Posts

2016-10-20 Sistine Ceiling Secret of Michelangelo Alexander Eliot
,

Sistine Ceiling, Before and After Restoration: Looking Back In Order To Look Forward.

Ruth Osborne

Several years ago, ArtWatch helped produce a film on the changes that occurred when the Sistine Chapel ceiling underwent restoration in 1980-1994.

It considers the frescoes of Michelangelo Buonarroti before and after the massive restoration treatment. We would like to share with you some outtakes of the film that we believe may enlighten viewers to the importance of considering how a work is treated when restored, as well as paying attention to its care post-restoration. ArtWatch UK has recently provided studies on these new developments here and here. For the full film, click here: “ArtWatch: The Scandal Behind Art Restoration” (2005)

What is most compelling are the interviews of those who had seen the frescoes up-close and personal before 1980 – artist Frank Mason and writers Alexander and Jane Eliot. Have a look at the clip posted above, as well as the Eliots’ 1967/68 documentary The Secret of Michelangelo below, which provides unique coverage of the ceiling before treatment. Artists may not have been consulted before the 1980s-90s restoration, and no condition reports were done to address the particular needs and options for treatment. But now, though it’s taken 20 years, the artistic and broader public are now more aware of how significantly restoration can alter and damage a work of art irreversibly. Perhaps, with the current concerns over increasing atmospheric pollution, overcrowding, and visibility amidst deterioration, those responsible for this expansive work will reconsider such reckless techniques. For the book that takes an extensive look at this and other restoration damages, Art Restoration: The Culture, The Business, and The Scandal (1996), copies are available via our New York office or here.

 

/0 Comments/by

Sistine Ceiling 2.0: Restoration of the Carracci Gallery Frescoes.

Ruth Osborne
2014-04-03 - Carracci Gallery Palazzo Farnese Rome

Carracci Gallery, 2014.

This past February, announcements were made concerning the restoration project planned for the frescoes adorning the Carracci Gallery at the Palazzo Farnese in Rome.

This is no new thing for Annibale Carracci’s monumental cycle The Love of the Gods (1597-1606), which had already undergone “consolidation” only a few decades after completion under Baroque painter Carlo Maratta later in the seventeenth-century. [1] Since the beginning of the twentieth-century, the frescoes have undergone patched cleaning in 1923, 1936, and 1994 (though it is not clear just how much was accomplished during this latest effort beyond a general assessment of the issues).

2014-04-03 - Carracci Gallery WMF Europe French Deputy Ambassador

Erkki Maillard, French Deputy Ambassador (right), and Bertrand du Vignaud, President of WMF Europe (right), in the Carracci Gallery. Courtesy: ANSAmed, 2014.

The French government, which has inhabited the historic building since 1874, first opened the gallery and palazzo to the public in 1936. Today it houses both the French Embassy and the Ecole Française de Rome, with reportedly small groups of visitors coming to see the Carracci frescoes only by appointment. According to the project’s Press Release from the New York-based non-profit World Monuments Fund:

“Today conservation is necessary to ensure that the paintings in the gallery do not deteriorate or become harmed by structural problems in the ceiling. The campaign of 1994, realized under the direction of the French Service des Monuments historiques, assembled information on the condition of the vault that led to some proposed solutions to conservation issues, but it was not possible at the time to secure sufficient funding to carry out the proposed treatments. The previous analysis will be helpful in developing the conservation program for the painted decorations, stucco, and gilding that adorn the room. Work is scheduled to begin this year and will be coordinated by WMF in collaboration with local heritage authorities and international experts.”

Besides WMF, the other groups that have joined together to help get the project off the ground are the French Embassy in Italy, the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, and the Foundation de l’Orangerie (connected with French banking giant BNP Paribas). [2]

 

 

2014-04-03 - Carracci Gallery Queen Cassiopeia King Cepheus

Cracking of Carracci’s depiction of Queen Cassiopeia and King Cepheus of Ethiopia. Courtesy: Domenico Stinellis/AP, 2014.

Restorers will first go about cleaning off layers of dirt and old overpainting from areas that had been restored in previous years. They will then work to fill any extensive cracks and repair water damage. [3]  According to WMF, this is the first time in the gallery’s history that the side walls, in addition to the ceiling in its entirety, will be treated. No doubt there is much restorers hope to glean from this work, more so than a simple stabilization of Carracci’s 400 year-old masterpiece. It is also understood that this year-long project will likely uncover some secrets about the frescoes’ condition. As Italian culture ministry official Rossella Vodret said to the New York Times in 2012, the work of the restorers will hopefully aid in “determining which hands painted which section” – Annibale’s, Agostino’s, or others from their workshop. She added emphasis on the “scientific endeavor” of this project. Meanwhile, scholars who have shown concern towards this massive overhaul are deemed “purists.” [4]

Objections arise not because of any “purist” impulses but because of (well-founded) concerns about the complex nature and (intended or un-intended) aesthetic consequences of comprehensive, long term, high cost, high-profile, heavily sponsored programs that aim at a single definitive comprehension to a cluster of real, feared or assumed problems. And why should the matter be decided by scientists alone? In the Times’ coverage of this project two years ago, an interesting statement was made by Vodret: “We are certain that if problems arise, the intelligence and professional qualities of the experts involved will win out.” [5]  But precisely which experts? What kind of one-sided expertise? Ancient works of art are primarily artistic and historical artifacts. Any proposed treatment must take those factors into consideration – and, certainly, scientists alone are not competent in those vital areas. For example, removing all previous (historic) repairs will likely expose injuries that gave rise to the repainting in the first place. If it does, will those injuries be repainted again to the standards and tastes of the twenty-first century or left as wrecked passages? There is talk of a threat from water infiltration. Is that a substantive threat? Does the roof leak? Do gutters need to be replaced? Is the building affected by rising damp?

2014-04-03 - Carracci Gallery corner frescoes

More damage over illusionistic corner frescoes. Courtesy: Domenico Stinellis/AP, 2014.

