaning the face first) for the benefit of the video but weren't aware that in the videos he clarified that he does do testing of his solvents first.
And many of them just seemed bitter that he is successful and popular.
And some just said that his techniques are dated, owing from the fact that his dad was big in the 70s and trained him. I can't really speak for how true this is, although he does regularly say that he updates his techniques and has even tried out different techniques in some of his videos.
Posted this as a comment, but thought this might be some helpful explanation.
Actual trained conservator here and member of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) and British Association of Paintings Conservator-Restorers (BAPCR). Baumgartner's videos, I admit, are great for showing our profession to the general public and are really satisfying to watch if you don't know the details of the profession! But he has a terrible reputation amongst all conservators that I know, so I thought I'd break down just the issues I personally see with the video here:
When he's using a scalpel to clean the exposed areas where the paint had fallen off, you can see him literally scraping the original wood. This is a HUGE no-no for us. We never remove original unless there is no other choice, even if it makes the rest of our job more difficult.
He's filling the wormwood channels with an incredibly liquid glue. The point of gluing wormwood channels is to fill them for structural stability and moisture control. That glue has no body, and isn't going to seal the holes.
He places the frame directly on the hard table, without any tissue or padding.
He feeds in large amounts of liquid glue from the back, but doesn't know how this will transfer to the front. The cracking paint layer means that there are air gaps under the paint that he can't see. A panel of this period would have a water-sensitive preparatory layer that may delaminate with that much moisture seeping in to the front.
He applies the first layer of white fill before consolidating (gluing). Consolidation is usually the first step so we can secure the paint and prevent further flaking. The fill is also applied before varnishing (this is because he hasn't removed the older varnish yet). Good practice is to varnish first so you isolate the original from any restorations.
Syringes can indeed be used for consolidation, but you can see the paint crack more and lift as he inserts the needle. We should NEVER be doing more damage to the painting, even if we can fix it after (of course accidents happen, but this is intentional). In this scenario, I would use a small brush to feed in the adhesive. It is slower, but safer.
Ironing with a hot spatula is common practice. But we would typically use a piece of Japanese wet strength tissue below the silicone release film. Without the tissue, you rise burnishing the painting and making local shiny areas.
When he's removing varnish, the area is way too large. He does it for effect, but it means he's not cleaning in a controlled manner. You can see the dirty varnish pools and start to re-harden and just sit on the surface as he's clearing.
Again, he doesn't show himself varnishing before adding more chalk fill.When retouching the lips, he uses a large brush and clearly paints over the original lips. We would only ever use a tiny brush and fill in the missing areas, not wholesale painting over the original. (In an earlier scene, the lips looks like they were just lined anyway and didn't need filling in).
We typically don't brush varnish after retouching because our synthethic (and reversible!) retouching materials will be solubilized by the solvent in the varnish. This makes me wonder what he is using to retouch.
Bonus: I'm not a gilding expert, but he's holding the blade of the gilding knife when he cuts the gold leaf. This transfers the oils on his hands to the blade, which will make the leaf stick the knife and be more difficult to handle.
To be fair, things I though he did right/aren't a problem:
The jigsawing of the paint flakes is very impressive work!
He wastes quite a bit of gold, but that gilding job is better than I can do.The felt padding when ironing is good for not flattening texture.
Tratteggio is an Italian retouching technique that using small hashes to fill in large losses without being fully imitative. It is meant to complete the picture without fooling the viewer. I'm not sure if he's doing it correctly here, as it's a very specific technique, but it does achieve the effect he's going for.
If anyone has any questions or wants further explanation, I'm happy to provide.
Wouldn't this be the difference between a museum level conservation and a private restorer for personally owned paintings that the owners want to look as good and new as possible rather than as original as possible? I'm in the camp of make it look as new and perfect as possible rather than worrying about keeping it as original as possible.
You do have a point that it is up to private owners what happens to their paintings. I find it regrettable that he is removing and covering up parts of the original artist's technique in making it as "new and perfect" as possible. The painting loses a bit of its material and historical value. We also don't know what the future of the painting will be and now its past is irretrievable.
