|
|
Saving the Materiality and Spirituality of a Living Church Mural Ensemble,
Surpatele Monastery, 1706
by Anca Nicolaescu and Simona Patrascu
Passing through Time The first written testimony regarding Surpatele Church dates back to 1512, the founders at that time being boyars from the Buzesti family. In 1706 Lady Maria Brâncoveanu - the wife of Constantin Brâncoveanu prince of Walachia - rebuilt the church and added around it all the necessary buildings for a nunnery following the typical Brâncovenesc architecture. The typology of this style is represented by the trilobate plan, the enlaced tendency of the forms, the opened porch and the use of sculpted ornaments; this architectural style was established and spread during Brâncoveanu times.
Inauspicious Events of the Monastery For a better understanding of the severe damages it was necessary to have a look at the important events which influenced the monument preservation during time. Therefore, information was gathered from the National Institute of Historical Monuments archive in Bucharest, an important research stage prior to any intervention and vital for good documentation, diagnostic and treatment decisions. From simple memories to detailed conservation assessments, the documents helped to trace the history of the monument and thus, the major facts which influenced its preservation. Three important moments which led to the successive degradation of the monument, have been distinguished. The first one took place in 1873, during the secularisation of the monasteries, when Surpatele was closed. During this period of almost 50 years, all the buildings ruined except the church and the tower which were used by the village parish. From existing documents (from 1907) it is known that the church was also in a bad condition, its damaged roof causing significant rain water infiltrations. The church was closed until 1928 when five nuns from Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, with the help of the Historical Monuments Commission, rebuilt the south wing and the monastery entrance in the same original Brâncovenesc style, known from the works of some travelling artists from 19th century like Henry Trenk, Amadeo Pretziosi, Carol Pop Szathmary or the french August Lancelot. The next events were the earthquakes from 1940 and 1977, which together with the unstable soil and the underground water action specific for the region, caused the major degradation of the monument. In 1940 the church suffered severe structural fractures, which made necessary an immediate consolidation intervention. On this respect, the intervention at that time comprised the introduction of interior iron bends for structure stability, the reconstruction of the lost parts of the walls and the filling of the cracks – interventions which survived until our project started. Actually, these interventions were only covering the real gravity of the damages. The earthquake from 1977 reactivated all the structural damages and created others, making necessary a rigorous consolidation intervention, which was finally done in 1980 after a project of Prof. Alexandru Cismigiu1. Thus, the monument was bent in an exterior consolidation cage, stopping the longitudinal transversal fragmentation action which otherwise would have led the monument to inevitable collapse.Beside these structural interventions, the mural painting ensemble was never restored.
Examples of previous improper interventions from different compartments of the church.
Degradation Causes and Conservation State
Having in mind all the events the monument went through, we can state that the murals were in fairly good condition at the point of our intervention; the serious damages occurred mainly at the support level influencing the paint layer. The most important causes for the monument state of degradation were the natural calamities such as earthquakes and soil movements completed by the lack of maintenance especially during monasteries secularization times, when the existing records mention the missing roof and the bad state of the church. Secondly, the humidity (active in all its forms as infiltration, capillarity and conden-sation) and the improper previous interventions at the structural level (fillings in the cracks with cement mortars) were the factors that drove to its poor conservation condition. Fortunately, the painters used a very good technique learned at Hurezi Constantinos School, a Byzantine a fresco having an arriccio layer made from lime, sand and straw with a thickness of around 4mm and an intonaco layer varying in thickness from 0,3-1,5 mm, having in composition lime and inert materials like tow. This was the reason why the mural paintings eventually survived up to the moment of our intervention. Frightening structural damages were possible to observe only after the removal of the previous interventions, which were masking the reality. Critical cracks were discovered, running transversally and longitudinally at the vaults’ level; fissures, walls and arches displacements were visible both on vertical and horizontal, leading to significant detachments and losses of the painting in the adjacent areas. The alternation of the earthquakes’ movement had as result the displacement of the vertical structural elements and of those from the arches level. In this situation the technical building experience, the renders composition and the heterogeneity of the used materials are vital for the architecture survival. Therefore, at Surpatele Church, the earthquakes provoked arch fractures in all the compartments, the collapse of the triumphal intrados, wall displacements in the altar, at the west gable of the narthex and at the exonarthex vaulting level. Beside those structural damages, water leak and improper previous interventions determined the appearance of salts efflorescence (mainly at the northern vault, tower level and porch), flaking and losses of the paint layer. However, those were not causing any problems during the conservation treatment, appearing only on small areas and mostly superficial.