Is it just a scare? Alleged conservation threats that were cited in the past on other major projects can prove unfounded when challenged – as was the case with the claimed “glue pox” that was said (on no evidence) to be devouring the Sistine Chapel ceiling at a dramatically escalating rate.

The project, which is underway as of the beginning of March, was set in motion by a new committee of 30 scientific restoration specialists formed in 2009 to consider the ceiling’s treatments and make recommendations for future work. [5] The conglomerate of international non-profits mentioned above have chosen the reputable Italian restoration group ATI Farnese as the  to carry out the project. $200,000 of the 1 million euros this project will entail has been allocated to preliminary studies of the ceiling (a portion provided for specifically by the Italian government). [6] A sense of immediacy to protect pervades discussion of the work to be done: “The value placed on the gallery meant that it has been restored at times in the past, including an urgent fix ordered in 1994 when the ceiling threatened to collapse. Now, new cracks and leaks that threatened the masterpieces inside have demanded an immediate response to protect what many call a significant piece of cultural heritage. ” [7] French Deputy Ambassador Erkki Maillard lists issues of cracking along the side panels and the vault, concern for infiltration of water damage and lifting of paint, and “paintings obscured by time that also need to be cleaned.” [8]  These delicately and poignantly illusionistic frescoes run the risk of experiencing a traumatic face-lift. Restorers will likely uncover unfortunate remnants from the partial cleanings of the 1920s and 30s. This could, in turn, either lead them back to page one, or set them off on a path from which there is no return.

The grandiose treatment is projected to last at least until spring 2015, when the gallery will finally reopen to the public. One must also not fail to take into consideration the impact of the growing tourist industry on the newly-cleaned frescoes, once revealed. According to Maillard, the current policy for outside visitors is previously-reserved small weekly tours. [9]  While these will be put on hold during restoration over the next year, what might be the result of the frescoes unveiling next spring? Will it bring in a greater demand for viewings? How will the French Embassy respond to an increased interest in this monumental piece of Italian artistic heritage? The sharp rise in visitors to the Sistine Chapel in recent years has undoubtedly placed a new fear in the Vatican for the well-being of their own crowning masterpiece (Read the ArtWatch UK article here). The final statement from WMF as to the Carracci project’s importance: “Once completed, the current conservation project will allow the Palazzo Farnese and the Carracci gallery to be accessible to the public more regularly, following years of restricted access to this cultural treasure.” [10]

2014-04-03 - Carracci Gallery tour

Guided tour through Carracci Gallery in February 2014. Courtesy: Domenico Stinellis/AP, 2014.

——–

 

[1] “Project: Carracci Gallery at the Palazzo Farnese,” WMF Program: Field Project. World Monuments Fund. http://www.wmf.org/project/carracci-gallery-palazzo-farnese (last accessed 21 March 2014).

[2] Press Release: “World Monuments Fund & its Partners Announce Project to Restore The Famous Carracci Gallery in Rome’s Palazzo Farnese,” http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/Palazzo%20Farnese%20Release.pdf (last accessed 28 March 2014).

[3] Frances D’Emilio, AP, “French Embassy’s glorious ceiling in Renaissance palazzo to be rescued by modern day ‘Medicis’,” 26 February 2014. Newser. http://www.newser.com/article/5a9be14133f74636886aa0f1dde7e4e6/french-embassys-glorious-ceiling-in-renaissance-palazzo-to-be-rescued-by-modern-day-medicis.html (last accessed 28 March 2014).

[4] Elisabetta Povoledo, “Restoration Planned for Carracci Gallery in Rome,” New York Times. 10 October 2012. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/restoration-planned-for-carracci-gallery-in-rome/?

_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 (last accessed 21 March 2014).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Sandra Cordon, ANSA, “Palazzo Farnese’s Carracci gallery to shine anew: Restoration begins on Baroque masterpieces in French embassy,” 27 February 2014. La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno. http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/english/palazzo-farnese-s-carracci-gallery-to-shine-anew-no698007 (last accessed 21 March 2014).

[7] Guillemette de la Borie  “À Rome, les Carrache sous bâche,” 27 February 2014. La Croix.

http://www.la-croix.com/Culture/Actualite/A-Rome-les-Carrache-sous-bache-2014-02-27-1113125 (last accessed 14 March 2014).

[8] Cordon.

[9] Borie.

[10] D’Emilio.

[11] “Project: Carracci Gallery at the Palazzo Farnese,” WMF.

/0 Comments/by
2013-08-13 - Lisa Gherardini skull Mona Lisa Florence Italy

Speculation and Sensationalizing: Art and History through the Lens of CSI Archeology

Ruth Osborne
2013-08-13 - Lisa Gherardini grave Mona Lisa Florence Italy

NBC coverage of Gherardini grave excavations in Florence, Italy. Courtesy: NBC Today show.

Over the weekend there occurred a surge in news reports about excavations at the graves of the husband and sons of Lisa Gherardini, the supposed subject of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (1503-6, 1517).

NBC reported on Friday that a centuries-old crypt in Florence was opened to extract DNA from these skeletal remains in order to compare it with samples from an earlier excavation.[1] The purpose of this extensive project is to confirm that one of eight different tombs, unearthed in 2011, contains the body of the famed Mona Lisa; the same woman that has become the subject of public domain and many a pop culture parody.

 

What startles ArtWatch about this recent effort to unearth Mona Lisa is its chiefly speculative nature and invasive disregard for the individuals’ tombs in question (see also ArtWatch UK Director Michael Daley’s interview in NBC news segment). They are treated not as cultural property to be cared for, but instead to be ransacked in a quest to put “scientific” theories to test. In an NBC News segment, one reporter refers to this project as “masterpiece CSI.”

