Necessity and Use of a Multilayer Test Object Based on an Anonymous 19th Century Copy of a Painting by Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky (1817–1900)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, in the absence of the second part of the study, the results obtained are partial.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you so much for your comments. We have reworked the article and focused on the expertise of I.K. Aivazovsky's painting. In this case, the test object is the product under study from a purely technological point of view. Some of the results of OCT and Ths have not yet been received and we cannot add them to this article.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is dealing with the characterization of a test object which is based on a fragment of a 19th c. copy of a 18th c. painting of I.K. Aivazovsky, as it is stated in the title, in the abstract (lines 13-14) and in the main body of the manuscript. The manuscript is well written in terms of language and easy to follow, and the authors did great regarding the interpretation of their measurements.
I’m confused at some point, as my first impression reading the abstract was that the authors created themselves and studied a test object of the copy of the aforementioned painting. But, later on, (lines 112-118) it is stated that the fragment was painted in two different chronological periods by conservators, and it is not mentioned whether they are related with the authors of the present study.
I believe that some modifications should take place regarding the structure of the manuscript -together with further explanations regarding the subject of this study-, before it can be considered for publication in Heritage. Final, I understand the importance of making and studying painting mock-ups, the authors do a great analysis about this in the introduction. The thing that I don’t understand is the importance of the study of a test-object that was made at some point by the restoration team. Was this mock-up made with materials and techniques that the artist of the original painting used? FTIR is a well-known technique and it’s considered as very suitable for the study of such objects. On the other hand, the use of normal ATR (instead of micro-ATR with cross-sections) is a little bit destructive for such materials, considering the fact that with Tensor 37 the most probable ATR apparatus is the PIKE models that uses a ~2 mm crystal and the sample is pressed on it. I strongly believe that the study would more interesting and complete if OCT and THz measurements were presented. In details:
11. Line 73. “test-object is created”
22. Lines 79-86: Better replace “chapters” with “sections”. On the other hand, this is a perfect place to say some things regarding the painter himself, the original painting and the 19th c. copy.
33. Section 2. This is the “materials” part for the “Materials and Methods” section that is missing. The authors could move the lines100-103 to the introduction section. The detachment of a 21x22 cm piece from the 19th c. painting is questionable (at least!) in terms of conservation.
44. Lines 109-110: regarding the lead white ground, at this point some description regarding it is missing. Is lead white a usual ground used by Aivazovsky?
55. Lines 137-146: this paragraph belongs to the “Materials and methods” section.
66. Line 138. The ATR’s model is missing? I believe it is a PIKE one.
Finally, I must again point out that the aim of this work should be better stated. What is the aim of the mock-up under study? Was it made with techniques and materials used by the original artist? If yes, the interesting part would be its study with OCT and THz methods, to better understand the coherence and possible stability problems of the 18th or the 19th c. paintings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you so much for your comments. We have reworked the article and focused on the expertise of I.K. Aivazovsky's painting. In this case, the test object is the product under study from a purely technological point of view. Some of the results of OCT and Ths have not yet been received and we cannot add them to this article.
Point 1: I’m confused at some point, as my first impression reading the abstract was that the authors created themselves and studied a test object of the copy of the aforementioned painting. But, later on, (lines 112-118) it is stated that the fragment was painted in two different chronological periods by conservators, and it is not mentioned whether they are related with the authors of the present study.
Response 1: the abstract has been partially rewritten. The phrase about the creation of an object by our group has been removed from it
Point 2: The thing that I don’t understand is the importance of the study of a test-object that was made at some point by the restoration team.
Response 2: The purpose of the work has been adjusted. Now the restorers' layers are used as relatively fresh records. In order to examine the painting of I.K. Aivazovsky, a fragment of his copy and recording is being studied.
Point 3: Was this mock-up made with materials and techniques that the artist of the original painting used?
Response 3: A fragment of a copy of the 19th century was created in the technique of Aivazovsky, but according to the results of FTIR using other materials available on the market of the 19th century, but not used by the master
Point 4: FTIR is a well-known technique and it’s considered as very suitable for the study of such objects. On the other hand, the use of normal ATR (instead of micro-ATR with cross-sections) is a little bit destructive for such materials, considering the fact that with Tensor 37 the most probable ATR apparatus is the PIKE models that uses a ~2 mm crystal and the sample is pressed on it.
Response 4: The use of micro-ATR implies the selection of a sample for the manufacture of a thin section. If the painting layer has no obvious losses to the canvas, then sampling for the slot is not performed. We were also interested in specific areas of painting of the upper layers. In this case, it was convenient for us to use the standard ATR prefix.
Point 5: Line 73. “test-object is created”
Response 5: fixed
Point 6: Lines 79-86: Better replace “chapters” with “sections”. On the other hand, this is a perfect place to say some things regarding the painter himself, the original painting and the 19th c. copy.
Response 6: We have added background information about the artist
Point 7: Section 2. This is the “materials” part for the “Materials and Methods” section that is missing. The authors could move the lines100-103 to the introduction section. The detachment of a 21x22 cm piece from the 19th c. painting is questionable (at least!) in terms of conservation.
Response 7: Fixed. The copy has no significant artistic and material value. Added comments to the text of the article
Point 8: Lines 109-110: regarding the lead white ground, at this point some description regarding it is missing. Is lead white a usual ground used by Aivazovsky?
Response 8: Yes, this is the most common ground in Aivazovsky's oil painting
Point 9: Lines 137-146: this paragraph belongs to the “Materials and methods” section.
