Description of Odd Nerdrum material failures

[Kenneth Freed]

George,

In doing a little research recently on Odd Nerdrum, who appears to be in trouble with Norway's tax authorities, it was reported in a 2011 court case, Nerdrum claimed that the technique he used in the 1980s was faulty, "a special mixture of oils and paint in an effort to recreate the style of the old masters" which subsequently melted and disintegrated.

And a further explanation from his wife, Turid Spildo in which she states in a blog referencing the above problems, "The mastic that he and his students had experimented with was not good. Later, he realized that the mastic probably was from young trees and not from old trees like it always had been before… Because of this the resin triggers a meltdown …
When the Accused rose on the third day, he had decided to re-paint all the paintings from this decade. Without the mastic of course. I imagine he threw all the mastic in the trash that night. I remember a student a few years later who was curious about this oil mix. Odd paled and told him that he should never ask about that again nor should he ever think about it again."

Evidentally, Odd was preparing for painting failures on a large scale from his work in the 80's, in his court case, he refers to keeping sums of money for possible compensation for failed paintings.

What occurs to me from the above references is that we hear of one of the greatest painters of our time, struggling with the effects of soft resins in mediums. This should make those that have employed the so-called, "Rubens style or Flemish style medium" using the Maroger formula of leaded linseed oil, mastic and turpentine, at least consider some of the ramifications of this usage. Now one further thought is that his paintings are on canvas. Would he have this same problem if they were done on panel? I would think a rigid substrate might offer some protection against the apparent delamination.

[Kakwirakeron]

George,

In doing a little research recently on Odd Nerdrum, who appears to be in trouble with Norway's tax authorities, it was reported in a 2011 court case, Nerdrum claimed that the technique he used in the 1980s was faulty, "a special mixture of oils and paint in an effort to recreate the style of the old masters" which subsequently melted and disintegrated.

And a further explanation from his wife, Turid Spildo in which she states in a blog referencing the above problems, "The mastic that he and his students had experimented with was not good. Later, he realized that the mastic probably was from young trees and not from old trees like it always had been before… Because of this the resin triggers a meltdown …
When the Accused rose on the third day, he had decided to re-paint all the paintings from this decade. Without the mastic of course. I imagine he threw all the mastic in the trash that night. I remember a student a few years later who was curious about this oil mix. Odd paled and told him that he should never ask about that again nor should he ever think about it again."

Evidentally, Odd was preparing for painting failures on a large scale from his work in the 80's, in his court case, he refers to keeping sums of money for possible compensation for failed paintings.

What occurs to me from the above references is that we hear of one of the greatest painters of our time, struggling with the effects of soft resins in mediums. This should make those that have employed the so-called, "Rubens style or Flemish style medium" using the Maroger formula of leaded linseed oil, mastic and turpentine, at least consider some of the ramifications of this usage. Now one further thought is that his paintings are on canvas. Would he have this same problem if they were done on panel? I would think a rigid substrate might offer some protection against the apparent delamination.

Fascinating information Mr. Freed. Yet another story of the potential dangers of Maroger Sad too is the case of Nerdrum's tax woes. As of now he has been sentenced to jail - it's what I have read on the net. Regardless of his woes he is a giant talent as a painter imho.

[George O'Hanlon]

Kenneth,

Interesting that you posted this thread about Odd nerdrum, as I was writing a blog entry on this very issue. Please visit my blog entry:
http://www.naturalpigments.com/vb/en...y-of-Paintings

[rkocharian]

George,

What occurs to me from the above references is that we hear of one of the greatest painters of our time, struggling with the effects of soft resins in mediums. This should make those that have employed the so-called, "Rubens style or Flemish style medium" using the Maroger formula of leaded linseed oil, mastic and turpentine, at least consider some of the ramifications of this usage. Now one further thought is that his paintings are on canvas. Would he have this same problem if they were done on panel? I would think a rigid substrate might offer some protection against the apparent delamination.

Flemish paintings on the canvas withstood the test of the time. There was no need to glue canvases to a rigid panels because that practice was/is not supporting any permanency. Apparent delamination has nothing to do with it.

Rubik

[Kenneth Freed]

Panel Paintings during this period were most frequently plank panels covered with ground. There was not canvas glued on to the panel. This is a more recent phenomenon. My point was that panel paintings do not undergo the expansion and contraction to the degree that canvas paintings endure. As such depending on the medium used it could result in less potential for trouble. And in fact, Rubens panel paintings are generally in a much better state of repair than the canvas paintings.