 

Two direct descendants of Lisa Gherardini, the Princesses Natalia and Irina Strozzi, perform for the newscasters as authenticators of this project: “At first the excavations bothered them. But now they too have caught the fascination.”  The work is posed as a way to satiate public curiosity for “how she really looked” and why her smile “seems off.”[2] The emphasis here on an eye-opening and audience captivating discovery is symptomatic of the modern appetite for an authentic, film-like version of history.

 

2013-08-13 - Lisa Gherardini skull Mona Lisa Florence Italy

Skull presumed to be that of Lisa Gherardini. Courtesy: EPA.

Kristina Killgrove, a bioarcheologist at the University of West Florida, reveals to NBC the largely unscientific nature of the search for the “real” Mona Lisa: “This will probably bring in some tourist dollars, but other than confirming that this is the Mona Lisa, I don’t see any scholarly relevance to it…And these bones, as far as I can tell from the pictures, are in fairly poor condition.”[3] If the 500 year-old skeletons are so fragile, what authority decided it was worth the tourist revenue to open up a church floor and take apart these tombs?

 

The search for excavated remains of the Mona Lisa began in 2011 at the determination of Silvano Vinceti, neither an archeologist nor a scientist, but rather a television host and producer who also claimed to have opened the tombs of Caravaggio, Dante, and Petrarch. He follows “instincts” and “hunches” that lead him to seeking after these discoveries. Other pseudo-discoveries include uncovering symbols in Mona Lisa’s eyes and asserting the sitter was in fact a male model.[4]  What does this say about Vinceti’s motivations? He contends to uncover the “truth,” but on what grounds and for what end? For the sake of revealing the spectacular to a public waiting with baited breath.

 

2013-08-13 - Silvano Vinceti Lisa Gherardini tomb Florence Italy

Silvano Vinceti above family tomb of Gherardinis. Courtesy: Maurizio Degl’Innocenti / EPA.

After much speculation, excavation, and detailed testing, we may be able to acquire a CGI image of the skeleton and see how it aligns with Leonardo’s painting. Meanwhile, a USA Today reporter admits, “there is the possibility that none of the skeletons are Lisa.”[5]  Killgrove asserts that it is impossible to use facial reconstruction to truly identify the face of the Mona Lisa on skeletal remains: “what we cannot do is throw around ideas willy-nilly and claim that we can solve Dan Brown-style mysteries with our capital-S science.”[6] Vinceti’s claim certainly is far-fetched, but it has captured much the public and media attention, and that gets the dollars to fund such purportedly significant archeological projects.  Yet another project in the works by another team of archeologists is set to exhume the skeletal remains of William Shakespeare.[7] Such speculation behind Vinceti’s and other projects tests out unscientific hypotheses at the expense of artistic and cultural heritage.

 

[1] “DNA Test to prove real identity of Mona Lisa,” TODAY. NBC News. 9 August 2013. http://www.today.com/video/today/52712209#52712209 (last visited 12 August 2013).

[2] “DNA Test to prove real identity of Mona Lisa,”; “Who is the real Mona Lisa?” USA Today. 9 August 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2013/08/09/mona-lisa-dna-test-florence-excavation/2635177/ (last visited 12 August 2013).

[3] Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News, “ ‘Mona Lisa’ skeleton and her kin’s remains are due for DNA testing,” NBC News. 9 August 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/mona-lisa-skeleton-her-kins-remains-are-due-dna-testing-6C10874613 (last visited 12 August 2013); Kristina Killgrove, “Return of the Mona Lisa (or at least her bones…)” Powered by Osteons. 19 July 2012. http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2012/07/return-of-mona-lisa-or-at-least-her.html (last visited 12 August 2013).

[4] “Next on CSI: Renaissance, Who Killed Caravaggio?” TV Host Silvano Vinceti Probes History’s Coldest Cases. WSJ.com. 10 March 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704486504575098031390061888.html (last visited 13 August 2013).

[5] “Who is the real Mona Lisa?”

[6] Killgrove, “Return of the Mona Lisa (or at least her bones…).”

[7] Killgrove, “To toke or not to toke…Will Shakespeare’s bones tell us? Uh, no…” Powered by Osteons. 26 June 2011.

http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2011/06/to-toke-or-not-to-toke-will.html (last visited 12 August 2013).

/0 Comments/by
2013-08-13 - pump probe laser Puccio Crucifixion Duke University

Art Under the Laser – New “Noninvasive” Conservation and Analysis Treatments

Ruth Osborne 
2013-08-09 - art laser advertisement

1997 ad that appeared in the professional journal “Studies in Conservation.” 

“Shooting a laser at a priceless 14th century painting may seem problematic. But, precisely tuned and timed, the laser system may be the only non-destructive way to get into the mind of long-dead artists…”[1]

This is indeed a troubling statement for the future of art conservation.

 

ArtWatch has focused attention on the developing relationship between scientific study and the work of art conservators in recent years.  The troubling consequences of untested scientific methods applied to renowned works of art has been a concern since before the launch of ArtWatch International in 1992.  Founding Professor James Beck and current ArtWatch UK Director Michael Daley have examined such issues in the cases of the 1984 conservation of the Brancacci Chapel frescos and that of the Ilaria del Carretto in 1989.[2]  These studies establish the dangerous relationship between scientific developments and their application to irreplaceable cultural works.

 

Within the past year, molecular biologists at Duke University worked to develop a laser for melanoma diagnoses, and shortly thereafter proposed its benefits to the field of art conservation: “Dr. [Warren S.] Warren assumed that, just as with skin lesions, yellowed varnish and paint layers could be imaged by his laser to distinguish original paint from restoration, helping us understand the intended beauty of centuries-old paintings.”[3]  This technique, known as pump-probe laser imaging, creates 3-D cross-sections that show conservators layers of color and material in a work of art, and possibly the materials’ sources in future examinations. Pump-probe laser imaging is described as a way to “uncover the mysteries underneath layers of paint.”  This promotes the restoration of paintings as motivated by promised discoveries beneath the surface, rather than for the welfare of the work itself.[4]

 

2013-08-13 - pump probe laser Puccio Crucifixion Duke University

Pump-probe laser imaging being used at Duke to analyze The Crucifixion (1330) by Puccio Capanna.  Courtesy: William Brown.

