-
Who is afraid of conservation and the Media
Was anybody following various opinions concerning the cleaning of the “David” of Michelangelo in the media?
(Issues: Dry cleaning vs. Wet)How does the media take advantage from cons/restoration work to produce blunders.. Do journalists or some authors care about conservation or just about selling papers? If the public is not well informed, they may be mistrustful of the results as presented.
-
5 odpovede/odpovedí
-
David’s Conservation History:
1503 – Created
1504- Sling and tree trunk are gilded
1527- Left arm snapped off during a riot
1813- Stefano Ricci (restorer) fixes a finger on David’s right hand, cleans statue and applies a wax coating1843- Aristodemo Costoli restores a toe and performs a cleaning of the statue using an acid solution
1846- A bronze founder makes a mould of the statue
1871 – David is place in a wooden crate after c.370 years outside
1873- David housed in the Accademia
A bronze David cast (from what? original or plaster?)
1991- An unbalanced Italian artist, Piero Cannata, took a hammer and knocked off the second toe of the left foot – a new toe was shaped from fragments of marble and
plaster
2004 – September 8, the 500th anniversary of the inauguration of the statue in front of the Palazzo Vecchio in Piazza della Signoria (reason for the cleaning?) -
Cast of Characters:
Franca Falletti, director of the Accademia
Antonio Paolucci, superintendent of Florentine art
Agnese Parronchi, named conservator on the project in September 2002, promotes dry cleaning method. Has cleaned Michelangelo’s Medici tombs in the Medici Chapel and his two reliefs “Madonna of the Stairs” and “Battle of the Centaurs” in the Casa Buonarroti in Florence
Mauro Matteini, head of team of scientists from the Opficio delle Pietre Dure, government art-restoration department. Concluded that the greatest threat was posed by a light sprinkling of gypsum, a calcium sulphate that responds to humidity. Proposed to remove this with water poultices, which would also draw the dust out of the pores.
Cristina Acidini, head of the Opficio delle Pietre Dure
Cinzia Parnigoni, restorer doing the poultice cleaning. Has cleaned Michelangelo’s four ‘Prisoners’ in the Accademia -
The Journalists and their approaches to the problem:
Clarke, Guardian, 21 April 2003
“The row between has also highlighted the cut-throat, female-dominated art-restoration industry in Florence. Although few make it to the top, it is a career increasingly popular with upper middle-class women.”King, The New York Times, 15 July 2003
“should it be cleaned with high-tech solvent or by more traditional means” . The author shows off his “knowledge” of conservation science by citing a list of “high-tech” techniques used by conservators…
Refers to the alleged desire of the Opficio to use “chemical compresses”.
“Ms. Falletti… Ms. Parronchi of possessing a horror of all that is modern – in this case, of the chemical-soaked poultices…”BBC News, 16 July 2003
In response to the art expert’s petition , Antonio Paolucci, superintendent for arts in Florence, said the Italians, “didn’t need to be told what to do by anyone. We are the best, on an international level, in the field of restoration. There is no need to dramatise what is just a light dusting, under supervision”
“the restoration work is due to be carried out outside visiting hours over a six month period” -
If someone would like to have a look at thoose articles about
Real-Life Decision Making and the Media – Some case studiesCleaning Michelangelo’s David: Chronological
Unless noted otherwise, the following were all downloaded from the Art Watch website, articles section on the David. David > news links issues on the cleaning >Catterson, ’David from 1501: A Chronology’, Art Watch Web Site (2003) pp. 1-2.
Clarke, Hilary, ’The agony and ecstasy of serving a Michelangelo’, The Guardian, 21 April (2003).
Riding, Alan, ’Question for ’David’ at 500: Is He Ready for Makeover?’, The New York Times, 15 July (2003).
King, Ross, ’The Dirt on the David’, The New York Times, 15 July (2003).
BBC News Website, ’David’s bathtime causes splash’, 16 July (2003).
Jones, Jonathan, ’Hands off’, The Guardian, 17 July (2003).
Harris, Lucian, ’The cleansing of David: the debate rages on’, The Art Newspaper.Com, 25 July (2003).
Beck, James, ’For Love or Money: Italian politicians battle for custody of Michelangelo’s David’, The Wall Street Journal, 13 August (2003).
Arie, Sophie, ’David is stripped of dirt – but not dignity’, The Guardian, 12 October (2003).
Sterling, Kristin, ’ArtWatch Founder James Beck Discusses Restoration of ’David’; Participates in Film that Screens February’, Columbia News, 30 January (2004).
Christensen, Carol, ‘Beck’s Book Considered’, AIC (American Institute of Conservation) News 19/2 (1994) pp. 1-3.
Education of / and Outreach to / the Public
Verberne-Khurshid, F.; Knolle, P. and Smit, I., ‘The Art of Conservation: an exhibition’, ICOM-CC Preprints, 14th Triennial Meeting, The Hague, 12-16 September 2005, ed. I. Verger, Vol. 1, James & James, London (2005) pp. 3-12.Legal issues
Lennard, Frances, ‘The impact of artists’ moral rights legislation on conservation practice in the United Kingdom and beyond’, ICOM-CC Preprints, 14th Triennial Meeting, The Hague, 12-16 September 2005, ed. I. Verger, Vol. I, James & James, London (2005) pp. 285-290. -
Here are some examples of such authors who try to benefit from the scandals created by their books..
Beck`s book is on sculpture and painting
Walden`s book is on painting alone
both authors are evidently not competent in materials and their history, conservation practice and science in the way that a trained conservator would be- this is a distinct disadvantage. However, the avarege reader is even less advantaged in theese areas.What fears do theese books illustrate?
-fear of science
-fear of loss control/ authority (in the case of art historians) – ex: the cleaning of the Sistine chapel, which Beck was highly critical of.
-fear of “big business”
– desire to retain a specialized status
Log in to reply.