VITAL SIGNSrnArt Restoration:rnThe Sistine Chapelrnby Thomas MolnarrnThe present controversy around thernrestoration of the Sistine Chapel’srnceiHng prompts the following reflectionsrnon restorative work in general, and that ofrnour time in particular.rnOur age will be known by future historiansrnas one in which all certitudes werernquestioned, while tlie True and the Goodrnwere on the defensive. Beaut’, also tottering,rnstill rallies the largest number ofrnenthusiasts. The onslaughts against i t -rntasteless monuments, purposeful wrecksrnin metal and cement in public parks,rnpuzzles on museum and exhibit walls—rnare violentiy resented by lovers of art, atrnleast those bold enough to go against popularrnapproval. The restoration work onrnancient masterpieces also begins to attractrnattention because of its increasingrnabuse.rnPaid Valery spoke of civilizations beingrnmortal; we are now aware that the artrnof the past, safe from “death,” is neverthelessrnvulnerable to cleansing, the use ofrnnew chemicals, to the indiscriminate removalrnof layers on painting, to retouching,rnas well as the search for the allegedrnoriginal lines and colors. Although motivatedrnbv good intentions, many restorersrnare tempted to play the demiurge andrn”know better” than the work’s creator,rnwhether Leonardo, Rembrandt, or Michelangelo.rnThe trouble is that misappliedrnzeal carries them away, as restorersrnbecome competitors against the artistrnwhose work they ought to serve. This isrnhow we get statements like: “Emotionalrnand subjective considerations must notrnbe permitted to intrude upon science!”rnThis by Gianluigi Colalucci, chief restorerrnnow working on the Sistine Chapel.rnBefore anything else, a cultural misunderstandingrnshould be dispelled: Therngreat ma.sterpieces are not embodied onlyrnin the work themselves, as they appear,rnlocalized and dated. They have alsornevolved a life of their own during the centuriesrnor millennia since their coming intornexistence. The “search for the original”rnis merely a modern prejudice, althoughrnit may look like a reasonable andrnan attractive notion to which we all arernimpelled, partly by curiosity, partly by therndesire to meet the illo tempore. Yet thisrnsearch may also be an ill-conceived enterprise,rnconsidering the probability thatrnthe artist himself foresaw the effect ofrnpassing time, and would be the first tornprotest against a periodic return to an increasinglyrnhypothetical “original,” or tornwhat his work was like in the exact momentrnhe put down his brush or chisel.rnEach Gothic cathedral was built overrnthe decades, indeed centuries, by successivernpatrons, master-masons, teams of architectsrnand workers. It was the commonrnreligious inspiration of merging centuriesrnthat created unity of conception andrnstyle, not this or that master. Appropriately,rnno one individual signed the work—rnthe final product may not have exactlyrnconformed to the first blueprint. Similar-rnIv, Michelangelo planned the lunettesrnand the barrel vault ceiling of the SistinernChapel to serve as transcendent inspirationrnat religious ceremonies for manyrncenturies. He knew that what popes andrnpriests would see when looking up andrnaround would not be quite the same inrnthe second decade of the 16th century asrnin remote future times and generations.rnMore concretely, he knew that therernwoidd be the chemical reactions in hisrnmaterials compounded by candle smoke,rnthe breathing of multitudes, and the climaticrnand seasonal changes.rnWhat Michelangelo could not know—rnin contrast to us — is that taste not onlyrnchanges but may also one day be so corruptedrnthat it would trv to erase time.rnWatch indeed the contemporary’ infatuationrnwith hermeneutics —in plain language,rnthe search for hidden motivesrn(like “investigative journalism” in Washington):rnWliat did the writer, artist, scholar,rnthinker really want to express? Did hernknow exactly what he wanted, was hernaware that it was not he who wanted it,rnbut his social class, degree of v’ealth, hisrnrace, his hidden interests, the structurernof the language he spoke? The gamernaround the “masters of suspicion” fascinatesrnour contemporaries, the Merleau-rnPont)’s, the Gadamers, the Freuds, thernRicoeurs. Was Shakespeare Shakespeare?rnDid Leonardo paint a self-portraitrnunder the features of Mona Lisa?rnAnd now: Was Michelangelo responsiblernonly for the fresco painted on the walls,rnwhile an unknown super-Michelangelornpainted, decades later, the musculature,rnthe gradation of light and shadow, thernwrestiing of God and man?rnThe theory about this mysterious Other,rnwhich in a wa’ authorizes the presentrnrestorers to erase perceived non-rnMichelangellian layers and layers ofrngrime, is flatly contradicted by art-chroniclerrnnumber one, Giorgio Vasari, thernpainter’s contemporarj’. \’Tien in Rome,rnVasari writes, Michelangelo paintedrnevery day, rain or shine, in great discomfortrnfrom constantly looking up. He remainedrnon his 60-foot-high scaffoldingrnnight or day, eating and sleeping there,rn”but in the ardor of labor he felt no fatiguernand cared for no discomfort.”rnMore, he talked back to the pope (Juliusrn11, no namby-pamby, or a “Hamlet”),rnwho threatened to have him cast down ifrnhe did not finish the job by the agreedrndate. “I shall finish,” Michelangelornreplied, “when I am satisfied in my artisticrnsense.” And so he did.rnAll this explains why a work of art toda’rn(this is also true of music as new instrumentsrnare invented) is not quite the samernas it was in its creator’s atelier, when itrnwas blessed by qualities of survival. Timerndoes effect some erosion and decrepitude,rnbut it also brings maturation. Mostrnimportantly, not every age should regardrnitself as competent to restore great art. Itrnis one thing to rebuild baroque Dresdenrnafter its barbaric destruction, quite anotherrnto meddle with the wear and tear ofrncenturies. Contemporary taste, workingrnwith surviving original blueprints of publicrnbuildings, streets, or facades, cannotrndo much harm; but looking at the Sistinernfrescoes before and after, we becomernpainfully aware that contemporary tasternfavors the shle of posters, large, brutallyrncolored surfaces, geometric designs. Therntourist wants to see qiuckly and superficiallyrnand carry home a bundle of snapshots.rnIn the Sistine Chapel where herndislocates his neck in the effort to lookrnupward (this, the crowds of tourists, notrneven a Michelangelo could foresee), thernrestorers may have wished—am I guiltyrnof hermeneutics?—to alleviate the neckbreakingrnexercise. At any rate, thern40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn