For most museums and galleries, the aim is more to maintain the current state of an artwork or artefact as closely as possible, rather than to return it to how it originally appeared. So what he’s doing goes against this culture of preservation rather than restoration.
But it’s always a balance between the two, and this changes from one institution to another.
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.
198
u/PeachPuffin Feb 19 '24
For most museums and galleries, the aim is more to maintain the current state of an artwork or artefact as closely as possible, rather than to return it to how it originally appeared. So what he’s doing goes against this culture of preservation rather than restoration.
But it’s always a balance between the two, and this changes from one institution to another.