Is restoration of famous artworks (the national treasure kind) a good idea?

Great Debates
1

There were a couple of TV documentaries lately about restorations that were controversial.

One was the Sistine Chapel. The restorers removed some dark layers of wax and varnish and the result was much brighter colors and much flatter textures, with less feeling of roundness and muscularity, the painter/sculptor’s trademark.
The critics say Michaelangelo’s other work, and the work of contemporaries that tried to follow his style, would demonstrate that the wax/varnish was original and intentional.

A second documentary showed how a team of German archivists went to Tibet (or was it Nepal) to restore wall paintings of Buddha that had huge cracks in them. In that case, they simply tried to stabilize the paint, and where cracks were to fill them in with flat areas of removable paint that would indicate continuity of color but no detail at all. The monks were distressed. They had not wanted a museum relic, showing clearly what was original and what was missing. They had expected a mural that was whole, like it had been painted yesterday, that looked like it originally had.

What do you think should be done with art that has suffered damage, from war scars down to simple fading away?

2

I’d be for just letting them fade away. I thought the Buddha taught that everything is transient. So I would think those monks should have left their artifacts alone and expend any new effort on new art.

3

I’d like to see the Parthenon restored to look like it did when it was new, including the polychrome paint job. Heck, the whole Acropolis!

4

Well, I’d like to see them saved and passed on. Of course, if that becomes impossible, creating an exact replica is fine by me too.

5

I;'d like to see many architectural treasures restored, such as the Colliseum. You might not need catacombs filled with slave gladiators and wild beasts, but you could still use the site itself.

Personally, I’d like to see a dinner-show called “Gladius!” there. Sort of like Medieval Times or The Dixie Stampede.

6

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]

Personally, I’d like to see a dinner-show called “Gladius!” there. Sort of like Medieval Times or The Dixie Stampede.
[/QUOTE]

That stage plays there from time to time. Not so long ago they ran Oedipus Rex.

Marc

7

[QUOTE=Hobohob]
There were a couple of TV documentaries lately about restorations that were controversial.

One was the Sistine Chapel. The restorers removed some dark layers of wax and varnish and the result was much brighter colors and much flatter textures, with less feeling of roundness and muscularity, the painter/sculptor’s trademark.
The critics say Michaelangelo’s other work, and the work of contemporaries that tried to follow his style, would demonstrate that the wax/varnish was original and intentional.

A second documentary showed how a team of German archivists went to Tibet (or was it Nepal) to restore wall paintings of Buddha that had huge cracks in them. In that case, they simply tried to stabilize the paint, and where cracks were to fill them in with flat areas of removable paint that would indicate continuity of color but no detail at all. The monks were distressed. They had not wanted a museum relic, showing clearly what was original and what was missing. They had expected a mural that was whole, like it had been painted yesterday, that looked like it originally had.

What do you think should be done with art that has suffered damage, from war scars down to simple fading away?
[/QUOTE]

RE: the SISTINE Chapel: my understanding was that the varnish (that Michaelangelo applied) darkened greatly, within 50 years of the completion of the painting. I think the cleaning/restoration was wonderful. Of course, you might lose some detail-but in this case, it was worth it!

8

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
…creating an exact replica is fine by me too.
[/QUOTE]
They created a replica of the Parthenon in Memphis Tenn. And of course there’s replicas of stuff in Las Vegas, with less attention to detail.

But sometimes I wonder, when the replica is a few times cheaper than the restoration, why we don’t do that more often.

9

A good replica of the Sistine Chapel, restored any way you like, maybe a couple of ways, could probably be made on a laser printer. And tucked into a chapel made of stuccpo instead of stone at Universal Studios.

10

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’d like to see the Parthenon restored to look like it did when it was new, including the polychrome paint job. Heck, the whole Acropolis!
[/QUOTE]

A friend of mine messed with the heads of other tourists when he went there, by taking a good long look, then shrugging and saying “It’ll be nice when it’s finished”.

11

The replica Parthenon is in Nashville, the “Athens of the South” (or something like that). The outside of it is not brilliantly painted, but looks much like the Parthenon would after a sandblasting. Inside, however, is a wonderful statue of Athena.

