Glass Supports

Back to the Paintings Page

Back to Main Catalogs Page

The information presented on the Paintings Conservation Wiki is the opinion of the contributors and does not imply endorsement or approval, or recommendation of any treatments, methods, or techniques described.

Authors: Elizabeth Wigfield, Sandra L. Webber
Date: Submitted October 2025
Editors: Katie Rovito, Caitlin Green

Introduction

For millennia, natural glass has been used to create objects, but it is the manufacture of glass from raw ingredients that greatly expanded its possibilities and uses. The earliest known production of glass dates back thousands of years to Mesopotamia and possibly Egypt. Developments in glass production over the centuries and across continents led to a wide range of differing and increasingly refined shapes and a great number of decorative techniques, with glass objects ranging from vessels used in private domestic settings and trade to applications in architectural contexts, to name a few. The conservation of cultural objects made of glass falls mainly into the remit and expertise of colleagues in the field of object conservation.

Flat sheets of glass were initially designed for use in windows and objects such as mirrors and lamps. Stained glass is considered to be the most common painting technique on glass where the image is applied with a vitreous paint that is fused with the glass support by firing.

This article will focus on paintings on glass, where the paint medium is applied as a separate layer. These are generally addressed by the specialty of painting conservation. Similarly, the treatment of objects where prints or photographs are attached to glass is addressed by paper or photo conservation.

Glass as a Painting Support

Glass is not a commonly used support for paintings, for obvious reasons. It is inherently fragile and was, until well into the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, a costly material. Its non-porous and smooth surface offers poor adhesion for paint, making it a challenging material to paint on. It nevertheless found followers amongst artists throughout the centuries and spanning several continents. Some reasons may have been an interest in elevating glass from being a decorative functional element in architectural settings or in furniture, where it would have been enameled, stained, or engraved, to an object of beauty in its own right that could be framed (Ryser 2006). Its smooth surface, transparency, and reflective properties would have been aesthetically appealing (Blewett 2005). Paintings on glass were initially thought to be durable and it may have been selected for its ability to reflect scant light in dark rooms in peasant homes, but also for its mirrorlike quality that would reflect the viewer (Ryser 2006). Glass became affordable and a means to easily copy or transfer an image from a print placed behind the glass (Massing 1989). When used as a transparent support, it would allow images to be projected onto a wall as in magic lanterns (Santos et al 2023). Painting on glass would have also benefited trade, as these paintings could be framed securely and sold immediately without having to wait for the paint to dry, and consumers may have liked that reverse glass paintings were easy to clean and care for (Granoff 1978).  Some artists were also drawn to the lack of texture this material provides, while others experimented with and appreciated the aesthetic appearances of textured glass (Steger et al. 2019).

Production and Manufacture of Flat Glass

Glass is composed of three basic components, with sand (a naturally occurring silicon dioxide) the main ingredient. Limestone (calcium carbonate) is added as a stabilizer to reduce the viscosity and make the liquid glass easier to handle and form into the desired shape. And soda ash (sodium carbonate), available as a naturally occurring alkali or sourced by burning maritime plants, is added to lower the melting point of the sand.

The production of glass has been modified over the centuries to achieve specific appearances or physical properties, or simply due to the local availability of raw materials. Soda lime glass is the most widely used type of glass and is also the most common material used for the production of flat sheets of glass used as painting supports.

Davison (2003) gives an in-depth overview of the history, materials, and production of glass in general and flat glass specifically. The earliest smaller-sized flat glass was produced by pouring molten glass into trays. Larger-scale flat sheets of glass were originally handblown, to create cylinder or crown glass. Cylinder glass, similar to broad glass, begins  as a glass bubble that is blown and lengthened in the shape of a cylinder. It is detached from the blowpipe, cut along its length, reheated, then flattened and cut into panes. Crown glass, first developed in 14th-century France, was made by piercing a blown glass sphere or bubble with a rod and then swinging it to create a circular disk that was cut down once cooled. Plate glass, introduced in late 17th-century France, is formed by rolling molten glass on a metal plate or table, then grinding and polishing it. There followed numerous modifications and technical improvements in glass production aiming to produce even thicknesses and smoother surfaces with few to no imperfections. A machine to squeeze molten glass between two rollers was introduced in the mid 19th-century, and by the early 20th-century glass was manufactured by machines. Drawn glass, made by drawing sheets of molten glass over rollers into a cooling chamber, also required grinding and polishing. Higher quality float glass was introduced in the mid 20th-century, produced by pouring molten glass onto a tin bath with the glass spreading out to form a level surface. It has mostly replaced drawn glass and is the most common manufacturing process for sheets of glass today.

