stone without necessarily trying to removc all trams of the paint. The stone will still confragt with the s m d i n g m m r q but in a less obmsive way. The stone will @&ly resoil over time thus reducing the contrast effect.
Ilfusmfion 7. Gmfiti c l a d from soiled sa&oree amand 30 y&ltrspwviously.
However, it i%the case. that mwt gati is applied to surfaces that are feliitively fie Ersm su&w soiling as this will h d m n of the gafftd. In @is easeD the best approach may be &I ramowe w t l y the.graffiti material only without causing stahhg or bleghing of the substrate materid. This approach is shown in Illustration 8 where m m midual graffiti m y be sees. This exemplifies the mihimalbt appr& that B recommended for ~nsltiveS&. However, after grafXti has beea clcxmed it is s.till pomible that stained or ligirtm mlourerl amas the original pd33ti may result, To redace this effect, f b t h a gantle cleaning adjamat to &a gdfiti afflicted area can blur the edges of the zone and d u c e the visual impaet af the damaged surfffce.
Canvemly, cleaning the graEti only from the swface of a previously soiled stone will produce a clpian area Befare any decisian is d e to clean-sff graffiti, it of stevae that reflects the area covered by the graffiti. shouId be recognised that many appbd types ~sf The effects of this appro~chwill nrean that although @%ti will eventually fade or fdl away from tha the applied material has been remaved, the imprint of surface of the material, especially those su~Ts~ce:s the will remain visible for many yeam due to exposed to the em111alenvironment. Some dyes, for the conmt betw-een the soiled and dean4 areas. example, wiil fade within weeks in W t sunlight. The Illustration 7 is an example of just such an effect. The policy should themfore r ~ o g n k ethe transient naSure original graffiti, which was applied by students during of applied materials when taken in the context af tbe a campaign for the eleetion of a Rector, was cleaned life of a historic building, and that damage to the circa 30 years previously but the imprint is still sharply surface is mqre likely from attempts to remove the defined. In &is type of situation, the leklst visually sraffiti than from the graffiti itself. obtrusive approach may be to clean @nay the whole
Ilbtrution 8. Graflti removed* an histm'c samd~tofie surjLfee. The inserphtogruph shows the h@m m v d L Complete ~einavalwas not aitmptd and some msiduerl p a i ~re^^ &er clmiag. ( C r d a t m Castle)