It’s time to bring you some news that’s come into us
which is a man has been jailed for two years
for defacing a painting by the artist Mark Rothko.
This is the work of Mark Rothko.
A fine example of his sombre, thoughtful, abstract art.
It is an important group of works because it was the first time he made a
sequence that he conceived of as a environment.
At 3.25pm yesterday a visitor defaced one of Rothko’s Seagram Murals with black paint.
It was the work seen here on the right that was targeted.
A visitor used black paint and a small brush
and scrawled over the corner of a mural by the artist Mark Rothko.
They have a particular location at Tate which is incomparable.
When the ink was applied to the bottom right corner of this one painting
it not only destroyed one painting, it destroyed a whole group of paintings
because this painting is one of a series of nine at Tate.
The piece has now been removed from public view and taken to the gallery’s conservation department.
Despite the damage experts say there’s still hope that it could be restored.
It’s incredibly important to remove this ink because it destroys the integrity of the whole series.
If you are trying to remove something that you don’t want from a work of art
the key concept is solubility.
So, one of the first things we did in the science lab is to find out what is in the ink
in order to understand the solubility of the ink.
We were able to then guide Rachel towards using solvents that we know would be useful.
Because we didn’t know how Rothko made his work we had to make a representative sample
which had a layer structure similar to the painting.
Scientists before me, as well as myself, have spent time looking at the different layers of Rothko’s paintings.
He painted with a lot of thin layers and they merged into one big heterogeneous layer
so they’re very difficult to sample and they’re very difficult to analyse.
What we’re aiming to do is to create an approximation of the layer structure
with the same materials that Rothko used, so that we can then do our own testing.
We cut it up into sections
and we put sections of it into our environmental accelerated ageing chambers.
What we’re aiming to do is accelerate the ageing of the samples Rachel and I made
so that the materials approximate the age of the painting a little better
because the painting we’re dealing with is now 55 years old, around that
and it’s just easier for us to test our cleaning strategies on an aged sample.
Not only is it important that we try and produce a similar form of graffiti
but that we use a similar amount of ink.
What kind of level would it be appropriate to take it to
how much ink are we going to be happy leaving.
There’s just so many unknowns, it’s a really untried and untested process.
How best to manipulate the solvent
in order to remove the ink
in a way that removes as much ink as possible
but minimises any damage to the underlying paint film.
And, I think part of that is about science
but part of that is about hands on skills and the manipulation of materials
and that’s very much a conservator’s realm rather than a scientist’s realm.
Time’s up.
Gel has taken up softened and swollen ink
but it has not been terribly effective.
My own reading of Rothko’s painting techniques
is that he was primarily after an emotional response
and that therefore, perhaps
information that is intellectual
such as material composition
could be a distraction.
But from my perspective
I find delving deeply into the material as mystifying and as beautiful
as standing two feet away from the painting.
I do find that exploration of the detail
fascinating and enlightening.
So, here we are at the border
between two layer of paint.
This is 3D made at 500 time magnification
so you can see very well the surface.
What was the initial impact of this vandalism on you?
Well, fortunately I’d seen some photos in advance so I had a sense of it.
It’s almost like a physical attack
I mean, I was shocked that someone would do that.
It’s a part of the history of it
and that you’ll have photo documentation.
If it can be removed why on earth would you keep it?
It’s irrelevant to the work of art
and so it should go.
So, I’ve been very keen to show you this Carol
something very exciting, that we found in the warehouse in New York.
Wow. It’s so surprising to see.
Wow, see how methodical this is and Rothko thinking this through.
For some reason I feel closer to his hand with this than I do with some of his painting.
Started with a base layer, I guess, as an initial priming layer and then added colour.
I think it’s just a result of what he’s done.
He’s just trying to tone it down.
But it’s also, I mean, it’s also a steady piece
it doesn’t have any of the magic
any allure of the final work.
This is just about material.
This isn’t about making a painting
but in the end it’s going to be your interpretation
of what you see on the surface.
It’s exciting.
It’s very, very slow
but it’s worth it because the slower I go
the more effective it is.
