Dutch clamping method in the original

A Dutch crucifixion painting from the 17th century owned by the Hürten Museum in the Romanesque House (Bad Münstereifel) was badly damaged. Gloria Gräfin Hoensbroech restored the altarpiece. The Cologne-based restorer was able to preserve and document much of the original mounting, as she revealed to our Berlin correspondent Uta Baier. The valuable leaf has now returned to the museum.

You were commissioned to restore the Dutch altarpiece from the Romanesque House in the Hürten Museum in Bad Münstereifel because you have often restored Dutch paintings. Why did you specialize in Dutch paintings from the 17th century?

Gloria Gräfin Hoensbroech: I didn’t actually specialize in it. It just happens when you live and work in Cologne and the surrounding area, as I do. Dutch paintings are simply strongly represented here in the border region.

What was special, what was challenging about restoring the crucifixion painting from the Romanesque House?

Countess Hoensbroech: The challenge was relatively normal. I had to make an edge enhancement, remove the canvas and re-stretch it. It wasn’t a radical intervention, but it was a major one, as I had to remove the original stretching situation, bring in new material and re-stretch the canvas. With an old canvas, it is not unusual for the threads to be porous and the stretching to become loose or even missing in places. As long as this is only the case to a small extent and the canvas and the stretching edges allow it, partial re-stretching would have been the method of choice. In this case, however, around half of all the nails on the top edge had become obsolete. As the clamping edge was very tight, partial re-clamping was not possible. As a result, the alterations have a strong impact on the original condition. The impressive thing was that I found a lot of original substance. I had previously only seen these technologies in textbooks.

What exactly did you find?

Countess Hoensbroech: I found the first clamping on the original stenter frame. That was incredibly interesting from a technological point of view because I was able to see the original Dutch clamping method here.

Did you find any particular damage?

Countess Hoensbroech: No, a corroded canvas at the edge is normal for a 300-year-old painting. Even the small tear on the thigh of the crucified Jesus, which I closed, was nothing special for such an old painting. After all, it was transported several times over the past centuries, as it came from the collegiate monastery of Münstereifel, which was secularized, was privately owned, was inherited and sold several times and only came to the museum in the 1960s.

The painting is dated 1700 and you were the first restorer to work on it for 300 years?

Countess Hoensbroech: Yes. There was a newer varnish, but it was applied in the decorative frame. A small amount of retouching was done. This frame dates from the 19th century and was probably made for the secularization-related sale. Nothing else has been changed. That’s why I was so enthusiastic about the almost untouched original condition.

But there was no question of completely re-mounting it?

Countess Hoensbroech: There was a question of making the stretcher frame wedgeable because the painting was so bulbous. However, as I had to unstretch it anyway and re-stretch it after the edges had been added, I had the opportunity to observe it over several weeks. As the tension did not change, I decided to keep the original context. That was very important to me.

You documented the restoration. Will you be publishing the results?

Countess Hoensbroech: I think that once I have trainees, I will pass these experiences on to them. Nothing is planned with the museum yet. But the restoration of the altar is not yet complete. The altarpiece still needs to be worked on by a wood restorer.

What is your advice for the further exhibition of the newly restored painting?

Countess Hoensbroech: A constant climate would be very important, because there are mold spores that can never be completely destroyed. That’s why I advise paying particular attention to the climate, which must never be conducive to mold.

The painting cannot yet be attributed to an artist by name. You haven’t found a signature either?

Countess Hoensbroech: To be honest, I rarely hope to find a signature on a Dutch painting from this period. There were simply too many workshops back then.