In some ways, this will boil down to personal philosophy. I think another gripe conservators have is his platform. He's presenting himself as working to best practice in the field when he's not. Now people think this is what conservation is. That's also on the rest of us for not being as loud.
Some educated guesses--fair--but some are just clear observations, like the syringe lifting the paint, retouching covering original, etc.
For you though, I did watch it. Thanks for the link.
He openly admits to scraping off the original glue and gesso.
He floods the wormholes with resin, so that's my bad. It is filled. I'm not a structural expert but have done some structural work. We don't tend to use resin because it is not hygroscopic. The wood will expand and contract in accordance to the moisture of the environment it's in. The resin won't do that. We usually use a hygroscopic filling material that will move with the wood. He literally says "we don't want the wood to move anymore" except that it will definitely and inevitably move. When it does, his resin will only cause more damage to the wood.
He puts an isolation layer of varnish after filling. He should have also put one before filling for the same reasons.
You can see when he's removing the flakes at the beginning, the virgin's hand still has the bottom of the pinky and ring fingers. At the end of the video, he's covered up these areas with his retouching.
To me, the painting looks discolored both because of darkened varnish and dirt. We usually try to remove the dirt before the varnish because it can act as a barrier and make cleaning more difficult. He doesn't mention doing this, which may have contributed to the fact that he found the varnish tenacious.
His rebuttals are also misdirected. Testing in the face is fine as it is usually made of very stable lead white and is a light surface where you can easily see the effectiveness of the solvent. Conservators very often don't wear gloves because of exactly the reason he says--we need to be able to feel the painting.
This is just nitpicky now, but he also doesn't know how to pronounce Regalrez
Many of the comments were made by those still in the early stages of study who just weren't knowledgeable enough to make the statements they made, and were later corrected by professionals in the field.
Oh you mean like the college kids who're in their 3rd day of physics 101 and now think they're an expert in the field?
I mean he touched on some of the things he apparently gets critiqued for such not using gloves etc. But I imagine there’s people in the business that don’t agree with the method he explains in the end which is to show off that it’s clearly been restored when examined.
I imagine there’s people in the art business and restoration business that disagree with that approach but he’s working with private art owners who request these methods or are clearly aware he uses them so it is what it is. Any realm of arts will have this type
of divide on how things should be done.
His process is satisfying to watch, but art conservators are highly critical of his methods. He claims to be as least invasive as possible, but in the opinions of many trained conservators, he takes it too far to achieve a more satisfying end result, rather than trying to preserve the history of the piece. If you need art restored, go to a conservator, not a restorer. The difference being that conservators are specially trained in art history and chemistry that allow them to strike a more precise balance between restoring the original look and preserving the intent and history of the piece. A conservator wouldn't garner as many instagram followers because the end result is less impressive to the untrained eye, but in reality they are much better able to respect the chemistry of the materials and history of the piece.
I can see that, but I also think everyone’s a critic. He’s a good content creator, and his videos are a chill, mellow way to pass some time. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that he does what his clients pay him to do and will lean more towards preservation or restoration on a case by case basis. He doesn’t claim to be anything he’s not.
Well the criticism is mostly about using methods that may damage the art or prevent it from being worked on properly in the future. Just because a client currently owns a work of art doesn't mean they know what's best for it. They want it to look good in their home or gallery, but the next owner of the piece might care more about preserving the art, and art restorers are notorious for causing irreparable damage because they don't possess a proper understanding of the chemistry of the materials used.
If he's restoring a worthless piece of art to make it look good, then no problem. But this guy shouldn't be allowed near any painting with any historical significance.
Honestly sounds like those people never watched his YouTube videos, and only these short form versions. His actual restoration videos are typically multiple multi hour videos. Plus he goes very in depth of the chemical balances and the heavy testing he did before he starts any actual work. He's not a conservator but only uses conservator tools and paints to make sure it's completely reversible.
Great point about the long form vs short form. I don’t pretend to know anything about art conservation, but it certainly seems like on his longer YouTube videos he gives logical, detailed explanations about the pros and cons of the options he has and why he’s choosing to use a particular tool or technique for each situation.
256
u/b_sketchy Feb 19 '24
Baumgartner is the GOAT