John Delaney, a senior imaging scientist in conservation at the National Gallery in D.C., has admitted that the pump-probe laser is not sufficiently tested to be considered ready for serious use in the field: “It’s not ready for prime-time, but it’s showing some real promise, and that’s exciting.”  One would hope concerns and doubts already exhibited by specialists in the field would halt or at least slow down work with the laser on paintings.  And yet, it was first used on a small fourteenth-century painting by Puccio Capanna, The Crucifixion, part of the Kress Collection at the North Carolina Museum of Art.  How and why was the decision made to use this laser on this ca. 1330 painting without sufficient testing, and despite doubts circulating in the field? The hand of the conservator/detective works quickly.  Examination revealed a layer of materials that could help authenticate the painting as part of a Vatican altarpiece; and NCMA conservators express a hope they might learn more about the origins and the artist’s intent with future analysis.[5]  Similarly appealing discoveries that promised authentication and a new view into the artist’s intent were claimed with the Brancacci Chapel and Sistine Chapel restorations in the 1980s.[6] Will this promote the search for the “true” artist’s hand and authentication of even more works of art with lasers, even if their condition does not necessitate attention from restorers?

Another laser currently being used by North Carolina Museum of Art conservators is the Er:YAG. Dr. Adele de Cruz, adjunct associate professor of chemistry at Duke, invented this tool fifteen years ago for the purpose of removing “old, degraded varnish coatings.” Two videos, produced by Duke University in 2012, show conservators using both lasers to clean and examine the Capanna painting and an ancient Roman marble urn.[7]  Newspaper coverage of the pump-probe laser emphasizes its “noninvasive” methods, compared with other techniques of conservation analysis. It is promoted as a tool that can remove what is aesthetically unappealing and leave behind the original work, undamaged.[8]  Notions of what might be judged aesthetically unappealing and unoriginal are problematic and potentially question-begging. Meanwhile, such news articles gloss over the dangers posed to the work of art should the conservator’s hand as much as waver.  A paper published by Duke University acknowledges the risks that come into play when lasers are utilized in conservation efforts.[9] But while scientists responsible for such inventions may perceive the likelihood of misuse, how much will this really impact the spread of laser treatment throughout the art world?[10]

 

Doubts still persist in the conservation community as to the consequences of laser work that may be revealed in years to come. These tools require highly skilled hands working with meticulous accuracy and control. They also emit extreme heat levels to the surface of the artwork with each pulse.  Changes in a painting’s substrate, binder, or pigment can occur with exposure to such high temperatures. Furthermore, it must be considered that a laser that might have proven effective on the uniform mineral composition of a marble statue will not have the same impact on the softer, more various organic components of an oil painting.

 

Wolfgang Neustadt, M.A., a German conservator/restorer who works with an Italian laser company and two private international conservators, offers ArtWatch a look into the possible negative effects of laser work. According to Mr. Neustadt, while lasers have proven to be effective in removing centuries of dirt and grime, these tools can also remove parts of original surface material along with that unwanted grime.  In some instances, it may be that the laser is not being properly operated and that no supervising body of specialists is overseeing the work being done.  Critically, one must consider how the original surface of an artwork changes when cleaning takes place. Unfortunately, what is most often emphasized in reports on conservation treatments is that the cleaned surfaces “look like new,” which, again, begs the question.

 

2013-08-09 - Adele Cruz conservator laser Duke University

Duke University professor Dr. Adele de Cruz and chief NCMA conservator William Brown using the Er-YAG laser in the Museum conservation lab. Courtesy: NCMA / Karen Malinofski, photographer.

In Mr. Neustadt’s experience, those who use modern techniques believe them to be sustainable. New scientific developments, such as those at Duke, are often quick to be slated for use in other restoration projects: “The team is still testing and standardizing the laser system. If the research and development continues…the laser system could be turned into a portable device, making this type of analysis easier for conservation scientists and art conservators around the world.”[11]  There is great danger that after laser cleaning tools find favor with highly-skilled conservators, these same lasers will soon after be promoted as low-risk solutions for those with less skill to handle them. Such a development could only increase the risks taken to an artwork undergoing treatment.  What would greatly benefit the welfare of our cultural and artistic heritage is some properly accredited and composed authority be established to oversee how, by whom, and in what circumstances conservation tools are handled.  How can one tell what the NCMA’s 14th century Capanna painting will look like in 50 or 100 years because of its exposure to the laser now? And how can we ensure that these lasers will be used by the best-trained conservators in future projects? Underlying all practical considerations on the long term effects and consequences of new technical treatments is the question of whether aesthetic, interpretive and historical judgements can ever be devolved to purely technical experts.

 

At this point it would seem safe to say that not enough time has elapsed to see the changes that might occur and yet, already, these lasers are seen as tools that can help further the abilities of the conservator. In this (optimistic) view, it is thought that art, like science, should improve along with new technologies. William Brown, chief conservator at NCMA, maintains, “paintings once considered impossible to clean by conventional methods can now be returned to their former glory.”[12]  While these new laser systems at Duke may ultimately prove more effective than older methods in conserving and examining works, at the same time, we hope those in the arts perceive the possible dangers still posed when handling and treating irreplaceable piece of cultural heritage.  With more and more developments in the fields of science and art conservation, who presently is in place to ensure objectively that ethical standards are enforced?

 

[1] Ashley Yeager, “Lasers ID Ancient Artists’ Intent – A new laser system aids art conservation and restoration,” Duke University Research. Posted 20 August 2012,http://research.duke.edu/stories/chemists-lasers-could-id-ancient-artists-intent

[2] James Beck with Michael Daly. Art Restoration: The Culture, The Business, and the Scandal. (W.W. Norton & Co.: New York and London, 1993) 23-62.

[3]  “North Carolina Museum of Art Announces Collaboration with Duke University: Partnership offers art imaging and conservation research opportunities with new laser system,” http://thesnaponline.com/statenews/x541272866/North-Carolina-Museum-of-Art-Announces-Collaboration-with-Duke-University (last visited 18 July 2013).

[4] Martha Waggoner, “Pump-probe lasers expose art mysteries without causing damage,” posted July 4, 2013. Boulder Daily Camera. http://www.dailycamera.com/art/ci_23601526/pump-probe-lasers-expose-art-mysteries-without-causing (last visited 26 July 2013).

[5] Waggoner; “Pump-Probe Laser Imaging to Improve the Arts,” phototonics.com July 2013 Research & Technology. Posted July 16, 2013. http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=54419 (last visited 26 July 2013); Yeager.

[6] In the case of the Brancacci Chapel, conservators sought to authenticate specific sections of the frescos as authored by either Masolino or his younger associate Massccio. Meanwhile, the unveiling of a “new Michelangelo” was promoted with the first of the Sistene Chapel cleanings. Beck and Daly, 78-81.

[7] Laser Helps Reveal Details of Ancient Art:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RRHyJW7GKTk (last visited 26 July 2013); Laser Analysis Yields Art History Clues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7iY-tRVUfrE (last visited 26 July 2013).

[8] “Pump-Probe Laser Imaging to Improve the Arts.”

[9] Adele De Cruz, Myron L. Wolbarsht, Susanne A. Hauger, “The Introduction of Lasers as a Tool in Removing Contaminants from Painted Surfaces,”http://monalaserllc.com/Article6.pdf (last visited 1 August 2013), 157-62.

[10] There is already laser conservation underway on delicate frescos at the Villa of Mysteries in Pompeii: http://www.quantasystem.com/root/en/mediaroom_news_1412.aspx. The lasers for the Villa of Mysteries project are being provided by the Italian El. En. Group. They have provided lasers for art conservation work since 1994. El. En. Group: Light for Art. http://www.elengroup.com/frames.php?F=MAIN&lang=ENG&menuvoice=home&azienda=LIGH (last visited 1 August 2013). Additional work is also in progress at Diocletian’s Palace in Croatia:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Diocletians-palace-gets-laser-facelift/30058

[11] Yeager.

[12] “North Carolina Museum of Art Announces Collaboration with Duke University.”

/0 Comments/by
2013-05-26 - Delphic Sybil Sistine Chapel Michelangelo

Evidence of the Eyes: An Interview with Alexander Eliot

Einav Zamir

In the landmark 1967/8 documentary, The  Secret  of  Michelangelo,  Every  Man’s  Dream, Alexander Eliot, painter and former art critic and editor for Time magazine states that “almost everything we saw on the barrel  vault  came  clearly  from  Michelangelo’s  own  inspired  hand.  There  are  passages  of  the  finest,  the   most  delicately  incisive  draughtsmanship  imaginable.”  The film, produced by Capital Cities Broadcasting Corporation, directed by Milton Fruchtman, written by Alexander Eliot and narrated by Christopher Plummer and Zoe Caldwell, provided a brief, one hour tour of the expansive Sistine ceiling. Through the use of close-ups, audiences were presented with details of the fresco never seen before, details that were impossible to grasp at great distance:

At the time, the film was both groundbreaking and immensely popular. Now however, it serves as a testimony to what has been stolen, through subsequent cleaning and restoration efforts, from the fresco’s  original  glory.  Barely  obtainable  (there’s just one copy at the Central Michigan University Library in Mount Pleasant), and no longer broadcast on national television, The Secret of Michelangelo has become quite secret indeed.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Alexander Eliot about the film, the chapel, and his fight against the cleaning, which began in 1981.

How are you connected to ArtWatch?

I’m all for ArtWatch. I was there at the beginning of it with Frank  Mason  and Jim Beck, and I think you’re really onto something very important.

What sort of evidence made you believe that the restoration was damaging the ceiling? How did you come to that conclusion?

It’s really the evidence of the eyes. Jane and I were up there on a tower that  was built for us to research and write a one hour documentary on the ceiling years before the cleaning. The tower could be moved to bring us within touching distance of each section, over a six-week period.

That must have been an incredible experience. What kind of condition would you say the fresco was in while you were examining it?

Fabulous condition. There were some craquelures – it had cracks here and there, which happens naturally over the course of centuries, but the painting itself was all there. It was extremely subtle, rich, fresh, and pure – it was Michelangelo, and absolutely unbelievable. Jane [Jane  Winslow  Eliot,  Alexander’s  wife] first realized and pointed it out to me that the surface had mostly been done a secco (in the dry) because Roman fresco plaster goes porcelain hard within hours. So Michelangelo spent almost two years embellishing his quickly sketched under-painting.

And after the restoration?

They used a cleaning agent developed to wash stone exteriors. It took away all the a secco. What you see now is the under-painting. The conservators  said  “No, he just painted in the Florentine style, and on top is just a lot of glue-varnish, unknown hands, and dirt, and we need to remove it.”

How did you react? Was there an initial impulse to object?

Frank Mason said “We’ve got to protest and stop the cleaning” to which I  responded “You can’t buck city hall, let alone the Vatican.” Then Frank said,  “Yes, but think of how awful you’ll feel if you don’t try,” and so he recruited  me. I then wrote a piece for Harvard Magazine on the subject, which Jim Beck told me helped persuade him to join us. At that point, the Vatican became noticeably upset.

Upset? In what way, and why?

Beck was such a prestigious figure, being a professor of Italian Renaissance art at Columbia University, so they hired a PR firm, a Madison Avenue outfit, to promote their ceiling scrub and make the three of us appear like childish, publicity seeking nut-cases. And they succeeded in that mission by inviting a number of VIPs – art critics, art historians, and museum directors – to come free of charge and take a look for themselves. They took them up on their comfortable scaffold with all their so-called “scientific equipment,” and even gave some a cloth to personally wipe off the accumulated “filth,” as they called it, from the painting. Instant experts were made that way, and simultaneously hooked.

