Art restoration - the inks! 0

[Panelfan1]

Been having an email conversation with a friend recently where he brought up something I never heard of. Restoring faded inks. Especially in cases where an artist might have used non archival markers.

Below is a copy of his email to me. Would love thoughts and opinions from all of you. Have you seen this done? Is it ok?

________________________________________

I'm not sure if you're aware, but a few months back Robert Dennis publicly floated the idea of doing "re-inking" on art where the original artist used markers with ink that has faded or turned purple/brown over time. Personally, as sad as it is to know that some pieces will eventually fade into oblivion, I think that is still what should happen, if the only alternative is to have anyone other than the original artist "re-ink" an old, faded cover. As a matter of fact, I'd still prefer to leave them fade, even if the original artist was still alive and willing to retrace it.

 

In any case, the reason this topic is on my mind now is because I just noticed this cover.....

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=21066&ArtistId=909

 

....and right in the middle of the description you will see the following statement: "This cover has ZERO FADING as Gil Kane drew this one in pencil and "permanent" black marker!"

 

The words "zero fading" are even emphasized in upper case letters. The problem with that statement is that it isn't true at all. That DC Presents #60 cover was drawn by Kane with the usual marker he used for all of his art in those days, and the entire cover HAS faded. Approximately half of it has faded black inks, and the other half has inks that have turned purple.

 

I don't know if the scan has been manipulated in Photoshop to look blacker, or if some one has "re-inked" the cover, but I'm guessing it's the latter. 

 

below are the 2 images.

 

Hey Mike B. - feel freet to chime in.  This art is only meant to be used as an example for the topic - as its what sparked the conversation about restoration and shows what could be a good example.  If the facts are different in this case  - happy to hear about it - but again, the point here is to have a more general discussion - not pick on this one example.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Panelfan1

[Catwoman_Fan]

I have never done it, but am considering getting pages cleaned - and during the process will likely need some reinking done.  Because the cleaning will remove certain lines completely.  Thus far, i have not pulled the trigger, as I'm hesitant to make such drastic changes.

Ideally the new inker would "sign" his work, so future buyers are aware of the enhancement. 

But realistically, I expect re-inking will occur/has occurred more often than we know. 

 

 

Also - regarding the OP, I suspect the image was manipulated, and the page was not reinked

Edited October 3, 2018 by Catwoman_Fan

[MIL0S]

I think I own the cover that Robert Dennis wrote about. It's the Punisher War Journal #41 cover by John Romita Jr. and the before and after can be seen in Roberts CAF gallery.   The main figures and most of the background were done in inks but one small area of the background (train) was done in markers and was fading away.  Also, the cover did not have any of the stats/logos when I got it so I decided to hire Robert to recreate the cover dress and to re-ink the faded areas. This may be blasphemous to some but I feel that a restoration expert may be a better choice than even the original inker because an artists work changes over time and it is possible that an impartial expert restorer could restore a piece more exactly to original appearance than even the original inker.   If the entire piece was done in markers and was fading I wouldn't have gotten it or considering having it re-inked. Some may take a firm 'no re-inking' stance but for me it depends on the severity and area affected and on this piece I was ok with it. If a piece is fading into oblivion is reinking wrong? I don't know.  It's like restoring an old car from the ground up, if you replace everything on it is it still the same car you started with? This topic can be expanded upon, some people are against all restoration work, others deem certain things acceptable.  Is removing glue stains ok, or replacing missing stats? how about bleaching/whitening tanned pieces? or removing signatures? or repairing tears?  I think the key thing is that any restoration work should be disclosed when the time comes to sell/trade the piece. 

[art4comics.com]

there are two issues here.  one about the ethics of doing this.  the second and bigger issue i think is if it is done is disclosure.

