Mechanical risks to large paintings

such as Guernica during transit

Stefan Michalski and Paul Marcon
Canadian Conservation lnstitute

lntroduction
from one museum to another in Spain, from
the Prado to the Reina Sofia.Judging from a video ofthe move and the
comments of those involved at the conference, it was a success. ln other
words,the painting was not damaged by transit.This paper will establish
that we should not be surprised by such a fact.Therefore, we can state
that another safe move is also possible.
On the other hand, there are many examples given in papers in
these proceedings about terrible experiences of art in transit, or more
precisely, of arc damaged during the process of moving from one wall in a
Guernico has already moved

to another wall in possibly another museum.These also are facts.

The question becomes: what distinguishes safe moves from unsafe
moves.We all know the short answer to this question is simply money.
Common sense tells us that we can imagine a motion so gentle, a ride
so subtle, a technique so expensive, that the artwork is completely
unaware of the move.The practical question then becomes: how gentle,
how subtle, how expensive, is good enoughl
museum,

Mechanical risks in context

"Good enough" in terms of modern risk management means
"acceptable riskl'Acceptable risk becomes a complicated issue very
quickly, as outlined byAshley-Smith in his recent book on museum
collections ( Ashley-Smith, 1999), but some basic strategies are
instructive.When judging acceptable risks for a move of artwork, for
example, a comparison should be made with the risk that occur without
the move.After all, an artwork on a wall in a museum is also at risk. Over
the next hundred years, it will be damaged by light, by pollution, even by
clean air, since it will continue to oxidize. lt will be at constant risk of
vandalism, indeed, Guernico was already the target of vandalism early in its
life. lt is a very symbolic and very popular artwork, and unfortunately, this
means high risk of vandalism.The decision to display the piece currently

without protective

87

glass was a significant

J.lechanical risks

to large paintings

such

risk management decision.

Guernica during transit

At the simplest level of risk management, one can argue that if

one plans a certain number of moves, for example, one every 20 years,
then the five moves should not increase the total risk significantly,
compared to the 100 years on display. For many issues, such as light,
pollution, oxygen, vandalism, the painting in even a simple crate is
obviously much safer than on display.The last few years of newspaper
reports (e.g Edward Munch's Scream ) establish that theft from a
museum's walls is more common than theft from well supervised
transit. Of course, for very large paintings such as Guernico,theft is
unlikely anyway.
Simple "acceptable risk" models for art loans break down for
several reasons. First, people will accept much greater risk from factors
that they choose (the lender's risks of home display) as compared to
factors that others choose (the borrowers risks, including transit).This
is not hypocrisy, just normal biological risk assessment strategy.We
accept more risk to our health from ourselves or our family, than we
accept from Others outside the family. Second, people accept much
greater risk from those factors considered "unavoidable" than from
those considered "avoidable".We know the next hundred years of
chemical ageing of the oil paint and the linen will lead to perceptible
yellowing, cracking, and weakening at room temperature, we see it in all
the oil paintings a hundred years older than Guernico, we know we could
stop it by low temperature storage, but we do not.The lender considers
it "normal and unavoidable" aging. ln addition, one hundred years of
damage by museum level lighting, by ambient pollution, by accidental risk
from careful visitors, all is considered "normal and unavoidable" but each
will contribute quite noticeably to the cumulative damage to Guernico.
One move in a hundred years, however, is judged by the lender as
avoidable, so the criterion is set very high: zero perceptible damage. Let
us accept that as the criterion for mechanical risk in transit, and see
how it is achieved.

Rolling and folding

Guernica is undoubtedly cracked from being rolled many times
with a small diameter tube. Compare the photo of the similar Picasso
work at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, Chornel House, (Figure
f , 2).This painting was painted a few years after Guernica ( 1944-45) but
with a similar technique, similar selection of pigmenrs, similar thickness
of paint. lt shows no perceptible cracking, and one can assume it has
never been rolled. lt is clear from observation of Guernico that the

88

Stefd

Michalski md Paul Marcon

F gure L P casso's Charnel House, at the lletroPo itan Yuseum of Yodern

Art, NewYork Painted n a s m lar technique to Guernica. A ra sed floor

reduces contacr damage by v s tors.

