The focus of Professor Freedberg’s lecture was “The Mystical Nativity,” ca 1500–1501 by the Italian Renaissance master Sandro Botticelli, in the National Gallery in London.

This past Wednesday, April 24^th, ArtWatch was proud to present the fourth annual James Beck Memorial Lecture. Each year ArtWatch holds this event to commemorate the scholarly career and the principled stand of its founder, Professor James Beck. The lectures, organized by Michael Daley, the director of ArtWatch UK, provide a platform for distinguished art world speakers in our New York and London campaigning centers.

Those who were able to attend heard both the lecture by David Freedberg, entitled “Morality and Movement in Renaissance Art” and the speech by Don Reynolds, delivered upon receipt of the 2012 Frank Mason Prize.

Michael Daley of ArtWatch UK, writes of the connection between Beck and the teatro at the Italian Academy: “It was in this hall on Sept 19^th 2007 that Columbia University Art History Department conducted a memorial service in honour of Professor James Beck, who had died on May 26^th that year,” and goes on to say that, “We in ArtWatch International decided that there were two ways of best honouring his memory and his campaigning. The first was quite simply by continuing to campaign as an organisation against those who (for whatever motives) injure art. . . The second step that we took to honor James Beck was the inauguration of these annual lectures by scholars of distinction on topics of their choice in recognition of his own contributions.”

Within this tradition, David Freedberg, Pierre Matisse Professor of the History of Art in the Department of Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University, and Director of The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, delivered a compelling lecture on the topic of movement in Renaissance art – its implications for both art and cultural historians cannot be overstated. His talk was extremely rich in analytical and contextual insights. As one audience member put it: “Freedberg didn’t play it down for anyone. Everyone was treated as though they were his scholarly equals.” In this way, we were provided with a rare experience, one that left us with much to process and consider in the days to come.

The Frank Mason Prize, awarded at the beginning of the evening, was also a momentous occasion. Of Frank Mason, Jim Beck’s esteemed colleague, Michael Daley states that he had “led marches of protesting students and artists from the New York Art Students League to the Metropolitan Museum of Art against the picture restorations therein. Frank had helped found a small international organisation to fight on behalf of the world’s artistic patrimony and was one the first campaigners against the Sistine Chapel restorations which began in 1980. When Frank died on June 16, 2009, ArtWatch International decided to honour his formative role in our campaigns with a modest annual prize to others who were making a contribution to protecting art.”

Professor James Beck, founder of ArtWatch.

Donald Martin Reynolds, PhD, to whom we awarded the 2012 prize for his groundbreaking 1984 book “The architecture of New York City” and for his symposium series in honor of the renowned art historian Rudolf Wittkower, now in its 23^rd year, delivered what was certainly one of the most eloquent, heartfelt speeches in honor of James Beck. It is hard to imagine a more kind and sincere tribute to the memory of our late founder.

We also wanted to pass along our appreciation for the wonderful staff of the Italian Academy for their guidance and assistance in the weeks prior to the event and on the night of. We hope to have future opportunities to collaborate with this highly professional and dedicated institution.

If you were unable to attend, or if you desire to have a record of the evening, we will be publishing transcripts of the talks in our next journal publication, and we hope to also have a recording of the lecture available for our website.

Lastly, ArtWatch International extends its sincere gratitude to our speakers and guests for making this one of our most successful events in recent years. We hope to see you again soon.

The 2013 James Beck Memorial Lecture and Reception, N.Y.

Speaker:

David Freedberg, Pierre Matisse Professor of the History of Art,Columbia University, and Director, The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University

Title:

“Morality and Movement in Renaissance Art”

Date:  

6pm-8pm (with reception), April 24th

Venue:

The Italian Academy, 1161 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

RSVP: ArtWatchNYC@gmail.com

What I’ve learned since then is that this practice is not at all uncommon, and what’s more, is that it happens in museums and cultural institutions just as often as commercial galleries. In conserving ancient ceramics, viewer appreciation is often considered over viewer education. Of course, these restorations typically begin with the best of intentions. Filling gaps during a reconstruction is, at its core, essential for the long-term structural stability of a piece, as well for protecting the exposed edges of the original fragments from further deterioration, bearing in mind that any added material should always be reversible. However, when a conservator begins to conceal cracks, chips, and break lines for the sake of a smooth finish, a restoration suddenly becomes an aesthetic endeavor, rather than a necessity. Furthermore, by restoring the surface to a pre-break appearance, the conservator is left with two options: to stop there, leaving much of the decorative program fragmented, or to proceed with refilling the missing parts and perpetuate the illusion that the vessel is whole and unchanged from its original state. This is an entirely auxiliary process, as it has absolutely no bearing on the structural integrity or physical decay of the object.