i think restoration like cleaning, de-acidifying, removing damaging glue stains, cleaning up stats are for the benefit of the art without adding new elements to it.  once pen/ink touches that board or other new material is added, you are into another thing entirely and one i do not personally agree with(with the exception of replacement of missing stats).  there is a long history of fine art repair with paintings being cleaned and touched up so this not new and i don't think it is new in our field either other than now it is becoming more common because some of the art has been around long enough that there are aging issues and we are now looking at more pieces that can use some help.  for me, i get that getting the original artist to re-ink there work is one way to get things done and would keep the original attribution but as mentioned previously their styles might have changed enough to change the piece(think of neal adams when he re-inked his batman many years later).  i agree, a professional restoration expert might produce a more accurate job on the piece than the original artist.  in the end, both are re-inked and this is where the second part comes into play, disclosure.  how the market values re-inked by original artist vs. accurate re-inking by a professional restorer remains to be tested but personally i'd take the more accurate image over the attribution although i am likely to pass on both.  like comic book restoration, disclosure is important.  i am sure there are art experts (just like there are comic book experts) who can spot restorations most of the time but for many of us, it might not be possible to make that distinction.  whether we agree with restoration or not, it is part of our hobby now and we need to get used to it.  i think if a dealer is doing this or knows about this with the piece they are selling, their credibility is on the line if the disclosure is not there. 

i have had a half dozen pieces restored over the years.  in one case a piece of the painting was missing and replaced with some new material.  that area had a white base layer of paint over it and this was matched on the new piece. if i were to ever sell this piece, full disclosure would accompany it.  who knows what subsequent owners and sellers would disclose but i think it would be their duty to do so.  so how do you protect the knowledge so disclosure follows a piece? 

[zhamlau]

When something like the Sistine chapel or a priceless painting is conserved, often times pigment is added to missing/flaked away spots by experts to restore it to its original visage. Cant it be argued that applying new lasting inks directly over the existing lines in the exact same locations, is much less invasive and altering?

Just food for thought.

[aokartman]

1 hour ago, zhamlau said:

When something like the Sistine chapel or a priceless painting is conserved, often times pigment is added to missing/flaked away spots by experts to restore it to its original visage. Cant it be argued that applying new lasting inks directly over the existing lines in the exact same locations, is much less invasive and altering?

Just food for thought.

In a well-developed area of collector interest, I think you are right.  But, we are in a fringe area or newly-developing area such as original comic art, where hidden and suspicious adulteration is known to have occurred without disclosure.  And there are no ground rules.  Whether this market matures to the point that disclosure about after-publication tweaking is common or necessary remains to be seen, but we are not there yet, sadly.

Without common collector agreement to preserve works as they age, the danger becomes that they end up in the dust bin of history.

I bought from an artist who put Scotch tape on some stats and blurbs on a cover right before he sold it to me, and I considered it a helpful gesture on his part, at the time.  Today, I might recoil a bit, and politely suggest that I would take care of it.  Who knows what the future brings?

I support preservation with disclosure.  David

Edited October 3, 2018 by aokartman
detail

[PhilipB2k17]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:46 AM, Panelfan1 said:

Been having an email conversation with a friend recently where he brought up something I never heard of. Restoring faded inks. Especially in cases where an artist might have used non archival markers.

Below is a copy of his email to me. Would love thoughts and opinions from all of you. Have you seen this done? Is it ok?

________________________________________

I'm not sure if you're aware, but a few months back Robert Dennis publicly floated the idea of doing "re-inking" on art where the original artist used markers with ink that has faded or turned purple/brown over time. Personally, as sad as it is to know that some pieces will eventually fade into oblivion, I think that is still what should happen, if the only alternative is to have anyone other than the original artist "re-ink" an old, faded cover. As a matter of fact, I'd still prefer to leave them fade, even if the original artist was still alive and willing to retrace it.

 

In any case, the reason this topic is on my mind now is because I just noticed this cover.....

 

http://www.romitaman.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=21066&ArtistId=909

 

....and right in the middle of the description you will see the following statement: "This cover has ZERO FADING as Gil Kane drew this one in pencil and "permanent" black marker!"

 

The words "zero fading" are even emphasized in upper case letters. The problem with that statement is that it isn't true at all. That DC Presents #60 cover was drawn by Kane with the usual marker he used for all of his art in those days, and the entire cover HAS faded. Approximately half of it has faded black inks, and the other half has inks that have turned purple.

 

I don't know if the scan has been manipulated in Photoshop to look blacker, or if some one has "re-inked" the cover, but I'm guessing it's the latter. 

 

below are the 2 images.

 

Hey Mike B. - feel freet to chime in.  This art is only meant to be used as an example for the topic - as its what sparked the conversation about restoration and shows what could be a good example.  If the facts are different in this case  - happy to hear about it - but again, the point here is to have a more general discussion - not pick on this one example.

