Wall painting retouching techniques in the Netherlands
Student: Jasmijn Krol (12252328)
Thesis supervisor: Jessica Hensel (University of Amsterdam)
External advisor: Bill Wei (Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed)
Module coordinator: Maartje Stols-Witlox (University of Amsterdam)
Second reader: Kate van Lookeren (University of Amsterdam)
Master thesis
Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage
Historic Interiors
Faculty of Humanities
University of Amsterdam
July 2020
Table of content
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
Chapter 2 State of the art 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Early times, overpainting and first awareness 5
2.3 Respect for the original and newer techniques 5
2.4 Modern developments 7
2.5 Situation in the Netherlands 14
Chapter 3 Methodology 18
3.1 Survey of conservators 18
3.2 General Public Research 21
Chapter 4 Results 24
4.1 Conservators survey 24
4.2 Motivations 26
4.3 Sources of knowledge 32
4.4 Unity and division 36
4.5 General public survey 39
4.6 Motivations 40 Chapter 5 Discussion 43 Chapter 6 Conclusion 49 Acknowledgements 51 Bibliography 52 Image references 55 Summery 57 Samenvatting 58
Appendix 1 Conservator's survey 59
Appendix 2 General public's survey 68
Chapter 1 Introduction
Those who think of wall paintings often don't immediately think of the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the country has a wide variety of wall paintings that adorn the walls of houses, public buildings, castles, theatres, and, in particular, churches. Many of those wall paintings have not survived the passage of time. Some of them have, however, been preserved. In some cases they were hidden under a thick layer of plaster for ages, whereas others survived because they were cared for by conservators. Most surviving wall paintings have suffered some loss which can vary from damage that is almost unnoticeable to large lacunae that can not be ignored. The expertise of conservators is valuable in such cases. However, how they approach these problems differs from case to case, depending on the country and time. Until a century ago, it was common to reconstruct the missing parts to bring back the original image. Opinions have changed since then. History and integrity became essential, and falsification and artistic interpretation became a less common choice for reintegration of missing parts of an image. In the last century, conservators in the western world have discussed various ways for integrating losses in wall paintings, and developed different
solutions and methods. Discussion is still essential as opinions continue to change, methods are still being developed and new scientific techniques provide new information and insights.
According to Ruth Jongsma, conservator of historic interiors and advisor at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE), there appears to be no standard for wall painting retouching in the Netherlands. There are many ideas about how to retouch wall paintings, but that there is no single approach. From this point of view, the research questions for the thesis for the Master’s Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage in the specialisation Historic Interiors of the University of Amsterdam, arose:
Which retouching techniques are wall painting conservators currently practising in the Netherlands, what motivates their choices and how are the retouchings perceived by the general public?
In order to answer this question, answers will also be sought to the following three sub-questions: -Is there agreement in preferences for certain techniques and is there agreement in the motivation for choosing these techniques?
-If there are differences, why?
-How does the general public perceive these retouching techniques?
In addition to studying literature to research the current state of the art, a survey will be conducted to determine which retouching techniques are used by conservators in current practice. Wall painting conservators will be asked which techniques they would use to retouch a particular case study. In addition, they will be asked why they make their choices. Questions about the source of their knowledge will also play an important role in the survey. The research will determine how conservators think about ethical issues surrounding retouching and whether there is agreement, or if not, why? It will also be important to understand the visual perception of these different retouching techniques in order to see if the intention of the conservators corresponds with the opinion of the general public. How does the general public perceive retouched wall paintings? Do the opinions of the general public and the conservators agree?
This Master’s thesis is divided into three parts. The first part consists of the theoretical framework that deals with the current state of the art in the field of retouching techniques of wall paintings. The second part discusses two experiments: research into the retouching practice of conservators, and research into the visual perception of the general public. The results are then
discussed in the following chapter, after which a conclusion is given.
This research study could contribute to a better understanding of the current practice of retouching of wall painting. The results should indicate whether there is a discrepancy in approach within the field. Is it necessary to bring these points of view and practice closer together? This document could be a good source of information to address that problem. The fact that the opinions of the general public are part of the research is a valuable addition because conservators do their best for wall paintings but the general public are the ones who observe and experience them.
Chapter 2 State of the art
2.1 Introduction
Restoring, retouching, reconstructing, renovating, conserving, are a handful of words out of the field. There are many concepts, each with a different meaning that may differ by region, country, culture, education and time period.Before mentioning the retouching techniques by name, it is essential to be unequivocal about what is meant by the concept of retouching in the first place. The word retouching originally meant a correction to the original material, in the same style as the painter. The concept of retouching was later extended to include the meaning of correcting lacunae, either in an illusionistic way or in a visible way. Treatments that complement a damaged work of art include restoration, repair and renovation. Treatments that bring a work of art back to life by
intervention on an missing element include restitution, reconstitution, reconstruction (Bergeon Langle 2007, 12-13). Other concepts that often lead to confusion are the words authenticity and originality. The concept of originality refers to material. The meaning of authenticity lies not only in the material, but it also has different aspects such as appearance, context, artistic intention and significance that are linked to symbolic values and immaterial properties (Brajer 2009, 31). In the 21st century, finding a balance between aesthetic and ethical interests is a dilemma from which many discussions emerge. Throughout the centuries there have been shifts in thinking about these concerns and these have led to different approaches and techniques for retouching.
2.2 Early times, overpainting and first awareness
Determining how restoration was carried out before the first written sources is difficult. In the Middle Ages, art was mainly made with a religious purpose, which ensured that in that period the art should always be up to date in its appearance and condition. Therefore, works of art were restored, retouched and painted according to personal interpretation. Although there was strong resistance to overpainting of the original as early as 1700, many wall paintings have been
overpainted (Nadolny 2012, 574), for example, many wall paintings in churches in Flanders were completely overpainted in the 19th century (Bergmans 1998,74-75).This often happened when large parts were missing and the religious function of the paintings was considered important (Bergmans 165). Although this was the standard then, there were those who thought differently. There are number of early sources that indicate that there was occasionally a very early awareness to the ethical and aesthetic dilemmas. Gian Pietro Bellori was an Italian biographer and art-historian who
wrote the biography of painter Carlo Maratti. At that time painters also restored and retouched paintings of other painters. Maratti worked with reversible retouching for frescos and even experimented with a visible retouching technique, a dotted application of paint. Around 1740, in France, painters started retouching with a technique of painted dots as well. The dots were so small that they used a magnifying glass when retouching. This approach was quite different to the
standard approach of overpainting works of art (Nadolny 2012, 573). In 1777 in Venice, Pietro Edwards advised in his 'Capitolato', a handbook for restoration, not go beyond the damage and not to remove or add things by guessing. The reversibility of the material became more important as well. Since the 1700s, written sources mentioning alternatives for oils and layering systems and mixtures were changing to achieve a more reversible layering system (Nadolny 2012, 574). 2.3 Respect for the original and newer techniques
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries a suggestive differentiated retouching
technique was developed. See Figure 1. for an example of a suggestive differentiated retouching. This technique of retouching obtains a coherent image by giving suggestions without any detail, that is just by indicating shapes or colour areas (Nadolny 2012, 576). This shows a cautious change, where there is more attention for the original material.
