masklinn a day ago

That is a bit of a truism, as conservators don't have access to time magic and can only conserve what's left. The question is how far conservation extends.

To my layman's understanding, the current logic of conservation is:

1. clean. dust, grime, soot, tar, and other environmental deposits don't belong on the painting and have little value

2. stabilise, this is mostly for paintings which are actively degrading (e.g. paint is lifting), this can also include repairs to the substrate e.g. patch up tears in the canvas

3. fill-in losses

The last one is the one that has some contention, and what TFA is about (and only a portion of it to boot), and the idea behind it is (again to my understanding) that at the end of the day art is for the living to appreciate, and while damage can be of some historical interest it generally detracts from enjoyment of the piece and is (usually) not part of the original vision.

However it is of course subject to (0). do not damage what remains, so the retouching should be well separated from the original material in order to be identifiable and removable without risk of further damage in case re-conservation is needed, or better conservation methods can be used.

And then if you allow for (3) arises the question of limit, is there and if so what is the point at which it doesn't make artistic sense to try and replace losses even if somebody's paying for it, and it is better to accept the piece's new state of being as its normal?

Reply View 0 replies