As one might expect, there are various degrees of re-painting. With ancient Greek objects, the more honest, yet still unobtrusive method avoids using black slip to mimic original decoration, so that the viewer has both a means by which to distinguish original from added components, as well a sense of how the original figures or motifs may have appeared in antiquity. This approach tends to be favored by modern restoration efforts, though heavy refilling is still in practice. In both cases, one must consider that the lines which make up the decoration, by the very nature of their execution, are entirely unique and distinct. In other words, no two marks, even on the same vessel, are the same. Therefore, the restorer cannot possibly “re-do” what was done by the craftsman, but rather must extrapolate the character and quality of the decoration, an entirely subjective endeavor. In doing so, the painter’s work is altered and subverted by the hand of the conservator. One cannot know for certain how a form would have extended into a now missing portion of a vessel. Any guesses are not based on ascertainable data.

What are not immediately apparent in this discussion are the very simple alternatives that exist. An informative label, reconstructive drawing, or digital rendering might accompany an object to fill in the conceptual gaps in a decoration. What’s more, labels should indicate which objects have been heavily restored, and museum websites should point out when repainting has occurred. The British Museum site is better than most in this regard, while the Metropolitan Museum site provides little to nothing in terms of conservation history.

J. Paul Getty Museum associate conservator Jeffrey Maish examining an Attic black-figure kylix under a binocular stereo-microscope.

If the restoration or accompanying labels do not make it immediately obvious which areas of the decoration are new, it is not only dishonest, but can also lead to serious errors in interpretation. Fledgling students of art history are often charged with writing interpretive material on vessels as an exercise in formalist analysis. In these assignments, the student is expected to establish opinions based on line-quality, pattern, movement, and form. If a work has been heavily repainted, then the student is likely considering the conservator’s hand equally to that of the ancient craftsman. The exercise is then entirely wasted, and any understanding of the artist’s intent has been lost.

Finally, by not providing this information, museums appear to have little trust in the intelligence and intentions of their patrons. Much like the curator at Kaikodo, who seemed proud of the heavy handed restoration of her ceramic vessel, museums attempt to sell us their collections, rather than create opportunities for honest and unhindered discovery.

"One: Number 31, 1950" and "Echo" in the MoMA conservation lab

In the wake of extensive media coverage concerning a restoration purposed by the Seattle Art Museum of Jackson Pollock’s Sea Change, the 1947 groundbreaking work exploring the drip technique that would later define his career, it was brought to our attention that the Museum of Modern Art in New York is currently restoring their One: Number 31, 1950, a seminal piece in the museum’s collection. Unlike SAM’s project, the cleaning has not received much mention in media outlets beyond the steady posts James Coddington, Chief Conservator, and his team have produced for MoMA’s blog, Inside/Out. The disparity of coverage between these two parallel events may have more to do with funding than the overall importance of the objects in question. While the Bank of America’s Art Conservation Project – an international program that offers grants to collections in order to restore works that are deemed in “danger of degeneration,” – is funding the project in Seattle, the backing for MoMA’s One: Number 31 is strictly an in-house, MOMA enterprise. Whether or not Sea Change is truly in danger of degeneration might be considered questionable – with the piece perhaps having been chosen as much for its high profile as its overall state of preservation. Certainly, no clear evidence of imminent disintegration has been produced. Whichever, the result of the grant will likely be two-fold. On the one hand, any alterations made to Sea Change will be highly publicized, and therefore open to scrutiny. On the other hand, there may be a greater temptation during treatment to produce a dramatic headline-worthy, high funds-justifying result, in which case a more drastic cleaning may follow.

James Coddington beginning conservation work on "One: Number 31, 1950"

Conversely, MoMA’s project results from their 1998 Pollock retrospective, which was the first time One: Number 31 was displayed alongside an extensive body of material housed in various collections. The exercise showed that these paintings were in varying states of preservation. In particular, Pollock’s Echo: Number 25, 1951, according to Coddington, had yellowed considerably from its original state, and was in need of cleaning. However, what makes the restorations of Sea Change and One: Number 31 worth studying, beyond the various differences in approach that are bound to appear in the coming months, is the issue of re-touching. Concerning Sea Change, Art Daily reports that “the conservation treatment focuses on removing the later restoration in order to recover a surface that more closely reflects Pollock’s original technique and intent.” In doing so, the team from Seattle plans to strip the varnish applied by a conservator in 1970. Similarly, the MoMA conservation team determined that several areas of One: Number 31 contained traces of compositionally dissimilar paint, added at a later point to cover cracks that had appeared in the surface. One: Number 31 was evidently retouched sometime in the mid-60s, prior to its arrival at MoMA in 1968. Whether these areas should be removed at all is debatable. If we are to assume that the retouching had been carried out during a previous restoration, then their removal could be seen as a way by which Coddington can undo the mistakes of former practitioners. However, if these re-touchings were done by some other party, either connected to Pollock himself or one of the previous owners, then we must consider whether or not these additions have become part of the history of the piece itself, and that in removing them, we lose something of this history.

Jennifer Hickey, Project Assistant Conservator, examining "One: Number 31, 1950"

In short, as these areas are removed and the restorations of One: Number 31 and Sea Change continue, we are forced to take another look at established classics. Perhaps this second look will bring us closer to Pollock’s original vision, though we may possibly find ourselves further away from what he and his work have come to be.

For more information regarding MoMA’s restoration process, please visit:  http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out

"In the Artifact Lab: Conserving Egyptian Mummies" - an exhibition at the University of Pennsylvania that focuses on the process of conserving ancient artifacts.

In what seems like a new trend to explore the world of art conservation through process-oriented exhibitions, the Blanton Museum of Art at the University of Texas at Austin, in conjunction with the National Gallery of Canada, opened “Restoration and Revelation: Conserving the Suida-Manning Collection” to the public on Saturday, November 17. The exhibition focuses on the conservation efforts, including the cleaning and repainting, of several Old Master paintings and drawings from the museum’s Suida-Manning Collection, established in 1998. In a recent press release, the Blanton Museum stresses the potential for discovery, asserting that “new knowledge about the works and their makers” can result from restorations. However, the use of a reconstructive approach (repainting) in treating these objects suggests a greater interest in “visual integrity” than historical veracity.

Similar exhibitions, such as the University of Pennsylvania Museum’s “In the Artifact Lab: Conserving Egyptian Mummies,” create environments in which patrons can actually view restorations through a glass-enclosed conservation lab. The Ghent Altarpiece cleaning is also on display for public viewing. While it would seem that a certain degree of transparency is implicit in such demonstrations, thereby creating a sense of accountability, the effect is rather to heroicize art conservation and its practitioners.

Antonio Carneo's "The Death of Rachel" undergoing conservation treatment at the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, for the current exhibition "Restoration and Revelation" at UT Austin.

Perhaps a more fair and balanced approach to the many issues concerning the conservation of paintings, particularly those that have suffered severe deterioration, would produce an honest examination of the field overall. As James Beck and Michael Daley state in their book, Art Restoration: The Culture, the Business, and the Scandal, “The ‘science of restoration’, like all science, is not a monolithic cure-all.” If a museum rejects this reasoning, then questions regarding the moral implications of extensive repainting, and the museum’s obligation to its patrons to present clear delineations between original and contemporary components of any work, are otherwise wholly ignored. Any knowledge gained from such an exhibition is therefore tempered by what has been lost – the opportunity to develop a more informed audience, and therefore, a more critical public opinion.

“Restoration and Revelation: Conserving the Suida-Manning Collection,” is scheduled to run through May 5, 2013.

Left: Uriel Landeros vandalizing a Picasso painting, Right: Picasso's work after Landeros's alterations

The recent “tagging” of Picasso’s Woman in a Red Armchair in Houston raises questions of ownership, as parties weigh in on the implications of vandalism. This past June, 22-year old Uriel Landeros entered the Menil Collection with a can of spray paint and a stencil. As seen in a video taken by a witness, Landeros quickly defaces the painting, rips the stencil roughly from the surface, and exits through a side door. He is currently in hiding, and faces several felony charges that could result in up to 10 years of prison and a $10,000 fine.

Perhaps riding on the public outcry against the young Houston artist in recent months, the Cueto James Art Gallery chose to stage a show of a dozen original Landeros pieces – essentially treating the act of vandalism as a work of art in itself by rewarding the perpetrator. The sardonically titled exhibition, “Houston, We Have a Problem,” opened in late October to much fanfare and spectacle. It seems somewhat akin to Tate Modern’s proposed exhibition, “Art Under Attack,” set to begin in October of next year. This show will examine recent acts of vandalism – such as that carried out on Mark Rothko’s painting, Black on Maroon – as something of cultural curiosity rather than criminal behavior. Both shows have gained a fair amount of media coverage thus far, however James Perez, owner of the Cueto James Art Gallery, has denied that the showcase is meant to stir up publicity, stating “I’m already popular. This is for Uriel.”

Still, one wonders whether the attack on the Picasso was aimed at gaining attention for the artist’s cause, rather than for creating something of artistic value, as was certainly the case for Polish artist Vladimir Umanets, who vandalized the aforementioned Rothko painting in support of “Yellowism.” Further, Perez believes that the process of tagging another’s work is like “taking something and making it your own,” which begs the age-old question of who, if anyone, can actually own a work of art. Should an individual have the right to tamper with something that belongs to society as a whole? This question is complicated further by the fact that the painting itself is considered private, rather than public, property, forming the very basis for the charges held against him. Cultural value does not come into play, in this regard.

In either case, restoration efforts are expected to result in a “full recovery,” though the overall lack of concern for the painting and for the Menil Collection on the part of both Landeros and Perez is disconcerting, to say the least. In a video posted by Landeros on YouTube this past August, he claims that he never intended to “destroy Pablo’s painting or to insult the Menil,” yet goes on to say that the spray paint could simply be removed with “a little bit of Windex.” Likely, the restoration will be more complicated than that, and as Uriel Landeros continues to receive attention from the public, Picasso’s Woman in a Red Armchair slowly returns to its former state. If such acts of vandalism occur in the future, as they certainly will,  the question remains whether it is fair to hold our artistic heritage hostage for the sake of individual beliefs.

Whereas such efforts would appear essential to the survival of the numerous frescoes and stucco decoration that adorn the walls of the Carracci Gallery, a very different sentiment seems to be emanating from the Italian Culture Ministry, which is responsible for the promotion and stewardship of museums and historical monuments throughout Rome. As quoted in the New York Times, the presumed result of “determining which hands painted which section” is hailed as a significant perk of the project, as opposed to the conservation efforts extolled by the WMF. This would suggest that the entire endeavor functions more to satisfy curiosity than to ensure permanent survival, and further suggests that exploratory cleanings, which do not directly address deterioration or “structural problems,” will be employed primarily for attribution purposes.

Furthermore, a proposed plan to assemble a committee to determine the “scope of the restoration,” implies a more extensive undertaking than what was deemed necessary by the 1994 restorers. Rossella Vodret of the Italian Culture Ministry assures us that “if problems arise, the intelligence and professional qualities of the experts involved will win out,” and while one is inclined to appreciate this absolute faith in professional restorers, we also must ask ourselves whether the risk to lasting preservation is worth the possible gain of discovery.

Fortunately, the international community will be watching closely to see what develops as the project takes shape in early 2013.

Regardless of the educational and altruistic rhetoric, that these are works that are traveling to offer an unprecedented opportunity for people to study and learn about certain treasures, the reality is that objects are being moved primarily for economic reasons, whether they be international or local. While the entire Ghiberti tour has been seen, undoubtedly somewhat simplistically, as reciprocal arrangement following the donation of funds by the U.S. group Friends of Florence for the restoration of the doors, there are local benefits as well. In the case of the Seattle stop, at least one local hotel is offering the “Gates of Paradise Package.”

Perhaps an even more impressive deal was made by British Museum  to secure the loan from China of twenty terracotta statues of the warriors of the first Chinese emperor, Qin Shihuangdi, dating to the third century BCE. The twenty are just a small fraction of the 1000 figures that were unearthed in 1974 – about 7000 still await excavation – but it is the largest amount of this material

to ever leave China. Previous exhibitions in Germany and Austria were composed of copies only, though still drawing impressive crowds. The Chinese government has recently made claims that a current exhibition at the Hamburg Museum of Ethnology is made entirely of copies, and the museum has been forced to offer refunds to the 10,000 visitors who have seen the show since it opened in late November.

With the demand high and hype higher, the British Museum show, entitled The First Emperor: China’s Terracotta Army, is a guaranteed blockbuster. By mid-October it was announced that 200,000 tickets at $25 apiece had been sold, and by late November, tickets were sold out straight through February. The tremendous visibility of the show has also attracted a major corporate sponsor, Morgan Stanley. As a way of further validating their support, Morgan Stanley has made the analogy between their role in being the first to bring international investment services to China, and their role in bringing these statues for the first time from their native land.