So there was support from the academic community for the cleaning – who were some of its advocates?

Thomas Hoving was one; A previous director of the Metropolitan Museum and then editor of Connoisseur Magazine. Robert Hughes, Art Editor of Time Magazine, as I had been for fifteen years, was another. He wrote in his last book before he died that seeing Michelangelo’s cleaned work ‘the way he painted it’ from the restorers scaffold was the most vivid experiences of his whole 50 years as an art critic. It’s really too bad. The cleaning went on for years and years and they destroyed the thing.

And what about the film you produced? Is it still available to those who wish to view the ceiling as it was before the cleaning?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the rights to the film, so in that sense, it’s not  available. For years it was rebroadcast on holidays by ABC. It was a TV success at the time.

And now, after so much time, with the evidence supporting your position so abundant, are there influential people out there that still applaud the cleaning?

People don’t  like to admit that they were mistaken, but by now everybody in the art community knows that we, Jane and I, Jim Beck, Frank Mason, and Michael Daley, were right.

Do you think the  Vatican  should  restrict  tourism  in  order  to  preserve  what’s  left  of  the  fresco?

They would never restrict visitation – they make too much money from it. It was all about money to begin with. They wanted to make a big publicity stunt in the first place, make it more “accessible to the public,” and beef up  tourism. As long as they’re making money off of it, they’re never going to restrict  access.

What do you think can or should be done to prevent further degradation?

It doesn’t matter what I think or believe. They’ve lost the picture already.  The under-painting, the concept, is still there, but the painting is gone. It’s  been scrubbed away with chemicals. They can’t do anything significant to  save what’s left, either. Maybe they’ll apply some pseudo-scientific hocus-pocus, but they won’t reduce the influx of tourists.

At the conclusion of our conversation, while coming to grips with the grim reality of the circumstances, I asked Eliot if he believed the Vatican would ever admit its guilt in this crime against our cultural heritage, to which he responded with a memory. He spoke of a time when Fabrizio Mancinelli, Curator of Painting at the Vatican, spoke to him regarding the highly debated restoration:

“I respect your opinion Mr. Eliot, and I trust that you’ll respect mine.”

To which Alexander Eliot, the man who once stood mere feet below the magnificent fresco, responded:

“You and I don’t matter, but the Holy Father will go down in history as the  destroyer of the world’s greatest painting.”

 

For more on Alexander Eliot and his writings, please visit:

http://alexandereliot.com/about/

Eliot, Alexander. “Save Sistine From the ‘Restorers'” Los Angeles Times 20 Sept. 1987: 5.

 

 

/1 Comment/by
2013-04-27 - Mystical Nativity Sandro Botticelli National Gallery London
,

Recap: ArtWatch International’s Fourth Annual James Beck Memorial Lecture

Ruth Osborne
2013-04-27 - Mystical Nativity Sandro Botticelli National Gallery London

The focus of Professor Freedberg’s lecture was The Mystical Nativity (ca 1500–1501) by the Italian Renaissance master Sandro Botticelli, in the National Gallery in London.

This past Wednesday, April 24th, ArtWatch was proud to present the fourth annual James Beck Memorial Lecture.

Each year ArtWatch holds this event to commemorate the scholarly career and the principled stand of its founder, Professor James Beck. The lectures, organized by Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatch UK, provide a platform for distinguished art world speakers in our New York and London campaigning centers.

Those who were able to attend heard both the lecture by David Freedberg, entitled “Morality and Movement in Renaissance Art” and the speech by Don Reynolds, delivered upon receipt of the 2012 Frank Mason Prize.

Michael Daley of ArtWatch UK, writes of the connection between Beck and the teatro at the Italian Academy: “It was in this hall on Sept 19th 2007 that Columbia University Art History Department conducted a memorial service in honour of Professor James Beck, who had died on May 26th that year,” and goes on to say that, “We in ArtWatch International decided that there were two ways of best honouring his memory and his campaigning. The first was quite simply by continuing to campaign as an organisation against those who (for whatever motives) injure art. . . The second step that we took to honor James Beck was the inauguration of these annual lectures by scholars of distinction on topics of their choice in recognition of his own contributions.”

Within this tradition, David Freedberg, Pierre Matisse Professor of the History of Art in the Department of Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University, and Director of The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, delivered a compelling lecture on the topic of movement in Renaissance art – its implications for both art and cultural historians cannot be overstated. His talk was extremely rich in analytical and contextual insights. As one audience member put it: “Freedberg didn’t play it down for anyone. Everyone was treated as though they were his scholarly equals.” In this way, we were provided with a rare experience, one that left us with much to process and consider in the days to come.

The Frank Mason Prize, awarded at the beginning of the evening, was also a momentous occasion. Of Frank Mason, Jim Beck’s esteemed colleague, Michael Daley states that he had “led marches of protesting students and artists from the New York Art Students League to the Metropolitan Museum of Art against the picture restorations therein. Frank had helped found a small international organisation to fight on behalf of the world’s artistic patrimony and was one the first campaigners against the Sistine Chapel restorations which began in 1980. When Frank died on June 16, 2009, ArtWatch International decided to honour his formative role in our campaigns with a modest annual prize to others who were making a contribution to protecting art.”

Professor James Beck, founder of ArtWatch.

Professor James Beck, founder of ArtWatch.

Donald Martin Reynolds, PhD, to whom we awarded the 2012 prize for his groundbreaking 1984 book “The architecture of New York City” and for his symposium series in honor of the renowned art historian Rudolf Wittkower, now in its 23rd year, delivered what was certainly one of the most eloquent, heartfelt speeches in honor of James Beck. It is hard to imagine a more kind and sincere tribute to the memory of our late founder.

