|
| |
Passage 1 |
| |
Watch reruns of so-called historical dramas on television, |
| |
and you will have little difficulty in identifying the decade in |
| Line |
which the show was originally produced. Does anybody really |
| (5) |
believe that the long-running 1970s television show Little House |
| |
on the Prairie actually provided an accurate glimpse of |
| |
nineteenth-century rural life? The actor who played “Pa,” for |
| |
instance, lacked a beard, even though men of that period |
| |
generally had facial hair. His feathered hair and perfect white |
| (10) |
teeth further located the show in the 1970s and detracted from |
| |
the authenticity of the show’s intended reconstruction of a |
| |
bygone era. No one expects the entertainment industry to |
| |
accurately characterize the past for its own sake; shows like |
| |
Little House use an imagined past to satisfy a nostalgic urge for |
| (15) |
a way of life that never existed. It is only to be expected that |
| |
Little House says far more about the time in which it was |
| |
created than the time in which it was set, and one should |
| |
not get too worked up about it. However, the contemporary trend |
| |
of restoring classic works of art raises similar issues in a far |
| (20) |
more serious context. |
| |
Restoration, as the word itself implies, assumes that one |
| |
can recreate an artist’s original intent and product. At best, |
| |
restorers’ and museum directors’ aesthetic preferences and |
| |
historical theories drive restorations, for it is impossible to |
| (25) |
step outside one’s historical context. How can restorers be so |
| |
sure that removing a layer of lacquer isn’t merely their |
| |
subconscious attempt to refashion an artwork according to |
| |
contemporary tastes? What’s “restorative” about that? The |
| |
“restored” Sistine Chapel may look “authentic” today, but will it |
| (30) |
still look so when aesthetic and historical theories have |
| |
changed? Will the newly bright colors heralded as the master’s |
| |
work reborn look as embarrassingly anachronistic as Little House? |
| |
Surely the best approach with any great work of art is to simply |
| |
leave it alone. |
| (35) |
Restorers use the science that informs their task to lend an |
| |
unwarranted objectivity to their activities. Science’s |
| |
objectivity is beside the point. A scientist can determine the |
| |
molecular composition of the substances that make up a painting, |
| |
but a scientist cannot determine the original intent and state of |
| (40) |
the artist. It will be the art-historian restorer who will use |
| |
that objective data to decide which substances to remove. The art |
| |
historian will use his at least partially subjective judgment, |
| |
informed by objective scientific data though it may be, to deem |
| |
which substances are authentically original. The crux of the |
| (45) |
problem is that restoration assumes that a contemporary art |
| |
historian can reproduce the original artwork by recreating the |
| |
often subconscious decisions of the original artist. |
| |
Of course there are occasions in which an artwork must be |
| |
restored, but only when the work’s existence is threatened. But |
| (50) |
why have so many works of art that are not facing an imminent |
| |
threat been restored? The reasons, sadly, are more a matter of |
| |
marketing than conservation. The recent exhortations to clean up |
| |
Michelangelo’s David provide a good example. The Galleria |
| |
dell’Accademia wanted to spruce David up for his five-hundredth |
| (55) |
birthday, for they knew that a refurbished David would be catnip |
| |
for tourists and a windfall for the museum. Not only ticket sales |
| |
and food concessions but also the inevitable T-shirts, posters, |
| |
and other cross-marketed products would fill their coffers. |
| |
Profit, then, and not restoration, is the true cause of the |
| (60) |
art-restoration craze. Like their Medici forerunners, museum |
| |
directors’ love of art rarely outstrips their love of money. |
| |
Passage 2 |
| |
After years of hand-wringing, the verdict followed hard on |
| |
the heels of the unveiling: Michelangelo’s David was once again |
| (65) |
revealed to be the most beautiful representation of the male form |
| |
ever sculpted. The art world was greatly relieved. In fact, David |
| |
had not been restored, but merely cleaned, which had been the |
| |
museum director’s intent. Free from blemishes and stains, that |
| |
statue again revealed its essential seamlessness. Lines flowed |
| (70) |
without interruption; shapes melted imperceptibly into one |
| |
another. |
| |
As is usually the case with restorations, controversy had |
| |
plagued the project, and understandably so. The sad history of |
| |
poorly restored masterworks has tainted all restorative efforts |
| (75) |
and prejudiced much of the art world. But the hysteria that |
| |
surrounded David’s restoration was excessive. Chief among the |
| |
concerns was a debate over the cleaning method. The original |
| |
restorer wanted to use “dry” techniques to rub off the dirt. When |
| |
a rival “wet” technique was chosen, he resigned in a huff, |
| (80) |
convinced that any application of water to the marble would |
| |
permanently damage the sculpture. His replacement mixed |
| |
cellulose, clay, and water and wrapped the creamy ointment in |
| |
rice paper. This compress was then held against the stone, which |
| |
lifted grime from the surface. This arrangement ensured that only |
| (85) |
distilled water had any contact with the sculpture. |
| |
The recent change in David’s appearance was neither the |
| |
first nor the most intrusive. Far from it: in 1504, an angry mob |
| |
expressed their political dissent by throwing stones at the |
| |
statue. David’s left arm was broken into three pieces only 23 |
| (90) |
years later. In the mid-nineteenth century, David was moved from |
| |
the Piazza della Signoria courtyard, where he had stood exposed |
| |
to the elements for over 350 years, to his present home, the |
| |
Galleria dell’Accademia. Well-meaning restorers then gave David |
| |
an acid bath to remove centuries of accumulated pigeon droppings. |
| (95) |
In 1991, a deranged tourist attacked David’s toe with a hammer. |
| |
Despite this long history, or perhaps because of it, many |
| |
scholars are loath to make even the slightest change to David’s |
| |
frame. |
| |
It is worth noting, however, that the recent cleaning |
| (100) |
uncovered a crack on David’s left ankle. David’s real enemy is |
| |
not sophisticated, respectful, and painstaking cleaning, but an |
| |
earthquake—a relatively common event in Italy. Scientists are |
| |
working now to determine how best to protect David from such an |
| |
event. In the end, the restoration that so many feared may well |
| (105) |
have given us the impetus to combat a far more dangerous threat |
| |
to this great sculpture. |
