History Of The Restoration And Conservation Of Works Of Art - Research Paper Example

History Of The Restoration And Conservation Of Works Of Art The existence of human history considered art as one of its significant signs that the rationality of human beings continues to develop. Through art, history was better understood; the culture of the past, how it flourished and became a successful structure in the present day. Because of the concise message that art showed, people of the past ages learned to convey their thoughts or ideas, their kinds of lifestyles and other forms of expression into a means that will be witnessed in the present and future. It is in this aspect of life where everybody can indulge to get self-gratification. However, this backbone of history is concurrently faced with many hazards. No matter how beautiful an artwork after the artist put its final touch, it is always challenged by daily changes. Through time, the once beautiful and magnificent artwork may now look like an old useless one by the influence of natural forces of nature and or human strife (Conti, 2009).1 The opinions regarding restoration of art has changed quite a lot in today’s world. When the restoration was started, many people showed disgust with the idea of restoration, still there are many who regard restoration as unlikable but the ratio of people having negative opinions regarding art restoration has minimized largely. People with negative notions about restoration kept the feeling that due to restoration, the original work of art loses its importance and value. Now, people realize that old buildings, artistic works and old monuments are threatened to abolish wholly because of natural factors that keep the capacity of destructing the historical art wholly (Conti, 2009)2. Due to this realization, they keep positive opinions regarding restoration of art. They think that restoration is performed to restore the artistic works and not to devalue them. The opinions of people have changed with the passage of time and with the realization that artistic works need to be restored. In 1506 Michelangelo Buonarroti, the renowned Italian Renaissance sculptor was commissioned by Pope Julius II to paint the Pope's private chapel in Sistine Chapel. Four years were spent by Michelangelo to finish the 65-foot scaffolding. The painting became one of the greatest works in the Western world. It became an inspiration to everybody after its exposure. Five hundred years later, the artwork was again discussed in the public in 1980 when Vatican proclaimed that the painting would be restored and subjected to massive cleaning (Bramblett, 2007).3 The restoration process of the Sistine Ceiling that begun on November 1984, undergone gathering and examination of past restoration processes. The artists were well equipped with advanced knowledge in art history restoration as well as usage of scientific technique to protect and preserve the media. During restoration, the artist used aluminum scaffolding patterned after the scaffolding used by Michelangelo to exactly fit to the holes in the wall. The restorers used a particular solvent, which has been proven by previous restorers that can eliminate soot and dirt. In particular, portions were there was less soot and dirt, distilled water was used instead. All cracks in the ceiling were sealed. The frescos had undergone reattachment. After the restoration, the restorers take notice of the maintenance of the frescos. That is why the chapel’s microclimate was protected by the installation of a new air filtration system. This would eradicate temperature change, damaging effects of humidity and filtration of exhaust pollution in Rome. For additional effects, a new and cool filtered lighting system was also installed, replacing the old harsh lights that were intended to brighten the dimmed fresco (Bogue, 2006).4 The works of Michelangelo in the Sistine ceiling portrayed the scenes from Genesis. The end wall of the chapel that displayed “The Last Judgment” posed an influential figure, while the sidewalls were painted with images of the Renaissance frescoes of Moses, Christ and present popes. On April 08, 1994, Pope John Paul II expressed in his homily during the Holy Mass that the restoration of Sistine chapel was to give importance to the sacredness of the place and to make the Holy Scriptures clearer to the world. The main reasons for this restoration was Sistine Ceiling had undergone degradation, wherein cracks from the ceiling allowed rain to damage portions of the frescos, while humidity caused blemish, some salt were also present that also created white stains. The procedure was mainly to bring back the original appearance of the frescoes (Vatican Museums, 2009).5 The restoration costs millions of dollars and twelve years to finish. After the restoration, the result was amazingly great because the painting look, as if newly painted by Michelangelo. The colors were vibrant exposing a drama that has never been witnessed before (Bramblett, 2007).6 Like the Sistine Chapel restoration, there are many others that indicate towards the history of art restoration such as Brancacci Chapel where Tommaso Masaccio's “Adam and Eve: The Expulsion was restored, Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” in Milan, Michelangelo’s statue of David and many more were restored and conserved in order to give them a revival7. The restoration and conservation is quite costly because a number of techniques are employed for these purposes. The environmental factors and many others keep the capacity of affecting the artistic works to a great extent due to which, it becomes essential to conduct some restorations in order to make the artistic works much durable and long lasting8 (Conti, 2009). Argument: Pro and Anti Art History Restoration In Robert Fulford’s claim about the Renaissance Sistine Chapel restoration, he pointed out examples like facts about the Brancacci Chapel in Florence in 1516, which he said that the chapel burned almost half barrel of oil a day, to light its church lamps. Because of that, it was considered that the burnt oil produced soot that stuck to the walls leaving it dull. If the amount of soot produced has to be multiplied on the number of days in a year and to the number of worshippers that burns candle waxes, the result maybe be a dirty and discolored painting. That is why today fine-art restoration is one of the major careers in Italy. These art scholars used modern scientific method like infrared telethermos-reflectographic examination, to penetrate the dept of the painting, know its molecular composition so that it can be transformed as accurate as possible. The result of the restoration was a new and vibrant renaissance. Robert Fulford also opposed the statement of the English scholar, John Pope-Hennessy, when the later said, “great art is immutable”. Because the former said that art continually changes through time by endlessly changing the past and putting great artist up or down depending on the standard of time, just like Vermeer who once been disregarded for almost two centuries. Because artifacts are continually subjected to weathering, thus, a need of retouching is necessary and as time passes by, art also moves from one place to another. In addition, in the case of Brancacci Chapel where in Tommaso Masaccio's “Adam and Eve: The Expulsion,” was discolored. The depicted picture of “Adam and Eve” projected a piteous human because of there naked figure exposing everything. Masaccio who did not witness his greatness because three centuries later after his death Cosimo de' Medici III, duke of Tuscany from 1670 to 1723 dislike the nudity and considered it ghastly that is why leaves and branches were painted in the genitalia of the human figures. Many attempts to clean the painting were made but it resulted to a discolored one because the chemicals used to clean it destroyed the color of the painting. Then in the 80’s a major restoration were carried and highlighted this part of renaissance. The colors were turned brilliant while “Adam and Eve” were exposed again to nudity. Because of that, great paintings turn out greater. Just like the restoration of Sistine Chapel that called the attention of a lot of art critics. A University of Victoria art scholar, John Osborne, once said that Michelangelo’s book must be revised because the outcome of the Sistine Chapel restoration was definitely beautiful and great, the colors were transformed into the likes of the modern eyes, like yellows were higher in amount, the greens were turned brighter and the pinks were made softer, while some of the blues used were like that of Matisse and the greens, the same as that of Gianni Versace dress. The restoration turned the painting to become more acceptable to the art standard of today’s people; to give self-gratification on today’s viewer. The fact during restoration was that it took the restorers 13 more years than the time Michelangelo had spent painting the entire chapel. There were many considerations carried and discussed during the process. This involved public scrutiny; whether the restoration will proceed or not. There were people on the other hand that questioned the restoration, because they were looking for the original touch of Michelangelo (UGA, 2009).9 In 1987, just like Robert Fulford, Alexander Eliot also reacted over the statement of the English art scholar John Pope-Hennesy. He said that the original chiaroscuro effect incorporated by Michelangelo was long gone after the painting was cleaned and restored in the 18th century. The existing shadows and other details that made the works of Michelangelo admirable were just the effects caused by candle soot and other dirt and the glue, which was applied also in the 18th century (Eliot and Pope-Hennessy, 1987).10 There were different claims by art scholars about the techniques that Michelangelo used on the fresco. One of this was the glue used in the painting. Nevertheless, based on studies, the glue present in the fresco was not really intended by Michelangelo but by artists in the 18th century to brighten the painting, which was turning dim that time. Majority of the artists and the Vatican were amazed by the result of the restoration. They agreed that the frescoes were revealed after the layers of grime, soot and dirt that covered the painting for centuries, while the restorers claimed that they just removed the dirt but not the details of Michelangelo’s painting. They also said that if the fresco has to be viewed closer the secco layers were visible and can easily be distinguished from the glue that needs to be eliminated (Bogue, 2006).11 The restoration process was not only practiced in Sistine chapel but also in the other parts of the world that hold major artworks and suffered major damages. Taken as an example, the acid rain that dissolved materials from buildings, monuments, and sculptures, just like what has taken place in New York where Cleopatra's Needle was partly eaten away by the rain. The obelisk, which was originally taken from Egypt and was created thousands of years, was deformed by the acid rain. The sharp edges disappeared and the designs have faded. Because of such devastation, the obelisk has been restored to achieve its original image. In Venice, one of the sites of acclaimed beautiful Western art, only four percent of its original number of painting remained and the rest was lost in 19th century. The French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte once raided the city. He catalogued 12,000 paintings. And then great floods hit the city in 1966 and 1967, while the nearby industrial port called Marghera releases pollutants in water and corroded the marble structure of the building (Think Quest, 2009).12 The Conservation Department of the State Russian Museum, which restoration of its artifacts dated back 1898 from the rule of Tsar Nicholas II. In 1917 after the war, most of the art objects coming from private collections, religious art and artifacts in Russia were brought to the state museums. All the collected works were enlarged. At the same time, the practice of restoration and conservation was given improved interest, thus an official conservation workshop was carried on the government artistic council decree of 1922, for the aim of standardized restoration and preservation of the expanded works during and after World War II. During the war, most of the workers that did the restoration transported the art materials away from St. Petersburg which was the battlefront of war during that time, while the rest of the workers remained in the city to look after the neoclassical palace and exhibits that were too big and frail to move. Leningrad’s huge artistic heritage suffered destruction, that it why post-war restoration and conservation was conducted. The restorers stabilized heavily bomb-damaged buildings and reconstructed part of the “Venice of the North”. When the war ended, collections were returned to the State Russian Museum’s Conservation Department. The State Russian Museum Conservation Department uses a scientific approach to restoration of artifacts that consist of use all the discipline of art history, restoration method and technology, minimally invasive restoration methods, restoration documentation, process control, as well as continuous discussions with other international conservation organizations. The Conservation Department of the State Russian Museum consists of 13 conservation laboratories that also studied the theory of conservation, conservation ethics, and the history of conservation (The State Russian Museum. 2005).13 The anti art-history-restoration art scholar, John Pope-Hennessy claimed that the ceiling was just cleaned during the 18th century, with applications of glue to protect the painting. But during the restoration process in 1984, the entire fresco or the original work of Michelangelo was already covered; anything that the original artist has intended the painting to be, because the cleaning was not just a scrub down nor just a retouch but a total make-over (Eliot and Pope-Hennessy, 1987).14 The theory of Dr. J. Feldman, one of the outstanding art historians in New York, also claimed that the restorers were destroying chiaroscuro, the original technique that Michelangelo used, while the dimension and musculature of the stature was seriously affected after its restoration. He based his analysis on the complete photos taken before and after the painting was restored. The lighting effects that Michelangelo used for a certain purpose was altered, also, the color tone that Michelangelo used turns towards dark and sober color. One of the prominent U.S. art historians that expressed protests was Dr. Beck from Columbia University. Just as if Dr. Feldman, Dr. Beck, said that, some of what Michelangelo have applied have been removed by restorers. He also said that the ceiling frescoes were painted with glue by Michelangelo to attain a unique sculptural effect and as a toning layer. Sadly, art historians on the Vatican team opposed this theory and they have all the glues be removed (UGA, 2009).15 After the restoration of the Sistine Chapel and it revelation to the public in 1992, there was a group of people that commented that the restoration had destroyed everything that Michelangelo had wanted the painting to be and this can never be retrieve back to its original form. This practice brought about new spark of argument to the art critics and concerned individuals; for the claims and point of views are always opposing to the restoration alone or the value of the original work of the artist. There are people who felt that it was no longer Michelangelo’s work and they still express their protest these days. Some critics and artist pointed out that the original work of the artist revealed unique techniques and qualities that can neither be copied nor restored, and since the work is part of the history, thus anything that is present in the artwork is also part of history may it be cracks or other forms of markings. However, the other team of critics and artist were after restoration of history itself and beautification of such artifacts so that people are able to enjoy the grandeur of the artwork as if it can be seen in its original version. The other claim also shows that if such beautiful artifacts will not be preserved, time will come it will be lost in history because an artwork is defined and patronized in a continuously changing way, and its significance is not only through its aesthetic value (UGA, 2009).16 The opinions of people changed pertaining restoration and conservation of artistic work. Some people feel that restoration is essential to safeguard the artistic work from eradication or annihilation because of environmental, social or other factors. The artistic works can be damaged and this damage can be repaired by means of restoration and conservation techniques prevalent in today’s age (Conti, 2009)17. On the other hand, there were also people who negated the importance of restoration and conservation. They felt that restoration or conservation are just to take away the original properties of the artistic works. According to the people with contrasting views regarding the value and authenticity of restoration and conservation of art, restoration and conservation were no more then modern techniques to damage the original values of past and artistic works (Conti, 2009)18. Proper Research Paper Format Abstract The works of Michelangelo in the Sistine ceiling portrayed the scenes from Genesis by using vivid and poignant details. The end wall of the chapel that displayed “The Last Judgment” posed an influential figure, while the sidewalls were painted with images of the Renaissance frescoes of Moses, Christ and present popes. The Holy Father John Paul II expressed declared that the restoration in Sistine chapel was to give importance to the sacredness of the place to make the Holy Scriptures clearer to the world. The reasons for this restoration was Sistine Ceiling had undergone degradation, wherein cracks from the ceiling allowed rain to damage portions of the frescos, while humidity caused blemish, some salt were also present that also created white stains. The procedure was mainly to bring back the original appearance of the frescoes. But after the restoration of the Sistine Chapel and it revelation to the public in 1992, there was a group of people that commented that the restoration had destroyed everything that Michelangelo had wanted the painting to be and this can never be retrieve back to its original form (Vatican Museums, 2009).19 Introduction The existence of human history considered art as one of its significant signs that the rationality of human beings continuous to develop. Through art, history was better understood; the culture of the past how it flourished and became a successful structure in the present day. No matter how beautiful an artwork after the artist put its final touch, it is always challenged by daily changes. Through time, the once beautiful and magnificent artwork may now look like an old useless one by the influence of natural forces of nature and human strife. Such great artifacts like that of the Sistine Chapel, which was created by the great Michelangelo Buonarroti, is always endangered by the unstoppable weathering. That is why restoration of these great artifacts is a critical step to do because the mission is mainly to restore and preserve the artwork not to destroy it (Conti, 2009).20 Discussion/Argument In claim about the Renaissance Sistine Chapel restoration, he pointed out examples like facts about the Brancacci Chapel in Florence in 1516, which he said that the chapel burned almost half barrel of oil a day, to light its church lamps. Because of that, it was considered that the burnt oil produced soot that stuck to the walls leaving it dull. To revive the deterioration of these great paintings, art scholars used modern scientific method like infrared telethermos-reflectographic examination, to penetrate the dept of the painting, know its molecular composition so that it can be transformed as accurate as possible. The result of the restoration is a new and vibrant renaissance (UGA, 2009).21 The theory of Dr. J. Feldman explains the opposite, he argued that the restorers were destroying the original technique that the original artists used such that of Michelangelo, wherein the dimension and musculature of the stature was seriously affected after its restoration. He based his analysis on the complete photos taken before and after the painting was restored. The lighting effects that Michelangelo used for a certain purpose was altered, also, the color tone that Michelangelo used turns towards dark and sober color (UGA, 2009).22 Conclusion However, just like novels, art history must be revised to suit everybody’s criterion for self-satisfaction, and in the case of Sistine Chapel restoration, the greatness was credited to Michelangelo’s and not the restorers. Art restoration is a big deal to discuss because it reveals the culture of the period where it originated and it represented. Thus for art enthusiasts and concerned individuals it is necessary to preserve the culture that is part of their history or part of somebody’s history (Conti, 2009).23 Primary Source The primary source that has been employed for writing this paper is the news report by BBC World. The report came on record on 11th December 1999 when the Sistine Chapel constructed by Michelangelo got restored. This report can be found online. Pope John Paul inaugurated the restored art. It has been reported that the work has come to an end after an effort of whole twenty years. This news report was very supportive in informing as to why the restoration has been done in the first place. It also informs that the work of Michelangelo has been revived after so much struggle and hard work. The report also informs that a large amount of cost has been spent on reviving the art. After reading this report about the restoration of Sistine Chapel, the knowledge related to the need of restoration was quite clear and also this was clear that restoration cannot be regarded as annihilating the historic art but as a source of its revival. Bibliography BBC News. Sistine Chapel Restored. 11 December 1999. Retrieved on 8th April from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/560315.stm Bramblett, Reid. “Michelangelo Creating God creating Adam.” (2007). http://www.reidsguides.com/destinations/europe/italy/lazio/rome/sights/vatican_sistine.html (accessed April 08, 2009). Bogue, Katie. “The Restoration of the Sistine Ceiling.” (2006). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4576 (accessed April 08, 2009). Conti, Alessandro. “History of the Restoration and Conservation of Works of Art.” (2009). http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/710477/description#description (accessed April 08, 2009). Eliot, Alexander and Pope-Hennessy, John. “Cleaning the Sistine Ceiling: The New York Review of Books”. (1987). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4576 (accessed April 08, 2009). The State Russian Museum. 2005. http://www.artsstudio.com/reproductions/new_rusmuseum.htm (accessed April 08, 2009). Think Quest. “Art Restoration”. (2009). http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/art.htm (accessed April 08, 2009). UGA. “The Sistine Chapel: A Restoration.” (2009). http://msopal29.myweb.uga.edu/ (accessed April 08, 2009). Vatican Museums. “The Sistine Chapel.” (2009). http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/vatican-sistine-chapel.htm (accessed April 08, 2009). Read More