Clumsy visitor gives conservation team a sticky problem at the Fitzwilliam

A NORMAL DAY IN THEFITZWILLIAM

The 25th January 2006 startedas an average day for the staffof the Fitzwilliam Museum,Cambridge. A traditionalmuseum, with collectionsranging from art to medal andcoin collections to ancientsculpture, the Fitzwilliamprides itself on safeguardingand exhibiting its collectionsfor the public, now and infuture years. However, by theend of this pivotal day, threefrom a set of five Qing dynastyvases were shattered and awayfrom the curious eyes of thepublic. The vases in questionwere part of a five-piece set,mastered in the late 17th/early18th century, gifted to the

museum in 1948 by Anthony deRothschild. Since then, theyhad been on display on awindowsill along the Courtauldstaircase without as much as ascratch.

The vases were manufacturedunder the fourth emperor of theQing dynasty, Kangxi (1662-1722), when production of blueand white porcelain was at its

1 – Museum Studies Journal - February 2015

Above: a photograph taken shortly after the accident which smashed three Qing

dynasty vases in 2006. Below: a plan of the Ground Floor of the Fitzwilliam. The Courtauld staircase can

be seen highlighted in yellow.

Clumsy visitor gives conservation team a sticky problem at the FitzwilliamWHEN THREE QING dynasty vases were destroyed in an unprecedented accident in 2006, the public and the media claimed restoration was an impossible task. Nine years on, we explore the process and ethics of restoration and revisit the Fitzwilliam to see how the vases are exhibited today. By Charlotte Morgan

Above: a photograph taken shortly after the accident which smashed three Qing

dynasty vases in 2006. Below: a plan of the Ground Floor of the Fitzwilliam. The Courtauld staircase can

be seen highlighted in yellow.

highest, excelling productionbefore and since. During thisperiod China began to receivedemands for

porcelain from Europe andAmerica, and sets like thiswere made in order to meet thisexport demand. It was alsoaround this time that Europeansdiscovered the manufacturingsecrets to porcelain,potentially explaining whyproduction in China became sorefined in this period. The setof five is made up of threebaluster jars and two yan yanvases, the heaviest of themweighing over 45kg and standing80cm high, with ceramic wallsover 3cm thick in places.

The vases were arrangedacross a windowsill and twoneighbouring niches, on theCourtauld staircase whichlinked parts of the Romancollection, school rooms andMedieval and Renaissance Art onthe ground floor to theEuropean Art and FlowerPaintings galleries on thefirst floor. One of only twostaircases in the museum, itwas not only frequented byvisitors interested in theadjacent galleries, but thosemoving around the museum in anad hoc, unorganised fashion, aswell as educational groupsaccessing the school rooms onthe ground floor. The two yan

yan vases and one of thebaluster jars were positionedalong the windowsill, with thetwo remaining baluster jars inthe niches on either side ofthe sill, mirroring each otheraesthetically as you ascendedor descended the staircase.

DAMAGE ON AN UNPRECEDENTEDSCALE

However, the vases weresimply secured to thewindowsill without any expectedprotection such as a glass caseor barrier between them and thepublic. This is not uncommonwith ceramics; their glazednature means they are oftenunaffected by light, natural orartificial, and are fairlyneutral to any pollutants orgases in the air in museums.Unfortunately, this left thevases unprotected to clumsyvisitors, and in January 2006,an unlucky visitor tripped onthe staircase, falling into thethree vases on the windowsill.The visitor walked awayunharmed despite a few bruises,but the vases were shattered

2 – Museum Studies Journal – February 2015

Above: the five-piece set before theaccident. One of the baluster jars (on the left) and both the yan yan vases (right) were damaged.Below right: the vases had been sat

into thousands of pieces. Thearea was sealed off to thepublic as quickly as possible,but further damage was done tosome of the sherds when staffrushed to the scene to assistthe visitor and administerfirst aid. Restoration staffplaced a grid on the floor ofthe area where the sherds hadlanded and numbered the pieceswithin each square, a trick tomake the task of piecing themback together much morestraight forward later on.After days of collecting over300 large pieces and thousandsmore sherds, the area was onceagain open to the public andthe assumed ‘impossible task’had begun- restoration of thesemagnificent ceramic works.

