Restoration and Preservation

Last week's lecture was about the kind of work that people do in the field of restoring and preserving art. The anecdotes about the German artist who left the fat to rot in a box and the American artist whose sculpture broke due to unstable metal, illustrate the range of ways artists respond to age and decay. In the first case, decay was the desired effect, and when a team of restorers tried to change the acrid, and moistened box years later, the artist was displeased. The second case also involves an artist's disappointment. Had he known when he made the sculpture that his material would decades later canyon and break, he would have alerted those charged with the upkeep of the work to be mindful of what they must do to keep that from happening. The subject reminds me of the discourse that surrounded to restoration of the Sistine Chapel Ceiling by Michaelangelo between the years 1980 and 1994, where technology had advanced to the point that the original vibrance and saturation of the frescoes was fully realized after four centuries of fading. Michaelangelo was of course not around to defend his work, and it is assumed he would prefer the frescoes to look just how he painted them, but many people were very upset with the new(old, actually) look. Many felt it was not somber enough for religious purposes. They forget Michaelangelo was a Renaissance painter, a humanist. It was no longer the middle ages and he was painting for art, not God. Still, it begs the question for every artist. Four hundred years from now, do you want your work to look as good as new, or do you want it to look four hundred years old. A restoration and preservation expert would be the one to call.