Art Conservation: the Cost of Saving Great Works of Art

• Citation: Vol. 32 No. 3
• Publication year: 2018
• topic: Insurance Law

Art Conservation: The Cost of Saving Great Works of Art

Caitlin O'Riordan

ART CONSERVATION: THE COST OF SAVING GREAT WORKS OF ART

Introduction

In 2015, a Taiwanese boy became an Internet sensation when he tripped, punching a hole through a seventeenth century painting valued at $1.5 million.¹ The private owner of the Paolo Porpora carried an insurance policy on the painting, and conservationists have already begun restorations.² This story made headlines because one small misstep permanently ruined a great work of art. However, the art world faces another, quieter misstep that could be inflicting greater damage on pieces of art: restoring them. When the boy punched a hole in the painting, the global community was shocked. However, it is hardly common knowledge that the Louvre's director of restoration recently resigned after a restoration of Leonardo da Vinci's The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne removed a portion of da Vinci's original paint and permanently altered the features of the Virgin's face.³ Even after ruining one da Vinci painting, the Louvre proceeded with plans to restore another da Vinci masterpiece—his painting of John the Baptist.⁴ One art history expert publicly condemned the restoration as unnecessary and called the recent phenomenon of restoring da Vinci's great works as a "contagious mania."⁵

Behind every great work of art there are two camps fighting to save it. Art conservationists are committed to utilizing modern technologies to maintain and restore art; another group, composed mostly of art historians, is committed to preventing the destruction of art in the name of modern restoration. While art conservation has been around as long as art itself,⁶ the practice of

[Page 410]

continuous restoration has faced controversy in recent years as great works grow older and the science of restoration modernizes.

The overall meaning of "conservation" is the act of utilizing specified techniques to maintain or restore the original aesthetic of a work of art.⁷ Art conservation, as opposed to restoration, refers to techniques that attempt to return a piece of art to its original state by addressing any damage or deterioration appearing on the surface of the art.⁸ This process also includes cleaning and removing any surface features that detract from the work's original image (or how the conservators believe the original image appeared).⁹ Restoration falls under the umbrella term "art conservation."¹⁰ Art restoration means adding or replacing pieces of the artwork to restore the whole image or work as it originally appeared.¹¹ The Art Conservators Alliance refers to this practice as "compensation for losses."¹² In some cases, restorations are done when unexpected damage occurs.¹³ For example, a man once attacked a famous work in Paris's Pompidou Centre with a hammer, forcing the museum to restore the destroyed parts of the famous work.¹⁴ While there are differences in process between restoration and conservation, the two are so inextricably linked that this Comment will consider the term "art conservation" to include both.¹⁵ It would be more complicated to try to differentiate where works were only "conserved" rather than "restored" and vice versa. While any work of art or architecture may be subject to conservation, this Comment will focus

[Page 411]

specifically on paintings because they are most commonly the subjects of controversy.

Critics of conservation feel that techniques cannot preserve the integrity of a painting if the techniques did not exist at the time that the author created the artwork. Specifically, art conservation is controversial today because restorations tend to reflect the contemporary aesthetic ideals and can have the unintended consequences of updating in the name of preservation. The restorations also focus on "readability," meaning making the work of art accessible or attractive to a modern audience.¹⁶ Restorations tend to reflect the aesthetic ideals of the times.¹⁷ As one journalist put it, "every generation of restorers, in other words, believes it understands the original intent of the artist."¹⁸ As the generations change, so do the ideals of restoration. However, this phenomenon grows increasingly problematic as centuries of restoration and conservation efforts build off of each other rather than the original work.¹⁹ Another particular complaint is that restorations cannot be true to the character of the art because using new technology means using techniques that did not exist when the work was first created.²⁰ While conservationists claim that they intend to merely restore and maintain works as they originally were, critics fear the loss of important works of art through "conservation" that is slowly rendering original artworks unrecognizable.

Alongside the increased wave of art conservation, voices of backlash have grown louder against the practice of art conservation and the frequency with which it is employed.²¹ At the helm of the controversy, art historians James Beck and Michael Daley attempted to expose art conservationists for destroying works of art and serving as a key component of a money-fueled scandal in the industry.²² According to Beck, the key problem was that the intellectual community stood by while the industry of art conservation spiraled out of control.²³ However, in recent years, the art world has awoken to this

[Page 412]

problem and spoken out against art conservation as it stands—highly unregulated.²⁴

This Comment does not argue that all conservation has resulted in harm to great works of art. Rather, it proposes simply that art conservation requires greater regulation and scrutiny. One solution to the art conservation problem would be a body of unattached art historians who would evaluate the conservation project. It would do so in light of a cost-benefit analysis that weighs the cost of conservation against the benefits and the likelihood that the art could actually be damaged in the process. In doing so, it would mirror the process of conserving privately held art where insurance companies and owners usually do employ a basic cost-benefit analysis to determine if a conservation effort would be worth the cost.²⁵ In the private market, conservations are only undergone after careful scrutiny and consideration.²⁶ Importantly, attempts to restore damaged art are almost universally believed to reduce the value of the work.²⁷

To support the proposition that art conservation should be based on an independent cost-benefit analysis, this Comment will proceed in three parts; Part I will evaluate the current regulations, or lack thereof, as they stand under the relevant organizations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).²⁸ Part II will flesh out the controversy as it has evolved and currently stands in the world of restoration and art historians while discussing why little concrete action has been taken.²⁹ This will focus on two of the largest restorations in terms of scope and controversy: the Sistine Chapel³⁰ and the National Gallery in London's collection.³¹ These studies

[Page 413]

highlight the underlying principles of the controversy and the potential costs if the practice of art conservation should continue completely free of regulation. Finally, Part III will suggest a cost-benefit analysis modeled on tort law that is essentially already applied in the private art market. This Comment proposes that a regulatory body should exist, and that it would work closely with museums and public art holders. It would monitor the research and promulgate decisions about whether conservation efforts should move forward on a case-by-case basis. This Comment demonstrates how this analysis could result in the decision to halt or proceed with these conservations, depending on the potential costs, benefits, and risks involved.

I. Cultural Preservation Law & Successful Restorations

A. Relevant Cultural Preservation Law

International law is widely silent on the issue of art conservation projects when it comes to paintings.³² The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) would arguably be the best source of authority to create and enforce regulations concerning art conservation. However, the World Heritage Convention largely applies only to naturally occurring or manmade archeological sites that are of great significance.³³ The process of protecting a site under the World Heritage Convention is arduous, and it would be essentially impossible if the World Heritage Convention's protection extended to every significant piece of cultural heritage in the world, especially every great painting. While the World Heritage Convention extends its authority to the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (Rome Centre) (ICCROM),³⁴ the ICCROM exists primarily to facilitate restorations and does not have any method for evaluating whether or not restorations should occur.³⁵

In terms of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), there are two relevant bodies: The International Institute for Conservation (IIC) and the International

[Page 414]

Council of Museums (ICOM). Neither of these bodies has any enforceable authority. The IIC is a professional organization.³⁶ Like the ICCROM, the IIC primarily facilitates conservation efforts and provides a platform for conservationists to communicate and share techniques.³⁷ The ICOM is a diplomatic international body created by museums for museums.³⁸ Membership is almost universal among prominent museums.³⁹ Under the ICOM, a Committee for Conservation exists that sets up a test to determine whether restorations should take place.⁴⁰ This Committee is the closest to holding art restorers accountable and providing a system for evaluating whether conservation projects are necessary. However, its lack of enforceability is a fatal flaw.

1. World Heritage Convention

When it comes to cultural...