The Traditional Paint Forum

The Traditional Paint Forum was founded in October 1994 largely as a result of the interest and concern raised over the banning of lead paints. In 1990 a Directive from the EU proposed banning the sale of paints containing white lead (basic lead carbonate). This was despite sales of lead paints having practically disappeared in the previous 30 years due to the almost complete replacement of white lead by the non-toxic titanium dioxide as the main white pigment for paint. It was only due to spirited lobbying by several organisations that the UK government applied a derogation, allowing white lead paints to continue to be used on certain grades of listed building and works of art.

The Traditional Paint Forum was set up “Towards the better understanding and appreciation of traditional paint” and in the past decade it has sought by means of conferences, publications and the highly successful joint technical days with SPAB, to widen the knowledge about traditional paints. Whilst these efforts have generally been successful, this is against the background of a growing climate of ignorance and suspicion about traditional paints.

Legislation, particularly with respect to health, safety and the environment, continues to flow out of Brussels. One of the latest regulations concerns the use of solvent borne paints, which give off Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) when they dry. These can cause low level ozone formation which can lead to ill-health to humans and damage to vegetation and crops (see Smudge issue 12). The outcome of the new regulations is to effectively ban the use of traditional oil paints, varnishes and glazes on walls and force a major reformulation of oil paints for woodwork. Although there will also be a derogation for their use on listed buildings, this could lead to problems of product availability.

• The present derogation for the use of lead paints and oil based paints covers only Grade I and II* buildings (Scotland Grade A). This is only a tiny proportion of all listed buildings.
• Figures from English Heritage and Historic Scotland for the number of approvals for the use of lead paints have stayed largely static over the past decade.
• Some organisations are being forced by their safety advisers to stop using lead paints. Even the National Trust is not using lead paints on their latest long-term tests of exterior paints!
• The number of paint manufacturers continuing to supply lead paints is steadily falling and there is pressure from the larger members of their trade organisation (the British Coatings Federation) to stop using it altogether.
• Traditional paints are time consuming to make and difficult to store, making them expensive and often not available “off the shelf”.
• Traditional paints can be more difficult and time consuming to apply, requiring the skills of the dwindling generation of properly trained painters rather than emulsion paint “brush-hands”.
• There is still considerable ignorance and confusion, even amongst some so-called conservation architects, about where it is appropriate to use traditional paints – and more importantly, where it may not be. Poor specifying will lead to problems and failures, which will in turn reduce the chances of traditional paints being used on another project.

All these factors point towards an increasingly precarious future for the availability of traditional paints. Whilst they are not, in reality, the panacea for all restoration projects, they do have an important part to play, particularly in recreating authentic interiors. One
possible solution might be to widen the scope for their use to include all Grade II buildings. This increase in possible users might provide the extra volume needed to persuade manufacturers to continue making these paints.

But for the present, it is incumbent on anyone with an interest in or affection for traditional paints to press for their specification and correct usage whenever and wherever possible. Advice and guidance is always available from other members of the TPF and if we don’t use them, we will surely lose them. CMMR

“10 Years on – What lessons have we learnt and what have we achieved”.
This conference reviewed some of the changes that have taken place since the Traditional Paint Forum was founded in October 1994 and discussed what the Forum should seek to achieve in the next decade. Many of the papers also looked at different approaches to using information from traditional paints to help informed conservation.
The Conference was opened by our President, Dr Ian Bristow, who set the theme for the next two days and looked at whether the results of Architectural Paint Research (APR) were being used properly, or indeed at all, by architects, project managers and conservators. The answer was usually not and there was a need to spread the awareness of what APR could offer.

This was followed by two speakers from the V&A. Christopher Marsden, Senior Archivist, painted a picture of how the museum had evolved over the past century and a half to become today’s complex institution. Gwyn Miles, who was project manager for the major redevelopment of the British Galleries within the V&A, explained the museum’s approach to using colour both to recreate historic interiors and also to match contextual displays. During a private visit to the museum later in the day, delegates had the opportunity to see many examples of topics raised in these two papers.

After this, delegates were presented with four papers showing different approaches to conservation and restoration projects. Ian Gow, Curator for the National Trust for Scotland, discussed their approach to Newhailes near Edinburgh. This was originally built in C16th and subsequently significantly altered in the following centuries, before passing to the NTS in 1997. It is an unique achievement in conservation terms as rather than attempting to recreate an immaculate dwelling, the NTS has worked hard to keep the house and grounds “untouched” by modern hands. The Red House is a recent acquisition of the National Trust and has significant links to the Arts & Crafts Movement. Christine Sitwell, Conservation Adviser to the National Trust, described how the Trust is consulting widely on possible ways of presenting the house and its contents.

Helen Hughes, Senior Architectural Paint researcher of English Heritage described the fascinating story of the restoration of Danson House in Bexley Heath. Built in 1766, by 1995 it was “the most significant building at risk in London”. During its 10 year restoration, APR was critical in identifying many of the original decorative features which had been missed or misinterpreted by other conventional methods. Finally, Roos Keppler, a post graduate student from SRAL in Maastricht, described the work carried out to clean and conserve the interior of the Royal Pavilion at the railway station in The Hague. Once this initial work had been carried out, her team then analysed and painstakingly recreated the paints originally used in its decoration.

Attention then turned to techniques and Ailsa Murray, a conservator from Historic Scotland, described the methods and materials used to stabilise and restore the glorious wall paintings of Phoebe Anna Traquair at Mansfield Church in Edinburgh. There had been significant improvements in techniques since the last intervention a decade previously. Clara Willetts, a member of the English Heritage Building Conservation and Research Team discussed the recent advances made in paint removal from a variety of surfaces. Finally, Alan Gardner presented the case for using APR even insimple projects by highlighting two examples where it had been able to make a significant contribution to the understanding of the history of a building without incurring heavy costs.

The two final speakers were Alastair McCapra, Chief Executive of the newly formed Institute for Conservation (ICON) who described the role of the new body and how it might contribute towards the aims of the Forum and Colin Mitchell-Rose who reported on the recent international conference held in Copenhagen in May 2005. This was titled “APR in Building Conservation” and had as one of its aims the establishment of a European Code of Practice for APR. He suggested that although much of the groundwork for this was already in place, there were still significant differences in the approach of the different disciplines involved in building conservation and paint analysis.

The conference concluded with a wide ranging discussion by delegates on the future direction of the Forum. In particular, concern was raised that the lack of understanding about what traditional paint was and could contribute, together with reluctance to use it for financial or safety reasons might lead to those few remaining manufacturers deciding that it was no longer worth their while continuing to supply these paints. The discussion concluded with the strong message that the founding purpose of the Forum “Towards the better understanding and appreciation of traditional paint” was even more important today.

Many of the papers given at this Conference and the previous one in Brighton in 2004 will be reproduced in the next edition of “TPF News”, the Forum’s Journal which will be published in Spring 2006. This will be sent free to all subscribing members of the Forum. If you are uncertain whether you are a subscriber, please contact our Membership Secretary Christine Sitwell at Christine.Sitwell@nationaltrust.org.uk