Bernt Notke and Pawel Blome – two masters of the altar retable of the Church of the Holy Spirit in Tallinn on the conservator's desk
Authors: Hannes Vinnal, Anneli Randla, Hilkka Hiiop, Kristina Aas
Number: Anno 2022/2024
Category: Conservation
The late medieval retable of the main altar of the Church of the Holy Spirit of Tallinn is a remarkable work of international importance, completed in 1483 in the workshop of Bernt Notke, the renowned master from Lübeck [ill 1]. In 2019, preparations began for the joint project of the Estonian Open Air Museum's Conservation and Digitisation Center Kanut Foundation and the Estonian Academy of Arts (ref 1)⁽¹⁾ which aims to obtain more information about the materials and techniques used in the creation of the work, as well as its subsequent changes, and compare it with other works attributed to Notke. One of the goals is to complete the unfinished conservation works dating from different periods. The fact that the altar retable has been repainted twice over the centuries adds problems and new facets to the task. What value do these layers of history have and how should one relate to previous conservation decisions?
A new master appears next to Notke
Along with art-historical and archival studies, conscious attention was paid to the later history of the altar retable, which had hitherto been relatively neglected. The starting point of the investigation was literally in the hands of St. Peter. That's because St Peter's sculpture holds a book with the dates 1625 and 1815 [ill 2]. An examination of the cross-sections of the paint layers confirmed the existence of three paint layers on most of the sculptures and architectural parts of the retable – the original and two overpaint layers [ill 3]. Three different blue pigments were also identified by instrumental analyses: the original layer (1483) azurite, the second layer (1625) smalt and the third layer (1815) Prussian blue, which corresponds to the historical use of these pigments [ill 4]. (ref 2)⁽²⁾ Thus, the altar retable provides an interesting overview of the changes in artists' techniques and materials over time.
We know when the overpaintings were carried out, but who were the authors of these works? The author of the 1815 painting layer remains a mystery for now, as no source could be found in the archival materials that would refer to it. However, a new and exciting chapter in Estonian art history unfolds about the author of the 1625 painting layer. Despite the fact that the archives of the Church of the Holy Spirit have not survived in its entirety, a decisive document from 1624–1626 [ill 5] remains. It has an entry from 1625: Pawell Blome received 284 marks for the "renovation" of the altar. (ref 3)⁽³⁾
Upon closer examination in the Tallinn City Archives, the painter Pawel Blome or Paul Blum/Blom emerges here and there. For example, he has been paid for painting the tombstone of Dr. Johannes Balliv and the weather vanes and gargoyles of the Tallinn Town Hall. (ref 4)⁽⁴⁾ One of Pawel Blome's commissions was particularly outstanding and suggests that Blome was considered a highly respected master. In 1627, he was asked to paint full-length portraits of six Swedish kings on the main façade of the Tallinn Town Hall. (ref 5)⁽⁵⁾ Interestingly, the Town Hall accounts also mention the technique: oil paint on a lead-white primer had to be used. The source also contains a hint indicating the location of the planned paintings – they had to be placed between the wall anchors [ill 6]. Unfortunately, there is no further evidence of the execution of these monumental murals, the only known fact (from the same source) is that 25 thalers of the total of 150 (about 600 marks) were prepaid and the painter was also given a certain amount of high-quality linseed oil. Unfortunately, very few works of art have survived from the time of Blome, not to mention the master's own works. Thus, the layer of overpainting on Notke's altarpiece may be Blome's only surviving work in Estonia.
Interestingly, there was a painter of the same name active in northern Germany around the same time. Namely, in the lexicon of German artists (Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon), there was a master operating in the Schleswig region named Pawel Blome or Paul Blom. (ref 6)⁽⁶⁾ Moreover, in some documents, he has been mentioned together with the wood carver and gilder Jürgen Blome – the Pawel Blome who operated in Tallinn also collaborated with a master of the same name. Pawel Blome is mentioned for the last time in German sources in 1624 – the same year that the name first appears in Tallinn sources. It therefore seems plausible that it's the same master, moving from northern Germany to Tallinn around 1624.
If this assumption is correct, four panel paintings by Pawel Blome have also been preserved. Namely, he was paid in 1615 in Schleswig for the paintings of the organ of the Schwabstedt village church. (ref 7)⁽⁷⁾ The four paintings depicting music muses are still located in their original location in the Schwabstedt church.
