The fresco conservation of the Sistine Chapel is one of the most significant conservation restoration of the 20th century.
The Sistine Chapel was built by Pope Sixtus IV at the Vatican immediately north of St. Peter's Basilica and completed in about 1481. The walls were decorated by a number of Renaissance painters who were one of the most respected artists in Italy in the late 15th century. , including Ghirlandaio, Perugino, and Botticelli. The chapel was further enhanced under Pope Julius II by painting the ceiling by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512 and by the painting of the Last Judgment, commissioned by Pope Clement VII and completed in 1541, again by Michelangelo.. Rugs at the lowest level, today best known from Raphael Cartoon (painted design) 1515-16, complete ensemble.
Together the paintings form the largest pictorial scheme of the Renaissance. Personally, some of Michelangelo's paintings on the ceiling are one of the most famous works of western art ever made. The frescoes of the Sistine Chapel and especially the ceilings and lunettes attached to it by Michelangelo have been subjected to a number of restorations, most recently occurring between 1980 and 1994. This latter restoration has had an enormous effect on art lovers and historians, such as color and detail which has not been seen for centuries has been revealed. It has been claimed that as a result "Every book on Michelangelo has to be rewritten". Others, like the art historian James Beck of ArtWatch International, have been very critical of the restoration, saying that the restorators have not realized the true intentions of the artist. This is a topic of ongoing debate.
Video Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes
Previous restoration
The frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel had a number of interventions before the restoration process that began in 1980. The initial problem with the ceiling seemed to be caused by water passing through the floor above. Around 1547 Paolo Giovio wrote that the ceiling was being damaged by saltpetre and cracks. The effect of saltpetre is to leave white crystallisation. Gianluigi Colalucci, Head of Recovery at the Laboratory for Painting Restoration for the Pontifical Monument, Museum, and Gallery, stated in his essay the color of Michelangelo was rediscovered that the early conservators treated this cosmetically with the application of flaxseed or walnut oil that had the effect of making a deposit crystal more transparent.
In 1625, the restoration was done by Simone Lagi, a "digger", who wiped the ceiling with linen and cleaned it by rubbing it with bread. She sometimes had to wet her bed to remove stubborn accent. His report stated that the fresco "was returned to their previous beauty without accepting any danger". Colalucci stated that More "almost certainly" applied a layer of glue-varnish to revive colors but did not state this in his report for the benefit of "preserving the secrets of their [restorers]".
Between 1710 and 1713 the further restoration was done by painter Annibale Mazzuoli and his son. They used a sponge dipped in Greek wine which Colalucci claimed was demanded by the increase of dirt caused by soot and dirt trapped in the greasy deposits of previous restorations. Mazzuoli then worked on the ceiling, according to Colalucci, reinforcing the contrast with overpainting details. They also painted some areas whose color was lost due to salt fertilization. The painting area is hatched or treated with linear brush strokes. Colalucci stated that Mazzuoli also applied a lot of glue varnish. The restoration is concentrated in the ceiling and less attention is given to the lunettes.
The second recovery from behind was done by the Vatican Museum Recovery Laboratory between 1935-1938. The scope of work is to consolidate some intonaco areas at the eastern end of the building and remove some of the soot and dirt.
Maps Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes
Modern Restoration
Initial experimentation for modern restoration began in 1979. The recovery team consisted of Gianluigi Colalucci, Maurizio Rossi, Piergiorgio Bonetti, and others, who took their guidance of the Rules for the Restoration of Art as defined in 1978 by Carlo Pietrangeli, director of the Vatican Laboratory for Image Recovery, which regulates the procedures and methods used in the recovery. An important part of modern restoration procedures, as defined by these rules, is the study and analysis of artwork. Part of this is the recording of each stage of the restoration process. This was done by photographer Takashi Okamura for Nippon Television Network Corporation.
Between June 1980 and October 1984 the first phase of restoration, work on the Michelangelo lunettes, was reached. The focus of the work was then transferred to the ceiling, which was completed in December 1989 and from there to the Last Judgment. This restoration was inaugurated by Pope John Paul II on April 8, 1994. The final stage was restoration of the fresco wall, approved in 1994 and inaugurated on 11 December 1999.
Purpose of conservator
The conservator's goals are as follows:
- To learn fresco progressively, to analyze any invention and utilize the right technical response.
- To record every step of operation in archive, photo and movie reports.