Figure 1. Detail of the Varakhsha wall painting with a differentiated retouching. Hermitage St.Petersburg. In the 19th century, there was respect for the original but with a totally different meaning. The appearance of the original was so important that treatments had the aim of making works of art look their very best. This is known because around 1820 there were more written sources devoted to the restoration of paintings. This new literary genre originated in Germany and spread throughout Europe. The retouching style of the19th century led to 'improved' paintings, and gold varnishes and glazes which 'sweetened up' the original works of art. Original and newly added materials were blended with each other. In the 19th century science became more professionalized and
institutionalised because of the Enlightenment. The role of science in society grew and conservators were increasingly inspired by scientific principles. In the second half of the 19th century, under the influence of G. B. Cavalcaselle, neutral retouchingwas developed. See Figure 2. as an example of a neutral retouching. It was a counter movement to the fashionable excesses of imitative
retouching (Bergeon Langle 2007, 12).
Figure 2. Ambrogio Lorenzetti: Effects of Good Government in the city (1290–1348) with a neutral retouching.
Theorists and conservators began to ask ethical questions and shared them with each other, discussions on how to restore and retouch arose. In 1884 in Turin, Camillo Boito who was one of
the first theoreticians of architectural restoration, raised an important question, “Is there really a need for conservation? “In his opinion, there should be an approach where works of art will be
treated as documents of art and history, and traces of time should not be removed by restoration treatments. He suggested minimal intervention and when adding non-original elements, they should be recognisable. At that time, he was not the only one who questioned restoration and retouching of art works. The British art critic, John Ruskin, called restoration “a lie from beginning to end”and French architect and theoretician Eugene Viollet-le-Duc called it a recovery to a state of
completeness that actually never could be reached because this completeness never existed at any time (Melucco Vaccaro 1996, 262-64).
2.4 Modern developments
In the twentieth century, these discussions continued and became more specific regarding the problem of how to deal with the reintegration of lacunae. The painting conservator, Victor
Bauer-Bolton, wrote a very influential article in 1914. He addressed the dilemma of completing missing
areas of paintings, if they should be completed and what the best way would be to do so. He stated that losses should not interfere with the experience of the picture as a whole and advised the use of 'deceptive' retouching. He wrote that there are no generally recognised methods or rules for the restoration of paintings and that conservators do not agree with each other on methods and materials Bauer-Bolton explained that some experts have demanded that the addition to a painting must be made identifiable but that there were no conclusions made on how this should be done (Bauer-Bolton (1914) 2004, 360).
Belgium art conservators Albert Philippot and his son, Paul Philippot compared
retouching to a written text. Even a sentence with missing words can be read and understood. They suggest that each fragment still has potential to the extent that its continuity remains hidden in the damaged work of art and that the reconstruction makes it possible to reduce the aesthetic structure and the clarity of the reading.The impact that lacunae can have on the readability of a damaged artwork does not only vary according to its location and extent, but also on the nature of the style it has interrupted. This is why the visual imagination has to be taken into account while restoring works of art, which makes the treatment not only a technical execution but a critical intuitive reconstitution.Retouching must re-establish the unity of the damaged artwork but to what extend should be considered from time to time (Philippot and Philippot (1959) 1996, 335-36). Out of the purist attitude towards retouching which started in the 20th century an approach was developing to respect the works of art as a historical document. The neutral coloured retouching was found to be the appropriate solution for lacunae in wall paintings without reconstruction (Mittone 2010, 300-2).The neutral tint is a method of retouching in a non-specific shade, but the tint is chosen with a specific value to that the lacunae fade away into the background. The neutral tint varies in each situation because it depends on the fragment or composition of the lacuna and the complete wall painting. The neutral retouch can be executed in different techniques: flat, dots or lines (Bergeon Langle 2007, 12). The use of neutral retouches became popular, especially in Germany in the 1920's and Central Europe around mid-century. How it was applied differed. In Germany the main colour used was grey, but in Italy, conservators attempted to avoid an unnaturally flat area by using a modulated tone (Nadolny 2012, 581).
A new retouching techniques with lines made its appearance in 1920. Max Doerner performed his first experiments with hatching lines and started to promote this new technique in Germany. Around the same time in America, Edward Waldo Forbes and R. Arcadius Lyon also worked with a hatching technique. Cesare Brandi, director of Instituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome, developed this further with his colleagues Laura Mora and Paolo Mora. Inspired by his “Teoria del Restauro” (1963), they developed a technique with hatching, Tratteggio, also known as Rigatini. This technique, executed in watercolour, was developed between 1945-50. The technique was meant as visible compensation done with a paint system of superimposed vertical brush strokes like hatchings that transpose the modelling and drawing (Nadolny 2012, 581). See Figure 3. for an example of tratteggio.
Figure 3. Tratteggio retouching technique
To explain his theory of the potential unity of the work of art, Cesare Brandi used an example of a painting: a composition of individual parts that creates an image when put all together and only in that order, it has a specific value. If a work of art is physically fragmented, it will continue to exist as a potential whole in each of its fragments. The missing parts will be expressed by the still
existing and directly related forms. Brandi described three practical principles. The first principle is that the integration must be unrecognisable from a distance but be visible from close by without special equipment. In that way, the use of identical materials and artificial patina is not a problem as long as the retouching remains restoration and not reconstruction. The second principle Brandi described is that the materials should be in harmony with the related image, not only in the figuratively, but also in terms of structure. Reversibility is the third principle. Every restoration should not prevent but facilitate possible future restorations. These principles were based on
experiments and studies of the Gestalt psychology. This psychology shows that the most disturbing part about lacunae is not the fact that something is missing, but what is inserted into it. Keeping this in mind, it becomes easier to find a way to neutralise the lacuna. The Gestalt psychology takes advantage of a natural mechanism of perception working with figure-background principles.
Lacunae become unexpected 'figures' in relation to a 'background'. The image itself is devaluated to the background. The use of a neutral tint is an attempt to push the lacuna to the background.
Although it was an honest attempt, it was not the best solution since neutral tints does not really exist.A better approach according to Brandi is to produce a difference in level between the lacuna and the painted image. In that way, the lacuna becomes the background, and the painted surface becomes the figure (Brandi (1963) 1996, 339-42). The approach recommended by Brandi was to avoid mimetic retouching, using 'tratteggio' would be a much fairer and more ethical approach because it would create an apparent distinction between the original paint and the retouching. Another important fact is the case that this structural and continuous technique avoids any personal expression or taste and can create therefore an objective retouching. This technique must be done consistently; otherwise, the grid loses its function and can lead to confusion (Mora, Mora and Philippot 1999, 339).When a loss is too extensiveness in size or number, then integration is no longer an option. According to Mora's advice, this is the case when the lacunae are more than 20 per cent of the total image. Hands and facial features are mostly considered to be too hypothetical to reconstruct and must often be left untouched (Ramsay 2000, 11).
Umberto Baldini and Ornella Casazza developed in Florence a variation on tratteggio:
selezione cromatica, astrazione cromatica and selezione d'oro.After the flood in Florence of 1966 Baldini had come the director of the conservation laboratories at the Fortezza de Basso. The dramatic circumstances were an excellent opportunity to introduce a new unified approach. The theory Baldini developed in 1978 was based on the same foundations as “Teoria del Restauro”, the restoration had to ensure recognition of the continuing existence of the lacunae while reducing the visual disturbance of the loss in order to restore the integrity of the work of art.The technique that is most confused with tratteggio is selezione cromatica. The latter is produced by small brushstrokes in only primary or secondary pure colours in successive layers. These different coloured
brushstrokes must be placed in such a way that an amalgamation occurs that is similar to the original colour. The idea is to work from dark to light and from warm to cool. Over the years, this theory has been modified, and black and white have been added to the options. Whereas tratteggio brushstrokes are more rigid, the purpose of selezione cromatica is to create a vibrating effect by applying dense, sharp, distinct strokes of colour, short and fractionally curved. The brushstrokes should follow the shape and direction of the figurative elements of the painting. See figure 4. for an example of selezione cromatica.
Figure 4. Selezione cromatica retouching technique
When a reconstruction in selezione cromatica cannot be executed because of a lack of evidence of the original painting, astrazione selezione can be applied. This technique creates a unity in lacunae by the application of an overall chromatic value of the surrounding painting. It was a neutral retouching technique that could improve the flat, unmodified colour areas, but different from the neutral grey that was widely used in the 60s and 70s. The application is the same as the selezione cromatica, but in this technique, every layer differs in colour and in the direction of brushstrokes. The different strokes in pure colours overlap. The first layer is in a vertical orientation, the second in a diagonal and the third layer must be applied in the opposite diagonal. By choosing different pure colours in combination, it is possible to adjust the warmth of the tone. See Figure 5. for an example of astrazione selezione.
Selezione d'oro was invented to retouch gilded parts. A golden colour is imitated using brushstrokes in yellow, red and green. In practice, a transparent brown is added to each colour to improve the integration. This technique has undergone some changes over time and a second method has evolved with the use of a flat, dense layer of shell gold to replace the first layer of yellow brushstrokes. The second and third layers remain the same, red brushstrokes followed by green brushstrokes (Ramsay 2000, 11). See Figure 6. for an example of selezione d'oro.
Figure 6. Retouching of an object in selezione d'oro.
Helmut Ruhemann wrote in his book 'The cleaning of paintings. Problems and potentialities'
(1968) the choice of technique should not be fixed for all lacunae, but every technique must be used where there would be a resemblance with the painting. He introduced the retouching technique of
suggestive drawing. A drawing of outlines of shapes in a light background whereby no colours are used (Ruhemann and Plesters 1968, 261). See Figure 7. for en example of a retouching in
suggestive drawing.
Even though dotted retouches had been used before, inspiration for the development of this technique in Paris in 1970 came mainly from the Neo-impressionist painters Signac and Seurat. The pointillism technique consist of multiple dots put together, whereby the dots differ in size and are executed with pure colours on a white background or on a light or cooler background tone. When performed with pure colours and a bright white, the result will be close to the tratteggio technique, but the quickness with which this technique can be performed makes it possible to cover large areas (Bergeon Langle 2007, 12-3). See Figure 8. for an example of a pointillistic retouching.
Figure 8. Example of a pointillistic retouching on a wall painting in Esrum Monastery, Denmark. Most recently, the simulative retouching technique was first invented and applied in 1994 by the Danish conservator Isabelle Brajer. The technique also follows Gestalt psychology. The technique combines ideas of discernible retouching techniques such as tratteggio or astrazione cromatica and even neutral retouching with the ideology of deceptive retouching. It can be achieved by imitating the appearance and condition of the original paint. The camouflage technique, as this technique was originally called, is done by clumping or overlapping retouching lines or dots. The challenge here is to rely on the artistic sensitivity of the conservator to find the right technique to imitate the painted surface. It has to alternate with the density and the technique used such as stripes and dots, paint splotches, crosshatchings whereby an imitation of dense or faded paint can be achieved.
Another reason behind the development of this technique is that the usual techniques such as tratteggio when applied to more significant lacunae have a too soft and blurred effect in contrast to the original paint (Brajer 2010, 102). See Figure 9. for an example of the simulative retouching technique.
Figure 9. Retouching in simulative technique on a wall painting in Fjenneslev Church, Denmark
In the 20th century these ethical dilemmas continue to keep conservators occupied. According to
Isabelle Brajer there are always supporters and opponents when it comes down to the improvement of aesthetics when retouching of wall-paintings. To find the right balance between aesthetics and authenticity is a difficult task. In Brajer's view it is necessary to focus first on a set of questions to be able to reach for an optimal solution:
-Should we focus on the preservation of the genuine?
