Sijena: What are the real risks of moving mural paintings, according to the MNAC?

During the Civil War and until the end of World War II, Europe raced to save its Romanesque heritage due to the risk of losing it to bombing, fires, and looting that occurred during the conflicts. The "strappo" technique, used to separate the paint layer of a mural from its support, became popular, and many murals were saved this way. This is the case in Sijena . Unfortunately, the violent nature of this process also damaged many others, which were lost forever.

After the board of trustees of the National Museum of Art of Catalonia declared itself "technically incapable" of removing its mural paintings to return them to the Royal Monastery of Santa María de Sijena, the question is how, when it is done, it will be possible. The MNAC is calling for the creation of a technical team to evaluate and choose the best option. Is there a possible option or not? "In 1936, the urgent situation determined the use of 'strappo'. Currently, the urgency no longer exists, given that the paintings are not in a risky condition. On the contrary," commented Simona Sajeva, director of the Interface Applied Conservation Engineering Studio and one of the world's leading experts on mural painting conservation, in an external report prepared at the request of the MNAC in 2016. "This is an advantage for the paintings, given that any decision in this regard can be made by making all the necessary preliminary technical assessments," she continued. That is what the MNAC is working on, making all the necessary preliminary assessments. And the Ministry of Culture and the Government of Aragon will also be involved in this for the good of the pieces.

According to the study Sajeva conducted to assess a possible relocation of the paintings, it would first be necessary to ensure as much as possible that the paintings would not be damaged during dismantling. Then , a viable transport system would have to be established using containers that currently do not have a traffic permit, so an exception would have to be requested. And, in parallel, Sijena would have to be adapted to control its environmental system as much as possible. Sajeva speaks of "waiting a year" after the adaptation of the space before the final relocation to ensure that the problems currently facing the future exhibition hall for the murals are not repeated. Can Aragón wait that long? How urgent is the relocation?

The main problem when dismantling the structure that currently houses the mural paintings is that it is not possible to separate them from the canvas of the wooden structures. In other words, the entire structures would have to be transported. In the 2016 trial that ruled in favor of the Sijena Monastery, it was already stated that the transfer "was not impossible." There was only one condition: "the painting must not be separated from the canvas, nor the canvas from the wood," as stated by Rosa Maria Gasol y Fargas, a mural painting conservator and restorer.

The current state of the paintings, with cuts, various types of damage, and transformations due to chemical reactions that occurred during the fire, requires the two wooden half-arches with the attached paintings to be separated from the metal structure. Once this was done, they would have to be placed on highly rigid supports to minimize deformation and transported in containers large enough to exceed the current limit of 4 meters in height and 2.5 meters in width permitted by the highway code.

What all the experts, both those from Aragon and those from the MNAC, are clear about is that the extremely fragile condition of the paintings requires extreme caution. According to Sajeva, the transport that brought the murals from Sijena to the MNAC cannot be the same now, given the new conservation standards.

The distance from the MNAC to the Monastery of Sijena is approximately 250 kilometers, which at an average speed of 80 kilometers per hour can be covered in just over three hours. However, the ideal speed for the journey would need to be studied to consider the vibrations to which the paintings would be exposed. For one thing, it's not possible to travel slowly, as this lengthens the time the paintings are exposed to unsuitable conditions. Nor should it be traveled quickly, as this increases the risk of uncontrollable vibrations, which would cause parts of the paint film to come loose.

According to Simona Sajeva , it should be noted that the collection has never been subject to a similar transport operation. "Only small portions of the paintings have been loaned to other museums. In all cases, these are small portions on plywood, which guarantees a continuous, uniform, and rigid surface for the paintings," she writes.

The MNAC has the murals in room 16, in a basement with strictly controlled environmental conditions. If the paintings were returned to the Royal Monastery of Santa María de Sijena , this control would not be possible for the time being, so the room would have to be made as accessible as possible for them to be monitored. "The room is enclosed by the roof, and there is no other enclosed space above it. Therefore, the exhibition space would be in direct contact with the outside and exposed to daily climatic changes," the studio states.

Another problem the study points out is that the foundations are also located directly on the ground , which is saturated with water, creating a very humid environment. "The relative humidity of the upper environment can reach very high values ​​due to capillary rise from the ground. This makes controlling thermal and hygrometric values ​​much more difficult," he states.

Another problem would be exposure to sunlight . The monastery currently has openings that let in light, and the sun is a mortal enemy of the paintings. "The openings in direct contact with the outside environment constitute a discontinuity in the insulation of the room," he concludes. That is, before any move, the monastery would have to be thoroughly renovated to ensure that it poses no risk to the paintings.

Another potential problem with the move would be the access of the works to the current Chapter House of Sijena . It does not appear to "have openings large enough to allow access to the paintings mounted on their supports." At the time of the study, the access route to the room was the cloister gallery, whose current value would not be the same as the paintings' current display.

When it comes to starting the reassembly, Sajeva mentions four possible methods. The first is replacing only the fabrics and plywood , removing the supports. This is the most traumatic and the least advisable, as it doesn't guarantee damage to the pieces.

It is also not advisable due to the soluble salts, combined with the humidity, in the monastery walls. This combination can accelerate the appearance of "biological colonization." He gives the example of some mural paintings removed in San Baudelio de Berlanga. They were torn from the architectural structures due to their poor state of conservation. Removed in 1964, they were returned to their original location 37 years later. Ten years later, in 2012, the same Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute noted the deterioration in the paintings' conservation conditions with the appearance of fungus. The conditions in Sijena and San Baudelio are very similar.

The second is to retain the canvas, plywood, and wooden stretchers. According to Sajeva, this would lead to a "geometric incongruity" that, if corrected, would cause problems with the paintings' fixation and rigidity, which are essential for their conservation.

The third option is to remount the entire support system for Room 16 of the MNAC . In principle, this would not be feasible because the MNAC's installation mimics the interior of the Sijena Monastery, and since it overlaps with the walls, the same supports would not fit.

Finally, another option would be to use a completely different system. According to the report, the new anchoring system should either provide rigidity (so as to maintain the tension and deformation state compatible with the conditions of the paintings) or leave room for the wood. It should also be consistent with the existing structures, eliminate the risks of direct contact, and allow for the maintenance of the paintings and supports.

According to theoretical physics, there are practically no impossible phenomena. The two experts presented by the MNAC asserted that it is "not impossible" to move the murals without damaging them. The problem is that no one knows how it is possible or how to do it. The technicians in Aragon may be able to devise an optimal system that, in theory, suggests a possible transfer of the mural paintings without any damage. The problem is that the data advising against such an approach indicate that, although possible, it is highly unlikely. Winning the lottery is not impossible. Winning the lottery is unlikely. Winning the lottery twice is even more so. So, is it worth the risk? If the dismantling problems can be overcome; if the transport problems can be overcome; if the access problems can be overcome and there are no problems with their placement; and if, in the end, a space for optimal conservation of the paintings can be built, everything will be perfect. Then, we will talk about the Sijena miracle. Is it worth playing miracles?

According to Simona Sajeva , the answer is no. "Given that the emergency conditions that led to the strappo in 1936 no longer exist, any decision regarding the paintings and their conservation can be made in an informed and conscientious manner." This will be the work of the technical committee, with specialists from Aragon, Spain, and Catalonia, requested by the MNAC. Let the paintings return, but let them return intact.