Memphis, named for the Egyptian capital, has a pyramid. It used to be an arena for basketball, etc., and I am not sure what it is used for now. It most certainly is not a replica of the pyramids of Giza or Sappora, as the skin is stainless steel!

12

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I;'d like to see many architectural treasures restored, such as the Colliseum. You might not need catacombs filled with slave gladiators and wild beasts, but you could still use the site itself.
[/QUOTE]

But at some point, it ceases to have meaning as memory. What’s impressive about classical structures like the Coliseum or the Acropolis, or ancient ones like the Pyramids, is to look at them and reflect upon the passage of time, about the course of human events. I remember standing in Westminster Abbery and reaching out and touching some of the tombs of the kings and queens, and thinking that kings and queens from centuries ago touched the same things I was touching, stood in the same place. It’s staggering to look at such a thing and think that while there’s a huge chasm of time and culture between you and the builders, that they were humans just like you who had the same feelings and emotions and built such amazing things.

I mean, the Luxor in Las Vegas is a pyramid, and it’s technically a more advanced edifice than the Great Pyramid, but which impresses people more? And if you restore the Great Pyramid bit by bit so that more and more of it was built by Nile Contractor Corporation in the last 20 years, as opposed to the subjects of Khufu in ancient Egypt, then why should anyone give a shit about it?

Same thing with the Coliseum. Sure, you could construct it again, but so what? If I want a big stadium to watch a sporting event in, the SkyDome’s 30 minutes away. The Coliseum is amazing because of when and how it was built.

13

[QUOTE=RickJay]
And if you restore the Great Pyramid bit by bit so that more and more of it was built by Nile Contractor Corporation in the last 20 years, as opposed to the subjects of Khufu in ancient Egypt, then why should anyone give a shit about it?
[/QUOTE]

Because it’s still the same structure. it still represents the vision of the ancient Egyptians. Actually it would be a more faithful representation of what the ancient Egyptians designed and built. If I just want to look at erosion patterns of big rocks I’d go to Grand Canyon, that’s not what the Pyramid is about.

Most historic buildings in Japan have undergone considerable repairs and maintenance. The Golden Pavilion, for example, burnt down in 1950 and was reconstructed from records. It’s still the same building. If they’d put the burnt remains on display it would have meant nothing.

14

[QUOTE=Hobohob]
One was the Sistine Chapel. The restorers removed some dark layers of wax and varnish and the result was much brighter colors and much flatter textures, with less feeling of roundness and muscularity, the painter/sculptor’s trademark.
[/QUOTE]

Do we know for sure that the feeling of roundness and muscularity is not actually the effects of well-meaning anonymous artists and curators that have “touched up” the work over the ages?

There are two primal types of distortion. The first that everyone thinks of is negative - whether you call it disharmony, static or a bad flavor, it detracts from the original. The second is more subtle and shows up as an enhancement. Audio engineers take lots of effort to do what’s called audio “sweetening” - a pinch of reverb, a nudge of midrange boost, and the music sounds better. Is it the original? No. It’s been distorted, but in a pleasing way. Same thing with the artwork. The obscurity of the old varnish mellowed and warmed the colors at the same time that it clouded them.

Obviously, the colors have been muted by the layers of wax, varnish and dirt trapped within them. Now that the layers of stuff have been removed, it’s a pretty good bet that we actually are looking at what the artist created. Does the artwork look better without the distortion? If you like bright colors, yes. If you like smooth and mellow, no.

15

[QUOTE=scr4]
Most historic buildings in Japan have undergone considerable repairs and maintenance. The Golden Pavilion, for example, burnt down in 1950 and was reconstructed from records. It’s still the same building. If they’d put the burnt remains on display it would have meant nothing.
[/QUOTE]

The Ise Shrine is dismantled and rebuilt every 20 years. This has been done regularly at least since 690 A.D.