-Should we preserve and truthfully display all the changes and evolution the object has undergone? -To what extent should we respect the views of the general public? (Brajer 2009, 22)
Brajer focusses on three approaches.The first approach is a focus on the original material where that originality is seen as the highest value. Subsequent additions and restorations are removed in this approach, so-called de-restoration to reach a truthful genuine physical substance. In its most
extreme form, this could lead to fragments of authentic wall paintings that have lost their coherence and relation to the architectural space. The second approach is to respect the original material versus the comprehension of the image. Older restorations and retouchings can contribute to a better understanding of the image itself and that is important because the general public often appreciates wall paintings because of what is depicted in the image. The third approach is one whereby the value of old restorations contribute to evidence of the passage of time. Most wall paintings have had earlier restorations which could lead to a false concept of their true condition but still can have a high value cause these interventions contribute to the image that otherwise could have been lost during the passage of time (Brajer 2009, 24-7). Since authenticity lies in many aspects, it is difficult to give it a specific value. Which approach best deals with that authenticity is a question to be asked. Balancing truth and aesthetics is a task that could give a different outcome for each case (Brajer 2009, 31).
To close this review of retouching techniques, it is noted that the digital era of the 20th to 21th centuries offers many possibilities for restoration and research and which can also be used for non invasive retouching. By using light projections, augmented and virtual reality, it is possible to show retouches without touching the original surface. These possibilities also make it possible to show multiple stages of an image. In this way it also has a high educational content.In 1986
Lafontaine used light projected for the first time to compensate for discolouration in a painting (Cuellar et.al. 2011, 2).Since 2012 the facade of the cathedral in Amiens, France is illuminated by means of 'projection mapping'. See Figure 10. Photographs have been edited according to insights from previous research and are projected onto the facade by means of projectors, creating an image with original colours (Stigter 2017, 103).
Figure 10. The cathedral in Amiens, France with and without retouching in light projections.
Nor should the option of a minimalist approach be discarded. The appreciation of a wall painting is often linked to its appearance. The fact that the painting has survived the ravages of time is also often regarded as valuable. This valuation is not a requirement for the wall painting to be retouched. Under the right circumstances, the wall painting can have a strong impact and can contribute to the experience of the public even if it is not retouched (Brajer 2015, 1).
2.5 Situation in the Netherlands
As it has in all of Europe, the practice of retouching in the Netherlands has changed over the
centuries. The changes in retouching opinions and practice can be seen in the following examples of 20th century retouched wall paintings.
Grote Kerk, Breda
The wall paintings in the Grote Kerk of Breda (see Figure 11.) have been restored and retouched many times in the 20th century. At the beginning of the century, several 16th-century secco wall paintings were discovered and uncovered in the Great Church of Breda. Old damage, the release of the paintings and also the damp walls had severely damaged the paintings. A large-scale restoration was immediately started, and many restorations have followed even into the 21st century (le Blanc and Wisselaar 2010, 28).
Figure 11. Wall Painting Sint-Christoffel at the Grote Kerk., Breda in 2002.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, new ideas had emerged about restoring wall and vault paintings. The nineteenth-century vision of renovation and embellishment now found opponents who thought that a wall painting should only be preserved without further additions. These included Baron Johan van Keppel and Adolph Mulder of the State Conservation of Monuments1 (formerly RCE), who supervised the first restoration were supporters of new methods of conservation treatments: a painting should not be updated, repainted, varnished or renewed.
The first restoration was carried out by Johan van Keppel, Jan Dunselman and P. Helwegen in 1903 and led by P.J.H.Cuypers. The wall paintings were cleaned, paint flakes were consolidated, and small lacunae were retouched according to the colour of the surroundings. No overpainting was done, but the missing parts were touched up so that the beauty of the painting would become visible again, but in a way that was indistinguishable from the original (Le Blanc and Wisselaar 2010, 29). Dunselman retouched a wall painting with a pointillistic technique (van Keppel 1907, 53-4).
The next conservation treatment that started less then 30 years later. Even though a lot had changed in the way of conservation, not everyone was in agreement. In 1930 Jacob Por started a large-scale restoration. He was a great proponent of the concept of conservative restoration, not updating or repainting wall paintings, but conservation was paramount, nevertheless he touched up the missing parts with a transparent colour, in a lighter shade than the original painting. As a result, the disturbing white lacunae were removed, but were still visible which parts were retouched (Le Blanc and Wisselaar 2010, 29). Por worked with the painter Dio Rovers with whom he had a number of disagreements. The State Conservation of Monuments did not agree with Rovers' approach because he was retouching in a way that did not suit the new concept of retouching. But despite the latter, Rovers continued to work on the wall and vault paintings in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Later conservation treatment of the vaults showed that Rovers had performed all of the retouching in oil paint which could not be removed without damaging the underlying remains (Le Blanc and Wisselaar 2010, 31).
In the 1980s, the condition of the paintings worsened considerably due to problems with moisture and heat. It was not until 1993 that Dick Schoonekamp and his restoration studio was commissioned to perform the restoration. The painting was removed from the wall and transferred to a new support in 1996, after which the paint layer was cleaned, stripped of old over-paintings, fixed and retouched. The lacunae were filled in with subtle, but clearly recognisable retouches in a pointillistic technique.
In 1996 a new treatment and research was carried out. The flaking over-paintings of Rovers were documented and removed, revealing many original medieval paintings. Rovers had thus painted over an enormous amount of the work. Schoonekamp retouched the original wall paintings using the tratteggio technique (Le Blanc and Wisselaar 2010, 34).
In 2006 the wall paintings were retouched by Dorota Burgin. Unfortunately there was no report and justification of the restoration treatment and although the lacunae were filled with tratteggio technique, it was performed with insufficient knowledge of the latest developments in the restoration profession according the RCE. How Burgin exactly executed the tratteggio is not known. In 2007 a new conservator was appointed from Belgium, Bernard Delmotte, who is specialised in wall paintings and had a more analytical and self-critical approach. Delmotte was trained following the current international restoration principles and took care of the reporting and justification of the chosen treatment plan. Delmotte has committed himself to show painted fragments as honestly as possible, making the painting more visible without excessive retouching. In an entire century several retouches have been applied and removed. These retouches have diverted attention from the original wall paintings. But now, according to Bernice Crijns (RCE) the old paintings are being honoured again now that the surroundings around the fragments are shown quietly without using the colour tones from the original (Crijns 2010, 38).
Joriskerk, Amersfoort
Another case in which a wall painting underwent several restorations over an entire century is the sixteenth-century wall painting 'De Kruisdraging' at the outside wall of the Joriskerk (See Figure
12). Since many of the old restorations are still present it now functions as a valuable source of
restoration history. The Kruisdraging was uncovered in 1901. Two years later it was restored by Dunselman because of its poor condition and the darkened layer of varnish.What this restoration entailed is not documented, thus nothing is known about possible retouching. Dunselman was a church painter and not a trained conservator.But it is known from the restoration in the Grote Kerk in Breda, that Dunselman was a conservator who retouched in a conservative way. Probably the grey cement fillings were applied during this restoration but they could also be made by Por who was taking care of the next restoration in 1942 (van Rijnsoever 2016, 18-20).