- Using only simple procedures and materials, is tested extensively, harmlessly and can be restored.
- To repair cracks and structural damage that threaten the stability of the cast.
- To remove the dirt layer composed of wax and soot that has been deposited by the burning of candles in the chapel for 500 years.
- To remove repainting by previous restorations that try to eliminate the effects of soot and other accretion.
- To remove animal oils and fats used to counteract the salination of areas where water leaks.
- To remove the increase of crystal salts that have white areas where water has leaked.
- To save surfaces that are in danger of further damage due to bubbles, and peeling.
- To sympathetically recover areas where such a decline or another has removed the detail and resulted in a loss of integrity as a whole, for example, filling a bad crack and painting the plaster in a color that matches the original.
- To defend in a small, undefined area, a physical history record of previous restorations has occurred.
Preparation and approach
In 1979, Colalucci conducted a series of experiments to find the right approach to restoration of the Sistine Chapel's fresco. The investigation began by examining a small area of ​​the fresco wall, The conflict over the body of Moses by Matteo de Lecce, which has physical and chemical attributes similar to the painting techniques used on the Michelangelo frescoes. The experiment to find the right solvent was continued on a fraction of Eleazar and Matthan lunette.
Due to the height of the ceiling and inaccessibility of the fresco ceiling, the exact nature of the damage and problems to be faced by the restoration team can not be fully predicted until after the decision to restore is taken, and the scaffolding is in place. According to Colalucci, advanced scientific analysis and recovery responses to specific problems are an ongoing part of the process, and not a conservation team that decides on one treatment for each part of the building.
In 1980, the decision to make a total restoration has been done. Nippon Television Network Corporation of Japan provided a massive $ 4.2 million in exchange for the filming rights.
Scaffold
The restoration team completed the first phase of the restoration, on a vertical surface and spandrels curved around the top of the window, from scaffolding the aluminum projecting from just below the lunettes and using the same hole in the wall that had been made for Michelangelo scaffolding. As they move to the ceiling, they also use a system similar to Michelangelo, which involves racking the shelves out of the scaffold to support a stepped and curved platform. The advantages of modern lightweight means that the platform can be spurred, facilitating easy movement along the building rather than disassembly and replacement, as Michelangelo did in 1506.
Condition fresko
The findings of the 1979 investigation were that the entire inner chapel, especially the ceiling, was covered with wax dust consisting of wax and soot (amorphous carbon). Above the window (the main source of ventilation), the lunettes are heavily stained from the city's smoke and exhaust fumes, being "much dirtier than the right ceiling". The building was a bit unstable and had shifted long before Michelangelo's work in 1508, causing the cracking of the ceiling, the crack in the "Judith" reconciliation became so large that it had to be filled with bricks and mortar before painting. The top of the ceiling provides Michelangelo an irregular surface due to cracks and water seepage.
The continuous influx of water from the roof and from the uncoated exterior sidewalk above the ceiling level has caused the seepage that brings salt from the mortar and deposits it on the ceiling by evaporation. In these places causes the surface of the fresco to become bubbles and lift. Although color change is a serious problem, bubbles do not swell, because the thinness and transparency of the paint used by Michelangelo on most of the ceilings allows the salt to pass through and not accumulate beneath the surface.
Previously restoration has left marks on frescos. To combat the bleaching caused by salinations, animal fats and vegetable oils have been applied, which effectively make transparent salt crystals, but leave a sticky coating that accumulates impurities. The additional problem, most clearly in the small putti holding nameplates in pendentives, is the saltpetre seeping through tiny cracks and appearing as dark rings on the surface. In contrast to white crystalline salt deposits, this can not be removed and the coloration can not be changed. Layers of varnish and glue have been applied to many areas. It has become dark and becomes opaque. Restoration has repainted the details in the dark area to determine the feature of the figure. This is especially true for lunettes, spandrels and the bottom of pendentives.
Close examination showed that regardless of the smoky sediments, seepage deposits and structural cracks, the thin "skin of images" of Michelangelo's paintings are in excellent condition. Colalucci described Michelangelo as using the best fresco technique, as described by Vasari. Most of the paint is well embraced and requires little retouching. Plaster, or intonaco, where the paintings were executed were found, for the most part, to be safe, since the restoration had previously been repaired in place with bronze pins.
