Authenticity and values

[isabelle brajer]

Several weeks ago I uncovered a fragment of a painted decoration containing two scenes on the east wall of the nave in Selsoe Church in Denmark

The fragment was about 3 m2, located about 4 m over the floor level, in close proximity to the chancel arch opening, and contained two scenes:

The upper scene – The Bearing of the Cross - showed Christ stumbling with the cross over his shoulder. The figure of Simon of Cyrene is painted behind Christ to the left. He is lifting the lower part of the cross with both hands. To the right is a group of soldiers harassing Christ. One of them is lifting a hammer over Christ’s head. The lower scene depicts Maria and Anna, with the Infant Christ sitting on Anna’s lap. An inscription written in Danish painted above the heads of the figures reads: Jesus Maria Anna help me. The paintings can be dated by the style of footwear and clothing of the soldiers to the third decade of the 16th century. Two broad bands of black paint, possibly parts of a painted drapery or ribbons from a 17th century decoration were found on the lower part of the Maria and Anna scene.

This black paint is lying directly on the 16th century painting and is viewed by some (predominantly members of the church community and in particular the priest) as a visual disturbance, which mars the softly faded late Gothic figure scenes. The art historian responsible for antiquarian matters requested that this black paint be preserved together with the 16th century painting, as it shows that the earlier painting was still exposed about 100 years after the onset of the Reformation in Denmark, which took place in1536. This is an interesting fact, but another solution could have been to document the fragments of black paint and then covered them, so that they would be preserved beneath a thin layer of plaster. Bound by my obligation to respect the antiquarian authorities, I have preserved the black paint, but I was also forced to retouch lacunae to create a sense of unity, as the extreme contrast in value between the black paint and the losses attracted attention. I have now finished my work, leaving behind a painting that is not self-explanatory, which the church community is not satisfied with.

Modern conservators are trained to primarily focus on the preservation of the authentic physical substance of objects. At the same time new ideas about the raison d’être of our profession postulate that the ultimate goal of conservation is not to preserve the material aspects of a particular object, but to retain or improve the meaning it has for people.
Questions arise: Should we focus on the preservation of the genuine, i.e. original, material (material authenticity), even though the legibility of the artist’s intent or aesthetic aim (authenticity of form and design) is thereby compromised? Should we preserve and truthfully display all the changes and evolution the object has undergone since its creation (authenticity of age), even though these changes have altered the original appearance? To what extent should we respect the views of the general public – the consumers, for whom authenticity can have another meaning altogether and be linked to the more symbolic values and intangible properties of a work of art seen in its social setting (authenticity of spirit, feeling and memory)?
Is there or should there be a hierarchy of the various aspects of authenticity? Should the historical value always be the dominant value, as aesthetical values are more dependent on subjective evaluations?

Please post your reply with comments on this topic. Other case stories or topics for discussion of interest to members of the Theory and History in Conservation-Restoration Working Group are also very welcome.

[joanreif]

Interesting opening for discussion. The different approaches to "authenticity" vary not only from context to context but on a broader scale from country to country. It would be interesting to hear how different countries/areas handle these decisions.

In Italy, we generally work under a "Brandian" (Cesare Brandi) approach (at least when the work is listed) that tends towards trying to maintain an equally balanced approach to the historical components (passage of time, past interventions) and to the aesthetic components (the "original" aesthetic that encompasses both artists' intent and original materials). Not always an easy equilibrium. Brandi states that when the two may be in conflict or impossible to reconcile, the aesthetic component (istanza astetica) will usually take precedence over the historical (istanza storica), but in the end there is no hard and fast rule and each approach/work is individually addressed.

So I guess the question is: how is this decided in our different cultural environments? Do we tend to give different weight to the different factors mentioned in Isabelle's piece (public, location, purpose) in different realities? Who does the deciding and what weight do conservator-restorers have in these decisions?

If an "'addition"' that has been part of the work for decades/centuries is removed by us today, is photographic documentation of the removed area "enough" for future generations? How does our intervention impact both the past and the future?

So, no final answers - just the beginning of a discussion.