Almost 40 years later, the painting had become so dark that the image was almost invisible. Jacob Por (1882-1947) was responsible for the restoration of which no report was made.
Nevertheless, there is some knowledge of the restoration through correspondence stating that Por replaced Dunselman's fillings. In fact Por 'removed' the painting and covered it with a protective layer, and actually discarded Dunselman's entire restoration. Por was known as someone who did a lot of preliminary research and was extremely careful and restrained (van Rijnsoever 2016, 21).This cannot be stated with accuracy as it is not clear which restoration dates from 1903 and which from 1942. Por did not keep any records beside of an article he wrote in the journal 'Vereeniging Flehite' that he painted in the missing parts (Por 1964, 142).
After more than 40 years, the most extensive restoration by Willem Haakma Wagenaar was carried out in 1984. The painting was in very poor condition because of the exposure to the natural elements. Therefore it was moved with the use of the stacco technique from outside to the inside. Haakma Wagenaar removed some old fillings that were no longer constructive, and then after moving the painting, it was retouched with a rigatino technique. In the 1970's he took a specialist course in Rome where mainly the tratteggio technique was applied. However, Haakma Wagenaar found that this technique resembled the technique of the 16th-century painters and considered it not neutral enough. He considered this rigatino technique to be a more disciplined addition to the tratteggio technique. The retouching does not consist of short stripes but in this version out of long vertical stripes, extending over the entire lacuna. The use of colour could be done with two
complementary colours or brighter colour in combination with a less bright colour. Fillings on the edge of the painting were not given a rigatino retouching but a neutral hue based on Brandi's
theories whereby an average of all surrounding colours should be taken as the colour for the lacuna. He applied his retouches to fillings and left the original paint untouched (van Rijnsoever 2016, 22-3).
Figure 12. Wall painting 'De Kruisdraging' Joriskerk, Amersfoort, situation 1988
These two examples show that conservation ethics en techniques have changed over time.
In more than a century these wall paintings were retouched in many different ways: overpainting, retouched with transparent colours, multiple times in a pointillistic technique and multiple times in a tratteggio technique. It also shows that despite the fact that at the beginning of the 20th century new ways of thinking and methods were already agreed upon, over-paintings were still being carried out. It is a good example showing that different views exist side by side and that this can also be seen in the execution of the retouching. It also clearly shows that one technique performed
by one person is not the same as the other.
Earlier research
In 2011 Hinke Sigmond did research after the Dutch restoration practice in the 1970's. She gained valuable information through interviews with several conservators who practising at that time. Retouching techniques were discussed but very briefly. The conservators mentioning they were using different types of retouching. However, when conservators explained their techniques, it became clear that they developed their own interpretations of original techniques (Sigmond 2011,47). This shows that not everyone worked in the same way, and that opinions about
restoration and restoration methods were often very far apart. The discussion that took place in the 1970's amongst conservators was mostly about which materials to use, but also about which method to apply and how far you would go in completing, retouching and reconstruction of missing areas in wall paintings. In the 1970's the aesthetic appearance and the functionality of material were
considered very important. Sigmond identifies the lack of specialised education for restoration and conservation as a possible causes for the lack of an unambiguous vision (Sigmond 2011, 53-4). However, this situation as described in the above study has changed after the 1970's.
In 1978 the first training for conservators in the Netherlands was founded: Training for Conservators.2 This eventually became a four-year course for conservators at the Institute Collection Netherlands (ICN).3 A five-year postgraduate course was also developed at the Foundation Restoration Atelier Limburg (SRAL)4 specifically for the restoration of paintings, which later also included historical interior spaces and modern art.
In 2006 the University Master's program in Conservation at the University of Amsterdam was starting for the first time. Since 2015 the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage is an English-language two-year master's degree in nine specialisations which which meets the European standards. After this master course students can follow up with a two-year Advanced Professional Program. Whether these trainings have ensured that there is a more unambiguous vision on retouching and the use of retouching techniques is not clear. There are currently no standard handbooks on how to retouch, and there is no manual or standard in the Netherlands.
There are guidelines such as European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers Organisations (ECCO, n.d.) and International Council on Monuments and Sites Principles
(ICOMOS) has guidelines for preservation and conservation/restoration of wall paintings. Which, for example, indicates in Article 5 that a conservator should keep all interventions to a necessary minimum level to keep the material and pictorial authenticity as high as possible.
The aim of the restoration is to improve the readability of the shape and content of the wall
painting, while respecting the original creation and its history. Aesthetic reintegration contributes to reducing the visibility of the damage to a minimum. Overpainting should be avoided and retouches and reconstructions should be executed in a manner that is distinguishable from the original
(ICOMOS, 2003).This manual and code of ethics is important and valuable when making conservation decisions. However, it is still freely interpretable and is silent on which techniques should be used and how a particular technique should be performed.
If the fact that there was originally no formal training until recently in the Netherlands have led to a versatility in approach, in ethical dilemmas and a variety of techniques when it comes to retouching of wall paintings is not known. What the current situation considering retouching techniques is exactly, is not researched yet and this is why this thesis is written. What is the background of conservators who are currently working in the field of wall painting conservation, and does is result in conflicting practice? The research to fins the answers to this question will be discussed in the following chapter.
2 Translation of Opleiding tot Restauratoren 3 Translation of Instituut Collectie Nederland (ICN)
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Survey of conservators
In order to be able to answer the main and sub-questions of this thesis, research into current practice is needed. Different research methods were investigated, but given the possibly large group of people and the time-consuming task of transcribing interviews, other possibilities were quickly explored as the time for this research was limited. It was decided to conduct a survey. In this way it would be possible to compare answers and gain insight into possible differences in approach and vision on retouching wall paintings.
For the survey, a case study was selected of a wall painting with several lacunae in depicted human figures and also in the background and border. It is a painting of Maria Magdalena with the Vera icon in the Sint Agneskerk in Sint Truiden, Belgium. It was painted around 1300 and is located above an altar table in the beguinage chapel of the church (Bergmans1998, 257). This particularly wall paintings was chosen because it is located in Belgium and therefore there would be little chance that the conservators would know the wall painting or that they had worked on it in the past. The lacunae that are present on the wall painting are interesting because the three different lacunae might be approached differently. Retouching a face of which it is not known what it looked like is different from a pattern that seems to be continuing.