Would anyone consider re-inking the faded portions of the Declaration of Independence? If not, then there's your answer

[PhilipB2k17]

20 hours ago, zhamlau said:

When something like the Sistine chapel or a priceless painting is conserved, often times pigment is added to missing/flaked away spots by experts to restore it to its original visage. Cant it be argued that applying new lasting inks directly over the existing lines in the exact same locations, is much less invasive and altering?

Just food for thought.

Nobody is going to buy the Sistine Chapel. That is a decision made by the owner of the Chapel (the Vatican) to make the art more presentable and show it off. It is not going to be "re-sold."

[zhamlau]

On 10/4/2018 at 11:06 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Nobody is going to buy the Sistine Chapel. That is a decision made by the owner of the Chapel (the Vatican) to make the art more presentable and show it off. It is not going to be "re-sold."

No one is arguing it would be for sale. The issue was generally around Paintings that have restoration, like Salvator Mundi by da Vinci. They are not treated as somehow lessened and hopelessly compromised. The market and the expert opinion seems to be that its perfectly acceptable and desirable to restore/touch up paintings like this one. It had by one estimation about 90% of its painted surface reworked by other restorers (this might have been a little flip comment but clearly a lot of it was) which of course included repainting using similar material the original artist used. It sold for 450 million in auction last year with everyone knowing its history. It appears to be both acceptable and commonplace for paintings from all eras and price-points to be touched up. That seems to stand in contrast to how we treat comic art restoration where lines are re-inked, and I'm just curious as to why.  

The Sistine chapel example is to show that no matter the pieces importance, restoration seems to be acceptable and desired from a historical perspective. And from the financial perspective the thousands of canvas paintings from all price-points and era's that have had paint touch up and cleaning seem to sell well and are appear to be highly collected and sought after.

 

I just think maybe we need to look at this topic more thoroughly is all. To try to place ourselves as not only current state collectors with our established views on restoration, but to also look forward to what future state collectors/museums might think about cleaning up and restoring both the paper and line-work on important pieces. Not the butchery the Donnellys do, but true expert appropriate restoration of image and material of a proper conservator.

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by zhamlau

[aokartman]

On 10/4/2018 at 1:02 PM, zhamlau said:

No one is arguing it would be for sale. The issue was generally around Paintings that have restoration, like Salvator Mundi by da Vinci. They are not treated as somehow lessened and hopelessly compromised. The market and the expert opinion seems to be that its perfectly acceptable and desirable to restore/touch up paintings like this one. It had by one estimation about 90% of its painted surface reworked by other restorers (this might have been a little flip comment but clearly a lot of it was) which of course included repainting using similar material the original artist used. It sold for 450 million in auction last year with everyone knowing its history. It appears to be both acceptable and commonplace for paintings from all eras and price-points to be touched up. That seems to stand in contrast to how we treat comic art restoration where lines are re-inked, and I'm just curious as to why.  

The Sistine chapel example is to show that no matter the pieces importance, restoration seems to be acceptable and desired from a historical perspective. And from the financial perspective the thousands of canvas paintings from all price-points and era's that have had paint touch up and cleaning seem to sell well and are appear to be highly collected and sought after.

 

I just think maybe we need to look at this topic more thoroughly is all. To try to place ourselves as not only current state collectors with our established views on restoration, but to also look forward to what future state collectors/museums might think about cleaning up and restoring both the paper and line-work on important pieces. Not the butchery the Donnellys do, but true expert appropriate restoration of image and material of a proper conservator.

 

I'm curious if there is currently an authenticator for original comic art who will attest to any restoration, added later elements, etc of a piece that he/she examines in hand .

David

[Taylor G]

An article on the Salvator Mundi, questioning the restoration:

Quote

In fact, the photograph was something of a bombshell, a glimpse of a painting that looks dramatically different from the restored version. Time had left Christ partly bald, with impaired eyes, yet the face was truly beautiful – smooth and harmonious but anatomically precise. It is completely different, in tone and feeling, from the smoky, ambiguous appearance of the painting today, after its full treatment by the respected restorer Dianne Dwyer Modestini.

The image in Campbell’s post was cropped and blurry but the Guardian is today publishing a high-definition version. If the scars of age are even more visible, so is the youthful beauty of Christ. He looks like just the kind of androgynous, long-haired model Leonardo loved to portray and, said his 16th-century biographer Vasari, surround himself with, in a workshop that was the Renaissance precursor to Warhol’s Factory.

