New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Deconstructing Art to Save It: Laser Analysis Tested to Restore Paintings

New exhibit shows how technology helps to study and restore artwork

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When artist Ad Reinhardt's painting arrived at New York City's Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in 2000, it was damaged beyond repair. Cracks in the original paint, combined with ill-conceived restoration attempts, had conspired to turn this once vital example of 1960s minimalist art into a black slab devoid of Reinhardt's original monochromatic vision.

But its sorry state also made the piece, part of Reinhardt's "Black Square" series painted between 1960 and 1966, the perfect specimen for art conservators at the Guggenheim, and its Manhattan neighbor, MoMA–The Museum of Modern Art, eager to test out the latest restoration technologies. The painting could not be salvaged but researchers were able to glean invaluable information by trying out the newest techniques for refurbishing neglected, damaged and timeworn artwork. The results of their six-year study are now on display at the Guggenheim as part of an exhibit set to run from Friday through September 14.

The exhibit features photos and videos of conservators, scientists, curators and artists working to restore Reinhardt's five- by five-foot (1.5- by 1.5-meter) square monochromatic painting. The AXA Art Insurance Corporation in New York City donated the painting for the research after determining that it could not be restored.

In its original glory, Reinhardt's work at first glance appeared to be little more than a black slate; closer examination, however, revealed that it was actually a grid of nine squares, each consisting of subtle variations of black, with flecks of blue, green or red color. Led by Guggenheim chief conservator, Carol Stringari, a team of specialists examined the painting's 20 layers of paint, varnish and sealant. Their goal was to study rather than restore it and, toward that end, Stringari and her colleagues were able to take samples from all areas of the work, not just the edges.

One of the more significant experiments involved the combined use of a laser to clean portions of the painting and laser-induced spectroscopy (LIBS) to analyze the chemical composition of the removed material. "This is definitely the first attempt to clean any sort of monochrome painting with a laser," Stringari says. "You use the laser to burn off submicron layers." The LIBS analysis let the conservators know when they had penetrated new layers—each of which contained different types of chemicals—all the way until they reached the painting's original surface.

Although LIBS was not used to restore this particular artwork, Stringari says it has the potential of being used as part of the restoration process in the future. The conservators were able to successfully clean two squares in the painting, each 20 inches (50.8 centimeters) in length. The laser cleaning and LIBS analysis systems are now being fine-tuned and would likely  be used only in instances where more traditional approaches—solvents, heat treatments, enzyme removal and others—are unable to conserve or restore a work without damaging it. Although the technology could be moved closer to mainstream art restoration work with enough funding, it is still "extremely expensive" and possibly a decade away from being used consistently, Stringari says.

AXA spokesperson Rosalind Joseph says the insurance company contributed several hundred thousand dollars to the Guggenheim and MOMA to help them conduct their research. After all, it is not only art lovers who will benefit. If new restoration efforts succeed, it also could save insurance companies a lot of money in claims for damaged artwork.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe