• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sistine Chapel Restoration

Doghouse Reilly

Adrift on an uncharted sea
Doghouse Reilly
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
3,418
I'd love to hear your opinions on whether or not they ruined or seriously damaged Michelangelo's ceiling paintings when they restored the ceiling. Did they remove too much of the patina? (sp?) Personally I think it looks a little too technicolor, as well as less overall character and subtlety.
 
I was there some years ago now and, I must admit, was rather disappointed by the whole thing - very garish indeed.

I know it's supposed to be restored to it's original condition and historically accuate or whatever but I think perhaps preservation from further damage would have been preferable to restoration.

Graham
 
I've only seen it from pictures, but, honestly, I like it a lot...especially since it is supposed to be close to the way it originally was.

I think the unrestored ceiling was somewhat like taking all those great old Assembly of God, handclapping-he-set-me-free-yes-he-set-me-free sing a long songs (one of the few good things to come out of religion), and turning them into funeral dirges. The ceiling now is a joyous celebration; and while I don't embrace the religion, I can certainly appreciate that sentiment.
 
I think it's great that it was brought back to the way Michelangelo intended.

I remember when the restoration was first made public how horrified people were about the brightness and vivid colors he used. It's too garish, it's too comic book-like, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN!?!?!

What I was most pleased about was the comeuppance given to many art historians who pretended to know why Michelangelo painted everything as dark as it appeared: he was unhappy with the Pope's interference, he was unhappy with his family, he was unhappy being a closeted homosexual. Whole careers were based on such speculation and drivel. And once all the years of duck glue (used to hold sme pieces of the fresco together from falling off), candle soot (you think they had light bulbs for 500 years? all that smoke rose up to the ceiling) and subsequent Pope's ideas of "proper" art (painting over nude portions that they didn't like), we now can see what Michelangelo wanted us to see. I can think of no better tribute to him and his work.

Michael (no relation...)
 
coalesce said:
I think it's great that it was brought back to the way Michelangelo intended.

I remember when the restoration was first made public how horrified people were about the brightness and vivid colors he used. It's too garish, it's too comic book-like, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN!?!?!

What I was most pleased about was the comeuppance given to many art historians who pretended to know why Michelangelo painted everything as dark as it appeared: he was unhappy with the Pope's interference, he was unhappy with his family, he was unhappy being a closeted homosexual. Whole careers were based on such speculation and drivel. And once all the years of duck glue (used to hold sme pieces of the fresco together from falling off), candle soot (you think they had light bulbs for 500 years? all that smoke rose up to the ceiling) and subsequent Pope's ideas of "proper" art (painting over nude portions that they didn't like), we now can see what Michelangelo wanted us to see. I can think of no better tribute to him and his work.

Michael (no relation...)
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I thought the restoration was quite impressive when I saw it. I am not an art historian, of course, so I can't measure the accuracy or the quality of the restoration, but I saw it both pre and post restoration, and it was so much more bold and alive post restoration.

Which leads me to consider that even if imperfect, it is likely closer now to what Michelangelo intended than the pre-restoration version (of course, Mikey didn't want all his lovely nude classical figures to be drapped in clothes, but that' a different matter). What I mean is not the quality of the painting. Rather, it is that when it was originally painted, it would have been bright, clear and dazzling. I am sure that it transformed an otherwise dreary Middle-ages chaple into something brilliant.

And, it seems to me, being able to see the paintings clearly was at the core of that transformation.

My recollection of the pre-restoration was that it was beautiful, but dark and obviously faded. Not how the artist intended. So, hopefully, this restoration did something to bring the painting back...in color, clarity and brilliance, to the intention of the artist, and in that way, it seems to me, it is faithful to the original (even if the techniques employed and determinations of color, etc. aren't quite perfect).
 
Thanks for all the replies and opinions. I agree that it was dirty and dark, however, I think it highly likely that they damaged it in the cleaning process. It's not nearly as three dimensional as it was before they cleaned it. The colors may be closer to the way it was intended, but remember, Michelangelo was primarily a sculptor, so his painting was very "moulded" so to speak...I've seen comparison photos before and after and clearly damage has been done. For example, certain legs that were masterfully shaded to the point of popping out at you are now flat and lifeless.
I agree that he didn't intend it to be so dark and those art historians were wrong. However, fresco painters used glues for effect, and when they scraped off the excess glue it seems extremely likely that they scraped off Michelangelos artistic glue as well, to bad effect. Those chemicals they used were incredibly harsh.
 
My neighbors are a wonderful Jewish family that lived for 2 years ini Italy. Their living room is full of wonderful floor to ceiling pictures of the Sistine Chapel. Drives our Catholic neighbors insane! heheheheheheh. But they Jewish family says, hey, it's a wonderful work of art!

Anyway, just thinking about the Phili Musuem (remember Rocky steps, that one) where they painted their statues in the colors that we now know Greek and Roman statues were painted. Bright garish colors.... People had a fit, but that's what they looked like people! All you have to do is go to Vegas to get the same feeling. People have always liked bright colorful art.
 
kittynh said:

Anyway, just thinking about the Phili Musuem (remember Rocky steps, that one) where they painted their statues in the colors that we now know Greek and Roman statues were painted. Bright garish colors.... People had a fit, but that's what they looked like people! All you have to do is go to Vegas to get the same feeling. People have always liked bright colorful art.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that either.

I think a historical work of art should be preserved and, if necessary, carefully cleaned but I don't agree with repainting or reworking to such an advanced degree.

Granted, in the Sistine Chapel pre-restoration and with the statues at the Phili Museum, a portion of the original artist's vision was obscured and that is a terrible shame and a loss to the observer.

However, I don't think it's right to replace that missing piece of vision with a piece of someone else's vision, which despite their claims to historical accuracy, is essentially what has happened in both cases since the restorers have, of necessity, relied to at least some degree on inference and guesswork.

Graham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom