ART QUEST
[copy right Metroland Newspapers Published Nov. 99]
A comment made in a recent film regarding art got me thinking. The comment was that people buy signatures not art, and that it's simply an autograph hobby, which pays huge dividends if you can get the right one.
Food for thought and I think very close to the truth.
Many years ago I read a book by an art expert that speculated that at least 20 %, "conservative" , of the art in the Louvre were reproductions and attributed to the actual artist when in fact they were fakes. Years ago a supposedly prolific painter, Titian had an amazing number of works hanging in galleries all over the world. In recent years, the number has been declining since new methodology involving spectral analysis etc. has conclusively proved many of the works, attributed to Titian, to be fakes. Sadly many galleries paid unbelievable sums for the works and now have a wonderful reproduction but a reproduction, none the less. In fact the words supply and demand are becoming the 'buzz words" in the art community.
This also leads to other considerations in which people take umbrage. Recently, the Last Supper, painted by Leonard Da Vinci was "restored" by restoration experts.
Here is the dilemma and criticism, which is at the heart of the matter.
On the "leave it alone side" people who have looked at the Last Supper for years now find it totally unrecognisable since artists, in years gone by, attempted to correct damage done by processes that even in Leonardo's day were causing the painting to quickly deteriorate. People argue that this is part of the painting's history and the sum total, since it happened centuries ago, is what the painting has become. They then argue, in muted tones, that this is the doing of the Getty museum trust. The trust having untold amounts of money have many paintings in inventory that would be appraised at a much higher value if the most recognisable paintings in the world were made almost unrecognisable by 'restorers'.
On the "let's see what Leonardo really painted side" well, the painting is but a shadow of it's former self. It has faded images undoubtedly by the masters' hand but if Leonardo were to see it today, surely he would weep. One of the arguments is a change in expression in one of the apostles. This side says SEE we never knew that this saint had a different expression. This is what Leonardo painted so regardless of what people for centuries have ASSUMED was the painting of the Last Supper, they now can rejoice. They now can see only the master's hand in what is left of a world art treasure.
The other side argues that if you play out this restorative technique then many of the worlds art treasures will simply vanish and lastly they argue, what if they' re wrong? What if Leonardo had an assistant do some of the work? What if the assistant worked under Leonardo's direction? What if we are removing pieces of a painting based on the wrong criteria and it is now lost forever! NO future restoration can fix that damage. Well, if you just took a collective 'GULP' the stakes are now "in plain site". You are the judge, but sadly, it's already too late. The restoration in nearing completion.
ALL comments
are welcome :)
