Morpeth, St James the Great.
The wall paintings in the Apse and in the Chancel were designed by John R Clayton and Alfred Bell of London and were executed by their artists Messrs Hewitt and Macdonald.
Detail: The Resurrection - The risen Christ flanked by angels leaving a tomb still guarded by Roman soldiers.
——————————————————————————————————
The painting scheme and its deterioration history
The large Victorian church of St James the Great in Morpeth, Northumberland, preserves an impressive apsidal painting scheme, executed in 1875 by the London-based firm of ecclesiastical painter-decorators, Clayton and Bell. In little more than a century, this has undergone numerous periods of deterioration followed by repeated restoration attempts, and - more drastically - the complete painting-out of the semi-dome. Significantly, deterioration over this period has recurred and expanded within a specific zone on the south side of the apse. At present, this area is in an appalling condition, with extensive macro-flaking and loss of the paint layer. While the original deterioration can be connected to rainwater infiltration in c.1907, reasons for the recurrent deterioration have been uncertain.
Evidence indicates that - for some periods at least - the rate of deterioration has not been continual, but has occurred intermittently and at irregular intervals. The original deterioration of c.1907 was followed closely by restoration work in 1912. The next restoration was in 1946, and it is unclear whether deterioration prior to this was gradual or sudden. But from 1946 to at least 1968 it appears that the painting scheme remained in an essentially unchanged condition. It is reliably reported that the latest period of deterioration recurred in the 1970s, and has progressed markedly since.
Unfortunately, throughout this period documentary evidence alone is confusing regarding environmental conditions in the church. There are no records of rainwater infiltration after c.1907, although certain building alterations and other events do not rule out the possibility. During this period too there have been numerous - and, on one occasion, extreme - changes in the heating of the church that must have greatly influenced microclimate conditions, further complicating the issue of identifying reasons for renewed deterioration.
While the parish has the eventual aim to improve the poor appearance of the painting scheme, restoration alone has demonstrably not been the answer to the long-term deterioration problems. Although the painting condition is now extremely vulnerable - and losses have occurred recently - immediate treatment without adequate diagnosis risks being as short-lived. Temporary stabilisation is also largely precluded by the severe conditions. Despite this alarming situation, there is evidence that current rates of paint loss are slow. Considering these factors, diagnosis of the deterioration problems is the first priority. Therefore, following a preliminary inspection commissioned by the parish in December 1999, a phase of investigation and analysis was recommended [Rickerby and Shekede 20001]. This was undertaken in March 2001, and was again entirely funded by the parish. Procedures, results, conclusions and recommendations are contained in the present report.
Morpeth, St James the Great.
The wall paintings in the Apse and in the Chancel were designed by John R Clayton and Alfred Bell of London and were executed by their artists Messrs Hewitt and Macdonald.
Detail: The Resurrection - The risen Christ flanked by angels leaving a tomb still guarded by Roman soldiers.
——————————————————————————————————
The painting scheme and its deterioration history
The large Victorian church of St James the Great in Morpeth, Northumberland, preserves an impressive apsidal painting scheme, executed in 1875 by the London-based firm of ecclesiastical painter-decorators, Clayton and Bell. In little more than a century, this has undergone numerous periods of deterioration followed by repeated restoration attempts, and - more drastically - the complete painting-out of the semi-dome. Significantly, deterioration over this period has recurred and expanded within a specific zone on the south side of the apse. At present, this area is in an appalling condition, with extensive macro-flaking and loss of the paint layer. While the original deterioration can be connected to rainwater infiltration in c.1907, reasons for the recurrent deterioration have been uncertain.
Evidence indicates that - for some periods at least - the rate of deterioration has not been continual, but has occurred intermittently and at irregular intervals. The original deterioration of c.1907 was followed closely by restoration work in 1912. The next restoration was in 1946, and it is unclear whether deterioration prior to this was gradual or sudden. But from 1946 to at least 1968 it appears that the painting scheme remained in an essentially unchanged condition. It is reliably reported that the latest period of deterioration recurred in the 1970s, and has progressed markedly since.
Unfortunately, throughout this period documentary evidence alone is confusing regarding environmental conditions in the church. There are no records of rainwater infiltration after c.1907, although certain building alterations and other events do not rule out the possibility. During this period too there have been numerous - and, on one occasion, extreme - changes in the heating of the church that must have greatly influenced microclimate conditions, further complicating the issue of identifying reasons for renewed deterioration.
While the parish has the eventual aim to improve the poor appearance of the painting scheme, restoration alone has demonstrably not been the answer to the long-term deterioration problems. Although the painting condition is now extremely vulnerable - and losses have occurred recently - immediate treatment without adequate diagnosis risks being as short-lived. Temporary stabilisation is also largely precluded by the severe conditions. Despite this alarming situation, there is evidence that current rates of paint loss are slow. Considering these factors, diagnosis of the deterioration problems is the first priority. Therefore, following a preliminary inspection commissioned by the parish in December 1999, a phase of investigation and analysis was recommended [Rickerby and Shekede 20001]. This was undertaken in March 2001, and was again entirely funded by the parish. Procedures, results, conclusions and recommendations are contained in the present report.