You either leave ink
and leave more of Rothko’s material intact
or you go slightly deeper
and you forfeit a little bit of Rothko’s pigment in order to get more ink out
and, the ink that had gone through the canvas has that been removed as well
or is that still there?
No, that’ll still be there.
So, you’ve just taken it off the surface.
I want to give you both a big hug.
It’s really amazing.
Do you want to get that on camera?
Doesn't it look wonderful? I was so excited
I looked at it and I thought hold on, I thought he wrote his whole name.
We’re approaching the end of
removing the ink from the black.
We’re starting to look a lot more closely at options for cleaning the maroon paint.
The maroon paint has at least one layer of paint less than the black
and it also has no glazing layers on it
and, as a result the maroon paint on this painting is more vulnerable to physical disruption
it’s more vulnerable to solvents
and it’s generally more porous.
So, in that sense it was also more vulnerable to the ink
that was applied to the surface during the incident.
We’ve decided that it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to remove enough ink from the front of the painting.
So, we’re embarking on another period of research using suction techniques
trying to pull ink through the back and out of the canvas.
I’m quite nervous about using suction techniques
purely because up till now
I’ve had absolute control
over the application of solvent
because I’ve been using my own hand
and I’ve been able to apply
the solvent with a very high level of precision.
There is always the worry that as the solvent is
dragged through the paint system
and through the canvas
that it might cause the ink to spread both at the front and at the back.
After extensive testing with suction techniques on the test samples
we decided not to take it forward on to the painting
because of the amount of solvent we were using
and the amount of pressure we were also exerting on the surface of the painting
to get just very, very minimum results.
What we’re going to do in the next couple of days is to rethink the solvent blend
possibly work with something that’s a little faster evaporating
so it doesn’t spend so much time in the paint film.
Wow. Look at this.
This has been cleaned
and it looks exactly like the area
like the original painting.
Really, look at this.
It’s impossible to tell.
Oh my god, you’ve just made my day.
We got a lot of penetration of the ink right into the paint
and we tried lots of different solvent techniques which Bronwyn can expand on.
I guess that’s a testament to the fact that
you’re pretty confident that you know how to get this off at this point.
it’s a great reference. It gives you an idea of just how far you’ve come.
It’s funny because I was just revisiting aspects of my father, the big biography
written about my father in the early '90s
and all these people were saying he was so secretive
and he didn’t want to talk to anyone about his techniques.
I’m also not convinced that he was so much secretive and trying to hide his special technique
because he didn’t really want the focus on that
he wanted people to experience the paintings.
But the back set of that is for people like me, and especially like you
it makes everything much more complicated because he didn’t document.
It was how he was working, he wanted you to deal with the end result.
I mean, I have to say, that what’s unique about this project, for me is that I’ve had access
12 hours a day to a conservation scientist.
You know, Tate allowed us to collaborate.
and we've had the time, to really think and test systematically
I mean, I saw this work about a month ago, it's come on leaps even in that period
It’s just extraordinary.
So, this is the last bit
a climactic occasion.
Woohoo!
Good job.
It’s really nice to see all the letters removed.
It was a great moment removing that last remnant of ink.
But then I had to start considering the huge task of retouching the painting.
It’s not going to sort it everywhere
but in the more matte areas.
And, if you can alter that combination of the actives as well, you could get it more glossy and less translucent
It's going to look really consistent
Do a bigger area?
What about this area?
It could also be more fully integrated if you felt it was still too prominent.
But I think it was a good balance
and we’ll see if it still shows a little bit too white.
No, I mean, I think under the conditions of gallery lighting it might be slightly different.
I can’t see it.
But I was very nervous about getting close to it
but I’m pleased to say that
the painting does look really good in the gallery space
under the gallery lights.
It was absolutely terrifying seeing the painting hung in the gallery
and getting a sense of how the public would see the painting
and, I’m hoping that they won’t be able to see it.
I’m hoping it will be invisible in gallery lighting.
One hopes that people will walk in, not notice
and be returned to that miraculous feeling
that Rothko aspired to
in making the works in the first place.