Scenery Restoration is Dirty Business
The Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center’s “Behind the Scenes” article discusses the “91-year lifespan” of the Fort Scott’s scenery. The author then attributes another age to the collection mentioning a “century of soot.” Both ages are incorrect. All of the Fort Scott drops, except two scenes, will turn 93 years old this Fall. How do we know when Thomas Moses painted the scenes? The artist records the information in his typed manuscript.
In regard to the “century of soot” that needed to be removed from the Fort Scott drops, the author details the cleaning process writing: “Team members remove a century of soot by hand using special dry-chemical sponges. They make several passes until the black soot is gone and traces of pigment are visible on the sponge. Care must be taken not to remove too much pigment.” This statement greatly concerns me as pigment will either immediately lift or not lift at all.
Pigment is not gradually removed from a backdrop. If the binder is still working the paint sticks to the fabric and these gentle archival sponges will not remove the color. Sponges can only remove the pigment if it is already loose and at that point you should not use dry-chemical sponges. Instead, you use an archival putty to carefully “dab away” the dirt. The occasional need for putty instead of sponges is also why Lance Brockman prefers to use bread dough; it immediately picks up the dirt and doesn’t mix the contaminants into the loose pigment. For me, Absorene archival sponges and putty are my preferred alternative as they are easier to ship, transport, and store.
But let us examine the dry-chemical sponge used by the restoration crew and cited by the author in the article. The Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center website links us to the “dry-chemical sponges” website. The website links to a preservation company in Norfolk, England. This really surprised me as I always purchase my archival sponges from St. Louis, Missouri. A low-end substitute can also be found in many paint stores. Why purchase a foreign product, especially after ten cases had been ordered for the Fort Scott scenery restoration from St. Louis during the spring of 2016?
On April 20, 2016 I sent the following email to the general director of the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center:
“Please order ten cases of the following below (Absorene dry cleaning soot sponge) for the first two phases of drop restoration this spring and summer. Thank you.
Product to Order: Dry Cleaning Soot Sponge #016 (10 cases)
3/4″ x 3″ x 6″ Unwrapped, Bulk Packed, 120 Per Case (order ten cases) Absorene Manufacturing Company, Inc. www.absorene.com 2141 Cass Avenue, St Louis, MO 63106 314-231-6355 Fax 314-231-4028 Pricing is quoted by quantity ordered. Companies, please email or fax us on your company letterhead your request for price quotes. customerservice@absorene.com or Fax: 314-231-4028”
I began to wonder if the current restoration team had used any of the products that I ordered and what had actually happened to that particular investment by Minnesota Freemasons. I then looked at the picture of the dirty sponges in the online article and started to wonder how well the drops had been cleaned, and if the backsides had been cleaned at all. In Fort Scott the surface contaminants had been a combination of mortar dust, bat guano, pigeon droppings, flash powder, oil and coal heat residue, cigar smoke, and a variety of unknown substances – not to mention the dusting pigment. The back of each Fort Scott drop had a visible layer of contaminants and was much blacker than the standard mid-gray hue, common to scenery restoration.
As previously explained (installment #13 – Getting My Hands Dirty), to minimize the airborne spread of these contaminants on site in Fort Scott, I had vacuumed both the front and backside of each drop prior to rolling for shipping. After completing a low-suction dust extraction, I then tested the remaining layers of filth to determine the later cleaning process that would be required during restoration. My Fort Scott tests involved spot testing areas with dry chemical-sponges on various scenes to identify the “problem children” of the collection. The resulting contaminants for every drop remained coal black on the dry-chemical sponge. I envisioned the need for multiple passes with low-suction dust extraction prior to using any sponge during restoration cleaning.
The use of dry-chemical sponges during a final cleaning process brightens the painted surface. People love the instant gratification of a lighter composition in contrast with the original filthy one. That being said, it is even more important to remove the contaminants on the backside of each drop as they pose the greatest health hazard. People often don’t realize that it is the back of a drop that holds the most dirt. The backside contains environmental contaminants embedded in the raw fabric– often a greater health hazard than any dusting pigments. These same contaminants do not settle as easily on the painted surface as it is sealed. In other words, the painted fabric does not have the same “tooth” of raw fabric to facilitate the settling of contaminants.
For the sake of future performers on the Ives stage, I hope that the back of each scene was cleaned extremely well by the “restoration crew” as young performers, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems are the most at risk.
To be continued…