F-igurc

C ose up of P casso s Charne House, showing no vis b e cracks The

to requlre ro I ng n the past

painting was smal enough not

cracking from rolling is most pronounced in areas of thicker white paint,

where the design was changed often and more layers of paint built up.

The simple model of figure 3 has been used to calculate the diameter of
a roll that would be on the threshold of cracking oil paints of medium,
low, and very low flexibility.All the values for elongation at break are
taken from the work by the Smithsonian on artist's materials response
to "rapid" stretching, i.e., about ten seconds duration (Mecklenburg and
Tumosa, 199 l)."Medium" flexibility paint is taken as elongation at break
of 0.02, as measured for several l3 year old oil paints at 50%RH, 22.C.
"Low" flexibility paint is taken as elongation ar break of about 0.005, as
measured for lead white in safflower oil at 50%RH and 22.C, and as
measured for the medium flexibility paints when tested at cold and dry
conditions, -3"C and S%RH.Very low flexibility is taken as 0.00 l, as
measured for glue gessos.Although a glue gesso is not generally used on
canvas because it is so brittle, it is given as representative of very brittle
aged

or

lean paints.
ln table I, note that depending on paint type and thickness, one can
shift from a painting that can be safely rolled like a paper poster as seen in

ridiculous movies on art theft, to paintings that need huge tubes as used
for casting concrete pillars. Since an area of painting that was changed
several times will reach 0.5mm or more in paint thickness, then if
paintings such as Guernica were rolled in the past on tubes borrowed
from the carpet industry approximately I Scm diameter, they will crack. (ln
the table, the area in grey represents probable cracking on a I 5cm roll).
This is not to suggest that Guernico should be rolled in the future,
it is simply to explain that cracks in the thick paint areas were
predictable given the relatively small diameter tubes used in the past by
galleries.Those considering bending or rolling a large painting must
recognize that temperature and humidiry strongly affect the painting's
ability to bend and unbend without cracking.A medium flexibility paint
can become a low flexibility paint if cold and dry.The rolling and
unrolling should be performed as warm and humid as possible
(25'-30"C, 50%-70%RH.) Also, a painting with pronounced impasto may
have a higher stress concentration factor than that used for the table,
i.e., notches may bend more than twice as much as the average
curvature. Guernico has very little impasto.

RH and temperature in transit

Control of humidity and temperature in transit has been
understood by conservation science for 40 years (Stolow 1960). lt

90

Stefan I'lichalski and Paul Marcon

has

/r"'$fr-."
Figure 3.

flodel of

bending stresses in a
paint layen lfthe radius of
curvature is R, diameter
D=2R, the thickness of
paint film is d, then the
strain e in the top ofthe
paint film is e=d/D.

Table

I Minimum roll diameter to avoid cracking*

0.2mm thick paint

thin
layer of paint

Typical

for one

0.5mm thick
Typical for

paint

three
of paint

two or

thin layers

Very kidflexibiliry:
parm

(0.001,

elongation at break)
Low flexibility paint
(0.005,elongadon at

break). .

..

Mediurn ffexibilrty
paint {0.02 elengatlon

atbreak)

..:

.....'

rssumrng a moderate stress concentration factor x2 due to sliSht impasto or canvas weave.<

lmm thick paint

for painting
with impasto

Typical

been confirmed many times since, and was most recently outlined in the
Art inTronsit Hondbook (Mecklenburg and Richards, 199 l). ln brief, a
painting can be protected against humidity fluctuations during transit
simply by packing it inside a sealed polyethylene envelope. For extra
caution, the crate itself can be lined with polyethylene, and within this

moisture barrier, extra humidity absorbent material can be added as a

reservoir. Furthermore, if the crate is lined with a layer of foam
insulation, then rapid temperature fluctuations can be prevented at the
artwork.Thus a good package for transit can provide stable humidity for
many days, and protection against rapid temperature swings. lt cannot
provide stable temperature, only the vehicle can do that.Temperature
controlled vehicles are unusual for commercial transporg but not unusual
for special art transport vehicles.As long as the vehicle temperature
remains above lOoC (to prevent embrittlement of acrylic paints) and
below 30"C (to prevent softening of many traditional lining adhesives)
there is no evidence to suggest slow temperature change within this
range will cause mechanical risks to paintings on canvas. On the other
hand, it is clear that cold paintings are much more vulnerable to bending,
and may provoke condensation when exposed to gallery air, so cold
crates must be warmed before paintings are removed and handled.