16

[QUOTE=gotpasswords]
Do we know for sure that the feeling of roundness and muscularity is not actually the effects of well-meaning anonymous artists and curators that have “touched up” the work over the ages?
[/QUOTE]

Given the scaffolding that they would have needed to build and that there is AFAIK no record of such, I’d say yes. We know linens were added where Michelangelo had put none, but it’s hard to imagine why would someone feel the need to cover all dicks while injecting extra steroids on all biceps.

There was a huge ruckus when Our Lady of Montserrat, La Moreneta (Li’l Dark One), one of many “Dark Virgins” was restored to its original blonde, rose-cheeked colors. She’s been black since forever, and people wanted her black, damnit! The black being from candle smoke only makes her blackness more desirable, in the eyes of the devout.

The market in my home town was restored recently. It had been stone; the architect (who can get away with anything on grounds of being world-famous and of having money) stuccoed it and plastered fake stone at the bottom. There’s granite under the stucco. I understand the guy who was mayor at the time got his ears figuratively burned off over that.

While restoring a Velázquez portrait, they discovered a second set of legs. For some time, poor Felipe IV was displayed with four legs; everybody who had an opinion and was not a curator at El Prado said it’s silly to tell Velázquez how to paint (you know, between being one of the greatest masters and being dead) - if he’d started it one way and decided to correct it, take some photographs but leave the picture as he did. The curators resisted for a while but finally gave up.

The Old Cathedral in Vitoria (they have two) is undergoing restoration; work is expected to last another 10 years or so. Part of the damage was caused by earlier attempts at restoration, the poor thing has been in bad shape for a very long time. You can visit the works. Inspection of the “Painted Gate” and of contemporary documents has shown that it was painted several times, always in bright colors but changing a lot with each layer, before being “cleaned up” during the Renaissance. What the restoration team has done is create this light show, where they lit up the Gate making it look (almost) like it’s painted, being able to show the different periods, but without actually painting it again.

I think that great monuments, works of art… belong to the people who care about them, and sometimes the “specialists” just overdo it. Yeah, yeah, you’ve got a degree, how nice. But the Moreneta is black!

17

I support restoration where the artwork would otherwise be lost forever. But every time it’s done, there’s a PBS special and the conservators express their horror at the technique used last time. Time, and technology, marches on.

18

[QUOTE=Outpits]
The replica Parthenon is in Nashville, the “Athens of the South” (or something like that). The outside of it is not brilliantly painted, but looks much like the Parthenon would after a sandblasting. Inside, however, is a wonderful statue of Athena.
[/QUOTE]

Is there anyplace online I can at least view an expert reconstruction or even an artist’s conception of the original appearance of the painted Parthenon? Does anybody know?

19

[QUOTE=Nava]
Given the scaffolding that they would have needed to build and that there is AFAIK no record of such, I’d say yes. We know linens were added where Michelangelo had put none, but it’s hard to imagine why would someone feel the need to cover all dicks while injecting extra steroids on all biceps.
[/QUOTE]

As an objection to the most recent restoration, that doesn’t make much sense. That the frescos were repeatedly restored over the centuries is indeed well-documented and not in dispute. In the case of that by Domenico Carnevali in the late 1560s, the ‘restoration’ was so radical he chipped away a substantial (damaged) section of the Sacrifice of Noah and replaced it in buon fresco. The difference can be made out from ground level.

It must also be remembered that the recent restorations did not remove the notorious added draperies, most of which were actually added not by Daniele da Volterra but by the successive restorers right through into the nineteenth century. Admittedly, removing Daniele’s alternations was never an option as those were done in buon fresco, but the later draperies could have been removed and weren’t.

Which is one reason why the standard claim by the critics that the latest restorers just removed all the a secco additions is a grotesque exaggeration. In fact, the restorers not only accepted that Michelangelo did paint a secco, they stressed that he did so, with them claiming that their discoveries about his changing use of the technique were among the major findings to have come out of their work. For what it’s worth, to my eye the modelling of the figures seems decidedly more sophisticated post-restoration than it was before. And those are precisely the subtleties that would have been quickly lost through dirt and discolouration.

Having said that, I wouldn’t have had a problem if they had just left it dirty and unrestored. But then, unlike almost all the millions of visitors, I would not have assumed that its unrestored state was uncomplicatedly authentic.