A natural reaction to thisnews is to question thepositioning of the ceramics- ona windowsill of a frequentlybusy staircase, without anyprotection. However, this isnot uncommon or poor practice.Ceramics are some of the fewmaterials in museum collectionswhich are able to tolerate awide range of environmentalconditions, from hot to cold,dark to light. If damage doesoccur, it is usually the resultof poor manufacturing or impactrather than the storage orexhibition environment.Additionally, the vases hadbeen on the windowsill sincetheir acquisition, with only

minor movements in that period,for cleaning or renovation ofthe sill. They had last beenmoved over 40 years prior tothe accident. Many riskassessments, both withinmuseums and elsewhere, relyupon precedence and theprobability of accidents. Sincethe vases had been in situ for solong without issue, theirvulnerability was not seen as ahigh risk issue and thereforethey were considered to be safeas they were.

THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK

Despite being dubbed an‘impossible task’ by the publicand media, the restoration ofthese ceramics was relativelystraightforward. Variousdecisions had to be made beforethe process could start, suchas the type of adhesive andresin that was to be used, thetime scale of the project andperhaps most importantly, whowas to carry out therestoration itself? The museumhas an expert team ofconservators working in theHamilton Kerr institute


conserving and restoring easelpaintings, both internally andfor external contracts, as wellas museum conservators withbroader skill sets, but thisproject required a specialisedcontract. This was the first ofmany big decisions theFitzwilliam would have to makeand eventually Penny Bendallwas chosen to undertake therole, after consultation acrossthe country with a number ofhistoric houses and museums.She was now faced with theresponsibility of putting theseceramics back together with theentire country watching. Thevases had shattered into 330large pieces and over 1000other smaller sherds and chips;where would she start?

The steps taken shortly afterthe breakages occurred- placingthe grid system on the floorand collecting the pieces fromeach square separately- madethe restoration process muchmore straightforward. It meantit was a lot easier for Pennyto decipher which piecesbelonged to which vase; thisdifferentiation was the firstof many steps. She then beganto reconstruct sections usingself-adhesive tape; this helpedher decide the best order toput the pieces back together inbut also to identify anyparticularly large gaps whichwould need filling in later inthe process. Fortunately there

were fewer large gaps thanexpected. The largest werefound where the vases had hitthe stone windowsill. Onceloosely constructed with tape,the pieces were numbered sothat Penny would know the ordershe had used to put themtogether most effectively. Thevases were then taken apartagain, so that the individualpieces could be cleaned.

The vases would have beenexposed to dirt in their day today lives on the windowsill,but the sherds would havepicked up dirt in new placesafter the smash, and anydiscolouring along the crackswould have made them visibleafter restoration. In addition,it would weaken the joinsbetween the adhesive and theceramic, meaning it would notlast as long as intended. Theimpression would be that theceramic needed specialisedcleaning, but in reality it wascarefully submerged and wipedclean with warm, soapy water.Special attention was paid tothe edges to remove as muchchance of marks through thecracks later on as possible. A


Left: here Penny Bendall, the chosen conservator can be seen taping the pieces together before the cleaning process began.

few historical, more stubbornstains were cleaned using achemical cleaning mixture, butotherwise it was astraightforward process.

Once fully cleaned, the partswere laid out according towhich vase they belonged to andthe number written on theinside of the ceramic. Thepieces were placed followingthis order from the base to thetop of the vase and they werelightly taped together again tohold the vase in place whilethe adhesive was prepared. Manyfactors influence the choiceconservators make when decidingwhich adhesive to use in theirrestoration. Many of thevariables depend upon theobject being restored: whatmaterials it is made from,where it will be stored, howbig it is or how much it weighsare just some of the questionsconservators have to ask beforestarting their work. The mainfeatures of an adhesive arethat it must be reversible, sothat restoration work can bealtered or undone in thefuture, and it must be weakerthan the material the brokenobject is made from. This mayseem a strange requirement, butis enforced so that if theobject(s) were to be brokenagain, they would crack alongthe original lines, instead ofadding damage to the object.The adhesive, a colourless

epoxy resin, was applied overthe joins with a metal scalpeland are drawn into the deeperparts of the join, seeminglydisappearing. The adhesivetakes two weeks to cure so isleft in a dry, cool environmentfor that time. It is importantthat the vase is isolated andundisturbed during this period-if dirt settles on the adhesiveit will make the cleaning doneearlier worthless and the gluewill discolour.

