therefore recommended; the last study of the behavior of experimental
reinforced painted panels confirmed the validity of this option.Data obtained from the observation of restorations done in recent years—
involving supports as well as reinforcement systems—have enhanced
understanding of the behavior of material when it is confronted with the
various constraints caused by these interventions.
Such considerations are particularly interesting because the
restorations in question were carried out on a large number of paintings
from various periods and schools and, moreover, involved works marked
by a long tradition of restoration, with its modifications, amputations,
and, at times, complete elimination of the support.In the museum world in recent years, an increased awareness of the impor-
tance of the conditions of conservation, particularly of works painted on
wood, has allowed the staffof the Service de Restauration des Musées de
France to design more minimal interventions and thus to respond better to
the essential notion of respect for the integrity of the work.
The combination of the three factors mentioned above—research,
observation of recent restorations, and the development of preventive
conservation—has led the staffto develop a more rigorous protocol for the
approach, the execution, and the follow-up of each particular case, with an
endeavor to be as little interventionist as possible.
Once a scientificfile has been assembled, the first choice to be
made by the responsible conservators is whether to take simple conserva-
tion measures by acting on the environment (indirect action) or to restore
the support by an intervention on the material itself (direct action), a
process sometimes completed by the addition of a reinforcement system.
Conservation interventions by direct action are described below; they are
presented in chronological order for the sake of clarity.The very first intervention, to be carried out before any actual restoration
procedure, must aim at restoring the soundness of the material by halting
insect attack and invasion by microorganisms, thus eliminating further
riskof contamination. The remedial effecti veness of the means used will
depend on the product penetrating evenly and thoroughly into the panel,
which, in turn, depends on the accessibility of the areas to be treated;
good preventive results will be achieved if the treatment is rigorously
applied to all unpainted surfaces.
The presence of a paint layer limits the choice of fungicide and
insecticide products that can safely be employed. Because of its high toxic-
ity, lindane^12 is no longer used as an insecticide. Instead, such active agents
ascypermethrine^13 in a heptane solution are brushed on, injected, or
sometimes sprayed on. Nitrogen gas treatment is now beginning to be
tested against xylophagous insects.^14 Mildewed paintings are carefully
vacuumed, the dust being drawn through a biological filter (Cortet 1988);
they are then placed in a controlled climate. After strain identification,
fungi infestations are treated with the appropriate fungicide.Fungicide and Insecticide
Treatments
Development of Preventive
Conservation
Restorations of the Last
Twenty-Five Years
T C-R W P S 253