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.