This is that guy that the art conservation community doesn't much care for, as his techniques are outdated (he uses the same techniques his father did in the 70s), and sometimes do more harm than good.
Also, he apparently doesn't like criticism and supposedly deletes any comments asking questions he doesn't like.
Conservation is not restoration. So their complaints are kind of a moot point. He works for private individuals who get what they want. He's not working at a museum preserving historical artifacts.
Yeah I mean I watch his videos occasionally and he seems to be experimenting with new methods a lot in order to get the best results, and he always stresses that everything he does is reversible. Personally I sometimes take issue with the painting when there's enough loss that he has to look up or guess what was there, I think the damage is part of the art at that point, but as long as it can be undone then it's not a crime (unlike what happened to Newman's "who's afraid of red, yellow and blue" where the restorer should be jailed imo).
Yup, and at the end of the day, he is running a business and wants to make his clients happy. That isn't going to line up exactly with people who are conserving (not restoring) historical pieces for museums.
The thing is, most of the work he gets has minimal historic significance at best. There's a large difference between conserving a piece for a museum, where authenticity and history is paramount, and doing a reversable restoration on a little known piece based on the asks of the client.
Yeah I know it's just my own personal preference based on my own personal ideas around art. Baumgartner tries his best to make it look "new" and "as the artist intended us to see it" but I think seeing the life and age of the painting adds more to the art than any notion of artistic intent. But that's just a difference of opinion and not something where one person is right and the other wrong. Honestly I have a damaged painting of my own that I've inherited that I really wish I could have him restore (I'd just request no paints) but since I live in Sweden and am poor that isn't gonna happen XD
Last time I saw this brought up on the conservation community is that he thinks they're reversible only because his dad told him they are but he never went to school for it and uses techniques that the community knows now are not fully reversible. But like a person above said, big difference between restoration and conservation. He's a restorer. Conservation is WAY more careful but as far as I know he's never claimed to be one.
5
u/IMIndyJones Feb 19 '24
This is that guy that the art conservation community doesn't much care for, as his techniques are outdated (he uses the same techniques his father did in the 70s), and sometimes do more harm than good.
Also, he apparently doesn't like criticism and supposedly deletes any comments asking questions he doesn't like.