And the show doesn’t stop here. After it completes its engagement in London, the terracottas and a collection of 120 objects in total will travel to the High Museum in Atlanta. And while the museums and the sponsors involved have gotten great benefit from the arrangement, China stands to benefit as well. Britain has sent three shows in return, and in addition to this exchange, China will undoubtedly see the added effect of stirring interest in Chinese culture in the wake of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Atlanta’s High Museum, which will host both of these shows, is setting the new standard for international art loans – they engineered not only “first-and-only” shipments of the Gates of Paradise and Andrea del Verrocchio’s  David, but also made the partnership with the Louvre Museum in Paris to send a series of exhibitions to Atlanta, all following the High’s recent $85 million addition which doubled its space. And other museums are following suit, both nationally and internationally. Seattle Art Museum also recently doubled its special exhibition space – and like the High, has arranged to show rarely-shipped works from the Louvre’s collection early in 2008.

The Museo del Prado in Madrid likewise just opened their expanded space by Rafael Moneo, with an additional 237,000 square feet, at the cost of $219 million. The Prado remodeling will bring to light many works that have been languishing in storage. But at the same time, the project was driven by the desire to be a “world-class” institution in terms of attracting blockbuster exhibitions and large numbers of visitors, a record number of which are expected this year, as well as meeting the expectations that are now the norms for museum goers: restaurants,  education rooms, and shops. In an effort to make-over their venerable institution, the Prado also sought “rebranding” by Studio Fernando Gutiérrez, which created for them a new logo, signage and a new marquee aimed at attracting commercial sponsorship and raising money for temporary shows.

Perhaps a less audacious loan in terms of scale, but noteworthy nonetheless for the rare stirring of opposition it caused, was the shipment of Leonardo da Vinci’s Annunciation, which resides in Florence’s Uffizi Museum, to Tokyo this past spring as the star attraction of the exhibition, The Mind of Leonardo – The Universal Genius at Work. The show was part of a larger promotional event called Primavera Italiana 2007, which had as its primary goal the promotion of Italian culture and business ventures in Japan. The loan was not without controversy, especially as it could potentially be viewed as violating a 2004 Italian law which forbids the loan of any object considered essential to its home institution. Although facilitated by the Italian Culture Minister, Francesco Rutelli, prominent critics included the director of the Uffizi Antonio Natali and Italian senator Paolo Amato, the latter of which staged a protest outside of the museum when it was moved.

But the issue is not just single, and supposedly, one-time instances of loans. Large-scale loans by some major institutions are becoming par for the course. The Vatican has recently announced its most substantial collection of objects ever be sent to the southern hemisphere, on a 2008 tour for the exhibition Vatican: The Story, The Art, The Architecture that will include the Auckland Museum in New Zealand and Sydney. As in the case of many recent blockbusters eager for the notion of exclusivity and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, the director of Auckland Museum has stressed that these works will probably never travel there again. The more than eighty objects, which include portraits by Titian and Bernini, as well as an early cast of Michelangelo’s Vatican Pietà, are of such value that they are requiring government insurance and a high level of security to guarantee their safety.

Other recent “firsts” include the current Van Gogh retrospective at the Seoul Museum of Art, Van Gogh: Voyage into the Myth, with sixty-seven works on loan from the Kroller-Muller Museum in Otterlo and Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. It is the first Van Gogh exhibition in Korea, and the largest Van Gogh exhibition held since the one marking the centennial anniversary of his death in 1990.

Leonardo’s Last Supper has also made headlines this fall, with the inauguration of a new website which makes a 16 billion pixel image of the famous mural available online, something that has become more and more useful aS access to the painting itself has become more restricted.

Also in the last month news came of “multispectral” high-resolution camera investigations on Leonardo’s Lady with an Ermine in the Czartoryski Museum, Krakow, which have enabled scientists to create a digital image of what Leonardo’s painting may have looked like when it was first created in the 1490s. The study of the portrait, which has been much altered by restorations, was undertaken by Pascal Cotte, who has also examined Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. Cotte has applied his technique to hundreds of paintings, gathering a database of “original” images. Cotte is not at all the first to embark on this path. Editech, founded in Italy three decades ago has performed “multi-spectral diagnostic imaging and analytical diagnostics” on more than 2500 paintings, creating a valuable resource of condition reports.

It is critical to remember that the conclusions drawn as a result of these diagnostic tests are not necessarily correct. Even the most “objective” scientific evidence requires interpretation, and so many of the public announcements that have been made, touting the newest discoveries of the original intentions of the artist, are not universally agreed upon, nor should they be.

Undoubtedly these technical advances offer many benefits, most notably the ability to study and virtually “restore” works without touching the originals, and to create facsimiles that could even be hung alongside their source works for further study. But the concern lies in the knowledge that historically latest technologies have often been used to promote rather than replace restorations. The fear in this case is that believing to fully understand what lies beneath the surface of an artwork will embolden restorers and justify their aims to go looking, with their preconceived notions, for what they now expect to find.