Response 9: Fixed
Point 10: Line 138. The ATR’s model is missing? I believe it is a PIKE one.
Response 10: Fixed. The ATR'model is MVP-Pro™, Harrick
Point 11: What is the aim of the mock-up under study?
Response 11: The purpose of the study is to describe the test object by the FTIR method in order to identify the features of the materials of I.K. Aivazovsky copyists. Determination of differences in binders and pigments for subsequent examination of real things
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article describes FTIR analyses carried out on a piece of canvas cut from a 19th century painting and recently painted on both sides. The authors present the results in a clear way, the figures are particularly well refined and explanatory.
However, I would suggest to better explain the reasons behind this research, because it is not entirely clear to me. Remarks as follows:
I find the title misleading. Aivazovsky is cited many times in the paper, but no painting is associated to him. I think it should be rephrased in order to cite only the 19th century copy, which is the main object of your work. In the case you want to cite Aivazovsky, I recommend to at least write some information about his materials and technique, and how they differ from the copy.
The introduction is not very clear, in particular from line 79 to 90 when second and third ‘chapters’ are discussed. As this is not a thesis, the authors should use other words. The lines 87-90 are misleading, because there is no second part of the investigation in this paper; the authors probably meant ‘further investigation’.
Paragraph no. 2 is used to describe the ‘test-object’. If I understand correctly, a piece of canvas was cut (when?) from the painting, one side was painted in 2000 with the head of a man, the other side was the original 19th century copy, over which conservators applied and covered their signatures (when and why?). This seems an incredibly complex structure to me and there is no reason to do that, because mock-ups could have been used. A 19th century painting was partly destroyed in the process, and the owner’s permission does not seem to cover the reason behind this choice.
FTIR is a well-established technique for cultural heritage. The identification of the pigments and your conclusion are correct and well-described. However, there is nothing new added to the knowledge of pigments nor any new compound analysed and showed here. Therefore, I failed to see how your investigation may be of interest to the readers of this journal.
Moreover, I may understand the investigation of the original 19th century materials, but I am not sure why materials applied by conservators in recent years should be analysed. The advantages of FTIR are very clear to scientists and the authors correctly cited many papers regarding this technique. I would suggest to further refine this section and underline the aims of the paper.
On minor issues, the authors discuss the use of a lead-zinc white, but I believe they meant two different white pigments.
The English language must be improved to help clarity.
Lastly, the authors contribution section is not written. I strongly recommend that all the authors read and accept the paper before another submission.
For these reasons, I am afraid I cannot recommend the publication of the article as it is. I also suggest to include results on THz and OCT investigations in the next version, so to add something new and potentially interesting for readers.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you so much for your comments. We have reworked the article and focused on the expertise of I.K. Aivazovsky's painting. In this case, the test object is the product under study from a purely technological point of view. Some of the results of OCT and Ths have not yet been received and we cannot add them to this article.
Point 1:
I find the title misleading. Aivazovsky is cited many times in the paper, but no painting is associated to him. I think it should be rephrased in order to cite only the 19th century copy, which is the main object of your work. In the case you want to cite Aivazovsky, I recommend to at least write some information about his materials and technique, and how they differ from the copy. The introduction is not very clear, in particular from line 79 to 90 when second and third ‘chapters’ are discussed. As this is not a thesis, the authors should use other words. The lines 87-90 are misleading, because there is no second part of the investigation in this paper; the authors probably meant ‘further investigation
Response 1: the abstract has been partially rewritten. We have added information about I.K. Aivazovsky. The copy was made in the technique of the master, but according to the results of the study with other materials. These materials were available in the 19th century, but were not used by I.K. Aivazovsky
Point 2: Paragraph no. 2 is used to describe the ‘test-object’. If I understand correctly, a piece of canvas was cut (when?) from the painting, one side was painted in 2000 with the head of a man, the other side was the original 19th century copy, over which conservators applied and covered their signatures (when and why?). This seems an incredibly complex structure to me and there is no reason to do that, because mock-ups could have been used. A 19th century painting was partly destroyed in the process, and the owner’s permission does not seem to cover the reason behind this choice.
Response 2: The test object was initially created for another purpose – the study of signatures and drawings using infrared reflectography camera "Osiris". Therefore, signatures and overlapping layers of paint were applied. We have added this text fragment. The copy has no significant artistic and material value, and also has large dimensions, which was inconvenient during previous work with an infrared camera
Point 3: FTIR is a well-established technique for cultural heritage. The identification of the pigments and your conclusion are correct and well-described. However, there is nothing new added to the knowledge of pigments nor any new compound analysed and showed here. Therefore, I failed to see how your investigation may be of interest to the readers of this journal. Moreover, I may understand the investigation of the original 19th century materials, but I am not sure why materials applied by conservators in recent years should be analysed. The advantages of FTIR are very clear to scientists and the authors correctly cited many papers regarding this technique. I would suggest to further refine this section and underline the aims of the paper.
Response 3: We focused on the issues of examination of paintings by I.K., Aivazovsky. In the possibilities of determining materials and finding differences in binder and pigments by infrared spectroscopy using a test object. The pictorial layers of restorers are regarded as modern records that need to be distinguished from the author's painting
Point 4: Lastly, the authors contribution section is not written. I strongly recommend that all the authors read and accept the paper before another submission.
Response 4: We have added contribution section
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you for dealing with each one of my comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your edits. We have corrected the text following your comments. Please check it
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