Altar - different
stages of structural consolidation of the cracks and the interior iron
bends from 1940. From felt to right: after removing the previous
intervention, after structural consolidation and after filling in the
cracks with mortar.
The necessity of an emergency intervention was evident from the beginning, even if the architectural consolidation was solved in the exterior. The first stage of the conservation intervention comprised the mural painting protection, necessary for a safe structural intervention. Following the engineers' methodological strategy throughout their project, the murals were protected with Japanese paper, the detachments were injected and all the fissures were filled, in the areas were they were supposed to intervene. These preliminary operations were done in the entire church at the vaulting level, were the structural problems occurred, in order to protect the paintings from any unexpected situation. There were two kinds of structural interventions: injections under pressure using special inert cement with a very low percentage of salts and inclusion of steel reinforcement bars for bending the walls severe fissures. The injections were done at the vault level in all the church compartments, while the steel reinforcements were done only in the altar in the lower part of the vault and on the west gable, where the cracks were severe (20 cm). Our assistance comprised, besides the protection of the murals in the specific areas (with Japanese paper and carboxymethyl cellulose - CMC) also the consolidation of the support detachments with PLM AL (a lime based injection material used especially for ceilings and vaulting due to its low molecular weight) which otherwise could have been detached during the process by the pressure. Placing the injection tubes during the filling of the cracks at a distance of 15-20 cm approximately was also part of our backing work. For the fissure bending, we were consulted to choose the less disturbing place to make the inlets for the steel bar insertions. Only after the completion of these entire preventive steps, necessary in order to assure the total protection of the mural paintings, the structural intervention could start. Without a very good cooperation between all the specialists involved in this operation and without planning ahead all the steps, the results could have been disastrous. The injection under pressure can produce displacement of the paintings or the material can flood on the walls – even through very small fissures, leading to the loss of the paint layer. The structural consolidation started following a well-established project and it was assisted by restorers. During the injections, the whole church was supervised from both inside and outside checking the adjacent areas were the engineers were working, ready to interfere or to stop the operation in case the material was leaking out. Fortunately, there were no problems in the course of this process and the consolidation of the church structure was perfectly done from the interior as well. Different damages at the arches level and the structural intervention.
Having solved this serious structural issue, our proper restoration procedure could start with the usual methodological steps. Due to the high quality of the mural paintings we did not encounter any difficulties during the process. The paint layer being generally stable - only in few areas where salts crystallised forming white veils, paint flaking occurred - the leaning was done using mainly paper paste as poultices with ammonium carbonate. For the areas where the paint layer was flaking, Japanese paper was used as cleaning compress, enabling the cleaning and fixation of the damaged areas at the same time. The adherent dirt was thus easily cleaned and at the same time a first slight fixation of the paint layer was done by gently pressing the area where the poultice was applied with a rubber roller. The chemical cleaning was completed, where necessary, by mechanical cleaning using wishab sponge.
The cleaning revealed the colourful original paintings, which were impossible to distinguish for so many years due to the dirty covering layers. The analyses showed, as it was expected, that the pigments were the usual ones in the area during the 18th century: blue - azurite; red - cinnabar and minium; green – malachite and earth green; yellow – ochre; white – lime and black – wooden charcoal. Gold leaf was also used for the saints’ haloes, garments and some ornaments. Further, the fillings done prior to the structural intervention, using a lime sand mortar with different proportions and sand dimensions, had to be finalized.
From left to right:
Narthex, west tympanum before the conservation interventions; west
tympanum after the conservation interventions; narthex, north apse,
before conservation interventions; and narthex, north apse, after
conservation interventions.
Therefore, during this stage art historians were consulted regarding the aesthetical and iconographic aspect and it was agreed that keeping the support lacunas at the archaeological stage could disturb the whole perception of the murals which otherwise were very well preserved. Willing to achieve the unity of the mural ensemble, we decided to treat all the support lacunas located inside the depicted areas using the same methodology: filling them at the paint layer level (using a lime/carbonate mortar) and reconstructing the image by tratteggio technique using a lighter hue, thus being easily recognizable from the original. The wall displacements were preserved exactly as they occurred, avoiding this way any misinterpretation of the original mural surface. Although even if they are perceived as damages, being the historical events witnesses, they are also part of the monument history and hence of its authenticity. The paint layer lacunas were reintegrated using velatura method with neutral tonalities accorded with the proximity colours, following the simultaneous contrast concept. Watercolours were used for the whole retouching treatment due to their easy reversibility for fresco technique and their resistance in time.
Upper row: Different conservation stages of the Pantocrator in the dome of the narthex: after removal of the previous intervention, after filling in the gaps with lime mortar, after chromatic integration of the color layer, and tratteggio detail.
Lower row: Images after the intervention: nathex’s dome, narthex (north-west view), the south apse of the narthex.
Conclusion
As expected, the final results of the mural ensemble conservation recovered the initial chromatic harmony and iconographic unity leaving readable the action of time but at the same time making the church capable to participate in the everyday liturgical services with its murals. In 2004 the Romanian Cultural Minister awarded the conservation project from Surpatele Monastery with the price “Vasile Dragut”2 for the “unusual difficulty degree of interventions (for this type of monuments) and the exemplar appropriateness of both the technical solutions related with the monument state and the remarkable quality of the aesthetical final presentation, which redeemed the mural ensemble unity.” Acknowledgements This project, that started as a challenge for us, grew to be our first example of good cooperation between all those involved, starting with the expert conservator Silviu Petrescu, the devoted conservators team – Teodora Poiata, Alexandru Minculescu, Catalin Dumbrava and Andreea Banea among others – the architects, art historians, engineers, and last but not least, the nuns community which supported all our decisions during this time. Notes 1. Eminent engineer and professor at the Architecture University from Bucharest, recognized due to his numerous original consolidation concepts used on monuments. 2. Price awarded yearly by the Romanian Ministry of Culture to important heritage conservation projects. Photos by Serban Bonciocat and Anca Nicolaescu (2002-2003) About the authors
Anca Nicolaescu
Contact: ancanicolaescu@yahoo.com Anca Nicolaescu is a conservator specialised in mural painting. She obtained a diploma in Conservation of Archeological and Museum Patrimony in 1995 at “Spiru Haret” University and a Painting Conservation diploma at the National Art University in 1999, in Bucharest. She continued her studies with a Master in Conservation within the same University. In 2005 she received the specialist restorer certificate from the Romanian Ministry of Culture. She has worked in several national and international conservation projects, among which the Jampa Lhakhang Project with Tibet Heritage Fund, in India – Ladakh (2006 - 2007), Bukhara – RSF (Restaurateurs sans Frontieres)- UNESCO Project in Uzbekistan (2005) and the Restoration of the Phoebe Traquaire murals project, Edinburgh, Scotland (2004). Between 2004-2005 she was part of the international RSF team, working in Turkey on the conservation of Byzantine icons and church furniture. She presented the results of her work in several national and international conservation conferences, workshops and exhibitions. Simona Patrascu Contact: simona_kp30@yahoo.com Simona Patrascu is a conservator of mural paintings and one of the co-founder of Restauro Art Group S.R.L. conservation enterprise. She graduated from Spiru Haret University in 1995, specialising in Ceramics, Glass and Metal Conservation. In 1993 she also started the conservation courses at National Art University in Bucharest, so that three years later she obtained the degree in the Conservation of Mural Paintings. Since 2000 she is a member of the Romanian Artists Union, Conservation Department, becoming in 2001 a member of its professional commission. In 2005, when the Romanian Ministry of Culture started to attest the conservation specialists, she was atributed the "Restoration and Conservation of Mural Paintings" specialist diploma. Beyound her experience within Restauro Art Grup, she was involved in important conservation projects of mural paintings such as the UNESCO site at the Probota Monastery (1998). Since 1994, she has been working on works of art such as Byzantine wooden icons, Persian ceramics, polychromatic sculptures and easel paintings. Anca Nicolaescu and Simona Patrascu, together with the expert restorer Silviu Petrescu, founded Restauro Art Grup S.R.L. in 2000, a conservation enterprise accredited by the Romanian Ministry of Culture. The enterprise has run several conservation projects for important historic monuments in Romania, among which the conservation of the mural ensemble from the Surpatele Monastery (2002-2003), the a fresco mural painting conservation from the Church of Jgheaburi Monastery (2003-2004) and the conservation of the exterior a fresco murals and original renderings from Coltea Church (2006).
▲TOP
The html version of this article does not contain complete images.
To save this article or see complete images in maximum quality please
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/601 |
|||||||||||
