The Proposal
The CEO proposed that I hang the unrestored drops in the MMHC theatre, later remove the unrestored drops for restoration, restore the drops off site, and then hang the restored drops. This was simply ludicrous. I explained that this proposal would take it’s toll on each painting, as well as double the amount of necessary labor for restoration. His primary motivation was that the three scenery storage units that housed the Fort Scott collection were costing over $14,000 each year. His proposal was part of our continued discussion surrounding the query, “Why can’t we just hang the drops unrestored?”
I continued to detail the damage that would occur due to excessive handling. Every time a drop was handled, it would suffer from some form of deterioration. That was one of the reasons that I always completed restorations onsite. You see, after cleaning and stabilization the drop would still need to be rolled, encapsulated, and transported back to the MMHC theatre if it were restored off site. As previously explained, the fabric was not like a stiff sheet of linoleum when it was rolled for transport, wrinkles would occur during the rolling. If wrinkles were rolled into the tube, the restored painting would crack and show an unsightly flaw once hung.
Also, there were some areas that needed to be reinforced, cut openings that demanded new fabric, and some compositions that would be slightly altered to fit the MMHC proscenium opening. Excessive handling was also another one of the other reasons that I recommend against sewing anything onto historic drops as it rapidly destroyed the painted composition. Everything takes a beating and needs much more touch-up once hung in the space.
Finally, many of the unrestored scenes could not be hung immediately as they were missing the fabric on cut centers. This had been removed due to excessive filth prior to shipping. They simply couldn’t be hung unrestored without new netting or bobbinet, as the drops would sag.
Also, the tops and the bottoms of each drop needed to have a reinforced layer so that the edges of the wooden battens would not “rip” the old fabric over time. The weak spots on every drop are just above the bottom batten and just below the top batten. The edges of the wood can wear through fabric. Even if the fabric appears in excellent condition it will eventually fail.
In restoration, my current operating procedure is to reinforce the back sides of all the battened areas as a form of “preventative care,” adding a few additional decades to the longevity of each painted scene. This procedure also needs to happen if EVER a pipe pocket is attached, or a weakness is introduced into the fabric and that section WILL fail overtime.
As previously discussed, each drop needed to be stabilized to prevent dusting pigment too, thus causing a health hazard. Drops were “stabilized” with a diluted hide glue mixture “made to order” for each drop. I would heat up the granulated hide glue until it turned into thick syrup, with a consistency similar to a corn syrup. Then I added water to this syrup prior to spraying a thin application on the painted surface.
You want it as thin as possible for the finish to remain matte and the fabric flexible. If, for some reason, the stabilizing spray was too strong – meaning there was too much glue in the mixture – the painted surface would show a slight sheen and reflect stage lights, enhancing any subsequent wrinkles. In this particular scenario with too strong of a stabilization spray, the entire drop also became thicker and much more difficult to handle without damaging.
There were too many chances were being taken if the scenes were restored off site.
In the end, I again explained to the CEO that unless you want to jeopardize the condition of the scenes and double the anticipated workload, all restoration work needed to occur on site. I couldn’t “knowingly or wittingly” do something that would harm the collection. In hindsight, this was the beginning of the end as the CEO saw this as an opportunity to “win” a battle at any cost.
To be continued…