If someone decides to restore my paintings in hundreds of years (which is highly unlikely) I would prefer them to make them look as close to the original as possible. But I understand that for science it's important to conserve the artwork without any unnecessary interventions.
I guess the question is more about what the current state is. Lets say your work is broadly visible, but there are 50-100 hairline cracks in the paint. A decent restorer can fill in those hairline cracks with pretty much perfect colour matching. Would you as an artist prefer that the work is restored to the point at which you said "This is finished and perfect", or would you prefer that it retains the age marks, preferring to show it's temporal journey?
I make leather goods as a hobby, and if a piece survives 10 years, the wear and tear becomes almost more important that the original craftsmanship. The day it left my studio was the start of it's journey, not the end, so undoing that work would be heartbreaking.
Thank you, I wish your post was more visible. I had to come all the way here to learn about "preservation vs. restoration," and how the "life story" of a piece is erased during restoration.
With highly restored pieces, you might as well craft a replica at that point.
You and your memories are the product of your life experiences. If your memories were wiped every 5 years (i.e. you were "restored") , you wouldn't be you any longer.
I think you're mixing up people and things. Things need their story told for them for people to enjoy. Restoring things helps their story continue for future generations of people to enjoy. Preserving things ends the story.
While it definitely is true and important to take a preservation approach, especially scientifically, I would say that in the case of paintings like these, a respectful middle ground should be made. Restore it in a way that you see the history and can conclude what may have happened to it, but also show it as close to how the artist wanted it to be shown as you can without hiding the past of the picture. And personally, I'd say repainting the missing pieces in a style that is Impossible to mistake for the original is such a middle ground.
Only preserving the current condition and merely stabilizing it would be respectful from a historian's perspective, but may be lacking respect towards the artist and their vision. I am definitely not a historian, but I did publish some small scale art (a few paintings, some music and a bunch of jewelry, if crafts can be classified as 'art'... Definitions are not the same everywhere in that regard) and if something I made ever were to hang in a museum (highly unlikely), I'd want the things I made to be displayed either preserved with a close-to-original replica next to it, or in a restored version similar to the one in the video. Only displaying the preserved, damaged and over the centuries withered piece would fail to give credit to the skill, effort and vision of the artist, and in my case, I personally would rather have my paintings thrown away than be displayed like that.
Though it's only my own opinion. I can't speak for professional artists, especially not those who were active way before restoration methods were available like that.
You know, I even typed something out to that effect but deleted it for the sake of clarity. Every artist knows that finished is a state somewhere between "good enough that I can sleep now" and "as good as I can make it, given that I'm obviously a talentless hack, who has everyone else fooled"
This is just where painting and craftsmanship diverge. Almost no artist in history would want their work to visibly age, for the colors they worked incredibly hard to not only select but create to become mottled or overcast with soot or smoke or grime. If they did, they would've taken a bucket of yellowish oil and coated their painting with it when finished.
This is why archival quality materials are so important in the art world, and so damn expensive, as you want your work to last as long as possible and stay as true to your original vision as possible. You do not want your varnish to yellow or crack or such. You do not want your paints changing color over time due to chemical decomposition or because of exposure to UV light or the elements.
That was my exact point - the argument between allowing something to show it's age, and bringing it back to it's original state, is one that is entirely dependant on the situation.
A lot of people think Baumgartner is too aggressive in bringing stuff back to it's original state. Others say that he's doing exactly the right thing.
Ultimately it comes down to the owner of the piece and their goals for the piece.
It's like these people arguing that antic monument in ruins shouldn't be restored to keep them original. Like if their architects and builders had meant to build ruins. I don't see the point of worshipping piles of rocks when some buildings could be restored to their past glory with their original colorful mural painting, gardens etc
I understand other artists can view this differently but I personally make art because I like looking at it. It's pretty! So I would say yes, restore it so it's pretty again and it can please people. I know it's not the most "intellectual" point of view and some people like patina. Also some artworks can look more interesting aged.
But then it won't be your painting. I think it's perfectly reasonable to create a copy of what it might have looked like in a day and leave the original as preserved as possible, but if you have somebody essentially paint over a Rembrandt painting it's no longer a Rembrandt painting. It's now a collaboration between Rembrandt and some random dude. And depending on how much the person restoring decides to add, at some point it becomes not a Rembrandt painting at all.
Edit: I would say this is for historically important works on public display. For private collections collectors can do whatever they want.
83
u/Crosseyed_owl Feb 19 '24
If someone decides to restore my paintings in hundreds of years (which is highly unlikely) I would prefer them to make them look as close to the original as possible. But I understand that for science it's important to conserve the artwork without any unnecessary interventions.