Glass exhibits characteristic physical properties based on the material components and how it was fabricated. Earlier hand-blown crown glass, for example, may present ripples or air bubbles with concentric orientation, whereas elongated bubbles may be found in cylinder glass. The presence of a smooth and a rough side might indicate a plate glass. Slightly tinted glass could be due to the presence of impurities. Detailed descriptions are given by Ryser 1991, Santos et al 2023, Davison 2003 and Bretz 2013. Scientific imaging and instrumental methods for analyzing glass are listed by Davison 2003 and Bretz 2008. Rock crystal, a pure quartz, is also used as a painting support (Bretz 2012).

Techniques for Paintings on Glass

There are a number of different techniques for paintings on glass that, according to Davison 2003, necessitate the involvement of a specialist painting conservator. Some of these art forms are oil or watercolor on the front of glass panels, reverse glass paintings, luminaries, and photographic images on glass.

Reverse Glass Painting

One of the most prominent and popular techniques for painting on glass is reverse glass painting or ‘Hinterglasmalerei’ in German. The term is applied to several decorative techniques that, as the name implies, involve painting on the reverse side of the glass. Since the design is viewed from the front through the glass support, the composition is applied in reverse, beginning with the highlights and ending with the background, a technique requiring great skill as it does not allow for changes or modifications. Drawings or prints could be used as templates on the front of the glass panel, then wiped or removed once the painting was complete.

Reverse glass painting is also called ‘cold painting’ or ‘Kaltmalerei’ because the painted decoration is applied as a separate layer and not fused with the support by heating as in stained glass or enameling. Unlike stained glass, reverse glass painting is intended to be viewed in reflected, not transmitted light.

History, Research, and Analysis

The reverse glass painting technique traces back to the third and fourth century early Christian Byzantium and Christian funerary furniture and reliquaries. Comprehensive histories of reverse glass painting and its wide application as decorative elements in furniture, wall decorations, reliquaries, caskets, and jewelry are outlined in Caldararo (1997), Ryser (1999), Davison (2003), Blewett (2012), and Bretz (2012 and 2013). Chinese 19th-century painted glass snuff boxes and magic lantern slides (Santos 2023) are also examples of this technique.

In medieval Europe, its use was mostly for religious paintings. The technique flourished in 16th-century Venice, where glassmakers mastered the production of thin and transparent flat glass. From here, it spread rapidly north of the Alps into court settings as well as rural households and became a strong part of folkloristic art. Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, and the Netherlands became major centers in the 18th century, with reverse glass artists organizing in a guild in Augsburg, Germany as early as 1684 (Ritz 1972, Mayer 2018). Other European countries, like Spain, Turkey, and Romania, developed their own traditions, often featuring votive paintings.  From Europe, it spread to Asia in the 17th and 18th century, where it was introduced to China, becoming an export item that was widely shared via trade routes back to the West and also to Japan (Mayer 2018). It was also imported to India, where it gave rise to the local production of reverse glass paintings in the 18th and 19th centuries. Reverse glass paintings also feature in 20th-century Senegal (Bouttiaux 1994). A revival of this art form occurred in German Expressionism, inspired by 19th-century folkloristic reverse glass paintings (Steger 2019), and has continued into contemporary art.

Research into paintings on glass is fairly recent and coincides with the growing interest and emergence in the 20th century of private and public entities collecting and exhibiting this art form (Ritz 1973; Davison 2003; Bretz 2008, 2013). Research and analysis of painting materials in reverse glass paintings are presented in case studies (Bretz et al. 2008; Baumer and Koller 2009; Hahn 2009; Baumer et al. 2012; Bretz 2012; Mollica 2019; Steger et al. 2018, 2019; Steger, Oesterle et al. 2019). The varying materials and techniques used over the centuries have been discussed in historical treatises (Caldararo 1997; Ryser 1999; Blewett 2003; Blewett 2005, 2012; Bretz 2013; Santos et al. 2023).

Generally, the glass support is cleaned thoroughly to prepare for the application of a transparent sizing. Gelatin, glair, raw linseed oil, nut oils, and natural resin varnishes have been used as a sizing layer, usually applied in a thin layer and left to dry before paint is applied. Oil and water-based paint media were commonly used in combination, though oil, such as linseed or nut oil, with turpentine or spike oil as thinners was the favored medium. Adding metal driers to a heat-bodied linseed oil medium was also common. Less common are watercolors, casein, or tempera paints. These faster drying paints were often used for black or dark colored underdrawings or outlines where the composition was then painted out in oil.

Pigments used are the same as those used for painting on traditional supports such as canvas or panel, but glazes would be applied first, then opaque body color, the reverse from traditional paint application on canvas or panel. Some reverse glass paintings incorporate a dark painted paper, card or wood backing that becomes part of the design as it remains visible through gaps in the composition. Reverse glass paintings are not varnished. In this art form, the glass through which the painting is viewed acts somewhat like a varnish, protecting the paint surface and giving luminosity. The choice of glass is important, whilst early examples are painted on smooth, even flat glass panels, modern or contemporary artists occasionally select textured glass for a particular appearance (Steger 2019).

