The Sistine Chapel Restoration Controversy and Its Implications in the Field of Art Conservation
Ethical Controversies
Art conservation is a vital field in the preservation of our cultural heritage, and this importance does not come without its fair share of controversy. Conservators and restorers alike must deal with many ethical dilemmas when approaching the issue of whether to clean and restore a work of art, or let it degrade naturally. After all, most artists make their work without the deliberate intention of expecting it to last for centuries after their passing, and like most things in life, artwork is temporary and subject to degradation. However, these artistic intentions are never analyzed as closely as they should: when it comes to debate regarding art conservation, it usually concerns not if art should be conserved, but how. One of the most famous restoration controversies was that of Michelangelo’s frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which were completed in the early 16th century. A fresco is a type of painting created on fresh plaster using water-based pigments, typical for mural paintings on large walls. In the essence of the fresco, the colors set in with the plaster as both dry creating a beautiful effect, but it also complicates restoration efforts due to the nature of plaster.
Restoration Process
For the restoration process, restorers worked to fill in cracks made in the plaster, as well as clean the surface in a non-harmful way. Cleaning began in 1980, after the Vatican Conservation Laboratory discovered that deteriorating animal glue, previously attached by restorers from the late 1500s, were detaching pigments from the plaster (Academy of Arts and Sciences). This hot animal glue had also been applied again in the 1700s in order to heighten colors that had been previously obscured by dust and smoke from candles, oil lamps, and braziers frequently used in the chapel for hundreds of years. Not only were such glue materials detaching pigments, they had also lost their transparency and darkened into a brown color, further masking Michelangelo’s original painting.
To begin cleaning, restorers used a mixture of ammonium bi-carbonate, sodium bi-carbonate, and antibacterial antifungal agent combined with carboxymethylcellulose and distilled water, which had been extensively tested by the Vatican Conservation Laboratory and used successfully on other mural paintings in Europe (Academy of Arts and Sciences). The fresco was then divided into sections of approximately 30 square centimeters, to be cleaned individually and carefully monitored. Each designated section was dusted and washed with distilled water before the cleaning mixture was applied with either a cotton or cellulose putty. After 30 minutes, the mixture was removed, and the same process would be repeated the next day.
Aside from the cleaning process, restorers had to remove overpaint done by previous restorers and fill in cracks made in the plaster (Elam). Because of the importance of the paintings and the controversy surrounding the restoration work, it was emphasized that “no color [was] added to the original frescoes, no reconstructive painting [was] done, and no color brightener [was] used” (Academy of Arts and Sciences).
Results and Implications for Future Restorations
The results of the cleaning process revealed vibrant colors Michelangelo had originally used, completely changing what art historians had previously thought about his painting habits. Michelangelo was widely known for his muted colors in the beautiful proportions and renderings of his paintings, which historians had attributed to his work as a sculptor (Academy of Arts and Sciences). If it had not been for the restoration process, this important information about Michelangelo’s painting habits would not have been revealed. What was thought to be his signature “somber color palette” was actually the opposite, and colors used were quite typical of other mural painters from his time (Kimmelmann). Even with all the controversy that comes with art conservation, its results unveil discoveries into the connecting fields of art history and science, and altogether, preserve the historical documents that are great works of art.
Details of Michelangelo’s frescoes on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, taken during the restoration process. Marks and cracks in plaster are very clear, which would later be restored.
Works Cited
“Art Restoration: The Myth and the Reality | ConservArt.” ConservArt. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
“A View from the ‘Ponte’.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 129, no. 1016, 1987, pp. 707–708. www.jstor.org/stable/883211.
Elam, Caroline. “Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. Rome, Vatican.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 132, no. 1047, 1990, pp. 434–437. www.jstor.org/stable/884339.
Kimmelmann, Michael. “Review/Art; After a Much-Debated Cleaning, A Richly Hued Sistine Emerges.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 May 1990. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
“Saturday Afternoons at the Academy.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 43, no. 8, 1990, pp. 7–11. www.jstor.org/stable/3824775.
