Restoration of Historic Sacred Artefacts

12/13/21

HR: Provided Web Article, JSTOR, Writing Center; Ryan H. O’Connor, 12/13/21

WC: 1410

            As ancient structures and famous locations age and become dilapidated, modern conservationists have stepped in to fund enormously expensive renovation and restoration projects to improve the quality of these artefacts for future generations and to respect the past in the process. However, the question arises: how much restoring is too much? I personally draw the line at projects that inherently draw the restored artwork away from the original and change the quality and caliber of the art to be more up-to-speed with the modern age or show obvious signs of intervention. This kind of restoration has the potential to subtract from the value of the original and do the opposite of what conservationists sought to achieve: respect for the original piece. Furthermore, the risks that come along with these projects include damage to the adjusted culture surrounding these structures and artefacts. In order to prove my point more clearly, I will reference medieval cathedrals that have been recently renovated, the most common and referenced of restored structures, and express professional concerns over the impact these renovations have on the art community and world culture overall.

            Firstly, the result most renovations have on these structures is the innate sense of “newness” and “freshness” that the old buildings could no longer offer. An example of this can be found at Chartes Cathedral that just recently completed a decade-long renovation meant to clean and refresh the stone, artworks, and repaint old sculptures as well. The ultimate goal and intent of the restoration was to return the structure to the way it was when it was first built; bright, radiant, and “as close to heaven on earth as a human might come.” Throughout the renovation, the project was fiercely debated based on the basic premise of “scandalous desecration of a cultural holy place” as the architecture critic Martin Filler put.[1] The renovation removed permanent dirt and “smoke from burning candles, oil lamps and fires darkened the walls, the statues and the exquisite stained glass” which resulted in the beautiful bone white color that can be seen everywhere inside today.[2] It goes without saying that historical artefacts, especially those actively used by the public, should be kept clean and incrementally kept up with in order to remain serviceable, as long as it keeps its respects to the original. This cathedral now has electric lighting, but this should be considered near necessity in a modern place of worship in order to accommodate night services. Moreover, to retain more of the original atmosphere, the stone floor remains uneven and untreated, just as it would have appeared when it was first finished in 1194.

            Although it might seem as if the renovation of Chartes Cathedral should have been well-received, many believed it was not necessary. However, Gothic architecture has lately come under the air of being “dark” in the cultural eye since many Gothic cathedrals have fallen victim to the same darkening on the inside that Chartes did. The entire purpose of Gothic architecture, when it was created, was to allow as much light as possible and create an atmosphere as conducive to heaven as possible. The insides were always ornate, bright, and tall. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, Gothic architecture has become synonymous with darkness in modern times. Professor Jeffrey F. Hamburger, who is a medieval art historian at Harvard said about the dirt that makes Gothic cathedrals dark:
“there is ‘no reason to be nostalgic or romantic about the dirt.’ The association of gothic buildings with ‘dark, brooding gloom’ is ‘fundamentally misguided’ and ‘[Gothic cathedrals are] not monuments to melancholy.’”[3] Hamburger is right, all these renovators look to do is restore once bright and glowing sanctuaries from their darkened and unkempt state.

            Where Chartes mainly kept to cosmetic renovations that were aimed more at cleaning the interior, other renovation has sought to repair exterior sculpture and, in some cases, add stone or attempt to recreate lost parts of sculptures to complete them once more. At the west portal of Cathedral Ste-Marie, Oloron-Sainte-Marie, sculptors attempted to recreate a supporting sculpture of a chimera that had a badly damaged core.[4] Using modern stone, cement, and iron, the restorer was able to infuse these materials with as much of the original as possible make it look as if the sculpture had not crippled at all. [5] When restorers completed their work, they covered the sculptures in grey gesso and plaster wash so that their changes would not be so visible, however over time, the gesso and plaster have washed off and the interventions in the original sculpture are now more than evident and stick out clearly. Given these renovations were made in 1850, many improvements have been made in the world of restoration since. However, I believe human tampering in original artworks to the point that it essentially changed the way the art looks should not be condoned. Mixing old and new stone ruins the original artistic value of the work and although it might last a while longer, I strongly affirm that artwork should not be touched in a way that alters its original state. If these sculptures had been better taken care of by those that own the now UNESCO World Heritage Site, perhaps this kind of restoration would not have needed to occur. Furthermore, the exterior of the building should add to the aura of the building. By making old buildings look brand new from the outside, the public gains a different perception than what should be in their minds: respect for the past.

            Although major external renovations are something I refuse to agree with, interior renovation and restoration (as well as structural) can greatly improve the experience of visiting one of these historic sites. The renovation of Saint Sebastiano in Venice that took two years to complete from November of 2008 to January of 2010 meticulously restored canvases painted by Paulo Veronese that had been uncovered in the church during and archaeological excavation of the church.[6] For reference, it only took Veronese one year to complete, and the three canvases portraying the story of Esther on the ceiling of the church are now considered some of the greatest testaments to his talent. The restoration was extremely successful and the previous work that had become dark and unrecognizable to what it had once been in the mid-1500’s resulted in paintings that were bright, detailed, and gorgeous to look at. The other important addition of this renovation was to reveal the painted sky that Veronese had included in the church but was tainted by a faulty eighteenth-century renovation that used an organic pigment to cover the pale blue sky. Eventually, it made the sky an odd orange-brown color that is far from what the artist intended, and the most recent restoration does a fantastic job of color matching as close to the original smalt blue that Veronese used. The stipulations of the church did not allow access to the scaffolding of the church and thus structural improvements could not be made to the wooden frame; however, this small detail does not subtract from the amazing work done to improve the sanctuary and respect the original as much as possible.

            Important considerations must be made when restoring and renovating precious buildings that have been influential and poignant throughout their existence. Actions do need to be taken in order to preserve their artistic integrity; however modern touches must not be made to taint what the artist intended for their audience. As seen at Chartes and Saint Sebastiano, interior renovations have a large effect on the experience that can be had within these sanctuaries. The artwork and beauty inside can once again be enjoyed in all its original artistic intention, which is wonderful in of itself. On the other hand, faulty, shotty, or otherwise detrimental renovation that ruin the artefact cannot be tolerated and action must be taken to renew the failed buildings back to their original quality without the tarnishing.

Bibliography

Brown, Peter Scott. “Authenticity: Interpreting Damage and Restoration in Medieval Sculpture.” The Burlington Magazine 155, no. 1328 (2013): 748–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24240964.

Ramm, Benjamin. “A Controversial Restoration That Wipes Away the Past.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 1, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/arts/design/chartres-cathedral-restoration-controversial.html.

Salomon, Xavier F. “The Restoration of Veronese’s Ceiling in S. Sebastiano, Venice.” The Burlington Magazine 154, no. 1306 (2012): 20–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41418898.

---

[1] Benjamin Ramm, “A Controversial Restoration That Wipes Away the Past,” The New York Times (The New York Times, September 1, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/arts/design/chartres-cathedral-restoration-controversial.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Benjamin Ramm, “A Controversial Restoration That Wipes Away the Past,” The New York Times (The New York Times, September 1, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/arts/design/chartres-cathedral-restoration-controversial.html.

[4] Peter Scott Brown, “Authenticity: Interpreting Damage and Restoration in Medieval Sculpture,” The Burlington Magazine 155, no. 1328 (November 2013): pp. 748-755, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24240964.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Xavier F. Salomon, “The Restoration of Veronese’s Ceiling in S. Sebastiano, Venice,” The Burlington Magazine 154, no. 1306 (January 2012): pp. 20-23, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41418898.