Reactions to restoration
Black carbon problem
Restorers have assumed that all the layers of grease and dirt on the ceiling were the result of the burning candles. Contrary to this opinion, James Beck and many artists have suggested that Michelangelo may have used soot mixed with glue to emphasize shadows and improve the definition of dark, dry areas. If so, much of this work was removed during the restoration.[14].
In some of the figures, however, traces of paint from the use of soot are still clear. The obvious explanation is that Michelangelo's long period on the job, probably for a variety of reasons, changed his technique. Phenomena that could influence the degree of finish achieved on a particular day's work include heat and humidity, and the number of hours of daylight. What might have been the reason for these differences is seen with remarkable evidence in different methods of light and shadows on the individual figures.
Even so, there are large areas of shadow that highlight the figure of the Sibyl of Cumae. but
It is more of a three-dimensional relief that art lovers expected to see from the work of the man who sculpted Moses.[15] Critics of the restoration have said that this was precisely the goal of Michelangelo's frescoes,[n. 4] and that many had marked color contrasts, arranged side by side, who would later opt for the "dry" style to achieve this effect, which has now been lost due to very scrupulous cleaning.[18].
Uniformity was lost in the restoration, as were fine dry-made architectural details: shells, acorns and ornaments, which Michelangelo probably commissioned from some of his assistants. The treatment of this data varies considerably. On some occasions, for example in Hezekiah's wing, architectural details were painted "fresco" and have remained intact.
The comparison between two different situations reveals the vault of the painting after restoration. The candle we see on the left has defined shadows and details in black. The bright green dress, with yellow areas has been painted black along with deep shadows. The child's eyes are painted with black and white. The continued presence suggests that these details were completed when the lime surface was wet. On the right wing the reproduction looks incomplete. Before the restoration, the clothes looked darker, details that were extremely noticeable both in art and in the architecture itself.
Light restoration
Carlo Pietrangeli, former director general of the Vatican Museums, argued that restoration: "It is like opening a window in a dark room and seeing it flooded with light."[7] The echo of Giorgio Vasari's words in the century, giving his opinion of the Sistine Chapel:
Pietrangeli, in his preface to the Sistine Chapel, written after the restoration of the lunettes, but before the restoration of time, praised those who had the courage to begin the restoration process, and thanked not only those who had visited the restoration site while it was still in progress, and equally, those who were critics of the work. Pietrangeli acknowledged that these individuals pushed the team to meticulously restore the documentation, so that there will be for those involved, now and in the future, a report detailing the criteria and methods by which the work had been done.[7]
Criticism and praise
When it was announced that the Sistine Chapel frescoes were to be restored, many questions and objections were raised by art historians around the world. One of those who made his voice heard the loudest was James Beck" of ArtWatch International"). He warned several times about the possible damage to Michelangelo's work with a restoration of that magnitude. An argument that has been used repeatedly is that all previous interventions had damaged the work in one way or another. Any restoration, in contrast to conservation, puts the work of art at risk. Conservation helps preserve the work in its current state and prevents it from future deterioration. Beck wrote about all these concerns in Art Restoration, the Culture, the Business and the Scandal.[20].
While James Beck "engaged in a public debate" with Gianluigi Colalucci, head of the restoration team, a New York art dealer, Ronald Feldman, drafted a petition that was supported by 15 well-known American artists, including Robert Motherwell, George Segal, Robert Rauschenberg, Christo and Andy Warhol. They asked Pope John Paul II to stop the process of the Sistine Chapel, as well as the restoration of The Last Supper "The Last Supper (Leonardo)") by Leonardo da Vinci.[22].
A guarantee from the restoration team was that everything had to be carried out in a transparent manner, that journalists, historians and any professional in good faith should have access to the information and see the works. However, only one company, Nippon Television, had the photography rights. Michael Kimmelman, director of art critics at The New York Times, wrote in 1991 that criticism of the restoration of the ceiling and lunettes was due in part to Nippon Television's refusal to make public the photographs that they had taken under exclusive rights and that had recorded every step of the process and were the only evidence that things had been done correctly (or incorrectly).
According to Kimmelman, the reason they refused to produce photos of the details, which would have calmed those who were scared by this restoration, was this company's intention to produce a limited edition of two large volumes of a coffee table book ("as big as a coffee table"). The price of the book was 1000 dollars. Kimmelman refers to the fact that these photos were only available to those who could pay that exorbitant amount that "was not generous" and "immoral".[23]
Some were delighted with the restoration as the work was completed. Pope John Paul II gave an inaugural homily after each phase. In December 1999, after completing the restoration of the wall frescoes, he said:
Cardinal Edmund Szoka, governor of Vatican City, said: "This restoration and the experience of the restorers allows us to contemplate the paintings as if we had the opportunity to be there on the day they were first shown."[24]
An anonymous writer for Carrier, the company that assisted in installing the air conditioning for future preservation of the frescoes, was even more eloquent:
Reviews
The part of the Sistine Chapel restoration that caused the greatest fears was the ceiling, painted by Michelangelo. The appearance of bright colors in the Genealogy of Christ, which until then was in darkness, fueled the fear that the methods used in cleaning were too aggressive. Despite the warnings, work on the vault continued and, according to some critics such as James Beck, their worst fears were confirmed when the roof cleaning was completed.[15][18].
The cause of the differences lies in the analysis and understanding of the techniques used by Michelangelo, and in the technical responses of the restorers to his understanding. After examining the frescoes in the lunettes, the restorers became convinced that Michelangelo had worked exclusively with buon fresco"). This means that the artist worked only on fresh lime and that each piece of the work was completed while the lime was still fresh. In other words, Michelangelo did not work a secco, so no details were added to the lime once it had dried.[26]
The restorers, assuming that the artist had a uniform vision in the work, had a uniform vision in the restoration. It was concluded that all the dark layer of animal glue and lamp soot, all the wax and all the repainted areas constituted contamination in one way or another: smoke deposits, primitive restoration attempts and paint touch-ups carried out by restorers in their attempt to enhance the appearance of the work. Based on this decision, in accordance with Arguimbau's critical reading of the data provided about the restoration, the restoration team's chemists opted for a solvent that could strip the ceiling down to the pigmented plaster. After treatment,
only that which was painted in fresco would remain.[18].
According to critics, the problem inherent in this approach is that it was based largely on the assumption that Michelangelo painted only buon fresco, that he was always satisfied with the result at the end of the day, and that in four and a half years spent on the ceiling, he stuck exclusively to one approach, never making minor alterations or adding details. Arguimbau, on his website, quotes Colalucci, the team leader, as contradicting himself on this matter. A summary of Colalucci's statements, in the order in which they appear in the appendix entitled Michelangelo's Colors Revealed is as follows:
The constant criticism is related to the fact that the restorers have assumed they knew the final result that the painter wanted to achieve in each case throughout the entire period of time, and with what methods he had achieved them. Dissenting voices have been vehement on the subject and questions remain unanswered.[15][18].