After the curing period theexcess adhesive and tape wasremoved, and Penny could startto work on the holes in thevases. Fortunately, most of theholes in the vases were smalland therefore posed less of aproblem for the conservator.The same materials were used tomake a resin as had been usedfor the adhesive; this pastewas used to fill the holes inthe vases. This is another ofthe key decisions made both bythe conservator and theFitzwilliam; whether to fillthe holes or not? Someconservators would leave themempty, adding to the history ofthe object, highlighting theaccident as a significant eventin its lifetime. However, thedecision was made to fullyrestore the vases back to thecondition they were in prior tothe accident which meant oncethe gaps had been filled, theywere repainted with replica


pigments following the patternof the vases. Like theadhesive, the resin took twoweeks to cure. Once it hadhardened, the excess wasscraped away with a scalpel andthe missing patterns werepainted in with the replicapigments. The level of skillrequired for the painting isvariable, for some sections(such as joining up lines), itis straightforward and theconservator can paint freehand.However, for more difficultsections such as the flowerdetails, Penny referred tophotographs of the vases toensure complete accuracy wasachieved. Finally, gold gildedhighlights were added to theappropriate parts of the vaseswith a specific, brown goldused in Chinese ceramics,duller than that found onEuropean work. Once thisprocess had been finished, thevases were back to their formerglory, restored to their statebefore the accident. Anyblemishes or painting mistakeswhich had occurred in antiquitywere left as such, so that thehistorical integrity of theobject was not compromised.

The decision to fully restorethese vases can be questioned;if the set had been broken whenit was received by the museumin 1948, it would not have beena straightforward decision torestore them. The accident

however regretful is anintegral part of the object’shistory and will always besuch. By restoring them (andtherefore attempting to forgetabout the breakages), are weremoving this important part ofthe objects’ histories? Thisis, of course a wider ethicalrestoration issue, but oneworth considering.

UNVEILING THE(RE)MASTERPIECES

Over a period of 7 months,Penny managed the ‘impossibletask’ of restoring the threeQing dynasty vases. The larger,baluster jar was the first tobe completed, with work on itrunning from April to July2006. The two yan yan vases wereworked on in tandem and tookthree months to complete afterthe work on the baluster vase.But what has become of thevases now? They rose to famethanks to the fateful accident,so the eyes of the media layfirmly on the Fitzwilliam whenit announced it would beunveiling the completedbaluster jar at its MissionImpossible? exhibition, which ranJuly-September 2006, exploringthe decisions and ethicalchoices conservators are facingin their work.

One cannot help but think theFitzwilliam have missed anopportunity by not exploitingthe accident in 2006 more


thoroughly. Conservation is nowa major exhibition theme inmany museums- not only intemporary special exhibitionsbut in permanent galleries. Forexample in the Ashmolean twogalleries on the basement floorare dedicated to conservationtechniques and highlighting thefaults of fakes. Although thebaluster jar was originallyunveiled in an exhibition aboutconservation, there is nopermanent discussion ofrestoration or conservation inthe Fitzwilliam. Surely thisaccident was the perfectopportunity for the museum todevelop something along theselines? The mind is drawn to anexhibition recreating thefateful accident usingreplicas, demonstrating thefragility of museumcollections.

If you visit the Fitzwilliamtoday, you can still see allfive of the vases- the twowhich were unharmed in theaccident are still on displayon either side of thewindowsill on the staircase,and the threerestored piecesare in aspeciallydesigned casein the FlowerPaintingsGallery,adjacent to theCourtauld

staircase. They were unveiledin their new location on 9th

November 2007, less than twoyears after they had been lyingon the floor in thousands ofpieces. The nature of theadhesive used in theconservation process meant thatthey were unable to be placedback on the windowsill; thedirect sunlight, although notdamaging to the ceramics, wouldhave accelerated thedeterioration of the glueholding the pieces together,causing it to yellow and breakdown. Now they sit in aspecially designed case, andvisitors can see them from allangles, allowing more of theirbeauty to be admired.