39 conservators were asked to complete the survey. These conservators out of the field of wall painting were identified through suggestions from Ruth Jongsma, Jessica Hensel, Merel Lantman and Kate Seymour who are lectures at the Master Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage at the University of Amsterdam. The participants of the expert meeting of a wall paintings work group organised by Conservators Netherlands (RN)5 which was held 12th March 2020 at the RCE were also part of the 39 approached Conservators.
The survey can be find in Appendix 1. The first question of the survey concerns a question about the lacuna in the border (see Figure 13). It is sometimes said that a pattern may be drawn through if the surrounding pattern is known. It would be interesting to see if conservators agree on that approach.
Figure 14. Survey question 2. Lacuna in the clothing.
Case study Maria Magdalena with the Vera icon in the Sint Agneskerk in Sint Truiden, Belgium
The next question is (see figure 14.) how the conservators would deal with lacunae in the clothing. Again, there are a number of clues in the surrounding areas as to how the fabric could pass through. In addition, this lacuna is larger than the previous one. The contrast between the colour of the clothing and the gap is great. Is this lacuna considered more disturbing? These factors can all influence how the conservator would retouch this lacuna.
Figure 14. Survey question 2. Lacuna in the clothing.
Case study Maria Magdalena with the Vera icon in the Sint Agneskerk in Sint Truiden, Belgium.
The third question (see figure 15.) is about the lacuna in the face of Maria Magdalena. Part of it has been lost and it is not known what the mouth looked like. It would be very interesting to see how conservators will deal with this lacuna.
Figure 15. Survey question 3. Lacuna in the face.
Case study Maria Magdalena with the Vera icon in the Sint Agneskerk in Sint Truiden, Belgium. The conservators were offered nine different retouching techniques:
-Neutral retouching;
-Suggestive retouching with colour; -Suggestive retouching with outlines; -Reconstruction; -Tratteggio; -Selezione cromatica; -Astrazione cromatica; -Pointillism; -Simulative retouching.
They could select an option: 'do nothing', or if they wanted to choose something that was not listed, they could provide those in the box, 'other options'. The conservators were asked to motivate their selection using an open question. Asking for their motivation using multiple choice questions was not used because it would have a steering effect. In order to establish the link between their choices, knowledge and work experience, the following questions were included in the survey:
-What is the most important source of your knowledge? -What education did you have?
-When did you graduate?
-Is the knowledge you learned about retouching still relevant? -Did you work on wall paintings in the last 5 years?
The survey was designed in Google forms where the target group received an invitation by mail. Most of the 39 people were first approached by telephone, followed by the invitation by mail. The results were processed in an Excel file. First of all, an inventory was made of which techniques have been chosen per lacuna to see if there are many differences in selection, but also to determine if the way of retouching differs per lacuna. The motivations behind the choices were categorised in four categories:
-Conservators who think that the current state needs to be preserved;
-Conservators who think it is important to calm the lacuna and make it stand out less;
-Conservators who think it is important to make a visible distinction between retouching and original material;
-Conservators who think that the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed.
These categories were chosen because they represent four different stages in the completion of pictorial content: preserving, reducing disturbance, recognisable retouching and reconstruction. The results of the techniques and the results of the motivations were compared with each other as well as with the most important sources of knowledge and training and practical experience.
3.2 General public research
Originally, it was planned to use an eye-tracking device as an analytical tool. With eye-tracking glasses or devices, it is possible to record how the participants are looking at submitted images. After a short calibration of the participant's eye, the device can register what the eye is looking at, in which order and for what duration. In this way the experiment would show if specific retouching techniques were catching the eye or that it is not noticeable. This would give an indication of a particular retouching method was successful or not.
Research concerning retouching techniques with the use of eye tracking was published by Sarah Maisey, Patricia Smithen, Anna Vilaro Soler and Tim J. Smith in 2011 concerning the painting of John Martin's Epic Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum (1821). The painting had enormous damage and was in need of a retouching treatment to regain much of this visual impact.
Through research the different retouching methods were examined how they were perceived by the general public. With an eye-tracking device, the viewer's gaze was monitored while they were submitted with images of the painting with different retouching techniques. (Maisey, et al. 2011, 5) The participants were also questioned about their opinion regarding the treatment options. Most of the participants opted for the illusionistic version over the abstracted version. This also reflected the outcome of the eye gaze test, whereby the gaze behaviour of the illusionistic and the abstracted version were more close to each other than the other two versions (see figure . The neutral and the muted version were chosen the least. A reason for that can be found in the fact that in the neutral and muted version the participants seemed to be more aware of the missing area. The gaze pattern showed that the first fixations were located at the edge of that area. The neutral retouching showed that the eye focused mainly on the transition between original and neutral retouching, while the illusionistic reconstruction and reconstruction with abstracted features focused more on the original parts.
Figure 16. Gaze patterns of the neutral version, muted version and abstracted version of the painting Epic Destruction
of Pompeii and Herculaneum by John Martin (1821).
This research provided insight into visual cognition and the use of simulated eye-tracking tests also provided valuable insight into how aspects of the reconstructed area can be reduced to subtly discourage long-term viewer fixation. Although the treatment decision had to based on ethical considerations, the results of the eye-tracking test in combination with the survey provided insight about the visual perception was for every technique (Maisey, et al. 2011, 6-7).
Research about visual perception and conservation treatments is being conducted by Bill Wei and IJsbrand Hummelen. They studied visual perception in order to find possibilities for active conservation treatments and virtual retouching. They made four digitally (Photoshop) retouched versions of the same painting 'The old Arlesienne' by Vincent van Gogh see Figure 17. The painting was shown to a test group, without giving them any information. They had to point out which version they preferred, and besides that, they were asked to write a few sentences to motivate their choice. Almost 40 per cent of the respondents had chosen for the version that was digitally
retouched with an artistic illusionistic refilling. The version with the neutral grey filling was chosen as the chosen second with 25 per cent.
Figure 17 four digitally edited versions of the Oude Arlèsienne by Vincent VanGogh, 1888. Van Gogh Museum This research showed that even with a very simple set up it is possible to gain information. The results of the perception test are showing that what the audience will see and perceive is not always compatible with what the professional might think what the audience will see and perceive (Wei and Hummelen 2017, 2-3)
The Covid-19 crisis made the use of eye-tracking techniques impossible within the time period of this research project. A survey was therefore also conducted to find out how the general public looks at wall paintings and different ways of retouching. This survey can be find in
Appendix II. The general public was shown a number of examples where they had to make a choice of which manner of retouching they preferred. In order to be able to make a comparison with results of the conservators’ survey, the same case study was used, the wall painting from in the Sint
Agneskerk in Sint Truiden. In the previous survey, it was asked to indicate techniques, but for this survey a number of examples were illustrated, because the general public would probably not be familiar with the terminology of techniques such as Tratteggio and astrazione cromatica.
