When in process of hewing poplar beams for a certain friend's house the
hewer & I got into a discussion of terminology and determined that the
folks who seemed to have a penchant for sitting on the beams during
their idle times were leaving an "assina".
I have seen similar marks of workboot shoe treads in black oil impressed
on surface of fresh GFRC limestone when left out where ironworkers felt
a need to walk (they like to walk on things especially if it gets them
higher than the sidewalk). Impressive marks when upside down on a window
header installed like there had been ancient moonwalkers. Though the
artichoke was a bit upset and wanted the prints removed. It takes a
teamwork of idiots to get this sort of architectural effect.
I increasingly encounter situations where a less-is-more approach to the
work, as in NOT removing surface coloration to a pure new finish in
masonry cleaning maintains the character of the existing
structure/materials and in some cases requires doing good work then
messing it up to make it look like bad work or outright doing bad work
in order to blend with existing. There has to be a terminology for bad
work that is not bad work but is in fact a transcendence of good work.
One problem with an approach of less-is-more is if the end client is
sophisticated enough to realize that anything at all has been done.
Whatever anyone wants to assume as to objectivity there is a social
politics to masonry cleaning. Howard Golden, past Brooklyn Borough
president got Brooklyn Borough Hall blasted overall w/ glass beads in
order to blend the Georgia marbledutchmen with the existing Tuckahoe
marble because he did not like the building looking like it had a rare
form of white measles. It has been over 20 years, I should go look again
and see what they have got. Though the Georgia marble & Tuckahoe marble
when clean look similar enough the Tuckahoe marble had been cleaned then
got dirty before they got donw putting in the freshly white dutchmen.
We are working on a Tuckahoe marble church in the Village and made a
point that the cleaning would 1) not remove the black carbonation, 2)
would not remove the inherent rust (from inclusions in the stone itself)
and 3) would be gentle to not remove surface area (sugaring in
particular) and 4) would be intended to only brighten up the facade and
in no measure make it look new. The end client got it perfectly when we
proposed this approach, and it fit their budget close enough. The idea
being that a 19th century building should look used and weathered. The
repointing was similar in effect to only repoint where mortar was
missing and in fact to do a rather rough job of it. If the repointing
was done in the manner that most mechanics are familiar with, thorough
and smoothly slicked, then the work would have looked off and instead of
doing less work more work would need to be done in order to maintain a
harmony of effect.
I am curious to read John Waite's book on Tweed Courthouse (I was
present at his first presentation to the city, a rather obscure honor,
as I was involved in a Robert Meadows' project on the building to remove
dead pigeons, guano and do some cleaning tests) as the similar material
of a Tuckahoe marble facade as to the church we are currently working on
that the Tweed Courthouse got a treatment that I doubt ever will be
applied to any other facade made of this material (other than possibly
Grace Church where Tom Thumb married Lavinia Warren). The Westchester,
NY quarry, sporting a rather unfortunate building material, was owned by
Boss Twead... so there is this legacy of a particular building material
used in the 19th century in NYC that was not as I know it used elsewhere.
The hardest part of the church project was communicating and controlling
the mechanics to NOT do more, to not do what they might think was a
better or more perfect job of it. Several years ago I ran into this
problem on the Barnes & Noble on Union Square, another 19th century
bldg., where there was a miscommunication internal to the company as to
the extent intended in the repointing work and there was a major cost
over-run as a result of the crew going overboard repointing what was
never intended to be repointed... if dumb-shit managers yell and scream
enough the effect is like buffalo stampeding.
We were asked recently to look to deconstruct/conserve/reconstruct a
Stamford White designed/ personal contributed fireplace and I
particularly appreciated the cautious manner in which the conservator
wrote up to not remove existing dents/spalls etc. and to underclean
rather than overclean the stone. I think even despite how a spec is writ
the end result depends on the understanding and appreciation of the
mechanics.
As to biological patina... I am in favor of removing algae and moss.
Patina is not necessarily always a preservative coating.
I would also - not being a conservator - extend the use of the term
'patina' towards a connection with maintaining a harmony of appearance
suitable to age of the materials, structure and surrounding environment.
Lastly, considering assinas in restoration of a '73 Triumph Spitfire
1500 should one worry about the sag in the seats?
][<
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|