Variations on Reverse Glass Decoration

Variations in technique and form of reverse glass decoration abound, and terminology is not always consistent. Reverse glass prints and reverse foil engravings are two variants of this technique where the painted element is combined with other features and materials.

To create reverse glass prints (Tremain 1994 and Bretz 2013), also called ‘transfer prints’ (Massing 1989) or ‘mezzotints’ (Davison 2003),  ink engravings on paper are attached face-in onto the glass verso that is coated with Venice turpentine or a resin turpentine mix. The paper is rubbed away leaving the inked outlines behind that can be painted into. This technique was most popular in Europe during the 17th  to 19th centuries.

In reverse foil engraving, gold or silver foil is attached either directly to the glass verso and incised to create the design, or applied over paint to increase its luminosity. In ‘Amelierung,’ a metal foil, or painted metal powder, is applied to the glass verso and incised then painted  with translucent lacquers or resin-based paints, followed by a silver or tin foil (Bretz 2012). A final backing of silver foil, sometimes wrinkled foil, is attached to add luster. The layering is reversed in the ‘Eglomisé’ technique, where the glass verso is first painted and then backed with a metal foil, such as gold or silver leaf (Davison 2003; Bretz 2012, 2013). Bretz 2013 and Ryser 2006 describe the ‘Farbradierung’ technique, where outlines and details are drawn or incised into a layer of paint with sharp tools and then painted or laid over with metal foil.

Mechanisms of Deterioration Inherent to Glass Supports

Paintings on glass supports undergo similar aging and deterioration processes as those on traditional supports like canvas or panels, but it is the material’s inherent fragility and non-porous, smooth surface that are the major contributors to its deterioration. Davison 2003 divides the damages encountered in paintings on glass into two categories: those  affecting the glass support, frame, backing board, etc., and secondly, damages associated with changes to the paint layers.

Glass is vulnerable to cracking and breakage if handled, framed, or stored improperly. It is chemically stable but is known to react to extreme changes in RH and temperature, which can cause the glass to crack. Prolonged exposure to elevated humidity can result in a hazy appearance.

Delamination of the paint and/or priming layers is the most common conservation problem in paintings on glass (Blewett 2005). The causes of this are numerous, ranging from cracking or breaking of the glass support itself to changes in paint and size layers that are poorly adhered to the glass’ non-porous, smooth surface. Other contributing factors in paint delamination include: improper preparation of the support, poor choice of paint medium and paint viscosity, inadequate layer thicknesses, the contraction or movement of backing layers, and materials in combination with poor display and storage conditions( Davison 2003; Blewett 2005; Bretz 2013). Paint delamination is particularly noticeable and disfiguring in reverse glass paintings where air between the glass support and paint alters the tonality and refractive index, resulting in grayish, less saturated areas of paint (Blewett 2005, Davison 2003).

Conservation Treatments

Treatment Set Up

Setting up for the treatment of paintings on glass needs careful planning, especially for reverse glass paintings that require access to the front and back. A glass table construction with a mirror inserted below (Blewett 2012) and a tray for handling the glass painting (David 2009) allows access to both sides of the support. Thornton 1990 describes a light box apparatus for the repair of flat glass.

Select a table and stereo microscope away from a high-traffic area. Perhaps put up placards on the table warning people to keep away. Once you open the back of the frame package, any breeze could dislodge more flakes. A soft silicone mat can be used to keep the object from sliding. Choose days when you are really alert; although you may also find the need to cut back on your caffeine intake. It is often safer to handle the glass by leaving it in the frame, unless it is quite small. Once the backing boards have been carefully removed and set aside, take photos showing the true condition of the paint surface and the dust and grime build-up. Secure the glass into the frame using narrow, felt-padded wood strips and clip them with only slight pressure to at least two opposing sides. If the object has no frame and is large enough to be a handling problem, consider having a temporary frame made to hold the glass during treatment. Have a slightly larger acrylic sheet on hand to cover the piece if you need to leave.

Surface Cleaning

Davison 2003 and Bretz 2013 mention removal of surface dust and dirt with a soft brush or solvent. Saliva and small swabs can be used to gently remove loose grime and dust from stable areas of the paint. Removal of dirt trapped between lifting paint and the glass support may not always be possible, as it can result in further damage.

Treatment of Damage to Glass Support

Repairing cracked or broken glass panels is not straightforward and may in some cases not be possible, as it could further damage the support or the paint layers. Difficulties in repairing panels of glass have been reported and are referenced in Davison 2003 amongst others. It may be necessary to wait until after the consolidation to rejoin the sections, as handling of all surfaces might be needed for proper realignment and joining using a glass epoxy.