Paintings on the pulpit of St. Nicholas' Church in Tallinn, known on the basis of historical photographs and previously attributed to the otherwise unknown master Daniel Blome (ref 8)⁽⁸⁾ were probably also the work of Pawel Blome [ill 7]. (ref 9)⁽⁹⁾ It is likely that the confusion with names was due to an error in the reading of visually very similar names in the old German script – Daniel and Pawel (here, too, the year was 1624 and Blome's signature was in a book depicted in the hands of one of the Apostles). Pawel Blome worked in Niguliste with Jürgen Blome: the contract for this work is included in Jürgen's inventory drawn up in 1626 (Contract wegen d Cantzell zu S. Nicolaus). (ref 10)⁽¹⁰⁾It could have been this order that brought Pawel Blome to Tallinn. Unfortunately, the richly carved and painted pulpit of St. Nicholas' Church was destroyed in 1944.
Conservation dilemmas
The above situation illustrates the importance of a detailed studying of written sources in understanding works of art and making conservation decisions. How will the new findings affect ongoing conservation and documentation practices? Should additions by great and lesser artists from different eras be considered equally important for conservation? Could this be done without compromising the visual integrity of the work?
The restoration of the altar retable began already in 1964, but the work of Russian conservators was unexpectedly interrupted in 1986, as a result of which three sculptures and some parts of the retable remained unrestored [ill 8]. Unfortunately, the Estonian side still lacks a complete documentation of the work that was done. We can therefore only rely on the few pieces of information that can be found in published articles, from similar projects done at the same time and from recollections of colleagues who were working at the time. Such patchworking only gave us a vague idea of the materials and techniques that Russian conservators could have used. Visual observation of the altar retable and the documentation of its condition in the autumn of 2021 provided a somewhat clearer picture of the previous works. We consider it very important that all parties – conservators, art historians, heritage officials and the congregation – were involved in the research, which allowed us to better understand the problems, materials etc. The altar retable's conservation concept and methodology was developed in cooperation and synergy.
In the spring of 2022, conservation work began on the first sculpture – the Virgin Mary. During earlier restoration works aimed at uncovering the original layer, the sculpture had not been cleaned nor the later paint layers removed. The sculpture was heavily soiled and the cleaning samples, prophylactic facings and tests in different areas further damaged the already uneven whole. For example, on the right side of the face of Virgin Mary there was an elongated paint removal sample from which three layers of paint could be clearly distinguished: the original layer of paint from the 15th century, the tempera layer from the 17th century and the oil paint layer from the 19th century [ill 9]. After a detailed mapping of the condition of the sculpture, the aim of the conservation was set at uncovering the original layer and restoring the visual integrity of the sculpture. Thus, the first and very time-consuming step was the removal of later layers of paint, which could only be done mechanically using a scalpel under the multiple magnification of an optical microscope.
When drawing up the conservation plan, one of the goals was set to documenting the overpainting carried out with tempera paints in 1625. This means attempting to remove secondary paint layers one-by-one if possible. Each layer was recorded in 2D as well as 3D documentation. By this time, Pawel Blome's name was known, but his importance in the history of Estonian art had not yet been fully understood.
The work revealed that the tempera layer applied to the original layer in the 17th century can be almost completely revealed from under a thick and uneven layer of 19th-century oil paint. There were several losses, but the whole picture was perfectly legible. Compared to the original, the application of the new layer of painting had lost some detail, but the 17th century overpainting still followed the original to some extent, which can no longer be said about the crude layer from the 19th century. Blome's eyebrow followed the original, the eye color had changed from blue to gray, the lip color was lighter and the cheeks were still pink [ill 10].
Despite the thorough documentation and visual recording of the 17th-century layer of paint, it was emotionally very difficult for the conservator to begin removing this historical coat. There were several arguments in favour of removal. First, the conservation concept – to uncover the 15th-century layer, as had been done in previous works on all other sculptures. Second, the adhesion of the 17th-century painting layer to the lower layer was extremely bad in places. An uneven and very thick coat of varnish and dirt had been left between the two layers, which cut off the contact surface between the two coatings. As a result, during the removal of the 19th-century layer, several losses occurred in the 17th-century paint layer, as the top layer simply dragged the lower one with it. Third, it must be borne in mind that it is not a museum object but a sacred object in a church where worship services are held regularly. The Virgin Mary is at the heart of the altar retable's composition, therefore it would be difficult to find a justification for preserving the existing layers. The congregation values the visual integrity of the altarpiece and does not want to see the paint layers of Mary's face in stratigraphic order.