The participants were shown five possible retouching solutions, consisting of five images which were digitally created in Photoshop (see Figure 18, 19, 20, 21 and 21).
1. retouching with tratteggio method;
2. suggestive retouching with colour (suggestive differentiated); 3. suggestive retouching with outlines (suggestive drawing); 4. illusionistic reconstruction;
5. retouching with neutral colours.
Fig. 21. Option 4 Fig. 22. Option 5
These five techniques were chosen because they are very different from each other. Different degrees of reconstruction and different ways of preserving authenticity were considered. Distinctly different examples were chosen so that they would induce some reaction or opinion. In real life, of course, there is more nuance and there are many more possibilities. As there is often little
information given in the places where such wall paintings can be found such as in churches, it was also decided to give the general public only very little background information. The information that was shared is that the wall painting is from around 1300 and that it was located in a church. In this way, the participants choices were presumably made on a purely visual basis. They were also asked to motivate their answer in the form of an open question, in which they can decide for themselves how extensive they would be in their answer. The results were also categorised and analysed with Excel. In addition, all motivations were also be categorised according to the same categories as the conservators. In this way the results could be easily compared and it would become more clear as to whether public and conservators expect the same from a restoration and what a retouched wall painting should look like.
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Conservators survey
Of the 39 conservators who were invited, 27 participated on the survey.
Answers to the three different questions about the lacunae to be retouched yielded the following results in Table 1.
Border Fabric Face Number of times
selected
Neutral retouching 9 9 14 32
Suggestive with colour - 6 3 9
Suggestive with outlines - 1 2 3
Reconstruction 2 - - 2 Tratteggio 4 4 2 10 Selezione cromatica 3 2 - 5 Astrazione cromatica - - - 0 Pointillism - - - 0 Simulative technique 1 1 1 3 No retouching 3 - 1 4 Alternative solution 3 2 2 7 No answer 2 2 2 6 Total participants 27 27 27
Table 1. Answers on the three questions about the lacunae to be retouched
The table shows all of the options for each of the three lacunae and the corresponding choices made by the conservators. Nine different options were chosen: neutral retouching, suggestive retouching with colour, suggestive retouching with outlines, reconstruction, selezione cromatica, simulative technique the option to not retouch at all and the option for an alternative solution. Two techniques were not chosen at all: astrazione cromatica and pointillism. The number of times a certain
technique was chosen for each lacuna was counted. It can be seen that neutral retouching was chosen most often, 32 times. The tratteggio option was the most common technique chosen with 10 times, followed by the suggestive colour retouching technique that was chosen 9 times. The
techniques chosen the least often are reconstruction, the suggestive retouching with outlines and the simulative retouching. The techniques astrazione cromatica and pointillism were not chosen at all. The number of choices per lacuna can be visualised in the following pie charts Figure 23, 24 and 25) on the next page.
Border
Figure 23. Answers on the question about the lacuna in the border.
For the lacuna in the border, 33.3 percent opted for the neutral retouching. The next popular choice was for Tratteggio with 14.8 percent, followed by the Selezione cromatica, the option not to retouch, and some alternative solution was at 11.1 percent each. The options selezione cromatica and the alternative solutions were chosen with 7.4 percent. Simulative retouching and suggestive retouching with outlines were chosen with 3.7 percent.
Clothing
Figure 24. Answers on the question about the lacuna in the clothing.
For the lacuna in the clothing, the neutral retouching was again chosen the most at 33 percent. The second choice was suggestive colour retouching at 22.2 percent. Tratteggio was the third choice at 14.8 percent. The following techniques were chosen with equal percentages of 7.4 percent
Selezione cromatica and alternative solutions. Simulative retouching and suggestive retouching with outlines were chosen the least at 3.7 percent.
Face
Figure 25. Answers on the question about the lacuna in the face.
For the lacuna in the face, the neutral retouching was again the technique which was chosen the most 51.9 percent. The other options chosen for the face were: the suggestive colour retouching with 11.1 percent, and tratteggio, suggestive retouching with outlines, and and alternative solution at 7.4 percent. The simulative technique and no retouching option were chosen the least at 3.7 percent.
4.2 Motivations
The written explanations and motivations that were given for the choices were categorised according to the four predetermined categories, and per lacuna can be seen in Table 2, 3 and 4. Border
Border the current
state needs to be preserved
calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
visible distinction between retouching and original material the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed Neutral retouching 7 6 3
Suggestive with colour Suggestive with outlines
Reconstruction 2 Tratteggio 1 2 4 Selezione cromatica 2 2 Simulative technique 1 1 No retouching 3 Alternative solution 3 Total 10 10 8 9
Table 2. Motivations by answers on the question about the lacuna in the border.
Nearly all motivations concerning the lacuna in the border are almost equally distributed over the categories. The two most frequently mentioned statements, “the current state needs to be preserved”
and “calm the lacuna and make it stand out less” occurred 10 times each. This is followed by the statement that the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed, this statement came to the attention of 9 conservators. Finally by 8 people the statement about the visible difference between retouching and the original material was mentioned
The current state needs to be preserved.
This motivation emerged ten times in the written answers. Conservators who felt that there was no need for an addition and wanted to preserve the current state, opted for a neutral retouch or to do nothing. The motivations were often based on the fact that the lacuna was not found to be disturbing and that it could be filled in with imagination.Others mentioned the fact that a supplement would detract from the authenticity.
Conservators quotes:6
“If there are no further wishes from the client: I experience the lacuna as not disturbing because of the size and location. Moreover, it is in a pattern that you can easily draw with your imagination. Just stay away from it, I'd say.”
“Through reconstruction it seems as if the painting was complete and the authenticity is affected.” Calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
This motivation emerged ten times in the written answers.
Conservators who are of the opinion that a lacuna in the border should be made less disruptive opted for the neutral retouching for the most part. One person wanted to achieve this with the tratteggio technique. Three conservators came up with alternative solutions, for example, to draw the pattern and the lacuna more towards each other in terms of colour, or by removing the black lines and bringing the entire lacuna more in line with the shades of the surroundings. A third option that was suggested was to fill in all the lacunae with a neutral colour and then consider which one is the most disturbing and start working on it in order to make it less disturbing.