In the case of a split glass support that is held in place by the frame, for example, it may be best not to remove the frame unless necessary. Where a broken glass support is to be repaired, Bretz 2013 and Davison 2003 describe using two-component epoxy resins with a refractive index of 1.5, similar to that of glass, adequate flow, and good aging properties. A list of optically clear epoxy resins and their properties is listed by Davison 2003 and Blewett 2012.

The edges of the glass fragments need to be carefully cleaned of dirt, grease, or old adhesive residues. Davison 2003 notes different setups for temporarily supporting smaller to larger size glass fragments with thin strips of pressure-sensitive paint on the unpainted side or clamps during the adhesion process. Adhesive is introduced from the non-painted side via capillary action, excess may be removed from the painted side if necessary. Great care needs to be taken not to allow resin to flow between glass and paint layer where it could cause irreversible darkening of the painting. Davison 2003 references treatments where the edges of the breaks on the painted side were coated with an isolating layer of a water-soluble PVA, to facilitate removal of excess adhesive.

The two-component epoxy resin can also be used as a filler for smaller losses in the glass support or to adhere a glass insert with similar thickness into larger losses. Larger losses can be filled with glass inserts made from similar strength glass, cut to shape using a template prepared from a tracing (Bretz 2013). If the glass support is severely shattered, placing a second glass sheet in front of the broken original to prevent loss of glass pieces and adding a firm backing board as support would be a temporary solution (Bretz 2013).

Treatment of Mold

Treatment to prevent further spread of mold spores on a reverse glass painting with IMS (Industrial Methylated Spirits) is described by David 2009.

Consolidation

The treatment of flaking glass paintings is a slow, tedious, and often frustrating process. The inadvisability of placing a membrane over loose flakes due to the risk of cracking the support precluded the use of the vacuum hot-table. Even local heat from a hot spatula may be unwise, as it could fracture the glass without warning. So much control is needed that this slower approach, area by area, working without heat, seems to be the best solution. Sometimes there is a collection of flakes at the bottom, inside the backing board, some of which can be repositioned and attached.

Consolidation of delaminating paint on paintings on glass, particularly on reverse glass paintings, requires specific considerations as the adhesive will be visible from the front of the painting through the transparent glass support. In addition to allowing good delivery to the site and providing sufficient adhesion, it is important that the refractive index of the consolidant be close to that of glass and equal to that of the paint medium. The consolidant should not change in color, alter the color of the original paint or create air bubbles that would further disrupt the adhesion between paint and glass support and it should be resistant to UV deterioration as it will be exposed to light (Blewett 2005; Bretz 2008; David 2009).

Consolidants

The choice of consolidant is determined by the original paint media, it could be water or solvent-borne, contain wax or resin, or be a combination thereof. Animal glues, cellulose solutions, natural resins, wax, acrylic, ketone or hydrocarbon resins, and polyvinyl acetates have historically been used. Having seen a few earlier discolored restorations that used natural adhesives such as gelatin or hide glue, choosing a stable and water-white consolidant is crucial.

Bretz (in Davison 2003) references publications on consolidants, summarizing their advantages and disadvantages. Water-based consolidants (Klucel E, hydroxy-propyl cellulose, and Tylose MH 300, methylcellulose) are described by Schott 1999. Solvent-based consolidants such as Paraloid B72 are described in Wallace 1976, Tremaine 1988, and Caldararo 1997; Paraloid B67 in Wharton and Oldknow 1987; Plextol D466 in Agnini 1999, and PVA-AYAC in Graham 1976.

Davison describes the solubility in non-polar solvents as an advantage of low molecular materials such as hydrocarbon resins e.g. Regalrez 1094. Their light stability can be increased by adding light stabilizing additives such as Tinuvin 292, and their brittleness offset by adding Kraton G1650 plasticizers, though Davison points out that they can impair light stability of the resin and could migrate into the paint layer. Paraloid B-72 and Regalrez 1094 were also used by Coppieters-Mols 1999.

The use of solvent-based adhesives such as Paraloid B72 in Xylene, Aquazol 500 in IMS, and Plextol B500 are referenced in publications summarized by Blewett 2005. Bretz et al. (2008) discusses the consolidation of an ‘Amelierung’ reverse glass painting, where voids that appeared following an initial consolidation with Regalrez 1094 were treated with a subsequent wax application, see also Bretz 2013. Laropal A81 has been used by Andrieux (2019)  applied with a Badger Spray, and Guidera (2020) applied with a heat gun to promote flow. Chapman and Mason 2003 present a literature review of the use of Paraloid B72 as a consolidant for stained glass that is partly applicable to paintings on glass surfaces.

Methods of Consolidation

There are different methods of consolidation including laying the flakes locally using a brush, using heat and pressure, exposing paint to solvent vapors, and the total transfer of the pictorial layer.

The use of an ultrasonic mister (modified ultrasonic humidifier developed by Michalski/Dinard) to consolidate powdery paint on a reverse glass painting with Regalrez 1094 is described by David 2009. Reforming a failing paint layer by exposing the paint to solvents (Pettenkoefer method) is described by Wallace 1976, Caldararo 1997, Davison 2003, and Bretz 2023. The transfer of a reverse glass painting onto a new support is described by Thornton 1981.

