Painted Outdoor Sculpture Workshop-Day 4
Evidence, Standards, and the Limits of Control
Day 4 of the Getty Conservation Institute’s Treatment Strategies for Painted Outdoor Sculpture Workshop took us to the University of Melbourne, where the focus shifted toward analysis, standards, inappropriate interactions, and practical graffiti removal. It was a full day of technical information, case studies, and hands-on testing, with sessions on paint and substrate analysis, standards, treatment risks, and graffiti removal listed in the workshop programme.
The morning began with Caroline Kyi discussing analysis and painted outdoor sculpture. A key message was that analysis matters because it allows us to have better informed conversations. It helps us understand material alteration and deterioration, choose between in situ and laboratory methods, and make clearer treatment decisions.
Analysis can support three broad areas: monitoring, diagnosis, and characterisation. It can help us track how a surface is changing, understand what type of coating or substrate we are dealing with, and identify why a treatment may or may not be appropriate.
Caroline framed materials broadly as organic, inorganic, and composite. That sounds simple, but outdoor sculpture often makes those categories complicated. A single work may include metal, timber, fibreglass, industrial coatings, fillers, primers, repairs, corrosion products, biological growth, and later maintenance materials. Each layer tells part of the story.
One case study that stood out was Inge King’s Dark Tower and the idea of “adaptive release”, allowing an object to deteriorate in an informed and intentional way. This is a challenging concept in conservation because our instinct is often to intervene. But for some works, environments, or materials, a managed form of deterioration may be more honest, practical, or ethically appropriate than repeated treatment.
We also looked at Elaine Haxton’s Mural on the Arts from 1955, where the team had only two days on site to carry out in situ analysis of wall paintings. This highlighted the importance of portable tools and well-planned investigation. Caroline discussed using an IR camera connected to a phone, such as FLIR, and a handheld digital microscope, such as a Dino-Lite, which can connect to a phone app. These tools make it possible to gather useful information quickly and in context.
Gloss and colour were recurring themes. We discussed how changes in gloss can be monitored over time, including the possibility of setting a threshold for acceptable gloss change and checking surfaces seasonally. Instruments such as the BYK spectro-guide can record colour and gloss values, but the position of the reading matters. On a complex painted surface, even small changes in angle, texture, or location can affect results.
Colour matching also came with an important reality check. It is a good principle, but we will never get a true original colour match. Paint ages. Surfaces become contaminated. Coatings chalk, fade, yellow, or change in gloss. The original colour may survive underneath a fitting, inside a protected area, or below later coatings, but the visible surface has lived a different life. Colour matching is useful, but it is never an exact science.
Alan Feder’s session on analytical techniques continued this practical theme. He shared a case study involving structures from the early 1880s, where analysis was used to guide restoration decisions. In one day, 101 samples were taken, a reminder that large-scale heritage work often requires both speed and structure.
Simple tools can be powerful. A phone magnifier lens, a digital microscope, and careful sampling can all provide useful information. Alan also demonstrated how wiping glycerol over a surface can help enhance colours in paint layers. When taking paint samples, he emphasised the value of trying to capture the substrate as well, not just the coating. The relationship between coating and substrate is often where the important evidence sits.
Context matters. Samples are not neutral. Where they come from affects what they tell us. A sample from a protected underside may show something very different from one taken from a sun-exposed face. Useful analytical reporting might include the original colour code, current colour code, macro location image, micro location image, and an image of the micro sample.
One detail I loved was the observation that bubbles in paint layers can suggest paint applied thickly, possibly on a hot day. These small material clues help us read not just what a coating is, but how it was applied.
The next part of the day focused on inappropriate interactions between artworks, treatments, and environments. Outdoor sculpture lives in uncontrolled conditions. Location, access, installation, heat, light, water, people, and maintenance methods can all affect long-term survival.
The warning about fibreglass in hot and sunny environments was particularly clear: impacts can be catastrophic. Material selection matters, and what works in one climate or context may fail quickly in another. This is especially relevant when thinking about public art in Aotearoa, where UV exposure, salt air, wind, rain, and biological growth can all vary dramatically between sites.
We also discussed pressure washing, including the idea of a “captive water head” to control water during cleaning. Even apparently routine maintenance actions can be risky if water is forced into seams, coatings, cracks, or vulnerable substrates.
Alan then led a detailed session on standards and regulations. A useful distinction was made between a standard, which provides guidance, and a regulation, which is legislation. Standards are not the same as laws, but they can help guide and communicate treatment decisions, particularly when working with councils, contractors, fabricators, paint manufacturers, or coatings inspectors.
There are no standards written specifically for painted outdoor sculpture, so conservators have to adapt and interpret standards from related fields. We discussed AS/NZS 4361:2017 for hazardous paint management, AS/NZS 2311:2017for the painting of buildings, AS/NZS 2312 for protective coatings and hot dip galvanising, and AS/NZS 4312:2019 for atmospheric corrosivity zones.
This was a strong reminder that painted outdoor sculpture conservation often requires us to borrow language and frameworks from architecture, coatings technology, industrial maintenance, and heritage practice. For large sculpture projects, hiring a coatings inspector may be appropriate. The conservator does not need to hold every kind of expertise, but we do need to know when to bring others in.
Another practical point was the caution around commercial rust converters under paint systems. The discussion reinforced that they are not always appropriate beneath coating systems. Sometimes better preparation and appropriate coating are preferable to adding an incompatible conversion product that may create future problems.
The afternoon graffiti removal workshop was excellent. We tested several techniques and chemicals on a coated test coupon. It was a useful reminder that graffiti removal is not one action. It depends on the coating, the graffiti medium, dwell time, solvent sensitivity, gloss, surface texture, and the acceptable level of change. Testing is essential.
The day ended with a public lecture and artist panel with Jumaadi and Ling. It was valuable to hear directly from artists working in Australia about their use of fabricators and their experiences with conservators. Their reflections connected strongly with earlier workshop themes: the artist may not physically make every surface, but their choices shape the object’s future. Fabricators, conservators, councils, and contractors all become part of the artwork’s life.
Day 4 reinforced that outdoor painted sculpture conservation is a field of informed negotiation. We use analysis to understand materials. We use standards to communicate clearly. We use testing to reduce risk. We work with artists, fabricators, coatings specialists, and contractors because the work sits between art and industry.
Most of all, Day 4 reminded me that good conservation decisions are not made from assumptions. They are built from evidence, context, testing, and conversation.