|
Delineating a
distinction between restoration and conservation,
especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, is standard
practice. In principle Conservation, which is non
evasive, might well be regarded as high level
maintenance, in which the art object, be it the façade
of a church, a fresco, a panel painting, or a sculpture,
is treated in order to preserve its integrity and its
unique qualities for the future. Of course the
intervention only clock stops at the moment of the
conservational intervention and alternations of earlier
epochs are left. To undertake a conservational activity
is something of a no-brainer, inhibited only by que-
stions of funding and the extent of the threats menacing
the object. When the roof of a chapel leaks, repair it
without delay in order to prevent (further) damage to
the objects there. When humidity is out of control find
and eliminate the sources as one should termi- nate
termites nesting in a wood panel. Gas the little
creatures. Diverse other conservatio- nal or really
preventive measures can be taken. Recognizing the
negative effects of moi- sture, for example, the number
of visitors can be limited, as is the case in the
Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, the Camera degli Sposi in
Mantua.
Other options present themselves. Dehumidifiers can be
installed as is the case in the su- perb little National
Museum in Volterra where last winter (2001-02) the heat
was on full for- ce by mistake over a weekend creating
havoc with the paintings including an all-time
masterpiece, Rosso’s “Deposition,” and several
masterpieces of Signorelli: now the objects are in real
danger. The humidity is rigorously controlled, or at
least machinery has been in- stalled. Generally speaking
part of the maintenance process should be to stop paint
from chipping away, and replace the chips which have
already fallen. When paint begins to flack, in other
words, stop of the losses and solidify the art object.
To be sure, it is very dif- ficult to object to such
conservational actions: instead one is prone to laud
them, as we do prevent medicine.
On the other hand “Restoration” as a term as well as a
concept carries with it a far more invasive operations,
ones which alter the very physical fabric of a work of
art. Consequen- tly with “restoration” comes a heavy
dosage of both artistic and scientific interpretation on
the part of the operatives, less critical in an
exclusively conservational operation. Addi- tionally,
distinct from Conservation, the normative goal of a
modern Restoration is to bring the art work back to some
thing approaching its original appearance, that is to
say, ideally, its condition at the moment when it left
the creating artist's studio. As a parenthe- sis, one
cannot refrain from observing that this goal in itself
assumes that the artists were stupid, that they were
unaware that their works will not change in time, mellow
with age, acquire a special surface. How could a
Renaissance sculptor be unaware of the patina which
gradually envelops works done even a few years before,
not to say decades and even centuries earlier. So the
very intention of modern Restoration practice appears to
me to be misdirected from the start.
Returning to the main line of argumentation, the
prestigious interventions of our time, those which are
widely publicized in the media, whether conducted in New
York, London. Rome, Paris or Florence fall into the
Restoration category(1). The frescoes, the panels, the
canvasses, the sculptures, the carvings are spruced up
as if one were dealing with a 1927 Ford Model T readied
for an antique automobile show in Albany (2).
Within the parameters of the objective of achieving an
original appearance, frequently if not always, the art
object necessarily requires considerable re-working. In
the case of a painting, calm study reveals previous
“reintegrations” which were applied in an ongoing effort
to provide renewed life into the wilting old patients.
Within the objective of turning back the clock to a
presumed original appearance, the most admired
operatives are those with the best “hands,” that is to
say those with the most honed manual skills and the most
refined flair. The restorers who can repaint without
being obvious and who can integrate various elements of
the picture which is inevitably disturbed in the
operating room are regarded as superior.
The observations presented above lead to the
recognition of the most characteristic a- spect of the
modern Restoration procedure. At the base of the process
is thorough and in the eyes of many a drastic cleaning.
Here, in fact, lies the rub. The normal practice with
only minor variations depending upon the “school” is to
remove everything on the surface of a picture which is
not regarded as “original” to the artist who created the
work in the first place. Whether the alternations are
old or recent, they must go, in order to get as clo- se
as possible to the original intention. It hardly makes
much difference how much is really there; the theory
purports to be purist. Such was precisely the
operational principle, in my review of the situation, of
the twenty-year restoration of Leonardo’s “Last Supper”
where, in many portions of the mural, only a few
splinters of “original” paint was regarded as by
Leonardo and hence retained. There are vast passages
where nothing at all remains, ex- cept blank wall.
If acute viewers have difficulty in appreciating their
favorite treasures following a mo- dern, high tech
scrubbing (3), they have good reason to be puzzled. One
of the pitfalls of modern cleaning is that the unifying
elements, whether placed there by the hand of the artist,
or by the hand of time, or both interacting together,
are necessarily disturbed. Hen- ce recently restored
pictures tend to appear disjointed and inharmonious.
The nefarious notion of getting back to the “original
glory” whether it be Michelangelo’s Sistine Ceiling,
Raphael’s stanze in the Vatican, Holbein’s “Ambassadors
“ or Rembrandt's “Homer Contemplating the Bust of
Aristotle,” is accepted practice for virtually all
restora- tions. The analogy with plastic surgery, with
face lifts or a tummy tucks, is suggestive. Medi- cal
interventions of this kind, as well as all others, can
and do go astray, and the court ro- oms are full of
cases where even the finest and best intended experts
generate grotesque results. In distinction when it comes
to the restorations of our artistic treasures, they
never fail, they never produce grotesque results, at
least the public rhetoric does not permit such claims.
By guile or by chance, critical evaluations of
restorations are virtually nonexistent. Each and every
intervention is acclaimed.
And also unlike Doctors and engineers and almost
everyone else, so far at least it is quite impossible to
bring the restorers and their supervisors to a court of
law for their actions. The public relations machinery of
the Art Establishment is such that the results are
always “glo- rious”. Ironically, when one is tempted to
say otherwise, it is he who runs the risk of facing
legal action.
