1Like many public museums, the National Gallery, London, has sustained acts of vandalism to its collection. Archival records dating back to 1863 reveal that patterns of damage mostly involve mechanical damage with fewer non-corrosive substance attacks. In 2011, a further two paintings were defaced with canned spray paint. In total 21 works of art have been damaged.
2In response to this most recent assault and awareness of the need to update emergency procedures, the NG conservation department reviewed its emergency response kit and protocol for vandalism against its collection. The existing kit was developed in the late 1980s following a spate of acid attacks on paintings across Europe between 1977 and 1988; its function and purpose reflecting this particular threat, figure 1.
Fig. 1 Night Watch, Rembrandt, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Attacked with sulphuric acid in 1989
Photo: Rijksmuseum, 1995
3Damage caused by corrosive substances increases from the point of execution and therefore demands immediate action.
Fig. 2 Corrosives substances
Nitric acid caused the chalk ground on the sample to fizz and bubble.
Photo: Harrison, 1995
4This kit had no provision for dealing with mechanical damage, and in contrast, the effects of such an attack are generally more static and resulting damage can be dealt with in a less urgent way. To date, there has never been an instance of corrosive attack at the NG; however, preparedness remains a priority to mitigate the potentially devastating consequences.
5 In 2011, an updated diagnostic and clean-up approach was developed through research, testing and reference to a previous study conducted at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London. A new, rapid response ‘grab bag’ and procedure was assembled, with updated equipment and materials for responding to mechanical, non-corrosive, and corrosive attacks.
Fig. 3 National Gallery response
Incident response bag.
Photo: The National Gallery, London, 2012.
6An action plan was designed to fit the needs and challenges that were specific to the National Gallery. The implementation of the grab bag, its maintenance and staff training, highlighted the need for ongoing responsibilities within the conservation department. These included a budget to support yearly audits and replacement equipment/materials, security processes to prevent damage to the grab bags and incidental pilfering, and the maintenance of up-to-date callout lists, protocols and staff training, all of which are necessary to keep the grab bag and procedure in good working order.
Fig. 4 Flowchart for use in the event of corrosive attack
Instruction sheets for use in the event of corrosive (acidic) attack at the National Gallery
Credits: The National Gallery, London.
7 Unfortunately, incidents of vandalism continue and the grab bag has since been used in three real-life incidents to date, all with successful outcomes. Developing a rapid response procedure is relatively quick, easy and inexpensive to achieve. The nature of an attack may not be predictable but the successful mitigation of damage inflicted is well within the means of most institutions and custodians of heritage collection.
8 This research has been previously published, for a more detail see the references included.