
| Portrait of a Carthusian |
| by Petrus Christus |
Metropolitan Museum of Art/New York |
|
|
|
||
|
|
The most striking aspect of this cleaning/restoration as it is euphanistically called- is the obvious deletion of the halo around the monks head. With further investigation it becomes apparent that on the surface of the painted panel an arc was scored into the gesso as to recieve the application of the gold.After burnishing the gold would remain in the grooved area,creating the halo.In addition ,the proportion of the panel itself in a more vertical format facilitates the placement of the halo , allowing it added breathing room so as to enhance the placement of the portrait within the painted "window". With the halo now removed, most viewers would agree that there now appears to be excess space around the head. Beyond the issue of the halo, the other most notable inconsistency in the restoration would have to be the removal of the delicate tracery in the wings of a trompe loiel fly perched on the sill of the window near the bottom of the painting.
| Woman at the Virginal |
| by Johannas Vermeer |
National Gallery/London |
|
|
|
||
|
|
In one of the most egregious examples of so called restoration is this vandalization of the once stunning painting by Johannes Vermeer.As anyone can see from this reproduction ,as did thousands when the painting was exhibited at the Vermmer show in New York last year,the woman has been turned into a green skinned mannekin by the hapless staff of the restoration department of the British National Gallery.The subtle soft penumbra of light that washes across the wall and envelopes the room as been utterly deleted.What is clearly illustrated by this example of restoration gone amuck is that if what the restorers say is true, cleaning a painting should result in an evenly distributed lifting off of the yellowed varnish so that all the gradations of tone throughout the painting should remain intact.In this case all the relationships of tone have been destroyed, witness the jumping out of the painted angel, the hard edge of the womans silhouette,the electric blue panted stripe on the chair cushion in the foreground,even areas of the wall further from the light source being brighter than the wall surface just adjacent to the window. Impossible!
| Man in a beret |
| by Rembrandt van Rijn |
Metropolitan Museum of Art/New York |
|
|
|
||
|
|
This unfortunate yet at one time beautiful portrait by Rembrandt illustrates a most common occurance in restoration today- the clinical examination of paint /varnish layers in order to ascertain what was actually painted by the masters hand.In the case of this painting it was obviously "restored" by someone that disregarded the unity of the painting, perhaps confusing later in- painting or glazing by the master with another later hand.As was the case with Rembrandt and other artists past and present, a painting may remain in the studio for years before the artists finishes the work.In many cases the painting is continually evolving over the years as corrections are made and these are the pentimenti that restorers see when incompatible paint layers were applied.The solution is not to erase the pentimenti so as to "clean-up" the work(see Sistine chapel*), yet rather it is to research and consult with experts in the restoration field and more importantly with trained painters-classically trained individuals that understand the dynamics of drawing ,proportion,anatomy, and composition.Unfortunately many restorers are only products of an educational system that has given short shrift to the traditions of classical painting and sculpture,only to replace them with modernist "emotive" techniques -tools that are utterly unable to grasp such painterly skills as modeling form with paint as revealed by the phenomana of light and color.
pages - 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 - next