Sculpture Source

Restoration Work on Michelangelo's David

Relatively recently Michelangelo’s David underwent extensive restoration.  The process and certainly the result divided the public in a firestorm of controversy.  Was the restoration necessary?  Was this monument of culture saved from advancing age or forever destroyed in the name of restoration?  Who was serviced more, the work of art or the careers of those who oversaw the restoration?  These questions become particularly pertinent here at home with the San Francisco Art Commission’s announced plans to restore Peter Voulkos’ piece at the Hall of Justice.  When is restoration needed?  When does it cross the line from help to hindrance?  This much can be said: for every insistent restorationist you will find an equally passionate traditionalist.  Each has valid arguments; each believes to be acting in the name of the greater good.  There is a place at the table for both.

The ensign of restoration waves for one of two reasons – delaying destruction and restoring original intent.  Until a Muse grants a primetime interview, we will never know the true original condition of the work or the intent of its creator.  He, and he alone knows how it was created and how it should be cared for. Thus, little can be said of “original intent.”  Even if this unknowable could be known, would we necessarily want it?  Canonized masterpieces are elder statesmen.  They no longer have the vivacity of their youth or the energy of innovation but they have something of equal worth - scars, wrinkles, and blemishes.  We look to them not because of their smooth alabaster skin but because time has given them a uniquely insightful patina of experience.  A 500-year-old crack can sometimes carry more significance then unblemished youth.

However, at what point do we allow a meaningful crack to become a thousand scars of decay?  When do the distinguished marks of age become destructive to the work’s fundamental identity?  At some point, even the most archival work requires help to prolong the inevitable reach of time.  It is at this point that the skills of restoration are essential and needed.  But where is this point?  When is it time to intervene?  Therein is the line of gray.

If the artwork is in scientifically verifiable and incontrovertible peril, proceed, but proceed with caution.  If restoration is undertaken for other reasons, leave it alone.  We will never know how it looked in its youth so let us continue to venerate the image we have now.  If a painting is deemed “sick” and in need of treatment then conservationists, who consider themselves the “doctors,” should take the artistic equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath – “do no harm.”  Is the treatment a cosmetic tummy tuck or a double bypass?  Are we prolonging the life of our elder statesmen or turning our canon into the artistic equivalent of Joan Rivers and Michael Jackson?  Aging has its grace and beauty.  Interfere only when there is real need.

What bearing does this have on the aforementioned Voulkos restoration?  Is this cosmetic or essential surgery?  Years of neglect have caused unnatural, accelerated aging.  When the piece was initially installed a much needed endowment for upkeep was never established.  It now desperately needs our attention.  Fortunately the restoration plans include raising funds to establish an endowment for regular upkeep hopefully making future restoration projects unnecessary.  Indeed, this is surgery with a much needed dose of preventative medicine.

Peter Voulkos’ sculpture for the Hall of Justice was initially not well received.  After a cursory viewing, Alfred Frankenstein of the San Francisco Chronicle called it “unfavorable.” For him it gave the “impression of some big bronze worms wiggling on platforms.”  First impressions can be deceptive.  He returned to look again.  “Within about 14 seconds,” he writes, “all my reservations concerning it were swept away, and I came to the conclusion that it is just about the finest piece of public sculpture in San Francisco” (Frankenstein, Alfred V., “Voulkos’ Work: The Finest Piece of S.F. Sculpture.” San Francisco Chronicle, October 1, 1971, p. 61, ill).

In 1967, the Hall of Justice commission was the first of its kind awarded by the San Francisco Arts Commission.  The honor went jointly to Peter Voulkos and Sidney Gordin.  Voulkos’ piece was finished and installed four years later after extensive upgrades, improvements and alterations all at the artist’s expense.  The Hall of Justice piece is the pioneer of public sculpture in San Francisco.  Since its installation, over 500 public works have been commissioned and installed.  Thirty-eight years later the grandfather of San Francisco outdoor public sculpture is in desperate need of restoration.

The San Francisco Arts Commission and the San Francisco Art Dealers Association have joined forces in an effort to preserve this important piece of cultural patrimony.  In the coming months the two organizations plan to raise the funds necessary for restoration and continued preservation.  The estimated cost is between $25,000 and $35,000.  The organizations are now welcoming contributions.  When Alfred Frankenstein gave the sculpture a second viewing he noticed, “during the hour or more that I spent with this sculpture, many people walked by, but none, so far as I could see, paid it any attention at all.”  This caused him to marvel.  “They organize expeditions of the art-minded to go to Los Angeles and New York and Paris.  An expedition to the corner of Seventh and Bryant streets would be even more worthwhile” (ibid).  Let us not be guilty too of neglect.

If you would like to contribute by donating your time or money, please contact the San Francisco Arts Commission’s Development Director, Rachelle Axel at (415) 252-2564 or rachelle.axel@sfgov.org.  Sculpturesite Gallery is pleased to be involved in this important  effort to preserve our cultural heritage.

Curt Brill: "Julie", bronze sculpture

Bronze is a popular metal for cast metal indoor or outdoor sculptures. It is an alloy, or a metal created by the combination of other metals, with a minimum of 90% copper for quality bronze sculptures and statues in the United States. Some common bronze alloys expand slightly just before they set, making them desirable for intricate sculptures because they can fill the finest details of a mold. A chemical patina is applied to give the final finish and color to the bronze, and it is the patina that needs to be maintained, as the metal itself will last thousands of years.

Outdoor bronze sculptures hold up well and are easy to care for. A bronze sculpture is usually protected by a coat of wax, which is applied when the metal is still warm so it can seep into the pores and act as a barrier to air and humidity. This helps keep the bronze from oxidizing and keeps it looking new longer. An outdoor sculpture that has fallen victim to bird waste and other debris can be cleaned with a bucket of mild soap and water. Too much soap can leave a residue that can be difficult to rinse, so use just enough soap to create bubbles.  Steer clear of exotic oils and cleansers, as they can remove the patina and alter the look of the sculpture. An old toothbrush can be used to scrub dirt out of the sculpture’s nooks and crannies. Rinse the sculpture with clear water after cleaning, and then allow it to dry completely before applying a coat of clear paste wax (formulas that contain a high concentration of carnauba wax are best). Use a soft, lint-free rag to apply a light coat and let it dry to teh touch before buffing to the desired finish.  Do this on a warm, clear (but not too hot) day to allow the wax to dry before the next rainfall. Depending on the weather and the exposure, waxing is needed between once and three times a year. Don’t forget that indoor air also contains pollutants and humidity, so you will need to wax your indoor bronzes once avery two or three years.