Shock and vibration

The Canadian Conservation lnstitute is the only heritage research
institute in the world with the equipment and facilities for shock and
vibration studies. Over the past ten years, however, our emphasis has
been on providing advice on types of transit, cushioning, and crate design
as can be deduced from published data in the industrial literature
(Marcon, l99la, l99lb, 1999).The shipping ofvery expensive and very
fragile obiects is not peculiar to museums.At the same time, a large
amount of practical experience with the shipping of artworks has been
shared amongst the international conservation community, and the
overwhelming consensus is that paintings in well designed crates with
well-designed cushioning systems travelling in appropriate vehicles will
always arrive without any visible damage. Our measurements on the
response of paintings to shock and vibration confirmed our theoretical
understanding, and helped explain the practical experiences of others, but
these have not been published before.These studies will be reported in
detail in a later article, but we will present the most useful results here.
Both vibration and shock are measured in units of "G".A level of
lG is equal to the effect of gravity, hence the abbreviation G.A force of

92

Stefan Michalski and paut Marcon

lG is equal to the obiects own weight at rest, and a shock or vibration

of I 00G causes a momentary force on parts of the obiect equal to I 00
times its weight.The fragility of an object to shock is also measured in
the same units. Fragility is the minimum G level that causes damage.
A painting is most vulnerable to vibration when the source of
vibration has the same frequency as the fundamental resonant frequency
of the painting.This varies from about lHz for large loose paintings, to
50Hz for small tight paintings.Truck, trains, and planes provide sources
over this entire range, l- l00Hz, at levels up to 0.5G (Marcon l99lb).A
vibrating painting undergoes two potentially damaging forces:the painting
layers are stretched as the painting passes through each side of its swing,
and layers are alternatively accelerated and decelerated, potentially

throwing loose fragments into the air.A vibration study was performed
on an experimental painting made with an extremely brittle gesso on
linen (Michalski 199 l).The painting was vibrated at its fundamental
resonance frequency (25 Hz) with a source at lG.At resonance,the
center of the painting experienced about 20G. (Resonance typically yields
amplification of about x20).This lG source was equivalent to clamping
the painting to a truck floor and driving along a railway track.After 20
days and several million cycles,the painting was unaffected.A subsequent

test at a source of 2.5G.(50G at the painting center) eventually cracked

the painting, but no fragments flew off.The amount of stretching of the
gesso layer due to this amplitude was 0.00l,and it had been predicted
from a fatigue model that this degree of stretching would require several
million cycles to cause cracking. ln summary, we have been able to
observe damage from vibration only by using an unrealistically strong
source acting on an unusually weak and brittle painting for an unrealistic
period of time.As expected.
Vibration certainly does become a problem if the painting slaps
into another hard surface, such as its own stretcher bars.The shock of
collision is the problem, not the vibration itself. Fortunately, it is very
simple to prevent most painting vibration.A backing board stops
resonance at the fundamental frequency completely. ln table 2 are test
results on a large painting with a low resonant frequency.These were
carried out in collaboration with Marian Barclay, conservator at the
National Gallery of Canada.As expected, the data show the excellent
damping achieved by a rigid backing board, but more importantly, they
show the excellent results possible with a lightweight technique
introduced by Peter Booth at theTate Gallery for large paintings with
cross bars.This is known as "stretcher lining" (Booth 1989, Green

93

Mechanical risks to large paintings such

Guernica during

trmsit

199 l). lt provides complete damping of the low frequency "flapping"

resonance of large paintings that one sees as one carries such paintings.
The only serious mechanical risk to a painting in ransit is shock,
i.e., drops and other forms of collision with the painting. Controlling

shock risk can be stated as follows: ensure that the maximum shock
experienced by the artwork in transit (measured in G) does not
exceed the fragility of the artwork (measured in G). Both have been
measured.To provide some frame of reference, it is useful to know that
the packaging industry has adopted the practical categories shown in

table

3.

The shock fragility of two experimental paintings were studied.

