Introduction
The restoration of the Sistine Chapel, perhaps one of the most famous examples of western art by Michelangelo began in 1965 as an initiative by Deoclecio Redig de Campos, who would later become the Vatican Museums’ general director in 1971. The scientific aspects arising in this project would be handled by Fabrizio Mancinelli as well as Gianluigi Colalucci, Maurizio Rossi, Bruno Baratti and Giorgio Bonetti master restorers. The cleaning of these frescoes would include only the depictions of the scenes with Jesus and Moses in the fifteenth-century paintings. At this time, the two 16th century frescoes located at the entrance wall had been slated for much later. Their restorations would be more complex. Once the team of restorers had begun the process, they realized that their sample work with the lunette of Mathan and Eleazor produced considerable success. This success encouraged them to continue to completion. This procedure exposed the original colors of the painting, preserved under a thick dust and glue layer. However, further work informed the team that the procedure that they were performing was highly precarious. The paintings were starting to pull off from the wall in some areas due to changing atmospheric conditions. These conditions caused contractions in the different layers of glue used to make Michelangelo’s frescoes more vivid as well as preserve them. The restoration would have to be done in a quick manner if all the paintings were to be preserved. Researchers have since argued that the glue removed during the restoration was an integral part of the frescoes. It was a final step that Michelangelo performed to tone down the colors by creating a “smoked glass” effect. Also, Michelangelo was deeply immersed in a specific type of fresco work and not alfresco agitato that did not tone down colors. Such arguments expose the restoration work to serious criticisms. This essay provides arguments supporting my claim that the twelve-year restoration project subtracted Michelangelo’s ultimate intention by removing a layer of shading and tonal qualities that were added sometime after his completion of the buon frescoes.
The first criticism of the restoration process is that it removed the glue that was supposed to provide density as well as a sense of atmosphere to the space captured in the frescoes. Ultimately, one can argue that Michelangelo used the glue for a reason. According to Gianluigi Colalucci, the addition of the glue to the painting was a final step or ultima mano, done to tone down the colors. He further notes the words of Biagio Biagetti, a painter who called for the consolidation of the uppermost layer of plaster in the ceiling. Biagio states that: “if and when I am able to address this issue, it will not be difficult to show that we see the colors of the Sistine Ceiling as if through smoked glass.” These words indicate that indeed, the glue was purposeful and should not have been removed. Proving that the glue was applied to the frescoes for a reason is the first step in showing that its removal was detrimental to the intentions of Michelangelo. Michael Daley, Director of Art Watch UK Online, argues that Michelangelo used varnish and glue to create an illusion of three-dimensional space as well as to add tonal value to his work. He provides compelling evidence to support this argument. For example, he provides an image of Michelangelo’s Prophet Jonah (see figure 1) towards this end. He shows a clear shadow behind Jonah’s left foot that could not have been coincidental or as a result of dirt and grime. The surrounding area around the shadow is consistently clean. Also, the shadow follows the same profile as that of the left foot. It is even bent at the point where it meets the horizontal floor. Michelangelo produced a light-and-dark system that modeled his figures in relief, causing them to develop shadows into the surrounding areas. This system is consistently evident in all of Michelangelo’s frescoes, particularly those of the Sistine Chapel. Daley argues that these shadows could not have emerged from the accumulation of candle soot, later restorers’ additions, or optical illusions from varnishes applied by later restorers.
Figure 1: A copy of Prophet Jonah by Michelangelo
An image of Prophet Jonah after restoration/ cleaning shows the shadow absent from the area behind the left foot. The only wise conclusion from this finding is that the restoration process is responsible for the removal of this shadow, an important tonal aspect of the painting. Also, as shown in figure 2, it is evident that some important features of Jonah’s left foot were lost during the cleaning process. The figure 2 shows that aspects such as the veins of the foot and the three-dimensional feel of the contours created by the artist’s use of light and dark. In figure 2, the image on the left-hand side represents the unrestored fresco, while the one on the right represents the restored one. The one on the left is a more realistic representation of a human foot than the one on the right. Also, the fabric on the left-hand side captures more detail than that on the right.
