The Art of Preservation Strategies and Ancient Artifacts
The preservation
of ancient works is daunting at best. They
need to be conserved, but their age presents numerous and often conflicting challenges. Science provides methods for their
restoration and preservation, but it is unable to answer why works should be
restored, or to what degree. Should they
be restored to their original grandeur, or should degradation remain to reflect
the passage of time? Both approaches
have equal merit, and they center on the interpretations that best represent
the object’s relative meaning. These
conflicts are present in modern times, but they are amplified for ancient works,
as their cultural context and provenance have been lost, and their relationship
to us is open for interpretation. Exploring
these elements emphasizes the difficulties in the connoisseurship of ancient
artifacts, and it reveals the underlying dilemma of their restoration and
preservation.
Albert
France-Lanord writes that the first question applied to ancient works should be
“why and how should it be conserved?” (245).
Why and how a work should be conserved is derived from the object, its
original significance and its relationship with modern culture. Unfortunately, ancient cultural context and
significance have been lost due to the passage of time. Davies describes cave paintings as raising
more cultural questions than answers (1).
Sister Wendy articulates several diverse cultural theories of the cave
paintings that range from mystical applications to simple documentation. Cultural context has been lost, and no single
theory can be applied with confidence. Uncertainties
arise, and they convolute future decisions of restoration, preservation and
presentation.
Provenance, in the
form of discovery, has also proved problematic.
Many artifacts are discovered, cleaned and sold without the
documentation of their discovery. Their provenance is absent, and any clues to
their cultural context are lost. Davies
uses Aegean “Frying Pans” and figurines from the Cyclades to illustrate this
point. He writes, “The greatest obstacle
to determining their function is our general ignorance about their provenance,
that is, where and how they were found and their subsequent history” (83). Whether poor archeological practices or
outright plundering of artifacts, the lack of documentation diminishes
historical and cultural insights.
Often times,
particularly in the case of Greek and Roman sculptures, provenance is
complicated due to copied works. John
Pope-Hennessy is clear that sculptures must be understood from the originals,
as they possess the unique traits of each artist. Davies writes that Roman copies of Greek
works are not reliable replications of the originals (103). Copies were made with artistic
interpretations, or patrons may have requested modifications (103). Copies of works, in their own way,
unintentionally cloak the intent of the original work. Before a connoisseur can evaluate an ancient
sculpture, they first have the laborious and problematic task of determining a
work’s provenance.
The most
significant aspect of preservation is the potential damage to ancient artifacts
from non-professional connoisseurship. France-Lacord
believed objects should be returned to their original significance. However, Giovanni Carbonara was concerned
about changes to the original; “We would not have the monument of old but a
monument that emerges anew – an independent architectural expression…”
(245). Should ancient works be viewed
as physical objects, or as figurative expressions (245). Carbonara was
concerned that artifacts would be restored to reflect modern views of the past,
rather than original expressions as represented through the passage of
time. He was concerned that the ease of
scientific restoration would become favored against the difficulties of investigating
and preserving the past (245).
Carbonara’s writing reveals a balance between the physical object, its
original expression and its relationship to modern culture. In essence, each artifact requires evaluation
on its merits, but the tendency is to form rote procedures, from
non-professionals, that can systematically change and destroy ancient cultural
meaning.
There are no easy
answers to the restoration and preservation of ancient artifacts. The loss of their cultural context can
objectify them and make them susceptible to modern interpretations. However, efforts are underway to improve and fuse
the fields encompassed by Technical Art History. Better education, collaborative studies and increased
publications are all in play to enhance preservation (Ainsworth).
Art forms meaning
through relationships, and ancient art forms bridges across time. It is human nature to classify and search
for specificity in answers. However, the
problems associated with ancient artifacts create more mysteries than answers,
and they reveal how important connections are to the distant past. Effective connoisseurship of ancient
artifacts improves human understanding by preserving the past for the future,
and sometimes the preservation of the questions are just as important as
preserving the answers.
Works Cited
Aisnworth,
Maryan. “From Connoisseurship to Technical Art History: The Evolution of the
Interdisciplinary Study of Art.” Art
561. Tiffin University. N.d. Web. February 5, 2014
Carbonara,
Giovanni. “The Integration of the Image: Problems in the Restoration of
Monuments.” Art 561. Tiffin University. N.d. Web. February 5, 2014
Davies,
Penelope J.E., Walter B. Denny, Frima Fox Hofrichter, Joseph Jacobs, Ann M.
Roberts, and David L. Simon. Janson’s
History of Art: the Western Tradition.
8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 2011. Print.
France-Lanord,
Albert. “Knowing How to ‘Question’ the Object before Restoring it.” Art 561.
Tiffin University. N.d. Web. February 5, 2014
Pope-Hennessy,
John. “Connoisseurship.” Art 561. Tiffin University. N.d. Web. February 5, 2014
Sister
Mary. “The Mists of Time.” DocuWatch. Web. Feb 8, 2014. http://art.docuwat.ch/videos/sister-wendy/sister-wendys-story-of-painting-01-the-mists-of-time/?channel_id=0&skip=0
No comments:
Post a Comment