Interventions
Prior to the restoration, the team spent six months investigating the composition and condition of the fresco, questioning team members who had restored the frescoes in the 1930s and made detailed scientific studies to ensure which solvents and methods were best used on specially painted surfaces..
The first stage of physical restoration is to reattach the surface area of ​​the cast (which is approximately 5 mm thick) in danger of separating and disengaging. This is done by injecting a polyvinylacetate resin. Previous bronze wires that have been used to stabilize surfaces are removed in places where they cause cracks, and holes are filled. Pigments that do not seem to be well embedded are consolidated with the application of diluted acrylic resin.
Restoration of surface wash using various solvents. Distilled water is used wherever possible to remove soot and dissolve water-soluble gums. Retouching and repainting that has been part of the restoration is then removed with gelatin solvent, applied in several stages for measured time, and washed with distilled water. Calcium carbonate crystalline salts are treated by the application of dimethylformamide solutions. The final step is the application of weak acrylic polymer solutions to consolidate and protect the surface, and further leaching.
Where needed some areas in the retouch in watercolor, to integrate pictorial materials. These areas are specially textured with vertical brush strokes, not visible from a distance but easily seen as a restoration job when viewed closely.
Some of the remaining small areas are not stored, to keep physical records of previous restorations that have occurred, for example, the remaining areas with excess candles and candles, and other areas that indicate an attempt to fight the salinations with oil.
Environmental protection from fresco
So many layers of wax, varnish, and animal glue were removed from the surface of the Sistine Chapel's wall paintings, they were subjected to dangers unpredictable by previous restorations.
One of the main hazards to the fresco is automotive disposal, and they are also vulnerable to the effects of the tourist crowds passing through the chapel every day, bringing heat, humidity, dust, and bacteria (the latter of which can decompose paints and pigments). Cleaner plaster surfaces are more dangerous than these destructive elements than when they are covered with a layer of smoky wax.
Before, the only ventilation of the Sistine Chapel was from its windows on the top floor of the wall. To prevent exhaust fumes and incoming wind pollutants, the windows are now permanently closed and air conditioning systems have been installed. The installation was carried out by Carrier of United Technologies Corporation and developed under the cooperation of the Vatican Technical Services Office. It has been designed to address various special problems for the Chapel, in particular the rapid change of heat and humidity that occurs with the reception of the first crowd of travelers each morning and the last visitors departure each afternoon. Air conditioning varies not only heat but also relative humidity between summer and winter so that the changing atmospheric environment occurs gradually. The air near the ceiling is kept at a moderate level, while the air at the bottom of the building is cooler and circulates faster, with the effect of dirt particles falling to the floor rather than being flowed up. Bacteria and chemical pollutants are filtered.
Environmental specifications:
- Air filtration unit: remove particles to 0.1 micrometer
- The air temperature: 20Ã, Â ° C (68Ã, Â ° F) in summer, moves gradually up to 25Ã, Â ° C (77Ã, Â ° F) in winter.
- Relative humidity in the ceiling: 55% Ã, Â ± 5%.
- Sensor: 92, which is about half that for backup purposes.
- Cable: 26 km (85,000 ft)
Response to recovery
Criticism and praise
When the Sistine Chapel restoration was announced, it sparked a barrage of questions and objections from art historians around the world. One of the most vocal of these critics is James Beck, of ArtWatch International, who issued repeated warnings about the possible damage to Michelangelo's work from excessive restoration. The argument used repeatedly is that all previous interventions have caused damage or the like. Every restoration, as opposed to conservation, puts a work of art at risk. Conservation, on the other hand, assists in the preservation of work in the present state and prevents further deterioration. Beck has written about his concerns at the Restoration of Arts, Culture, Business and Scandal.
In the rhetoric of this conversation, [conservators] say that the previous recovery is not good - now we're going to make a really good one. It's like having a facelift. How many times have people passed one without their poor faces looking like orange peel?
While James Beck became "involved in public debates" with Gianluigi Colalucci, Ronald Feldman, a New York art dealer, started a petition backed by 15 famous artists including Robert Motherwell, George Segal, Robert Rauschenberg, Christo and Andy Warhol for Pope John Paul II to stop the procedure and also the recovery of Leonardo da Vinci Last Supper .
An attempt by the restoration team is that everything will be dealt with transparently, that journalists, art historians and others with bona fide interests must have ready access to information and to see work. However, one company, Nippon Television Network Corporation, owns a single photography rights. Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic of The New York Times, wrote in 1991 that criticism of the restoration of the ceiling and lunettes was partly driven by the unwillingness of the Nippon Television Network to publish the photographs. that they have taken exclusive rights, which have recorded every stage of the process and which is the only solid proof that the work is done appropriately.