Author Recommendations

Paraloid B-72 resin in laboratory-grade xylene is recommended because of its adhesive properties, its color permanence, and the fact that it is suspended in organic solvents and not water. The viscosity can be tailored to match the strength or thickness of the paint. Many glass paintings in the best condition are almost transparent, with a single consistent layer of thin paint; the flakes are small and flat, and a 15% solution may work quite well. Thick paint layers, or those with severely curled flakes or shards, will need a stronger solution, up to 25-30% or more, to hold them down. In one rare 20th-century case, the consolidant severely darkened certain colors when viewed from the front. It’s possible that any consolidant would have done the same, but careful testing should be done beforehand.

While viewing under the microscope, work in small areas at a time, following the design shapes; gently flow the consolidant under the lifted flakes with a small sable water-color brush. If needed, ethanol can be wicked in first to break strong surface resistance. Allow the consolidant to set for a few minutes (you’ll have to determine the perfect wait time), then gently press each flake into contact with the glass. Rinse and wipe your tools frequently to remove consolidant; otherwise, you may lift flakes off as you’re working. If possible, replace any escaped flakes at the same time. You will see some excess B-72 squeeze up along cracks as you press the flakes down, but leave it for now. The less fussing when wet, the better. A variety of small tools can be used including: a needle mounted in a wood handle to puncture air bubbles, dental scalers to relocate flakes as needed, and a specially carved Teflon presser foot to push the flakes down and gently rub them into place. The head of the Teflon tool is flat, rounded, flexible and only about ¼” wide. Continue across as much of the surface as needed. Let the consolidant dry and harden for several days, then carefully remove any excess B-72 with swabs and xylene, but don’t flood the surface; the rest of the grime will come away at the same time. View the image from the front to see if there are any small detached air pockets left, and treat those areas.  A light layer of B-72 can be applied across the entire back surface to even out the tension on the paint.

Loss Compensation

In addition to the general requirements of inpainting, such as reversibility and aging properties, there are other factors to consider when compensating losses on a glass support.

The least invasive and fully reversible method of compensation is placing a toned, acid-free paper or paperboard of the same size as the painting support, behind the painting (Ritz 1972; Wallace 1976; Blewett 2012; Davison 2003; Bretz 2013). The paper or paperboard is painted so the toned areas correspond with the areas of loss. Clear Mylar may be inserted to prevent the original paint from adhering to the toned backing.

If direct compensation is planned, inpainting should be stable and reversible and not touch the original paint to avoid tension. An isolating layer also needs to function as a sizing layer for the inpainting to adhere to. Bretz 2013 recommends using wax as a reversible isolating layer. Some inpainting media listed in the references are Magna acrylic paints in xylene (Caldararo 1997), Cryla acrylic (Davison and Jackson 1985), Aquarel paints and Rebel 2000 in Paraloid B72 (Coppieter-Mols 1999).

Author Recommendations

Inpainting can be tricky, as the color of the paint seen on the reverse cannot be used to match the paint saturated by the glass and consolidant on the front. Davison 2003 suggests using a mirror to facilitate inpainting, but personal experience proves this to be difficult. Another option is to hold the framed picture upright on the table, with the right side facing you, and reach from behind to inpaint the losses. If you need to remove your work, take a dry swab or your finger to it right away.  The author uses dry pigments ground in B-67, but there are a number of other resins that could be used. Set the piece aside for several days to a week to thoroughly harden the consolidant. I store the paintings in a flat file drawer, with a label on the drawer front warning people that there is a glass painting inside.

Sealing and Framing

The integrity and stability of the frame is essential to the preservation of paintings on glass. Handling a painting on glass in an unstable frame or with open miters may result in damage to the glass support.

The frame requires a backing board to protect the fragile support, and the paint on the verso. Mylar placed behind the painting can protect the sensitive paint layer and prevent sticking to the backing board. Clear archival tape wrapped from the front glass edge around to the back of the board can be used to passe-partout the painting to a four-ply rag mat board, or other material. Backing boards should be air-permeable, smooth-surfaced, rigid, and neutral in color. The color should not alter the painting’s appearance (white is usually too bright), especially if the picture is somewhat transparent. If in doubt, aim for the value seen on the inside surface of the old wood backing board. If the piece is quite large, eight-ply mat board or one of the other available board choices can be used.

Any residues should be cleaned from the front edges of the glass prior to framing. This can be done using a sharp blade, followed by glass cleaner, to insure a tight seal. Adding glazing to the front with UV filtered glass will reduce light exposure of light sensitive paints and add physical protection to the glass support. The picture can then be reframed using the original frame and wooden backboards, as desired.