We also wanted to pass along our appreciation for the wonderful staff of the Italian Academy for their guidance and assistance in the weeks prior to the event and on the night of. We hope to have future opportunities to collaborate with this highly professional and dedicated institution.

If you were unable to attend, or if you desire to have a record of the evening, we will be publishing transcripts of the talks in our next journal publication, and we hope to also have a recording of the lecture available for our website.

Lastly, ArtWatch International extends its sincere gratitude to our speakers and guests for making this one of our most successful events in recent years. We hope to see you again soon.

/0 Comments/by
2013-04-02 - James Beck

ArtWatch International Presents the 2013 James Beck Memorial Lecture and Reception

Einav Zamir

2013-04-02 - James Beck

ArtWatch International Inc. is pleased to announce our fourth annual James Beck Memorial Lecture.

Each year ArtWatch holds an annual James Beck Memorial Lecture and reception to commemorate the scholarly career and the principled stand of its founder, Professor James Beck. The lectures, organized by Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatch UK, provide a platform for distinguished art world speakers in our New York and London campaigning centers.

The 2013 James Beck Memorial Lecture and Reception, N.Y.

Speaker:

David Freedberg, Pierre Matisse Professor of the History of Art,Columbia University, and Director, The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University

Title:

“Morality and Movement in Renaissance Art”

Date:  

6pm-8pm (with reception), April 24th

Venue:

The Italian Academy, 1161 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

RSVP: ArtWatchNYC@gmail.com

/0 Comments/by
2012-11-01 - Carracci Gallery

Carracci Gallery Restoration, ‘Discovery’ vs. Preservation

Einav Zamir

2012-11-01 - Carracci Gallery

Italian officials announced in early October plans to undergo a $1.5 million restoration effort of the world-renowned Carracci Gallery, whose elaborate decoration, commissioned in 1597 by Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, has been a topic of scholarly dialogue for hundreds of years.

This project results from an earlier campaign undertaken by the French Service des Monuments historiques to stabilize the vaulted ceiling. While it is unclear precisely what restorative measures will take place when work begins in early January, the World Monuments Fund asserts that this is primarily a scientific endeavor which seeks to remedy “conservation issues” identified during the 1994 restoration. The WMF further claims that “conservation is necessary to ensure that the paintings in the gallery do not deteriorate or become harmed by structural problems in the ceiling.”

Whereas such efforts would appear essential to the survival of the numerous frescoes and stucco decoration that adorn the walls of the Carracci Gallery, a very different sentiment seems to be emanating from the Italian Culture Ministry, which is responsible for the promotion and stewardship of museums and historical monuments throughout Rome. As quoted in the New York Times, the presumed result of “determining which hands painted which section” is hailed as a significant perk of the project, as opposed to the conservation efforts extolled by the WMF. This would suggest that the entire endeavor functions more to satisfy curiosity than to ensure permanent survival, and further suggests that exploratory cleanings, which do not directly address deterioration or “structural problems,” will be employed primarily for attribution purposes.

Furthermore, a proposed plan to assemble a committee to determine the “scope of the restoration,” implies a more extensive undertaking than what was deemed necessary by the 1994 restorers. Rossella Vodret of the Italian Culture Ministry assures us that “if problems arise, the intelligence and professional qualities of the experts involved will win out,” and while one is inclined to appreciate this absolute faith in professional restorers, we also must ask ourselves whether the risk to lasting preservation is worth the possible gain of discovery.

Fortunately, the international community will be watching closely to see what develops as the project takes shape in early 2013.

 

/0 Comments/by
2007-02-05 - Andrea Mantegna San Zeno altarpiece
,

Another Anniversary

James Beck

Timed to coincide with the 500th anniversary of the death of Andrea Mantegna (born c. 1431) in 1506, three Italian cities in which the artist executed some of his major works are hosting exhibitions in the artist’s honor: Mantua, Padua and Verona, each set to run from 16 September 2006 until 14 January 2007.

Mantua’s exhibition, Mantegna a Mantova: 1460/1506, will be held at Palazzo Te, Padua’s Mantegna e Padova: 1445/1460 will be held at the Eremitani Museum, while Verona’s Mantegna e le arti a Verona will be at the Palazzo della Gran Guardia.

As is often the case with large blockbusters, the organizers have emphasized several opportunities for the visitor that make the show a must-see. It has already been announced that when the exhibitions end in January, the San Zeno Altarpiece in Verona, one of Mantegna’s most important works, will undergo an extensive two-year restoration campaign, making this the viewer’s last chance to see the work for the near future. The exhibition also offers the opportunity to see the Ovetari Chapel frescoes in the Eremitani in Padua, which were shattered into 80,000 small fragments following an airstrike in 1944. With the help of new computer software, they have been recomposed and will be on view as part of the anniversary celebrations.

In order to orchestrate the events, the Ministry for the Cultural Heritage and Activities created an 82-member National Committee (Comitato Nazionale per le Celebrazioni del quinto centenario della morte di Andrea Mantegna) composed of scholars and government officials. In a nearly unprecedented example of the mass-shipment of works of art, 140 museums and collections agreed to lend works of art by the artist and related masters, 352 of them in total. The website for the project calls the undertaking “a completely new type of exhibition” in terms of its scope, with each of the cities hosting not only their share of the primary exhibition, but numerous other related shows at secondary sites. On behalf of the exhibition, Alpitour is offering 2- and 3-day travel packages to all of the shows, for E135 and E245, respectively.

As in the case of most large exhibitions, the works are undoubtedly put at risk by their shipment. Some daunting statistics are offered on the exhibition’s website: The collective insured value of the works is E647,000,000, and fifty-five works were restored for the shows, with a total cost of E271,000. The exhibition also touts the obligatory “new discoveries,” such as the Madonna della Tenerezza, a formerly unknown painting in a private collection, which is annexed to the Padua show (on view at Palazzo Zuckermann).