[isabelle brajer]

Yes, it is probably true that the decision-making process for aesthetic treatments is different from country to country. It is probably also different depending on the type of object being treated. For example, it struck me as I was reading Barbara Appelbaum’s book Conservation Treatment Methodology what a big emphasis was given to the relationship of the conservator and custodian, who could be a professional or private. Things are not so clear cut when working with public art, at least not within the area of medieval church art in Denmark. The churches are owned and run by democratically elected councils that change every three years. That means that sometimes the individuals one is speaking to in the planning phase for a larger project are not the same ones when the project is actually being carried out. The official custodian, when it comes to antiquarian questions, is an art historian at the National Museum. I recently did a survey of the views of the general public on wall painting restoration (Isabelle Brajer. ‘Values and opinions of the general public on wall paintings and their restoration: a preliminary study. Preprints of IIC International Congress, London 15-19 September. (2008), pp. 33-38.), and found out that an overwhelming majority of the users or viewers of wall paintings prefer highly restored paintings, where the images are easily legible. The most important value for them was the narrative value of the paintings. I think that Brandi’s guidelines form the core of the principles by which most conservators work. However, few art historians in Denmark are familiar with the teachings of Brandi. There is a very strong tradition for emphasizing the archaeological approach, which places material authenticity and historical value higher than aesthetic issues. I find this sometimes clashes with my own aesthetic sensibilities. However, I am also disturbed by when I encounter restorations done ‘to please the general public.’ We can ask ourselves what is the bottom line of the raison d’être of our profession: do we have an obligation to preserve the genuine physical substance of a given object (given that views about its appearance are subjective opinions, which can and have changed in time), or is it more important to find a way to make the objects we are treating understandable and appreciated by the viewers? The problem arises when the prioritising one of these goals excludes the other. As Joan stated, I also don’t think there are any easy answers for these questions. However, I was wondering whether conservators working both with public and private art feel a difference in approach. Do we have an inclination or pressure to comply with the wishes of the owner regarding the appearance of the object? The few times I worked outside of the public sphere, I did feel a greater compulsion to respect owner’s views.

[isabelle brajer]

Here is an example from the past of a church community that got what it wanted:

In Sanderum Church (island of Funen in Denmark) where I am currently re-restoring the wall paintings, there is a decoration on two vaults from ca. 1525. All four webs in the chancel are decorated, but in the nave, wall paintings are only visible on one of the four webs. The other three webs contain wall paintings, but they are hidden beneath limewash. The reason for this goes back to the year 1882, when the decoration was uncovered. The west web (visible today) contains various scenes dealing with the theme of the Holy Family. The north web contains a scene depicting St. Peter welcoming a group of women at Heaven’s Gate, as can be seen in a watercolour drawing from 1882 made by an artist (Figure 1). But the wrath of the church community was primarily directed against the scene on the south web. It contains a Doomsday scene, where devils are herding sinners to their eternal punishment in the Mouth of Hell, also documented on a watercolour drawing (Figure 2). The fourth and final web on the vault in the nave was never uncovered, probably in fear of what would be found there.


Figure 1. Watercolour drawing from 1882 documenting the currently limewashed scene on the north web in Sanderum Church.


Figure 2. Watercolour drawing from 1882 documenting the currently limewashed scene on the south web in Sanderum Church. Both of these watercolours were made by an artist, and one can detect 19th c. aesthetics in the rendering (particularly the eye of the monster, which is completely devoid of the medieval painting style).

The architect J.B. Løffler, who was leading the renovation of the church, and who probably uncovered the paintings himself, reported to the Director of the National Museum, J.J.A.Worsaae in a letter dated October 11, 1882 [my translation from Danish]:

…. It is not clear to me what is so objectionable in these wall paintings. The women entering Heaven’s Portal are, after the fashion of that time, presented in the nude. But nowhere has the artist attempted to emphasize the nakedness, quite the opposite, all the figures are bony and angular, undoubtedly in an attempt to precisely emphasize the fact that the corporeal is of no importance. Not the slightest trace of lavishness can be seen. Regarding the scene in the opposite web [Doomsday], we occasionally see exactly the same scene depicting the dammed souls suffering in Hell on our altarpieces and pulpits. The parish priest, Pastor Krarup told me that the figure of Satan had prominently eye-catching genitals, but this area was immediately covered [with limewash], so that in its present form, it can hardly contain anything offensive.
In respect to what I have reported here I permit myself to recommend that all of these paintings be preserved, and where necessary, given a slight restoration…and the limewash be removed from the east web.

This never happened. Instead, limewash was applied to the north and south vaults. Apparently, the will of the church community members triumphed over the architect's. Unfortunately, there is no written documentation following Løffler’s letter to Worsaae that could have recorded the church community’s indignation. But it is fortunate that an artist was hired to document the two scenes. Maybe Løffler had a premonition.

Ironically, the members of the present church community are extremely interested in having the paintings on these three webs uncovered again, but will probably have trouble raising the necessary funds. Prudery is a thing of the past.

Isabelle Brajer

[mireille te marvelde]

With great interest I have read Isabelle's forum post "Authenticity and values", regarding the uncovering of a painted decoration in the nave of Selsoe Church in Denmark. Isabelle presented interesting questions about the different approaches to authenticity that one can deal with in the described situation. I agree with her and Joan Reifsnyder that there are no easy general answers and that the decision-making process for aesthetic treatments is different from country to country as well as depending on the type of object being treated. The reasons behind those differences are rooted in the cultural background, like the Brandian approach in Italy that Joan refers to.
However, I have the feeling that often the roots for ways of thinking in conservation are not understood and reflected on anymore, and as a result they have become kind of an 'a priori' consideration. I have the impression that (in many countries) this highly counts for the historical value. I have experienced many times that the historical value was considered the most important and in many of those instances there was no other reasoning behind this evaluation than that additions to or damages in artworks were 'historical'. Old additions or specific damages can have such important meaning that they can be considered as an integral part of the artwork. But it is important to research and evaluate this meaning and consider it within the total concept of values.
I feel that the art historian who decided in Selsoe Church that the bands of black paint should be kept, did not reason from a larger concept of values and problems involved, other than the historical value. The awareness that conservation can lead to conclusions about the history of an artwork, or even contribute to knowledge about more general aspects of history is an important acquisition of our profession. But, it should not necessarily lead to implications regarding the aesthetical appearance. In the case of the remains of the black bands, those bands do not tell the story by themselves in any way (that the earlier painting was still exposed about 100 years after the onset of the Reformation in Denmark). To the spectator they may be nothing but disturbing patches. In this case I would fully agree with Isabelle's idea that after the interpretation had been done the remains could have been documented and then covered with a thin layer of plaster. In that way the historical information and even the historical material itself would have been kept intact while the story may be told, without disturbing the image in an incomprehensible way.
According to my view there should not be a hierarchy of the various aspects of authenticity, but they should all at first be taken into account equally. They should then all be weighed and arguments will have to be formulated for their importance, before any decision can be taken about what is the most important value in one particular case. I know that this can be very difficult and sometimes impossible, but the most important thing is that we keep thinking and that we try not to be guided automatically by one specific value.

Mireille te Marvelde

[sanjaydhar]

In conservation practice I am often reminded of a story from the Aesop fables about the father, son and donkey;
the moral of the story if I remember correctly is that one can not please everyone so one should conduct one self in a moral manner that is just and equitable.
What is striking in the issue being discussed is that at the end of the campaign...the stakeholders
a) the church community is dissatisfied
b) the conservator is dissatisfied
c) the authorities implemented a rule so there is no saying if they had an opinion..let us assume they were satisfied
but the most important stakeholder is the wall and the artist...
It would be easy to claim that Brandi's approach does look into this aspect...
but reality is probably different because it is after all an assigned meaning and their is no reason that yours is not better than mine or vice versa.
Much as we talk today of differing communities and traditions...respect etc..etc
But the question really is, are what we call basic principles not so basic..?
I would have trouble giving this argument up for the sake of a wonderful diverse bouquet...of cultures, diversity and assigned meaning....that are on a daily basis depleting our cultural inheritance on account of an intelligent self serving argument!!
If anything the values are the same and the self interests that guide a lot of decisions are similarly motivated....it is only the intensity that may vary and also the consequences of such decisions.
So one asks, 'Is it better to have rules that leave less to interpretation (may not be satisfactory) or should individual or collective tastes decide what tomorrow any way may be perceived as a wrong decision?'