The data is summarized in Table 4.Accelerometers were attached to the
experimental paintings, and these were dropped in 4 different modes:
topple, edge drop, flat drop, and corner drop.Type I was a 50 cm x 50
cm commercially prepared acrylic ground on linen, coated with a very
weak glue gesso layer (low glue content).Type 2 was 63 cm x 76 cm,
linen with a glue size, also coated with a very weak glue gesso layer.The
weak glue gesso layer was selected since it was known to give an
extremely weak and brittle layer that would crack and delaminate easily.
ln effect, its mechanical properties were like a very degraded oil paint.
ln summary, the most fragile painting studied, in the worst type of
drop mode (corner) had a fragility of 65 g, based on perceptible losses
of an already cracked and flaking sample. Most other samples tested, in
most other drop modes, had a fragility of about I 00g- I 40 g. The flat
drop results of cracking at l00G are consistent with the vibration
results, since the 50G vibration fatigue results imply that a single cycle
would need about 200G to crack the painting, and a 200G vibration
stretches the painting only about as much as a l00G acceleration
applied to the entire painting surface.
Therefore, within the categories of commercial fragility, these
paintings are not "extremely fragile" or even "very delicate, " they
are just "delicate." Why? We must not confuse fragility with
weakness.To be very fragile an obiect must be both weak and heavy.
Thus a plaster sculpture with a long protrusion is extremely fragile,
but a thin layer of paint stuck to canvas is not fragile. lt may be
weak, it may easily be delaminated by careless hands, or low
humidity, but the force of its own weight must be increased a
hundredfold in order to exceed the bending strength of a flake, or
the strength of attachment to layers below.
The summary advice is this: with good cushion design, good

94

Stefan Michalski and Paul Marcon

Table 2. The effect of various damping techniques on the resonance of a large painting
in modern materials (l22cm x 152 cm,heavy cotton with acrylic gesso)
Resonant frequency

Movement of center of
from rest position
l.O,cm:.,.

l3

\n/i6,I-rt*onh.

1ltjth

fl yce{1p. !9.1pf

cm

i
1.5.!tn.
l'.3

Table 3. Commercial shock fragiliry categories

l,F$qlg, ,**:,,,
'.3r,Diil1q4e,,,,

.,',., rr.:'.l:

l'.

":.

:,'4!*?tattirleteil

r,,,*,lt!*:Laj+lv:,9gigf,?, . , ,
5
6..&ugEed

"

tl'159l
''

. 40.60G.r .
,equrpr.rent
,
;, "" .,i:*:qtq.,",, r'
tHiqlta' ,: ,
omputet

..

Fiifnit[re

85.r,1,5G

Maihine..tools

llsc.+

Table 4 Preliminary fragility data for experimental paintings on canvas*

Topple
Type

l;\cry i t, ,

fragile, no

backing

Edge

drop

Flat

drop

'!9ggr,eaerc.for:r",,
in urcracked sample

Corner drop
6sg; losges in
cracked sample.

board

!009'Fiist,!ixses
offlakes.
,.
,: :

'.;. , ,,

90g: Craet<r loim

in urrcracked

*r1".

f:il:v*"
Type2... li.r'r.80$lmmflake r'r" ..:.."...
Testwid1n.}''.,losses..:''inuncracked
backing board.

1009:Crackform

.:

,,,.

sample.
I

00g: First losses

30g: Extensive
,l

losses.

I ,,...'.,. 2009: Flake losses. :" .

Test with backing
board.
:Iyp9.2

,,,,

x teded rn increments up to a milimum

ten of 2009,

.: :' ...

2OOg(maximum ' ..
test): No damage
visible.

1.,.

..

vehicles such as air-ride trucks, proPer attachment of the crate to the

vehicle, and the specially careful handling a painting like Guernico would
receive,paintings will not be exposed to shocks of even l0G.This is far
below fragility levels of even weak paintings. Low cost plastic shock
indicators for a single l0G event or 25G event can be attached to
crates to confirm such travel histories. Good cushion design for
average art in transit, however, is intended to Protect a painting against
a worst case "drop height." Fortunately, even a substantial drop of
75cm can be cushioned to a "very delicate" shock of 40G to the
painting using only a 50mm thick layer of cushion, if it is the correct
foam and the correct shape.The wrong foam, the wrong shape, can
easily elevate this

to

l50G or higher.