Following standard framing guidelines are crucial for paintings on glass due to their inherent fragility (Davison 2003; Bretz 2013), this includes using archival materials, lining the rebate, using appropriate non-abrasive spacers and properly securing the hanging hardware. Use screws, not nails, tacks, or staples, to avoid vibrations that could crack or splinter the glass.

In the case of paintings of the ‘Amelierung’ technique, where silver foil is applied, preventive measures may need to be taken to protect against oxidation.

Storage

Ideal environmental conditions for paintings on glass (Davison 2003; Blewett 2005 and 2012; Bretz 2013) are listed as 18-25°C and 40-55% RH. Seasonal adjustments can be made, and slightly lower temperatures between 15-18°C can be implemented for long-term storage. Constant temperature and relative humidity are important, as is a dust-free environment. A relative humidity above 65% could encourage mold growth. Spacers between the painting and wall are recommended to allow circulation of air. Avoid hanging the painting on an outside wall, near a window, in direct sunlight, in a strong light source, or near heating.

Glass absorbs UV only minimally. It protects the paint layers against UVB and UVC light, but this will not prevent discoloration or fading of light-sensitive materials like dyes or prevent UV-induced deterioration of binding mediums and resins..

For storage or transport, it is best to keep reverse glass paintings in their frames. Placing the painting glass side down on a padded surface is recommended for long term storage. Bretz 2013 recommends wrapping it in acid-free tissue and placing into an archival-quality box resistant to air and water vapor. If storing the painting upright, it should be supported from the back. Fragile paintings with broken glass supports or delaminating paint layers should be stored face down, for broken glass, tape should be applied to the glass side to avoid movement of the shards and prevent further damage.

References

Andrieux, Marine. 2019. “Technical Examination and Conservation Treatment of Wooded Moonlight Landscape with Pool and Figure at the Door of a Cottage: A Reverse Glass Painting by Thomas Gainsborough” The Picture Restorer, Number 55: 6-13.

Baumer, Ursula, Irene Fiedler, Simone Bretz, Hans-Jörg Ranz, and Patrick Dietemann. 2012. “Decorative Reverse-Painted Glass Objects from the Fourteenth to Twentieth Centuries: An Overview of the Binding Media.” Studies in Conservation 57 (sup1): S18–19. doi:10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000034.

Baumer Ursula, Dietemann Patrick, Koller Johann. 2009 “Identification of resinous materials on 16th and 17th-century reverse-glass objects by gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry.” International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 284:131–41.

Blewett, Morwenna. 2003. William Nicholson’s reverse glass panel paintings: an investigation into the provenance, materials and techniques and future conservation of the Knoblock Commission. Postgraduate Diploma Dissertation, Courtauld Institute of Art.

Blewett, Morwenna. 2004.  “The Materials and Techniques of Twentieth-century Reverse-painted Glass Panels: An Investigation of William Nicholson’s Knoblock Commission.” The Conservator 28 (2004): 11–19.

Blewett, Morwenna. 2005. “Consolidation issues and treatment strategies for delaminating layers on reverse glass painting: a literature review and case study”. The Picture Restorer: 5-11.

Blewett, Morwenna. 2012. “Reverse-glass painting (Hinterglasmalerei).” In Conservation of Easel Paintings, edited by Stoner, Joyce Hill, Rushfield, Rebecca. Routledge, London and New York. 110-112.

Blewett, Morwenna. 2012. “Treatment of reverse-glass paintings.” In: Conservation of Easel Paintings, edited by Stoner, Joyce Hill, Rushfield, Rebecca. Routledge, London and New York. 380-381.

Bouttiaux, Anne-Marie. 1994. Senegal Behind Glass : Images of Religious and Daily Life. Munich, Prestel and Royal Museum of Central Africa, Tervuren.

Bretz, Simone. 2003. “Information on the History, Technology, Deterioration and Restoration of Reverse Paintings on Glass.” In: Conservation and Restoration of Glass. By Davison, Sandrea, Newton, R.G. Butterworth – Heinemann, Oxford: 54–59, 339–344.

Bretz, Simone, Ursula Baumer, Heike Stege, Johannes von Miller, Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk. 2008. “A German House Altar from the Sixteenth Century: Conservation and Research of Reverse Paintings on Glass.” Studies in Conservation Vol. 53, No. 4. 209-224.

‌Bretz, Simone. 2012. “Materials Research and Conservation of the Reverse Painted ‘Spanish Map.’” The Rijksmuseum Bulletin 60 (2): 116–29. https://doi.org/10.52476/trb.9874.

Bretz, Simone. 2013. Hinterglasmalerei… die Farben leuchten so klar und rein. Maltechnik - Geschichte - Restaurierung. Klinkhardt & Biermann Verlag.

Caldararo, Niccolo. 1997. “Conservation Treatments of Paintings on Ceramic and Glass: Two Case Studies.” Studies in Conservation 42 (3): 157–64. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1997.42.3.157.