To find out more…

About the vases please visitthe Fitzwilliam website: http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/chinesevases/

About the ethics of restorationand conservation exhibitionplease see Brooks, M. M.‘Sharing conservation ethics,


Below: the vases in their new position in Gallery 17, adjacent to the Courtauld staircase.

practice and decision makingwith museum visitors’ 332-349and Eastop, D. ‘Conservationpractice as enacted ethics’426-444 both in Marstine, J.(ed.) The Routledge Companion toMuseum Ethics (2011) Routledge.

About Chinese porcelain pleasesee Carswell, J. (2000) Blue andWhite: Chinese porcelain around the worldBritish Museum Press.


List of figures

Figure 1

The aftermath of the accident in the FitzwilliamAvailable from: http://physog.co.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=692

Figure 2

Floor plan of the Fitzwilliam highlighting the Courtauldstaircase


Figure 3

The set of five vases before the accidentAvailable from: http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/chinesevases/disaster.html

Figure 4

The position of the vases on the windowsill of theCourtauld staircaseAvailable from: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/art-attacks


Figure 5

Penny Bendall working to restore the vasesAvailable from: http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/craft/art51806

Figure 6

The three vases in their current location in Gallery 17 Available from: http://artincambridge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-i-hate-gallery-17-in-fitzwilliam.html


Figure 5

Penny Bendall working to restore the vasesAvailable from: http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/craft/art51806

Figure 6

The three vases in their current location in Gallery 17 Available from: http://artincambridge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-i-hate-gallery-17-in-fitzwilliam.html

Bibliography

Art in Cambridge (2013) Why I hate Gallery 17 (in the Fitzwilliam Museum)Available from:http://artincambridge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-i-hate-gallery-17-in-fitzwilliam.html Accessed 20/01/2015.

Ashley-Smith, J. (2011) ‘Risk Analysis’ in PreventativeConservation in Museums Caple, C. (ed.) Routledge 39-50.

Battersby, M. (2012) ‘Art Attacks’ in The Independent 8th OctoberAvailable from: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/art-attacks-from-pissing-in-duchamps-fountain-to-defacing-a-rothko-1879312.html Accessed20/01/2015.

Brooks, M. M. (2011) ‘Sharing conservation ethics, practiceand decision making with museum visitors’ in The RoutledgeCompanion to Museum Ethics Marstine, J. (ed.) 332-349.

Buttler, C. and M. Davis (2006) ‘Re-conservation andrestoration’ in Things Fall Apart…: museum conservation in practice


Bibliography

Art in Cambridge (2013) Why I hate Gallery 17 (in the Fitzwilliam Museum)Available from:http://artincambridge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-i-hate-gallery-17-in-fitzwilliam.html Accessed 20/01/2015.

Ashley-Smith, J. (2011) ‘Risk Analysis’ in PreventativeConservation in Museums Caple, C. (ed.) Routledge 39-50.

Battersby, M. (2012) ‘Art Attacks’ in The Independent 8th OctoberAvailable from: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/art-attacks-from-pissing-in-duchamps-fountain-to-defacing-a-rothko-1879312.html Accessed20/01/2015.

Brooks, M. M. (2011) ‘Sharing conservation ethics, practiceand decision making with museum visitors’ in The RoutledgeCompanion to Museum Ethics Marstine, J. (ed.) 332-349.

Buttler, C. and M. Davis (2006) ‘Re-conservation andrestoration’ in Things Fall Apart…: museum conservation in practice

Oakley, V. L. and K. K. Jain (2002) Essentials in the care andconservation of historical ceramic objects Archetype Publications.

Physog (2012) Is it really so easy to piece together three smashed Qing vases?Available from: http://physog.co.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=692Accessed 11/01/2015.

Victoria and Albert Museum (2014) Caring for your ceramics Availablefrom: www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/c/caring-for-your-ceramics Accessed 14/01/2015.

Documents

Clumsy visitor gives conservation team a sticky problem at the Fitzwilliam