[rkocharian]

Panel Paintings during this period were most frequently plank panels covered with ground. There was not canvas glued on to the panel. This is a more recent phenomenon. My point was that panel paintings do not undergo the expansion and contraction to the degree that canvas paintings endure. As such depending on the medium used it could result in less potential for trouble. And in fact, Rubens panel paintings are generally in a much better state of repair than the canvas paintings.

You are right - gluing canvas to the panel is a recent phenomenon.
Unfortunately, this terrible for longevity of the painting practice promoted as the most safe by many respectful people in art field nowadays. Painting on panel is excellent. Painting on canvas is excellent too. Painting on the canvas glued to the panel is terrible mistake. Anybody who has visited Palace of Versailles in France will see a lot of paintings by Old Masters glued to the panel. As a result of it these paintings look cloudy and dull. Discoloration is inevitable. So it will happened to any painting painted on the canvas that has been glued to the rigid support.

Rubens' painting "Roman Charity" in Hermitage museum originally was painted on the panel. Because of bad condition of the panel the painting was transferred to the canvas in 1819. Panel is as fragile as canvas if not kept carefully. Paintings need attention, otherwise panels or canvases won't live long. After certain time period, under same circumstances color on the paintings on canvases that have been glued to the panels will look terrible compared to paintings on panels or canvases alone. This is my observation.
R

[bjh]

You are right - gluing canvas to the panel is a recent phenomenon.
Unfortunately, this terrible for longevity of the painting practice promoted as the most safe by many respectful people in art field nowadays. Painting on panel is excellent. Painting on canvas is excellent too. Painting on the canvas glued to the panel is terrible mistake. Anybody who has visited Palace of Versailles in France will see a lot of paintings by Old Masters glued to the panel. As a result of it these paintings look cloudy and dull. Discoloration is inevitable. So it will happened to any painting painted on the canvas that has been glued to the rigid support.

Rubens' painting "Roman Charity" in Hermitage museum originally was painted on the panel. Because of bad condition of the panel the painting was transferred to the canvas in 1819. Panel is as fragile as canvas if not kept carefully. Paintings need attention, otherwise panels or canvases won't live long. After certain time period, under same circumstances color on the paintings on canvases that have been glued to the panels will look terrible compared to paintings on panels or canvases alone. This is my observation.
R

Rubik, Are you referring to canvas glued to panels with a hide glue only as in the past, or do you refer to the more modern method of using acrylic based mediums/glues as well?

[rkocharian]

Rubik, Are you referring to canvas glued to panels with a hide glue only as in the past, or do you refer to the more modern method of using acrylic based mediums/glues as well?

Both glues are bad for that purpose. Hide glue is as bad as acrylic glue for that purpose. Long run damage in both cases is inevitable.
Historically gluing canvas to the panel was not practiced by any of Old Masters. There are only very few, single out cases and it's questionable if it was done by the artist himself.
Rubik

[llawrence]

Painting on panel is excellent. Painting on canvas is excellent too. Painting on the canvas glued to the panel is terrible mistake.

...

Rubens' painting "Roman Charity" in Hermitage museum originally was painted on the panel. Because of bad condition of the panel the painting was transferred to the canvas in 1819.

A painting was transferred from panel to canvas? How in the world??

Why does gluing canvas to panel make the paintings look cloudy and dull? I've read it's not a good idea to glue canvas after the painting has been done, but what's wrong with painting directly onto canvas panel? If one uses hide glue, that's the same material that would be used to seal the canvas itself. I can't imagine what the difference would be.

[rkocharian]

A painting was transferred from panel to canvas? How in the world??

Why does gluing canvas to panel make the paintings look cloudy and dull? I've read it's not a good idea to glue canvas after the painting has been done, but what's wrong with painting directly onto canvas panel? If one uses hide glue, that's the same material that would be used to seal the canvas itself. I can't imagine what the difference would be.

Transferring painting from panel to canvas and from canvas to panel was common practice in the past and was done sometimes several times to the same painting. Many paintings by Titian (i,e) were transfered from panel to canvas and from canvas to panel several times. The process is quite simple but takes a lot of experience, handling of materials etc. I have seen restorers doing it in the museums back in Russia.

Gluing canvas to panel means burial of canvas in the glue. Canvas will get rotten and dark with the time, it will brake on touch. With modern glues that are 'waxing' canvas from the back - gluing should be avoided all together. It causes cloudiness and discoloration, it makes painting to look dull.

Rubik