Chapman, Sasha, and David Mason. 2003. “Literature Review: The Use of Paraloid B-72 as a Surface Consolidant for Stained Glass.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 42 (2): 381–92. https://doi.org/10.1179/019713603806112813.

David, Jessica. 2009. “Case Study: The Treatment of Six Reverse Paintings on Glass from William Nicholson’s Loggia with Figures and Architectural Fragment.” Journal of the Institute of Conservation 32 (2): 219–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19455220903059917.

Granoff, Phyllis. 1978. “Reverse Glass Paintings from Gujarat in a Private Canadian Collection: Documents of British India.” Artibus Asiae Vol. 40, No. 2 / 3: 204-214

Guidera, Stephanie. 2020. “Technical Study and Considerations for Conservation Treatment of a Banjo Clock.” M.A. Thesis Project, State University of New York College at Buffalo - Buffalo State College.

Hahn O, Bretz S, Hagnau C, Ranz HJ, Wolf T. 2009. “Pigments, dyes, and black enamel—the colorants of reverse paintings on glass.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.1:263–71.

Massing, Ann. 1989. “From Print to Painting, The Technique of Glass Transfer Painting.” Print Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4: 383-393

Mayer, Rupprecht. 2018. Bolihua - Chinese Reverse Glass Painting from the Mei Lin Collection, Hirmer Publishers.

Nardo, V. Mollica, V. Renda, G. Anastasio, E. Caponetti, M.L. Saladino, C.S. Vasi, and R.C. Ponterio. 2019. “A Combination of Portable Non-Invasive Techniques to Study on Reverse Glass Paintings at Mistretta Museum.” Microchemical Journal 146 (May): 640–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.01.067.

Ritz, Gislind. 1972.  Hinterglasmalerei - Geschichte, Erscheinung, Technik. Verlag Georg D. W. Callwey München.

Ryser, Frieder. 1991. “Verzauberte Bilder - Die Kunst der Malerei hinter Glas von der Antike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert." Klinkhardt & Biermann Verlag.

Ryser, Frieder. 2006. “Das Hinterglasbild Kindermord von Bethlehem im Corning Museum of Glass.” Journal of Glass Studies Vol. 48: 243-253

Santos, Ângela, Otero, Vanessa,Vilarigues, Márcia. 2023. “Production of Hand-painted Magic Lantern Glass Slides: A Literature Review.” Studies in Conservation. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00393630.2023.2194080?needAccess=true

Schott, F.L. 1999. “Restaurierung von drei Hinterglasmalereigefässen.” In Ausstellungskatalog Gemalt Hinter Glas, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, München, München und Würzburg.

Sconci, MS. Setton, J.M., Accardo, G. and Rindaldo, R. 1999. “La collezione di vetri dipinti di Palazzo Venezia: un intervento di restauro - The collection of glass paintings at Palazzo Venezia: a restoration intervention.” Kermes Vol 12 No. 36: 45 - 56

Steger, Simon, Diana Oesterle, Rupprecht Mayer, Oliver Hahn, Simone Bretz, and Gisela Geiger. 2019. “First Insights into Chinese Reverse Glass Paintings Gained by Non-Invasive Spectroscopic Analysis—Tracing a Cultural Dialogue.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11 (8): 4025–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00799-3.

Steger, Simon, Heike Stege, Simone Bretz, and Oliver Hahn. 2018. “Capabilities and limitations of handheld Diffuse Reflectance Infrared Fourier Transform Spectroscopy (DRIFTS) for the analysis of colourants and binders in 20th-century reverse paintings on glass.” Spectrochimica acta. Part A, Molecular and biomolecular spectroscopy 195: 103–112.

Steger, Simon, Heike Stege, Simone Bretz, and Oliver Hahn. 2019. “Methodological Approach for in Situ Spectroscopic Analysis of Modern Reverse Paintings on Glass: A Case Study of Kreuzabnahme (1914/15) - an Outstanding Example by Carlo Mense” Eur Phys J. Plus. 134 (2). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12549-6.

Steger, Simon, Heike Stege, Simone Bretz, and Oliver Hahn. 2019. “A Complementary Spectroscopic Approach for the Non-Invasive In-Situ Identification of Synthetic Organic Pigments in Modern Reverse Paintings on Glass (1913–1946).” Journal of Cultural Heritage 38 (July): 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.01.011.

Thornton, Jonathan. 1990. “A Light-Box Apparatus for the Repair of Glass.” Studies in Conservation 35 (2): 107–9. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1990.35.2.107.

Thornton, Jonathan. 1980. “A Transfer Treatment Technique for Hinterglasmalerei.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 20 (1): 28–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3179680

Further Reading

Appasamy, Jaya. 1980. Indian Paintings on Glass. Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi.