Detailed cushion design solutions for paintings in crates are

described in an article describing a slide rule designed to assist
designers made by CCI (Marcon 199 lc).This tool has been replaced
recently by a software package specifically designed for museums called
PadCad (available through the Canadian Conservation lnstitute,
www.cci-icc.gc.ca).

Both extensive data-logger reports from various researchers, and

the reported experience of various museums, have established that the
risk of high levels of shock is not during the l000km of special vehicle
transport, but during the I 00m of transport between the vehicle and
the holding room of the museum.And the greatest shock or collision
risk by far is the last l0m to and from the wall, when the painting is out
of its protective cushions and crate, traversing doorways, bumping to
rest on the floor where it is to hang.There are more sad stories about
paintings being damaged between the conservation laboratory and the
display wall, or the storage area and the display, than there are about
paintings being damaged in good quality traveling crates.Thus a move of
Guernico from one city to another has no greater Practical risk of
shock than the move from one building to another in Madrid.We can
call this phenomenon "the problem of the last 100m" and the even
bigger "problem of the last 10m."

Conclusions
This discussion is not about bad crates, bad shipping, bad handling'
bad exhibit preparation, absent backing boards. Each of these has caused
damage to artwork.They will undoubtedly cause more in the future, but
that is not the issue here.The issue is this: can reasonable cost crates'
available transit, reasonable handling, good exhibit PreParation, and

97

Mechanical risks to large paintings such

Guemica during transit

simple backing boards, working in concert, prevent mechanical damage

paintings. Fortunately for the galleries of the world, the
answer is yes.This requires diligence, adequate resources, adequate
planning, adequate staff.Would a single maior painting such as Guernica
command such needs - of course. Do all travelling exhibitions in the
artworld command such needs - unfortunately not.The issue is no
longer inadequate knowledge, but inadequate resources.r

to old fragile

References
Ashley-Smith, J. ( 1999) Risk Assessment for Objea Conservotion.

(Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford).
Booth, P (1989) Stretcher design: Problems and solutions. Ihe
Conservotor 13.31-40.
Green,T. ( 199 l) Vibration control: Paintings on canvas supports. Art in
Ironsit, Studies in theTronsport of Pointings. M.F. Mecklenburg ed.

(National Gal lery of Arc Washington DC).

59 -67 ..

Marcon, PJ. ( I 99 I a) Shock, vibration, and protective package design. Art

inTronsit, Studies in theTronsport of Paintings. M.F. Mecklenburg ed.
(National Gallery of ArsWashington DC).107- 120.
Marcon, PJ. ( 199 lb) Shock, vibration, and the shipping environment. Art
inTronsit, Studies in theTronsport of Pointings. M.F. Mecklenburg ed.
(National Gallery of Art:Washington DC). l2l-132.
Marcon, PJ. ( 199 lc) A circular slide rule for protective package design.
Art inTronsit, Studies in theTransport of Pointings. M.F. Mecklenburg
Art:Washington DC). 93- 106.

ed. (National Gallery of

Mecklenburg, M.E and C.S.Tumosa, ( 199 l) An introduction into the

mechanical behavior of paintings under rapid loading conditions.
Art inTronsit, Studies in theTronsport of Paintings. M.F. Mecklenburg
ed. (National Gallery of Art:Washington DC). |'37-171.
Mecklenburg M.F. and M. Richards, ( l99l) Art inTronsit Hondbook.
(National Gallery of ArcWashington DC).
Mecklenburg, M.F. ed. ( 199 l) Art inTrondt, Studies in theTronsport of
Pointings. (National Gallery of ArtWashington DC).
Michalski, S. ( I 99 I ) Paintings - Their response to temperature, relative
humidity, shock, and vibration. Art inTronsi\ Studies in theTronsport
of Pointings. M.E Mecklenburg ed. (National Gallery of Art:
Wash ngton D C). 223 -248.
Stolow N. ( 1960) On the moving of works of art. Conodian Art 17 .289290.
i

98

Stefan Michalski and Paul Marcon

El Guernica
y los problemas 6ticos y t6cnicos de la
manipulaci6n de obras de arte

Wili#i3it'flBorin