17. Art & Ethics 6: Art Restoration

Few topics have been more controversial in the art world than the question of restoration - what do you do when a masterpiece begins falling apart? And how do you find someone you can trust to repair it? These questions have led to the development of conservation science, which considers physical, chemical, biological, and engineering factors that can ruin an object.

Let's go over some common forms of damage:

Works on paper: these can suffer from fire, flood, UV (sun) light, acidity in the fibers, oxidation (exposure to air), microbes - especially with the wrong humidity, and vermin. A common term for the buildup of mold on paper is "foxing". When buying drawing paper, always look for one that is "acid free".

Textiles: These can suffer from fire and flood, UV and Infrared light, the wrong temperature or humidity, pests and pollutants.

Paintings: Paintings have traditionally relied on a layer of varnish to protect them from dirt. But, varnish has been known to turn yellow over time. It's common practice for restorers to remove old varnish and replace it with a new coat - once every 200 years or so. Paintings are also susceptible to various forms of cracking. Rolling a canvas can cause rows of cracks, with paint pieces wanting to peel off. Striking a painting can lead to  a spidering crack, similar to when a rock hits the windshield of your car.

Sculpture: Sculptures made of wood are quite susceptible to fire, vermin, and water rot. Metal sculptures are prone to rusting - it's often expected and accepted by the artist. Acids, salt, and other pollutants can also affect metal. Stone sculptures may suffer erosion when placed out doors, as well as a changing patina from dirt, moss and lichen.

In addition to these factors, all artworks are subject to potential vandalism - when someone damages art on purpose.

A History of Art Restoration - Changing Views and Controversial Examples.

Art preservation and restoration became a major issue during the renaissance (1500s), with the creation of masterpieces by Da Vinci, Raphael, and, of course, Michelangelo. Europe was not politically stable at the time - Rome itself was sacked by mercenaries in 1527. They significantly damaged Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, by lighting fires which left ash and smoke residue all over it. In previous centuries, the Popes would simply paint over a fresco with something newer and better - but they dared not do so to these artworks.

Instead, they began hiring artists and artisans to restore dirty and damaged artworks. One of the first thing restorers did was to paint over nude figures - which the old masters had painted as an homage to the ancient Greeks. As the church became more conservative, restorers painted fig leaves over them, as well as wiping away dirt with bread, and applying coats of varnish, and repainting various damaged parts.

In the 20th century, some art restorers saw this as a nuisance - hiding away the hand of the actual masters. Frescos like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and Da Vinci's Last Supper were stripped down to their original paint - or what was left of it. The results shocked the public - there was very little left of the original work:

A similar approach was taken to the Sistine Chapel in the 1980s. Restorers have generally now agreed on a different approach - conserving everything that has happened to an artifact, from the original work to all its restorations and touch ups since. The idea is to fix the work with as minimal a change as possible.

The Danger of Art Restoration - When It Goes Wrong

Some of the worst examples of art restoration have come from smaller churches that search locally for someone without any real background in conservation science, or any painting skills. The craziest example in recent memory comes from Borja, Spain, where an 82 year-old amateur painter was allowed to "restore" a portrait of Jesus at the Sanctuary of Mercy church:

Similar examples exist, mostly under the same circumstances. It's important to vet a restorer before hiring them.

Vandalism as Protest in the Contemporary World

A number of environmental activists have decided to vandalize artwork to get attention (mostly negative) for their cause. 

Whether you accept or reject their logic might depend on how you view the art. Is it a symbol of wealth, to be enjoyed by the rich, as they continue to pollute the planet? Or is it a gift from the artist, the culmination of a life's work, meant to inspire future generations for millennia? Is the destruction of said art the rejection of this gift, or a rejection of a capitalist system that prizes art over ecosystems? Do you see its value as primarily intrinsic or economic?

However you may feel about these protests, modern conservation science offers a way to save these priceless treasures from total destruction.