Bayle, M., D.G. Waugh, B.J. Colston, and J. Lawrence. 2015. “On the Study of Oil Paint Adhesion on Optically Transparent Glass: Conservation of Reverse Paintings on Glass.” Applied Surface Science 357 (December): 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.08.192.

Fakuc A S. 2007. “Reverse Paintings in Glass in Slovenia.” In L. Pilosi (Ed) Glass and Ceramics Conservation, Slovenia: Interim Meeting of the ICOM-CC Working Group, 72-82.

Barde, Bob. 1980. “Glass Paintings from Senegal.” African Arts 13 (4): 80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3335797.

Davison, Sandra. 1998. “Reversible Fills for Transparent and Translucent Materials.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation Vol 37, No 1: 35-47.

Griffiths, D.R. and A.M. Feuerbach, A.M. 2001. “The Conservation of Wet Medieval Window Glass: A Test using an Ethanol and Acetone Mixed Solvent System.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 40: 131–33.

Magdalena Iwanicka, Ewa A. Kwiatkowska, Marcin Sylwestrzak, Piotr Targowski. 2011. "Application of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for real time monitoring of consolidation of the paint layer in Hinterglasmalerei objects," Proc. SPIE 8084, O3A: Optics for Arts, Architecture, and Archaeology III, 80840G

Zeppetella, Patrizia and Barbara Scheibli. 2015. “Das Konservierungsprojekt der Hinterglasbilder im Zentrum Paul Klee”. Chapter in Zentrum Paul Klee (publ). Paul Klee. Die Hinterglasbilder. Wienand Verlag, Köln. 39 - 51.

Salmen Brigitte, Heymer Berno, Bretz Simone, Ranz Hans J, Hahn,Oliver, Neelmeijer Christian, Mäder Michael, Koller Johann, Baumer Ursula, Müller Wolfgang; welche zuweilen Kunstwerth haben, Hinterglasmalerei in Südbayern im 18 und 19 Jahrhundert Exhibition Catalogue Schloßmuseum Murnau, 14 March to 9 June, 2003. Schloßmuseum Murnau. Article in this publication:

• Hahn, O. ‘Untersuchungen von Farbmitteln an Hinterglasbildern des 18./19. Jahrhunderts' 107-110.
• Koller J and Baumer U. ‘Bindemittelanalysen von Hinterglasbildern des 18. Jahrhunderts.” 112-114.

Dütsch I. 2002 ‘“...daß die Glasbilder nicht aussterben...” Neue Erkenntnisse zur Geschichte der Murnauer Hinterglasmalerei’,  Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde. München; 81–102.

Eswaring, Rudy. 1992. Reverse Paintings on Glass: The Ryser Collection. Corning, N.Y. Corning Museum of Glass.

Freytag O. 1937. Hinterglasmalerei: Ihre künstlerische Eigenart und Arbeitsweise in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Ravensburg: Otto Maier Verlag.

Geiger G, Bretz S. 2017. Heinrich Campendonk, Die Hinterglasbilder. Köln, Wienand.

Gockerell N. 2000. Hinterglasbilder, Schnitzereien und Holzspielzeug von Gabriele Münter gesammelt, kopiert und in ihren Werken dargestellt. München, Prestel.

Pradell, Trinitat, Gloria Molina, Sonia Murcia, Rafael Ibáñez, Chaoren Liu, Judit Molera, and Andrew J. Shortland. 2015. “Materials, Techniques, and Conservation of Historic Stained Glass ‘Grisailles.’” International Journal of Applied Glass Science 7 (1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijag.12125.

Roethel HK. 1966. Vasily Kandinsky: Painting on glass (Hinterglasmalerei). New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.

Sconci, Maria Selene, Jeanne-Marie Setton, Roberto Rinaldi, Giorgio Accardo. 1999. “La Collecione di Vetri Dipinti Di Palazzo Venezia, Un intervento di restauro.” Kermes, XII, Vol 36, 45 - 56.

Steger, Simon, Diana Oesterle, Simone Bretz, Lisa Frenzel, Heike Stege, Iris Winkelmeyer, Oliver Hahn, and Gisela Geiger. 2019. “Kandinsky’s Fragile Art: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of Four Early Reverse Glass Paintings (1911–1914) by Wassily Kandinsky.” Heritage Science 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-019-0268-8.

Tremain, David. 1994. “Reverse-glass prints: Their History, Techniques and Conservation.”Proceedings of Symposium 88: The Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works on Paper, Ottawa, Canadian Conservation Institute: 143-152.

Wallace K. 1976. “Examination and treatment of Hinterglasmalerei or reverse paintings on glass.” Unpublished paper, National Gallery of Art, Ottawa, Canada.

Wessels E. 1913. Die Hinterglasmalerei: Anleitungen zur Herstellung von Malereien hinter ober unter Glas, sowie Glasmalerei-Imitation, Glas- Vergoldung und dergleichen. Esslingen: P Neff Verlag.