According to Kimmelman, the reason for their reluctance to produce detailed photographs, which can stop the worst fears of many interested parties, is the company's intention to produce large copies of the second edition of the limited edition. book ("as big as a coffee table"). This book, when produced sells for US $ 1,000. Kimmelman refers to the fact that these photos are only available to a handful of people who can afford the exorbitant prices as "immoral" and "immoral".
As the work is getting better, there are happy people; Pope John Paul II speaks his first homily after each stage. In December 1999, after the completion of the fresco wall, he said:
It would be difficult to find a more eloquent visual commentary on this biblical image than the Sistine Chapel, whose magnificence we can enjoy today thanks to the newly restored restoration. Our joy is shared by believers around the world, who not only appreciate this place because of the masterpiece it contains, but also for the role it plays in the life of the Church.
Cardinal Edmund Szoka, governor of Vatican City, said: "This restoration and the expertise of the restoration allows us to reflect on paintings as if we had been given an opportunity to be present when they were first shown."
Other writers are less flattering. Andrew Wordsworth of The Independent , London, stated the main concerns:
There seems to be little doubt that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is partially painted secco (ie, after dry plaster), but no less restorator decides that radical cleaning is necessary, given the amount of accumulated dirt (especially from wax fumes). As a result, the ceiling now has a very clear look, with beautiful colors but no color - a very different effect from Michelangelo's very sensual statue.
This very important point is also emphasized by Beck and is defined in terms that are very clearly expressed on the artist's website, Peter Layne Arguimbau.
Issues raised by critics
The most sad part of the restoration in the Sistine Chapel is the ceiling, painted Michelangelo. The appearance of the brightly colored Christenes of darkness triggered a fearful reaction that the process used in the purge was too severe. Despite warnings, work on the ceiling continues and, according to critics such as James Beck, their worst fears are confirmed once the ceiling is over.
The cause of disagreement lies in the analysis and understanding of techniques used by Michelangelo, and the technical response of the restoration to their understanding of such techniques. A close examination of lunettes paintings convinced the restorers that Michelangelo worked exclusively in "buon fresco"; that is, the artist works only on the newly stacked casts and every part of the work is done while the plaster is still fresh. In other words, Michelangelo did not succeed "secco"; she will not come back later and add detail to the dry cast.
The restorers, assuming that the artist takes a universal approach to painting, take a universal approach to restoration. A decision was made that all layers of animal glue shadows and "black lights", all waxes, and all overpainted areas were contamination of one kind or another: smoke deposits, early restoration efforts and definitions painted by subsequent restorations. in an effort to enliven the performance of the work. Based on this decision, according to Arguimbau's critical reading of the restoration data already provided, the chemist of the restoration team decides on a solvent that will effectively disarm the ceiling into impregnated paint plaster. After treatment, only the painted "buon fresco" will remain.
According to the critics, the inherent problem with this approach is that it relies heavily on the assumption that Michelangelo only paints buon fresco, that he is always satisfied with the result at the end of the day, and that in four and a half years spent in the sky -lastly, it attaches exclusively to one approach, and never makes small changes or adds detail. Arguimbau, on his website, quotes Colalucci, the head of the team, as opposed to himself in this matter.
A summary of the relevant Colalucci statements, in the order that they occur in the Appendix entitled the revealed colors of Michelangelo are as follows:
- Old restorers who had taken part in the 1930s recovery were interviewed as part of the preparation process. They claim that Michelangelo works on a secco fresco using a velature or glaze as a binder. Colalucci rejects this, stating that Michelangelo works exclusively at buon fresco . Colalucci then contradicts this by stating that Michelangelo has worked secco , but "to a minimum" and "not at all in lunettes".
- Colalucci then spoke of Michelangelo's "tight maintenance" on buon fresco techniques, contradicts this by explaining Michelangelo's retouching a secco to Eleazar's shoulders and Reboam's legs, both inside the lunettes. He then says that Michelangelo works in buon fresco with "no" pentimenti proper ", (pentimenti means change) but only a small correction in the fresco.
The ongoing criticism is that thinkers are supposed to know what the teacher wants to achieve in each case apart from the ceiling, and by what method he seeks to achieve. Disagreements about this have been incessant and unsolved.
