Johann Joaquim Winckelmann

I was excited to learn in Ivy’s recent post about her exhibition “True Colors” that Johann Joaquim Winckelmann was partially responsible for spreading the myth about the whiteness of ancient Greek sculpture.  With her exhibition as inspiration, I thought I might provide more details on why Winckelmann espoused this ideal of whiteness, and thus tie her post into my ongoing series of entries on the history of art restoration.

A portrait of Winckelmann by Raphael Mengs after 1755

Winckelmann was and continues to be a celebrated figure in the history of art because of his historicist method—most fully developed in “History of Ancient Art” of 1764.  In this work, Wincklemann not only provided the first comprehensive account of Greek sculpture but also argued that historical factors such as the climate and political freedom of ancient Greece were fundamental in producing its sculptures.  Simply put, this was the first text to argue that works of art were in some way produced by historical circumstances.  Given this widely held fact, it is unsurprising that Winckelmann is generally regarded as the father of art history.

However, Winckelmann’s legacy is complicated by the tradition out of which it emerged.  Mid-18th century Germany also gave rise to rationalist aesthetics; a philosophical school often exemplified by Alexander Baumgarten’s attempted formulation of a “science of the beautiful.”  Winckelmann attended Baumgarten’s lectures on aesthetics and at the very least was inculcated in his system of thought.  Thus, even though Winckelmann’s contextualist, historicist writing was in many ways directly at odds with Baumgarten’s universalizing, idealistic notions about beauty, he did not completely escape the dominant intellectual mode of his time.

Thus, as Ivy pointed out, Winckelmann still held idealist notions about art.  While he contextualized to some extent, he also famously argued that the “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur” of Greek sculpture made it great; this is perhaps why he preferred marble sculpture to be white.  Indeed, a white sculpture is certainly more “simple” and “quiet” than the polychrome ones we know about today.  Thus, the great irony of his legacy—and the one that  “True Colors” best exemplifies—is that while he is remembered today as the father of art history, the idealist components of his writings also led to the whitewashing and destruction of much of that history.  In other words, his writing had two contradictory effects.  He simultaneously inspired an historicist approach to art objects—one that eventually led to the professionalization of art history and subsequently the professionalization of art conservation—and he inspired an idealistic myth that the whiteness of Greek marble made it great—which led to the whitewashing and the removal of historical evidence about Greek sculpture.

The paradox of Winkelmann’s legacy is a fascinating instance of how the ideals of art and the facts of art come into conflict.  While we all  like to think that we are on the side of fact—especially when it comes to art restoration—the slope between fact and ideal is slippery at best.  (See my previous post on keeping art looking “good”)  But don’t just take my word for it . . . visit “True Colors” and see the facts for yourself.

True Colors: Trends in Conservation

By Ivy Nguyen, class of 2013.

In front of the Conservation Lab we have three signs with the following words and their definitions:

Conservation: Conservation is the deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, primarily to stabilize it and to prolong its existence.

Preservation: Preservation is the protection of cultural property against deterioration and damage by providing preventative care:

• regulating environmental conditions
• practicing sound handling and maintenance procedures for storage, exhibition, packing and transport
• controlling pests
• preparing for emergencies

Restoration: Restoration involves treatment procedures that are intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state—for example, near to its original appearance—often through the addition of non-original material. In current restoration practice, all additions are fully removable.

The collection and stewardship of art involves a complex interplay between these three different goals. While the distinction between these three areas seems subtle, different combinations of these goals will ultimately determine how the object is treated to maintain it for future generations.

This interplay between conservation, preservation, and restoration has varied—sometimes dramatically—over time. One infamous case in the area of Greco-Roman marble sculpture—the Vatican collections—represents this evolution well.

The Vatican’s story was briefly alluded to in the “True Colors” exhibition. Long a major collector of fine art, its collections were headed in the 18^th century by Johann Joaquim Winckelmann, who published the influential “Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture” in 1755. In this book, Winckelmann stated that the best marble sculpture should be white, which led to a systematic scrubbing of many pieces in the collection and set the standard for others to follow.

Since much of this work rests on how “good” the object is made to look, the practice of caring for these objects is also inextricably tied to changing tastes. One great example of how differing tastes guide the hand of those who care for art objects is the case of the Hope Hygieia, which is now at the Getty Museum. When the sculpture was uncovered in 1797, it was popular practice to restore such broken ancient sculptures by reconstructing missing parts in marble and attaching those pieces to the original sculpture. In the 1970s, however, the prevailing museum aesthetic was to display these pieces as they were found—any modern restoration was considered a falsification of the truth. As such, many restorations—including the Hope Hygieia’s—were removed.

Thirty years later, conservators and curators are beginning to appreciate these reconstruction attempts as intrinsic to the object’s history and worked to restore the reconstructed pieces of the sculpture, which had been saved when they were removed. A more detailed history of the sculpture can be found at the Getty’s website (http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/hope_hygieia/).

These restorations of the reconstruction were done using easily identifiable and reversible methods, which reflects the current trend in museum practice. And although the balance between restoration, conservation, and preservation remain in flux, that balance also means that you will not be seeing original sculptures repainted anytime soon.

Join in on the conversation: should we attempt to restore works of art to their original state, or are the changes throughout history just as important?  What do you think about performing a restoration as opposed to leaving or improving an old one?  What other ways museums might illustrate or perform these changes based on new technologies?

Casey, Christopher (October 30, 2008). “”Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time”: Britain, the Elgin Marbles, and Post-Revolutionary Hellenism”.Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8.

Maintaining The Gates of Hell

By Ellen Bechtol

This being my first blog post, I find it appropriate to introduce myself.  I joined the Outdoor Sculpture Crew in November 2010 and I’m currently completing a graduate degree in Museum Studies at John F. Kennedy University.  After graduating from William and Mary, I moved to Palo Alto a couple of years ago.  Besides working with Oliver, I also volunteer at the Cantor Arts Center, helping to update the museum’s exhibition records.  I hope you find this post informative, thanks for reading!

Over the past few weeks, Oliver and I have been performing routine maintenance on the Rodin Sculpture Garden.  Last Thursday we tackled the largest piece in the Garden, The Gates of Hell.  While working on The Gates, several visitors approached us to ask what we were doing to the sculpture; this post explains how we maintain most of the bronze sculptures in the Outdoor Sculpture Collection.

Buffing the wax with nylon bristle brushes

By regularly cleaning, inspecting, and waxing the outdoor sculptures, we hope to prevent the need for more invasive conservation work in the future.  To clean the bronze, we initially spray it from the top down with water to soften and remove the top layer of dust, grime and bird droppings.  Then we look to see whether or not the water beads on the sculpture’s surface.  In areas where water does not bead, the previous wax treatment has worn off.  Next the sculpture is washed with a mild soap using soft sponges and brushes and then rinsed clean.  Following that, we use absorbent towels to dry the sculpture thoroughly.  It is important that the sculpture be completely dry and warm before applying wax to ease application.  Once we are sure that the sculpture is dry and the sun has gently heated its surface, we apply a hard, high melting point microcrystalline wax called Be Square 175—the number 175 refers to the melting point of the wax in degrees Fahrenheit.  Mineral spirits—a mild solvent often used as a paint thinner—is added to the wax in order to produce a thin fluid which can be readily applied to the sculpture.  When the wax has dried, we buff it twice, first with large nylon brushes, and then with a piece of fine nylon stocking.  Buffing compresses the wax into a thin, hard film, providing lasting protection, a shine to the sculpture’s surface, and a richness to the color.

The sculptures in the Rodin Sculpture Garden are cleaned every other month with wax treatments applied as needed, generally twice a year.