The second stage of conservation was the cleaning of the gilded areas of the sculpture. Work was completed in the winter of 2022 and Mary returned home before Christmas [ill 11]. (ref 11)⁽¹¹⁾.
In October 2023, conservation work began on the next sculpture – Philip the Apostle. By this time, the importance of Pawel Blome in Estonian art history had become clear. This new knowledge added even more emotional weight to the conservator's work and changed the whole concept of conservation. Conservators, already under pressure from deadlines and responsibilities, face additional problems, often complex ethical dilemmas, with each new discovery. How to decide how much intervention is acceptable and justified? How to remove the Pawel Blome layer, ostensibly the only physical evidence of the master's activity in Estonia? Although decisions are always made in cooperation taking into account the expertise of conservators, art historians and other parties involved in the preservation of cultural heritage, the act of physical and irreversible intervention rests entirely on the shoulders of the conservator. Therefore, even small mistakes can have irreversible consequences and decisions can lead to criticism. To cope with these emotional and mental challenges, the conservator must have a strong support network in his/her professional community. It is also important that there should be room for discussions on the ethical and emotional dimension of conservation work when making decisions.
Considering the above, an alternative conservation concept was chosen for the sculpture of Philip the Apostle. Philip is located in the middle of the altar cabinet with his side to the viewer, so only the left side of the face of the sculpture is visible [ill 12]. It was decided to reveal the original layer of paint only on the side visible to the viewer; only half of the 19th century layer was removed from the hidden side – so the stratigraphy of all three layers of paint can be seen on Philip's face [ill 13]. This solution ensures the partial preservation of all secondary layers, including the oil paint layer of the 19th century, allowing the future researchers to study its nature, composition or origin. 3D documentation allows the layers removed from the sculptures to be re-examined from every angle [ill 14]. Philip's conservation work was completed in June 2024. (ref 12)⁽¹²⁾
References
https://notke.eu/ (accessed 23 Sept 2024) ↩︎
Kristina Aas, Hilkka Hiiop, Mia Maria Rohumaa, Andres Uuen, Signe Vahur, Research and conservation of the altar retable of Tallinn Holy Spirit Church 2022. Interim Report; Tallinn Holy Spirit Church Altar Retable Studies 2024; Signe Vahur, Certificates of Analysis 2024, https://muinas.artun.ee/fotod/aruanded/konserveerimine/event_id-4573 (accessed 26 Sept 2024) ↩︎
Tallinn City Archives, TLA.230.1.Bl20,l.35. ↩︎
Pia Ehasalu, Painting in Tallinn during the Swedish Period (1561-1710). Production and Reception. Doctoral Thesis. Tallinn: Estonian Academy of Arts, 2007, p. 322. ↩︎
Tallinn City Archives, TLA.230.1.Ba53,l.60r. ↩︎
Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. Handbuch. Band 11. Munich / Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 1995, p. 565; see also P. Ehasalu, Painting in Tallinn during the Swedish Period , p. 323. ↩︎
Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, p. 565. ↩︎
Rasmus Kangropool, The Painters and Woodcarvers of Tallinn 1530 – ca 1640. – Studies on Art and Architecture 7. Tallinn: Kunst, 1994, p. 126. ↩︎
Sten Karling claimed in 1937 that Daniel and Paul (Pawel) Blome (Blume) were brothers and collaborated on decorating the pulpit with paintings (Sten Karling, Tallinn. An Art Historical Overview. Tallinn: Kunst, 2006, p. 130). Unfortunately, Karling does not indicate the source on which these claims are based. See also P. Ehasalu, Painting in Tallinn during the Swedish Period, p. 52. ↩︎
Tallinn City Archives, TLA.230.1.Bt9/III,l.4p. ↩︎
K. Aas, H. Hiiop, M. M. Rohumaa, A. Uueni, S. Vahur, Research and conservation of the altar retable of Tallinn Holy Spirit Church 2022. Interim report, https://digiteek.artun.ee/static/files/091/notke_koond_low.pdf (accessed 23.09.2024). ↩︎
All reports and studies can be found at https://muinas.artun.ee/fotod/aruanded/konserveerimine/event_id-4573 (accessed 02 Oct 2024). ↩︎