The idea of "restoring" art is really fascinating to me. There have been times in the past where the restorers' choices would likely have been in conflict with the artist's original intention. I'd love to know more about the people who do that work and how they justify the decisions they make because it's not always about making sure things look exactly as they did when the painting was originally completed.
This is so key to discussions about an "accurate" restoration of a piece of art. Just look at the restorations done of classic films. There's so much argument, in many of these cases, about whether or not the restoration is true to the artist's original vision but, even in the case where the original artist is involved in the restoration, there continues to be argument over whether that artist's own vision changed. I mean, just look at George Lucas and the restorations/updates of the Star Wars franchise. Fans are now clamoring to "properly" restore these films to their original versions while others claim that George Lucas's updates are the proper ones because he's the original artist. The idea that technology has allowed him to create what he "originally wanted" instead of what he had to release is a really interesting argument.
And then you have the case of monkey Jesus where an attempt was made to restore a piece of art that, arguably, either made it better or worse depending on what your view of the original piece is. I find it hilarious but a lot of people have suggested that the original piece wouldn't have been viewed by as many people or gained such popularity if it wasn't for that terrible restoration job.
The turning point in the art world was probably the restoration of the Sistine Chapel, which for most of the twentieth century was believed to be sort of dark and sinister, until a restorer finally pointed out that this was just the accumulation of centuries worth of candle smoke. The resultant restoration was controversial but certainly the right decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Cha...
A significant number of people in the arts world decried the cleaning - some even petitioning the Pope to halt it.
Whilst skillful, part of the appeal was the passage of the centuries, like shoes or furniture acquiring a deep marbled appearance after decades of cleaning and waxing, or the statue on the Charles Bridge given a unique luster, like a spotlight on a few scenes, by millions of hands over the years. It would be almost criminal to either darken the spots or frequently clean the rest of the statue to the same brassy finish.
Having been their recently: god no. With the patina it would have been an unimpressive dark box. It’s not a very impressive space without the paintings so having them obscured by centuries of gunk is just silly.
Yeah...they did goof a little on that. The examples where the eyes of the people depicted have been completely removed should make it obvious that there was some painting that was done after the plaster. It's a shame.
I don't know if Spielberg has examples like Lucus but at least for "Jaws" Speilberg acknowledges that if the tech had worked "Jaws" would likely just be a b-horror movie. The fact that the shark submarine didn't work forced them to film and edit the movie to not show the shark much which made it much better.
Wish Lucas would take that attitude as mostly the updates make his movies more cheesy imo
And there have been entire art movements based on ignorance of the artists' intentions, like the stately white statues of neoclassicism, in imitation of statues that were originally painted.
Art restoration is art too, as is film restoration. You just have to hope that the people making the choices are good enough artists to keep the spirit of the original work, and give you something closer to what the artist intended.
the Ecce mono is an interesting case. It was a disaster until thousands of people started making queues to have fun about it. At this point the former piece of art, tecnically competent but a little dull, gained an unique character and a totally different meaning, blending provocation, ineptitude and irony. This kind of change is, in itself, one of the definitions of art. Not much different to the Campbell's soup cans, the "artist's shit" of Manzoni, or the fountain of Duchamp
I you restore a work over and over is it the same work of art? A serious philosophical question goes: if you replace the planks of wood on a boat until eventually all the wood is replaced, is it the same boat?
