HE use of heavy painted buildup and sculptural effects on two-dimensional supports presents unique archival challenges. The problem— a thick mass of paint seems to necessitate the use of some type of quick-drying binder; still the outside and inside dry unequally, producing cracks.

These splits would not be a major problem provided they were neither aesthetically distracting nor had a weakening effect on the adhesion of the paint to the support. Technically the latter concern should be less a worry than it might seem, provided the support is consistently prepared, since each broken area still has only to hold its own weight.

I’ve used a filler consisting of flake or titanium white well-mixed with alkyd resin medium for extrusions up to half an inch thick on rigid panel, and as far as I know cracking has yet to appear on works a decade or so old. However some cracking— perhaps ponderous— is expected as the works continue to dry, even though I tried to do the buildup in layers.

On 1/11/02 friend and fellow-artist Spence Guerin sent me the following email (used with permission) in reference to conservation issues vis-à-vis paintings by Gregory Gillespie:

Gillespie— I’ve seen several Gillespie shows here and there... The painting I saw that had severe and detrimental deep cracks, as in a glacier, was one of those Italian-feeling paintings, of wall with tile and inset objects. Part of the surrounding wall was built up maybe 1 1/2 inches thick. This area was splitting apart. The painting had earlier been owned by someone, now was back in the gallery for sale. I didn’t dare ask why, but surely felt somebody felt like their Gillespie was falling apart in front of them, not more than 25 years after it was created.

I saw a beautiful and unforgettable Gillespie in NYC about 20 years ago, painting of a birch tree trunk, incredible turf & soil along the bottom, all painted normal thickness, the trunk imbedded in this thick, translucent slightly bluish sky. The sky was at least an inch thick. Don’t know what the material was. Appeared to be the same material as the Italian-feeling painting above. I wonder how the birch painting is faring. Would love to see it again, it was a remarkable painting, wonder if it’s splitting apart.

Somebody who worked at the Hirshhorn Museum in DC told me that they have a number of Gillespies in their collection, and quite a few of them are cracking apart. So some things he did with some materials was basically unsound. Wish I knew what the materials and their use was, for sake of just knowing.

Hirshhorn also has a really fine self portrait of Gillespie, he’s seated in a chair before easel, polished green background, about life size, maybe 6 ft high painting, it is so absolutely impressive and unforgettable...

I think one of the downfalls in Gillespie’s work was when he forced his small paintings to become big, museum scale. Those big things just were not the impressive accomplishments that his small paintings were. They’re rich at small scale, where he fussed and fussed and created tiny stuff tucked here and there. Blown up to 8 foot scale, it ain’t so rich anymore. I always wondered why he did that— was it commercial pressures?

I think for extremely thick impasto areas it might be better to build with acrylic paints. But what a hassle, even trying to smooth out acrylic paint, compared to oil, as you know.

At present I’m steering generally away from painted relief. While my current Car Series paintings are strong on texture I’m avoiding sculpted masses of paint in favor of rich impasto at the most.

If you have any information you don’t mind sharing on Gillespie’s heavy technique, or on massive relief-painting in general, let me know via the link marked contact in the bottom margin of this page.

<< return to Biography