Not all of the loans were easily acquired. Vittorio Sgarbi, President of the Mantegna Committee and curator of the Mantua exhibition, requested that the city of Bergamo loan Mantegna’s Madonna and Child, currently housed in the Accademia Carrara. Bergamo, which refused the loan citing the painting’s fragile condition, subsequently distributed 20,000 free passes for entrance to the Accademia to see the work.

Other loan requests by the organizers of the Mantuan exhibition were met with similar reluctance on the part of the institutions. The Brera Gallery in Milan refused to send Mantegna’s Dead Christ, also citing its delicate condition. Sgarbi claimed that the museum was “telling lies,” since the work had been shipped to Mantua in 2002 for another exhibition: “It is not possible for a work to have been in good condition four years ago, when it was loaned to Mantua, and ‘sick’ now. Someone is not telling the truth. We send troops to Lebanon, but not paintings to each other”. Despite pressure applied by Sgarbi, who claimed that the absence of the Dead Christ and the St. Sebastian from the Ca’ d’Oro would cost E1.6m in entrance fees, approximating that 200,000 fewer people would attend, the Italian Culture Minister and Vice Prime Minister Francesco Rutelli initially supported the Brera’s decision.

Sgarbi wrote an open letter to Rutelli:

“Dear Minister, Get them to tell you the truth. Brera will not loan us Mantegna’s Dead Christ and Ca’d’Oro refuses to give us the Saint Sebastian. The galleries are making it a health issue, saying that the paintings cannot be moved because they are unwell. Do not allow yourself to be bullied by deceitful officials: intervene so that we can have them”.

Sgarbi argued that the works were in a satisfactory condition, and therefore should be sent to the exhibition, but that if they were in fact that fragile, it was wrong to let them deteriorate further and his committee would fund their restoration.

Initially, Rutelli held his ground and did not overrule the technical judgment of Brera officials. The ministry defended the decision of the Brera, citing the unusual methods of the painting, which is tempera on canvas. Then, in August, Rutelli announced: “I approved that the Dead Christ of Brera be sent to the Mantegna exhibition in Mantua after an in-depth technical inspection. We have also made available some other works that were requested by the organizing committee and the city mayors, with the help of the Ministry. I feel that guidelines should be decided for loans and exhibitions, and that is why I have set up a Commission with a high scientific profile, in order to help requests be made with greater certainty.”  Rutelli has since announced the formation of a Committee to establish official state guidelines for the lending of works of art.

Like the Brera, the Ca d’Oro in Venice also had objections to the lending of one of its Mantegna works, a Saint Sebastian. Their refusal was multi-faceted. First, they argued, the work was currently undergoing restoration, which could take an additional few months. Secondly, they argued that the museum’s collection was substantially diminished by its absence.

With anniversary exhibitions on the rise and an ever greater interest in more complete shows with more impressive loans, the Mantegna exhibitions in Mantua, Padua and Verona have set a very dangerous precedent. No longer will the fragility of an object be a hindrance to the loan of any work deemed critical for an exhibition, even if — or especially if — the need is a financial one.

/by
2005-10-11 - Fondazione CittàItalia Leonardo The Last Supper ad

Art Restoration and Advertising

2005-10-11 - Fondazione CittaItalia

A new advertising campaign was announced in August, aimed at raising money to fund upcoming restoration projects. The non-profit agency Fondazione CittàItalia (founded 2003) has scheduled its second such initiative, called “The Days of Art — Fundraising Campaign for the Restoration of Italian Cultural Heritage”, set to run from 24 September to 2 October 2005. It will feature “shock” ads, showing famous works of art in badly damaged states, to encourage public donations.

The website for the organization employs numerous questionable devices to solicit donations. With the slogan “Restoring Art is as Important as Making It,” donors are asked to vote for the object they’d most like to see restored — a somewhat dubious methodology if the goal is to restore the work most in need. There are also lottery tickets distributed when donations are made, so that donors can win prizes for giving. One Euro donations can even be made by text-messaging from a cell phone.

The serious matter of restoration is increasingly becoming a subject of media campaigns. We’ve long grown accustomed to posters and exhibitions exhorting art lovers to come see the “new” Masaccio, the “new” Giotto, or the “new” Michelangelo. The sad fact is now the commercialization of art restoration is expanding, and more and more we are becoming aware of restoration as a big business industry.

The advertising campaign itself is remarkably deceptive. According to CittàItalia, the purpose of their organization is to raise money to help those objects that are neglected and off-the-beaten-path. It has been reported that the Italian government will spend 26 million Euro on restoration and conservation in the coming year, and supposedly twice this amount is needed.

To encourage donations, ads will show Michelangelo’s David missing a leg, Botticelli’s Birth of Venus torn, and the Leaning tower of Pisa missing. Yet there are two major problems with such a campaign. The first is that it capitalizes on what is already a serious problem in the world of modern restoration, which is that private citizens and organizations primarily contribute to the restoration of only the most famous works of art. The second, related to the first, is that none of the objects used in the advertisements are in need of restoration.

For example, Botticelli’s Birth of Venus was cleaned in 1987, and the hotly contested restoration of Michelangelo’s David was completed just last year, so neither work will likely benefit from any fund-raising. In addition, although it was discovered that David has a weak ankle, the project was merely cosmetic, and did nothing to ensure the longevity of the work.

Leonardo’s Last Supper is likewise not in need of any cleaning, having undergone a 20-year procedure ending in 1999. In an almost comical twist, a CittàItalia ad featuring Leonardo’s famous work shows Christ’s face obliterated, which was actually what occurred as a result of the last restoration, necessitating a modern repainting of the central figure’s visage. The Leaning Tower has also been restored repeatedly, and in the 1990s, although no ad will tell you that the previous restoration campaigns put the famous campanile in serious jeopardy in the first place.

So will David break a leg if you don’t donate? Will Leonardo’s Jesus lose his face? No. In fact, history has shown that damage will be more likely if you do so.

2005-10-11 - The Last Supper Christ before and after

/by