It was Martin Clayton, curator of Leonardo’s drawings at the Royal Library in Windsor Castle, who suggested I check out Campbell’s post and drew my attention to the startling differences between the painting after it was cleaned and its appearance now. “Photographs seem to show that, before it was touched up, it was all Leonardo,” he says. “They show the painting mid-restoration – and it looks as if the subsequent retouching has obscured the quality of the face.” Clayton is not questioning the painting’s authenticity. He’s suggesting that a very pure Leonardo has been partly “obscured”.

 

[Catwoman_Fan]

On 10/3/2018 at 7:46 AM, Panelfan1 said:

 

 

below are the 2 images.

 

Hey Mike B. - feel freet to chime in.  This art is only meant to be used as an example for the topic - as its what sparked the conversation about restoration and shows what could be a good example.  If the facts are different in this case  - happy to hear about it - but again, the point here is to have a more general discussion - not pick on this one example.

 

Was a conclusive answer given on the difference between the two scans? 

[MyNameIsLegion]

i would venture to say that any piece of Gil Kane art that has passed through the hands of certain dealers may have been re-inked. Not as a loving act of restoration and preservation, but as an act of outright deceit. This is far more rampant than the more easily detectable restoration of stats and overlays and all the questionable attempts to manufacture a "pre-lim cover or rejected cover out of a convention drawing or napkin doodle by the Bros. D.  In other forums on this board that would be justification right there to have a 3rd party grading system, but I doubt anyone has the stomach for it because too many people would be shocked to get back $$$$ slabbed pieces of art with the dreaded "PLOD" Purple Label of Death.  Imagine the uproar that a one of a kind piece was thus branded with the scarlet letter. Does it plunge in value compared to non-restored art? Can it be undone? Not if it was re-inked. Maybe buyers need to start inspecting art with a black light like comic collectors and dealers were doing before slabbing took over and killed the old school practice of touching up the blacks on a cover with a sharpie.  

Edited October 21, 2018 by MYNAMEISLEGION

[PhilipB2k17]

Coming back to this topic, I suggest that “re-inking” isn’t the proper word for inking over faded maker. It’s Inking. You are not using the same materials. A true restoration would us the same materials. Using India ink over marker is enhancement, in a sense. 

 

[ESeffinga]

There's a difference between restoration and conservation. Having lines inked over in india ink (won't fade) vs markers may be considered conservation. Depends on how tightly you want to define the term. If you have the original inker fix a piece that they inked in fading marker originally, some folks will like it. Some won't. The purpose of it could be called conservation, some would argue against that. Reinking faded marker with fresh marker would be about the dubest thing anyone could do to a piece. To waht end? It will fade again, and the new solvents may react differently that the original marker solvents did. you could get bleeding and who knows what all else happening to the piece. If inked over skillfully, it restores the linework in a manner that allows future generations the ability to enjoy it. If it's not skillfully done, well that's as destructive as re-inking it in marker, or even just not touching it at all.

Without some form of intervention, pieces drawn in unstable marker will eventually lose those lines. The big question art owners will need to answer for themselves is, is the piece REALLY worth preserving? Yesterday's trash might be tomorrow's treasure. Or maybe not.

It's a personal thing, and yet by the same token we are each custodians of the work to our own degree. Our decisions today can impact it's future.

Not all markers fade to the same level, and what one person thinks is super faded could be another guy's "acceptable". But are we talking impact of value or impact on stability here? Or both?

 

The only way I'd be cool having a piece conserved would be having the original artist do the piece in lightfast ink, and only if its a technique that will match to what was used originally. So, to pick an example. My Paul Pope image has the usual sepia lines on it. I've chosen to leave it as is, as the main image is all india ink and not going anywhere. The details show signs of lightening and browning. I could reach out to Paul and have him go back in with a brush and ink those details so they don't fade any longer. He used a brush pen, and so long as he's careful, it could very well end up being the right call. But so far I've sat on my hands thinking about it. Paul's still at the top of his game, but if I wait too long, the ability may not be there as sharply as I know it is now. I could be shooting myself in the foot.

But if it was inked in such a way that the tools wouldn't match, the linework would be different, etc. (like using a Rapidograph pen over brushed lines) I'd be 100% against that for sure.

Some marker gestures (and bush pen techniques) would be hard to recreate for just about anybody. I'd be inclined to leave them alone. But boy would it be a hard call if the piece were for an important book, storyline, etc.

 

Just some thoughts...