Comment by antognini | Hacker News Reader

Comment by antognini | Hacker News Reader

It is amazing how the effects of age end up coloring our interpretation of art. The faded colors and lines of old pieces seem to lend an air of gravitas. When we see the paintings restored to their original colors, it can often feel like some of that gravitas has been removed and the colors become garish and the shapes cartoonlike.

After the restoration of the Sistine Chapel, a number of art historians were shocked at the results. Many had assumed that the darkened, muted palette they were used to was intentional. (A few examples: [1] [2])

The restoration of the Ghent altarpiece by Jan van Eyck changed the lamb at the center of the piece in a way that lots of people have found... bizarre and slightly disturbing [3].

And the strangest example is probably Greek architecture and statuary, which we today consider to be the height of dignity and gravitas, but were originally brightly painted. [4] But if we were to paint the Parthanon bright primary colors like the Googleplex, would we be recovering something or losing something? It feels like a bit of both.

[1]: https://external-preview.redd.it/I4wkSd0S_hGySQbGLAtITMMPJq-...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gardenbeforeandafter.jpg

[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51205614

[4]: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180119-when-the-parthe...

Prob the best example is actually the Mona Lisa. A duplicate made at the same time, probably by a pupil, was discovered and shows how truly amazing the Mona Lisa could have been. The cloth actually looks translucent in the painting and the colors vibrant and cheerful.

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146288063/painting-sheds-new-...

The BBC has a show called The Repair Shop, where people submit their old wares and heirlooms to be restored by specialist artisans. In most episodes there are paintings involved, and the first thing the specialist restorer does is to strip away layers of old varnish. The results are typically spectacular: colours become vibrant again, right off the bat, completely changing the mood of the composition.

I’m sure there is a Louvre team dedicated to maintaining Mona Lisa so this will sound like an idiot request, but: maybe it’s time to do something like that for the old girl…?

One of my favourite YouTube channels is Baumgartner Restoration. He’s a fine art restorer, and his videos are well-produced mini documentaries that show the restoration process from cleaning to retouching to varnishing and framing.

Was just about to post this https://www.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration

So, as I understand it the problem with the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is that layers of paints have already been stripped and damaged (the layering of very thin coats of paint is the signature of Leonardo's technique) and the varnish itself has been carefully applied by Leonardo and is somewhat part of the painting. Add that the wood panels it's on have contorted and you've got an extremely difficult piece to restore. It's better to act very conservatively with it.

They definitely play this up on The Repair Shop, though. They tend to super saturate the video on the "after" shots. In fact the entire show has a "fake" feel to it because of the highly processed video. Still, a fun show to watch. I just wish they were more focused on the technical restoration work itself, but that's a complaint I have with pretty much all restoration shows.

There’s also one by another Leo protege where she’s topless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_replicas_and_reinter...

Here, I can't help thinking that the painting is better without Cupid getting in the way....

What makes Vermeer so modern (or timeless) is that it tells a story simply by the power of the painting: the girl's face, her pose, the reflection, the quality of the light. The symbolism of the Cupid seems unnecessary and clunky, as if he was innovating but still hadn't broken free of a traditional approach.

Or am I just suffering from the bias mentioned in the parent?

nah, it's clunky and unnecessary.

I dont get what the point of restoring it in this way, unless you are 100% convinced that this was vermeer's final intent. i.e. yes, it might have been his initial intent, but he painted over it for a reason. who are we to destroy his final intent by revealing something else? If, this was a different story, that religious fanatics painted over cupid, not vermeer himself, then yes, there's value to "restoring" it to its originality. But that doesn't seem to the be the case here.

> It feels like a bit of both.

Because history happened since the original state. So it is known for both painted and alabaster conditions. (More now for the latter since that is more recent)

To be honest, the lamb pre and post restoration do only look vaguely similar. This does not only look like a simple refresh of paint, but rather like somebody painted a caricature. Quite obvious is that eyes and ears are in different places and angles, who knows what else was changed subtly during the "restoration"

The explanation is right there in the article, and it does not involve your supposed modern day hubris:

Restorers found that the central panel of the artwork, known as the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb, had been painted over in the 16th Century.

Another artist had altered the Lamb of God, a symbol for Jesus depicted at the centre of the panel.

Now conservationists have stripped away the overpaint, revealing the lamb's "intense gaze" and "large frontal eyes".

Calling it a "restoration" is an insult to professionals who have spent years working on the painting.

Any changes to the painting (there are indeed more than just the lamb) were actually painted over during the 16th century. What you see now is the original and what you think is the original is actually a 16th century cover up.

Seeing the original I can understand the cover up, the original looks nothing like a lamb, and doesn't look like the usual human-headed animal, it's just disturbing.

Look again at the pre-restoration lamb. You can actually see the original ear on the right (viewer left) side of the lamb's head through the cover-up.

More obvious in this picture: https://twitter.com/frajds/status/1219125000550199301

Reply on news.ycombinator.com