Figure 2: copies of the left foot of the Prophet Jonah before and after restoration of the fresco
The effects of removing the tonal qualities of Jonah’s left foot during the cleaning process are magnified throughout the entire restoration process. For example, the previous unity of tones between Michelangelo’s Last Judgment and its adjacent ceiling is considerably ruptured after the restoration as opposed to before. The dark areas that had been previously common to both were considerably vital to the development of spatial depth and atmosphere. In the section that had not been cleaned, the architectural elements surrounding the art had appeared brighter even before their surfaces were cleaned. This observation may be explained by the reasoning that all things are relative in art. An actual tone may be made darker or lighter by changing the tonal values of the surrounding surfaces. Michelangelo created dark pools in corners of the architectural borders to evoke the visual contrast of the recesses from which this art emerged. The cleaning process left the drapery colors seemingly floating about and only catching the viewer’s eyes arbitrarily. Charles hope remarked that “Restrained grandeur has been replaced by garish confusion.” This observation becomes particularly evident after looking at one of Michelangelo’s paintings (figure 2) as described in a 1987 cover of the Sunday Times. This image shows a composite juxtaposition of photographs indicating the degree of loss fostered by the cleaning process.
Figure 3: A copy of the cover page of the 20th December 1987 issue of the Sunday Times, showing the extent of tonal damage caused by the restoration
The second aspect of the restoration that underlines its destructive nature is that it removed some of the corrective procedures that Michelangelo had done to conceal his mistakes. The right foot of the artist’s Erythraean Sibyl in the Sistine Chapel ceiling revealed a “double foot” after cleaning. As shown in figure 4, it is evident that there are two outlines of the foot superimposed one over the other.
Figure 4: The right foot of Erythraean Sibylon by Michelangelo after cleaning
It is almost obvious that Michelangelo did not intend the foot to be visible in its present state. The painting in its present condition illustrates the result of a botched cleaning process or wrongful removal of surface paint. The surface paint that was removed in the restoration project represented a revised foot covering the incorrect one underneath. Now the destroyed foot has been copied in numerous graphic works, going against Michelangelo’s initial intentions. The evidence from Erythraean Sibylon shows that the restoration process removed a layer of shading that conceals the artist’s mistakes, and therefore, his intentions as represented by the fresco when he completed it.
The third argument to highlight the detrimental effect of the restoration is the loss of initial shading and color by an exposition of sensitive paint used in the buon frescoes. Michelangelo executed all his lunettes in buon fresco. Evidence has shown that he added secco retouchings as well as additions of a layer of glue. Their purpose was to harmonize the painting after the tobacco had dried too fast or when a Giornata differed considerably from that he had drawn the previous day. He made sure that he used only colors that were suitable to fresco. His greens are ferrous silicates. Also, he made corrections by coloring over other colors. He made these corrections using water colors. In figure 5 (Michelangelo’s Ezechias/Manasses lunette), it is clear that the restoration process is responsible for a considerable amount of injury on the painting because it removed the glue that had been preserving the corrective watercolor paint that Michelangelo used. One would argue that the restorers should have conducted more research than they did. They should have established how the removal of the glue affected the colors and other artistic elements of the artwork before doing it. Also, they should have investigated about the importance of the glue to the sanctity and preservation of the underlying layers of paintwork. It is clear from the results of the restoration that the project was more interested in revealing the vividness of the underlying layers of paint than the deleterious effects that such procedures would have to art that has been preserved for many centuries.