Carbon black issue
Restoration takes for granted that all layers of fat and soot on the ceiling are the result of wax fumes. Contrary to this view, James Beck and many artists suggest that Michelangelo use black carbon in a glue sweep to lay shadows and a sharp dark definition, secco. If this is the case, then most have been removed in the restoration.
However, in some pictures, there is still clear evidence of paintings in carbon black. The obvious explanation for this is that during the long period that Michelangelo was at work, he may, for various reasons, vary his technique. Matters that may affect the degree of completion achieved at a particular giornata include heat and humidity during the day and the duration of the day. Whatever the reason for the difference, the differences in the approach to light and shadow in each figure are clearly visible.
There is still an intense shadow area that makes Cumaean Sibyl relieved. But it is more than help; it is the three dimensions expected by art lovers to be seen in the work of man who carved Moses. Critics of the restoration claim that this is the goal of Michelangelo and many frescoes have a very bright contrasting color placed side by side which is then worked on secco to achieve this effect and this is what has been lost. by cleaning too thoroughly.
Consistently missing from the restored ceiling is the crisp architectural detail of secco: shell mussels, seeds and ornaments of "beads and reels" that Michelangelo might leave behind to be completed by an assistant when he moves to the panel next. The treatment of this detail varies greatly. In some places, around Spandrel Ezekias, for example, architectural details are painted buon fresco and remain intact.
Comparison of two spandrels shows different post-restoration status. The ones on the left have shadows and details that are defined in black. The green robes with yellow highlights have been washed in black and determined with dark shadows. On the fictitious architecture each motif is chosen in black. The boy's eyes are black and white. The constant presence of these details indicates that they were finished while the plaster was wet. The whole right spandrel has an unfinished look. Before cleaning it there is also a black shadow of robes and sharp detail on the architecture.
At the point of incentives, each representing a violent subject, the removal of black carbon has reduced the dramatic intensity of the four scenes. This is especially evident in the depth of depth in Haman's punishment . Where so proudly projected figure against the dark interior, now for definitions, definitions and plays are lost in the remaining pastel monotony.
Color
The curator, Fabrizio Mancinelli, quoted an 18th-century French tourist De Lalande by saying that the ceiling coloration, at that time, was monotonous, "tending toward red and dull gray". Mancinelli writes that the restoration reveals "the new Michelangelo" as a dye and that "this new character is much more understanding of its historical position". He goes on to say that the perceptive viewers of the Sistine Chapel ceiling are always aware that the colors used are very different from those seen, and include the same pink, green apple, orange, yellow and pale blue employed by Michelangelo's teacher Domenico Ghirlandaio, one of the most competent fresco painters of the Renaissance.
The brilliant palette should have been expected by the restorators because the same color range appears in the works of Giotto, Masaccio and Masolino, Fra Angelico and Piero della Francesca, as well as Ghirlandaio himself and fresco painters such as Annibale Carracci and Tiepolo. The reason for using these colors is many other pigments that can not be used in frescoes because they have chemical properties that react badly in interactions with wet plaster. The visible color missing from Michelangelo's ceiling, but not The Last Judgment , is an intense blue layer of lazuli. This color, achieved by grinding semi-precious stones, is always used as a secondary stage, secco , along with gold leaf used as haloes and ornaments for robes.
The most unexpected aspect of coloring is Michelangelo's shadow treatment. The paintings of Libyan Sibyl and Prophet Daniel, which are adjacent, are exemplary. In the yellow dress of Sibyl, Michelangelo has bright yellow highlights, passing a deeper yellow graded tone to pale orange, dark orange and almost red in the shadows. While the red shadow itself is unusual in frescoes, gradations through adjacent parts of the spectrum are quite natural solutions. On Daniel's robe, there is no such soft gradation. The yellow coat of his robes became suddenly dark green in the shadows, while the mauve had a very red shadow. This combination of colors, best described as colorful, can be found in various places on the ceiling, including the young man's hoop on the lunette's pink green and purple.