The analogy with medicine which is quite common is
restoration parlance was already well postulated by
Leonardo da Vinci, in his particular reference, with
regard to architec- ture. But his statement is so rich,
that it deserves a prominent place on the wall of a doc-
tor’s office as well as a restorers studio.
Another question which comes up when we see our
favourite actors and actresses see- king to overwhelm
time: how many lifts can a weathered old face sustain
before the re- sults become counterproductive? I suggest
that there are similar limits for pictures and
sculptures. Yet we have been witnessing a period when
the same work is done time and time again, as is the
case of Michelangelo’s Doni Madonna, each time
apparently to pro- ve some point or other. For example
whether it was painted complete in oils, completely in
tempera, or something in between. Remember varnish
always gets yellow, and yello- wing varnish makes for
open season for pictorial restorations.
Premises which lie behind modern dentistry can be
brought into the conservation-re-storation debate. The
dentist’s task is an exemplary marriage of conservation
and restora- tion: think of all those painful and
expensive root canals with beautifying caps resting up-
on them. Two elements must be regarded as integral for
dentistry. The first is the extent of the pain or
potential pain an individual is prepared to accept
before seeing the interven- tion of a dentist. The
second revolves around the question of money, how much
is the pa- tient willing to pay and for what. As with
art restoration the aesthetic component can be crucial,
although is distinction to an able art restorer, an able
dentist is expected to im- prove on the original both
mechanically and aesthetically, not satisfied with
achieving the glory of the original. With the art object,
however, there is a far greater dependence upon
interpretation, which is basically a subjective activity.
What is rarely taken into account in the fixation upon
the conservation vs. restoration or conservation and
restoration debate is the status of the collective
historical perception. In distinction to the so-called
original status glorious appearance of the object, that
even present goal of modern restorers, one must take
into account the history of the object, and its mode of
perception over the past, and especially the more recent
past. The condi- tions are clearer for the period when
accurate photographic evidence is available, so that if
the appearance of the Sistine Chapel Ceiling is not
verifiable for the year 1800, for 1900 is reasonably
accurate and for 1980, it is quite traceable and
confirmable. We know what people were look at, and
consequently the factors which went towards reading the
object as it was presented to them. Now the question
becomes should be remove all of that “history” including
mistaken restorations and additions, interpretations,
and wilful mo- difications, in factor of a purist
approach. Such was clearly the decision of the Last
Supper restoration, which removed everything that was
not regarded as original. In this case and arguable of
virtually all cases, what was removed was the
long-established historical ap- pearance, the one that
influences generations if not centuries of viewers, and
among them artists. Thus we must return to the basic
question: are we as a society justified in re- moving
history in the name of accuracy?
A sub-issue, of course, is that of whether it is even
possible to return an object to its origi- nal status at
all. As already implied this notion is really
Frankenstein-like by its very nature, and the likelihood
of creating monsters is great. In the case of the Last
Supper, because of (premature) losses due to either poor
techique on Leonardo’s part or inherent moisture in the
walls at the very start, the original has begun to
deteriorate very early on, preventing by definition as
it were, a return to the original appearance of the
masterpiece. But this process is not restricted to this
mural painting: it is part of all works of the past, the
diffe- rence being only that of degree.
In fact the role of time in the life of an art object
has been part of the discourse for at least two hundred
years, but we must assume that the creating artist, as
already sugge- sted, were fully aware of the process. We
must also assume that they took into account this
element when making their works, for example recognizing
that changes take place after the object leaves their
studios, that there is such a process as aging. So where
are we in the process today. Unlike the situation even a
decade or two ago, now we can work in computers to
create facsimiles or reproductions of the works in
various stages of their hi- story with any risks to the
actual object whatsoever. No longer is it necessary to
make a choice, to destroy the historical object, and its
historical perception, in favour of the an assumed near
or pseudo originality. We can have it all. Punch in the
date and out will co- me perfectly credible images which
can be made in any size desired, and even can be sent
around the world. At the same time the object’s
integrity of the moment is preserved, the text remains
intact, as a aesthetic document and an original work of
art, however suf- fered. This fortunate situation must
be recognized by the competent authorities, the mu- seum
directors, the art scholars, the superintendents. In
this way, the activities of art resto- rers become more
limited to conservational interventions, which must be
more rewarding that putting your hand on Rembrandt’s
Night Watch and altering its historical past, but also
changing its future.
Naturally the restorers will be invaluable function in
advising the computer experts on how to proceed with
their reconstructions, but there are final room for
mistakes which are no longer fatal, because they can be
easily amended. I am certain we will see all this hap-
pen and happen soon enough. The only question which
remains is will be happen before more masterpieces and
just plan good stuff manipulated senselessly. Our
knowledge of the original appear will be expanded
enormously although the changes in colours over ti- me
might slow down the process, due to the enormous
complexity of the chemistry.
If we look back at the unnecessary restorations that
have been unfolding around us in the great museums of
the world, the errors of the past two dozen years are
magnified to epic proportions.
September, 2002
_________________________
1 They are often sponsored by willing
corporations. The complex issue sponsorship requires an
essay all of its own, but it is enough to say that
sponsors recognized the public relations value of such
operations. They expect to obtain and usually do, their
pound of flesh.
2 The example of restoring automobiles is not an
accidental choice. The fact is that one very quickly
realizes that the appearance is not really original, but
super-original, to the point of being artificial.
3 It is often unfortunate that debate over
restoration is too often centered around the ma-
sterpieces and not the lager body of objects which come
under the restorer’s knife. The reason is cultural. The
famous objects are in the public eye and therefore
something like a hearing can be obtained when objections
are raised.
|