Figure 5: A detail of the mother showing the extent of restoration damage in Michelangelo’s Ezechias/Manasses/Amonlunette
Such damages to original paintwork are so detrimental that subsequent restorations have to be done. One of the biggest reasons for second-time restorations, according to art researchers is to undo the errors of previous restorations. In the Sistine Chapel, there have been no subsequent restorations, leaving the errors, such as is apparent in figure 4, very visible for interpretation. The figure 4 shows that green and yellow had been painted over flesh and costume in underlying layers. The yellow and green paint was most likely added to the flesh to conceal it for one reason or the other or to create a realistic feel that one could see through the very light fabric. Although the restoration may be regarded by some as important because it reveals the history of the artwork and the artist’s process, it destroyed important details that Michelangelo intended for his audience’s consumption. In its present condition, the painting, therefore, looks appalling at the section in which the deleterious nature of the washing is evident.
The fourth argument is that the cleaning agent used in the restoration effort was not only highly abrasive, but it was used copiously and in a wrong way. According to Robert Hughes in his text, “Out of Grime, a Domain of Light,” the cleaning agent that the restoration team used is AB-57. It comprises of sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, a gelling agent and a fungicide. This agent was further used together with a sodium salt of EDTA. EDTA helps in removing calcium compounds. Although the AB-57 solution is a bit dilute, it removed some of the paintworks. The agents used for cleaning are clearly abrasive and have had a considerably damaging effect on the artwork. Abrasive agents are not selective in their working. They scrub not only the dirt and grime they were initially intended to clean but also the underlying layers of paint that are central to the artwork’s intended effect. The evidence for these observations is presented in the painting The punishment of Haman (See figure 6) by Michelangelo that was later repaired by Domenico Carnavale, the renown painter in 1566.
Figure 6: The Punishment of Haman by Michelangelo showing the deleterious nature of the restoration that leaves an apparent disparity between Michelangelo’s work and Carnavale’s.
This painting had been damaged, losing a large wedge-shaped chunk of plaster in its central portion. The painter Carnavale had performed the repairs by replacing the plaster and painting it while it was still wet to match the adjoining colors that Michelangelo had initially painted. However, after the restoration/ cleaning effort centuries later, Carnavale’s original paintwork stopped matching the adjoining work by Michelangelo. The finishing glue and size additions came off as a result of copious washing using the abrasive cleaning agent, AB 57 in the process of restoration. Michelangelo’s initial paintwork was flat and bereft of sculptural or tonal variations. Carnavale had matched Michelangelo’s paintwork and used the glazing effect of the glue to blend in his section with that of Michelangelo. The abrasive removal of the surface glue had exposed the differences in the sections once more. These observations indicate that the restoration was detrimental, even though its initial purpose was to reveal the intricacies of the artwork in the Sistine Chapel.
Besides the above arguments indicating that the restoration had a detrimental effect to the frescoes, there are logical arguments to refute the claims made by the proponents of the restoration project. One of the defensive arguments that the restoration team provided after their work came into question is the claim that the cleaning agents they were using did not touch the fresco surface directly. However, compelling evidence has emerged to refute claims that the cleaning agents used did not come into contact with the fresco surface. This claim contradicts that made by the chief restorer that if the cleaning agent was left on the surface for a minute longer than required it would begin to devour the fresco surface as well as Michelangelo’s shading. The second reason given for the removal of the glue was that the glue layers were contracting and pulling plaster and pigment flakes from the frescoes. This claim was further refuted in 1991 after further investigations proved that the “flaking” process was slower than had been recorded in 1987. The third claim that is usually presented by proponents of the restoration process is that Michelangelo’s frescoes did not require any varnish or glue. They claim that the glue and varnish found on these paintings were applied by later artists, who misinterpreted the work and deemed it necessary to apply them. Such proponents then argue that the glue did not represent any addition of tonal value or preservation as a primary intention of Michelangelo. These claims may be refuted by showing the extent to which the removal of glue through restoration had damaged the artwork. One may argue that whether the glue was applied by Michelangelo, his contemporaries, or artists who came after him, the purpose of the glue was crucial to the frescoes and should not have been removed for any reason whatsoever. Another argument that proponents give is that the restoration made the colors more vivid than before and removed the darkness. However, this effort constitutes a departure from Michelangelo’s initial intentions.
Conclusion
The Sistine Chapel restoration project started in 1965. It was an initiative by Deoclecio Redig de Campos to bring together the renowned master restorers Fabrizio Mancinelli, Gianluigi Colalucci, Maurizio Rossi, Bruno Baratti and Giorgio Bonetti to clean Michelangelo’s famous frescoes and restore their original beauty and brilliance. However, as the results of the project would later reveal, the process was more detrimental than restorative. This essay provides arguments supporting my claim that the twelve-year restoration project subtracted Michelangelo’s ultimate intention by removing a layer of shading and tonal qualities that were added sometime after his completion of the buon frescoes. The first point of evidence in this regard is that the cleaning process removed the top layer of glue and varnish, thereby leading to loss of tonal value as well as the spatial qualities it enhanced in the artwork. The glue was Michelangelo’s ultima mano or final step. As such, its application represented the artist’s conscious and intentional effort to provide an element of tonal depth to the artwork. The cleaning process undoubtedly changed the intended outlook as shown by the figures cited in this paper. Secondly, the restoration removed some of the corrective procedures that Michelangelo had done to conceal his mistakes. It is normal for an artist to make mistakes in the process of creating their artwork. Artists use different methods to conceal their mistakes. It is not proper to reveal the artist’s concealment of mistakes because the outcome is usually far-removed from the artist’s initial purpose for the artwork. This error in judgment among the master restorers is visible in the artist’s fresco, Erythraean Sibyl. Thirdly, one may argue that the initial shading and color was lost during the restoration. Michelangelo added yellow or green paint over flesh in illustrations to enhance its realness. However, as shown in Michelangelo’s Ezechias/Manasses/Amonlunette, the abrasive cleaning agents used in the restoration had a deleterious effect on the artist’s final layers of paint. Also, there is evidence to show that the cleaning agent used for the restoration, an AB-57 solution, was too strong for the frescoes. Overall, these observations indicate that the restorative process ended up being deleterious on Michaelangelo’s initial artistic intentions.
Bibliography
Daley, Michael. "The Sistine Chapel Restorations: Part I ~ Setting The Scene, Packing Them In." Artwatch. Last modified 2013. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://artwatch.org.uk/the-sistine-chapel-restorations-part-i-setting-the-scene-packing-them-in/.
Daley, Michael. "The Sistine Chapel Restorations, Part II: How To Take A Michelangelo Sibyl Apart, From Top To Toes." Artwatch. Last modified 2013. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://artwatch.org.uk/the-sistine-chapel-restorations-part-ii-how-to-take-a-michelangelo-sibyl-apart-from-top-to-toes/.
Daley, Michael. "The Sistine Chapel Restorations, Part III: Cutting Michelangelo Down To Size." Artwatch. Last modified 2013. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://artwatch.org.uk/the-sistine-chapel-restorations-part-iii-cutting-michelangelo-down-to-size/.
Hartt, Frederick, Gianluigi Colalucci, Fabrizio Mancinelli, and Takashi Okamura. The Sistine Chapel. New York: Knopf in association with Nippon Television Network Corp., 1991.
Hughes, Robert. "Art: Out Of Grime, A Domain Of Light." TIME.Com. Last modified 2005. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964195,00.html.
Fabrizio Mancinelli. Report on the Restoration. Treviso: Canova, 2001.
Tanner, Henry. "Restoration reveals Michelangelo's Gifts." Nytimes.Com. Last modified 2016. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/31/arts/restoration-reveals-michangelo-s-gifts.html?pagewanted=all.
Zalewski, Daniel. "Restorers Or Vandals?". Archive.Wilsonquarterly.Com. Last modified 1998. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/restorers-or-vandals.