In some instances, color combinations look tacky: this is especially true of the prophet Daniel. Comparisons of "recoverable" and "non-refundable" numbers provide strong evidence that Michelangelo is working above this figure in black carbon leaching, and that the technique has been pre-planned. The bright red color used on Daniel's robes and Libyan Sibyl does not, by itself, create an effective shadow. In this case and many other cases seem to have been intended as underpainting, to be seen only through a thin black leaching and with the deepest shadow selected in more intense black color, as they are still in Cumaean Sibyl. The use of bright and contrasting colors as underpainting is not a common feature of the fresco, but it is commonly used in oil paintings and tempera. Like Daniel, Sibyl's yellow outfit from Libya was once much more subtle in its creases and shadows than it is today.
There is absolutely no doubt that before the restoration, the entire ceiling was dirtier, more calm and more monochrome than Michelangelo wanted, but when the fresco images were seen in a stained and non-dry state, delicate washing and strong definition, described by Beck. and Arguimbau, still making their presence known, giving mass and mass on the forms.
The painter and biographer Giorgio Vasari, in his book Lives of the Artists, describes the figure of Jonah as it appeared in the mid-16th century:
"Then who is not filled with admiration and admiration at the magnificent scenery of Jonah, the last figure in the chapel? The dome naturally comes forward, following the arch of the stone, but through the power of art it seems to be straightened by the figure of Jonah, who veers in the opposite direction , and therefore lost by the art of design, with its light and shadow, the ceiling even seemed to recede. "
The great character of Jonah is essential to the total composition, both pictorial and theological, as a symbol of the Risen Christ. The figure occupies the atonement that rises from the altar wall to prop the dome, and retreats backward, his eyes turning toward God. The foreshortening described by Vasari is innovative and very influential for later painters. The cleansing of this important figure has left some of the remaining black shadows visible on the left side of the painting. Other black lines and other washes, less intense, have been removed, reducing the impact of radical foreshortening, as well as robbing large fish, genii behind Jonah, and very detailed architectural figures.
Eyes
The missing depth is not the only factor criticized by critics. An important feature of Michelangelo's work that, in many places, has disappeared forever is the painting of the eyeball. Eyes appear in many instances that have been painted buon fresco . Wherever they have not painted buon fresco but added secco , they have been removed by the restoration.
They are an important part of the most impressive and famous fresco, Adam's Creation . Adam looked at the Lord. God looked directly at Adam. And under God's protective arm, Eve turned her eyes aside in an expression of admiration for her future husband. Many times, Michelangelo painted while staring at the faces of his characters. The family eye sockets in the Zorobabel lunette are as empty as the men's eyes in the lunette Aminadab, but the abolition that has caused the greatest distress to the critics is the small, green-and-white figure eyes that once seemed out of the gloom over Jesse's lunette.
Arguimbau mengatakan:
Have you ever felt that some things never fade away and remain an inspiration all the time? It was the Sistine Chapel, which now chemically unleashes divine inspiration and looks very out of place.... It is the restorer's duty not to change the artist's intentions, but the scientist can not help himself. Who cares if Colalucci finds Michelangelo as a colorist and can explain Colorist trends from Pontormo and Rossi. The job is to make sure it sticks there and lets it go. In comparing before and after photos there is plenty of evidence that the Colalucci removed the 'secco' part and left many areas faint and thin and. [ sic ] Evidence of a change of artist's intentions is the omission of many.
Richard Serrin, in an essay entitled Lies and Mistakes, Sistine Chapel Gianluigi Colalucci Revisited says:
The [so-called] Glorious Restoration of Michelangelo frescoes have destroyed them forever. What we say now can not revive them. We can only speak to document the accountability of the Vatican restoration so as not to escape unrecognized.
Restoring light
Carlo Pietrangeli, former Director General of the Vatican Museum, wrote about the recovery: "It's like opening a window in a dark room and seeing it flooded with light." His words resonate with Giorgio Vasari who, in the 16th century, says of the Sistine Chapel ceiling:
No other work can compare with this to excellence... The ceiling has proved a real flare for our art, an invaluable benefit to all painters, restoring light to a world that for centuries has fallen into darkness.
Pietrangeli, in the introduction to The Sistine Chapel, written after the restoration lunettes, but before the restoration of the ceiling, praised those who had the courage to begin the process of recovery, and thank not only those who visited the restoration when is in the process and benefits from their knowledge and experience, but also those who are critical of the company. Pietrangeli made an acknowledgment that these people spurred the team to do careful documentation so that a full report of the criteria and methods should be available to those interested in both the present and the future.
See also
- Index of related articles Vatican City
Footnote
References
Media related to Chapistine Sistine Chapel's Restoration on Wikimedia Commons
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments