Mark Golden on Paint

Letter to the Editor at the New York Times
The recent article “Paints’ Mysteries Challenge Protectors of Modern Art”, by Randy Kennedy, 2/14/07 provided some very welcome recognition of the research into modern materials that has been ongoing for the last 10 years in earnest by several institutions, including The Getty (Los Angeles), The Tate (London), and the National Gallery (D.C.). Missing was the collaboration of Queen’s University (Ontario), MolArt (Amsterdam) and the University of Turino (Turin). All of these institutions have been quietly investigating modern paints to provide tools and techniques for conservators in how to best care for these materials. Before the 1950’s and for hundreds of years previous, the art of restoration was a trial and error exercise. The hands of even well meaning but unqualified restorers had destroyed many works over this time. It wasn’t until the modern era that conservation science became a serious discipline. As the art market has heated up to stratospheric proportions over the last 50 years, techniques have been refined, improved and tested to give greater assurance that the conservator will do no harm to his or her charge. Fortunately, now the spotlight has been turned to modern materials in recognition that they have come of age and that they are now amongst the most popular products for making art, especially the acrylics.

Unfortunately, the article buries the fact that Dr. Learner and Dr. Schilling “say that their initial findings show that many modern paints, especially acrylics, are more stable in some ways than oils”. This is pretty valuable information for the art consuming public who has generally been quite suspicious of these modern materials. It goes on to suggest that artist paint companies have not been forthright in providing information to these scientists. However, as a company, we have worked over many years with every one of these institutions in providing data, formulas, making custom paints for testing, supporting research and providing all our contacts for them to continue their discussion with others in the field. In further asking Dr. Learner about the quotes attributed to him, he suggested that information about our collaboration with all of these institutions had just been left out of this article. I find this greatly disappointing. While it might not make for scintillating reporting, the fact that a company can be a responsible member of the community it makes products for, could, and indeed should, have been something of interest to your readers. Unfortunately, the context in which our company is mentioned would make it quite easy for your readers to conclude we are one of those companies who have not been of much help. This is far from the truth.
Sincerely, Mark Golden