Conservators quotes:
“To make the lacuna less striking but not to add something that is no longer there.”
“... I do think it is important that the lacuna does not distract attention from the painting and that is why I opt for a neutral interpretation. In this way we can enjoy and understand as much as possible what is part of the found and possibly original painting.”
Visible distinction between retouching and original material
Eight conservators indicated that the difference between retouching and the original material should be visible. The conservators who made their choice with this motivation opted for four different techniques: neutral retouching, tratteggio, Selezione cromatica and the simulative technique.
Conservators quotes:
“...Besides that, tratteggio is an 'honest' retouching technique, which is clearly recognisable for the expert but perhaps also for an attentive observer.”
“this is a repeating pattern and can therefore be copied well. I would choose that the additions are visible from close by.”
The pictorial content needs to be reconstructed
Nine conservators indicated that the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed. Those who agreed with this statement chose four different techniques: four of them opted for tratteggio, two of them 6 All quotes of the conservators and the general public that are listed in the results of this thesis are freely translated
for a reconstruction, two for selezione cromatica and one for the simulative technique. The conservators who felt that an addition was necessary had mostly the same motivation, the lacuna was found to be disturbing and attracts to much attention.
Conservators quotes:
“The missing part is a in pattern and therefore also a very disturbing part for the viewer's eye and it is distracting from the work of art.”
“Because it is a repetitive pattern and it is known how this pattern continues in the lacuna, I would fill this lacuna with this knowledge.”
Clothing
The written explanations and motivation that were given for the choices with the question about the lacuna in the clothing are categorised according to the four predetermined categories, can been seen in Table 3.
Clothing the current
state needs to be preserved
calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
visible distinction between retouching and original material the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed Neutral retouching 4 5
Suggestive with colour 4 4
Suggestive with outlines 1
Reconstruction Tratteggio 2 2 Selezione cromatica 2 2 Simulative technique 1 No retouching Alternative solution 1 1 1 Total 5 13 5 7
Table 3. Motivations by answers on the question about the lacuna in the clothing.
The results for this lacuna showed that the largest group motivated their answer with the category “calm the lacuna and make it stand out less. The statement about the pictorial content that needs to be reconstructed was the motivation seven times. The other two statements were both mentioned equally.
The current state needs to be preserved.
The current state needs to be reserved emerged five times in the written answers. Of these, four conservators opted for the neutral retouching and one conservator opted for an alternative solution by use of light retouching. The fact that retouchings from the past are difficult to distinguish was a reason for one of the conservators to prefer to do nothing and leave the current state as it is.
Maintaining authenticity also proved to be an important motivation.
Conservators quotes:
“I believe that over time, years, decades, centuries, it becomes increasingly impossible to distinguish between retouchings and the original. I am in favour of preserving the found state as much as possible as such. “
Calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
As many as 13 conservators indicated in their motivation that they thought it was important to make the lacuna calmer so that it would be less obvious. These 13 conservators chose five different techniques to achieve this. Most of them opted for neutral retouching. This was followed by four conservators who opted for the suggestive colour retouching. Two conservators opted for tratteggio. One selected suggestive retouching with outlines and one opted for an alternative solution: Making the lacuna less distracting by making the shape and the background in a slightly lighter tone of surrounding colour, because it is next to older retouchings. The motivation was often based on the fact that they did not want to distract attention from the painting.
Conservators quotes:
“I do think it's important that the lacuna doesn't distract attention from the painting and that's why I choose for a neutral interpretation.”
“It always depends on the extent to which you want to retouch and whether you retouch at all. But in this case I would choose to make the whole less disrupting.”
Visible distinction between retouching and original material
Five conservators indicated that their motivation for their choice of retouching was that it was important to have a visible distinction between the original material and the new retouching. They opted for 3 different techniques, two of them for tratteggio, two of them for the selezione cromatica and one of them for the simulative technique. It was not always indicated why this difference is important but one conservator indicated that the antiquity of the painting is a reason to make that difference visible.
Conservators quotes:
“Colour and shapes are known here, but you still want to distinguish between original and reconstruction.”
“….but because of its age it is important if it remains distinguishable from the original.”
The pictorial content needs to be reconstructed
Of all the conservators, seven were motivated by the fact that they felt that the pictorial content should be reconstructed. A total of three different choices were made by the seven conservators. Four of them opted for the suggestive retouching with colour, two of them opted for the selezione cromatica and one chose an alternative solution. A motivation that was often mentioned often was the fact that the lines in the clothing were easy to continue and one conservator thought that since it concerned clothing, you could go a step further in retouching.
Conservators quotes:
“In this case, it's about the character's clothing - you can go a little further here ....I would simply let the lines of the robe run very vaguely and give the very light areas a neutral colour or a light red - this would also depend on the size of the painting and the location where it is located.”
“However, with modesty: the contour lines can easily be drawn (interrupted lines are always the most disturbing to the eye) and the pattern also seems to retouch well (without its own
Face
The written explanations and motivation that were given for the choices with the question about the lacuna in the face are categorised according to the four predetermined categories, can been seen in Table 4.
Face the current
state needs to be conserved
calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
visible distinction between retouching and original material the pictorial content needs to be reconstructed Neutral retouching 7 10 1
Suggestive with colour 1 2
Suggestive with outlines 2
Reconstruction Tratteggio 1 1 1 Selezione cromatica Simulative technique 1 1 No retouching Alternative solution 1 1 1 Total 8 14 2 7
Table 4. Motivations by answers on the question about the lacuna in the face.
The largest group motivated their answer with statements related to “calm the lacuna and make it stand out less”. The statement about preserving the current state of the wall painting was mentioned 8 times, and that about the need for pictorial reconstruction was mentioned 7 times. The visible distinction between retouching and the original material was mentioned only two times.
The current state needs to be preserved
Eight conservators indicated in their motivation that they would like to keep the current state as it is. Seven of them preferred the neutral retouching and one of them chose an alternative solution, which was light retouching. The motivation revealed that certainly in the case of the face, forgery would be the biggest issue and would most detract from the authenticity.
Conservators quotes:
“Again, I wouldn't reconstruct / retouch, because here the forgery will be all the greater. As a conservator, how do you know what her face and facial expression have looked like?”
“You don't know what the mouth looked like. A reconstruction according to one's own imagination and insight doesn't seem ethical to me here.”
Calm the lacuna and make it stand out less
Fourteen of the conservators stressed the importance of making the lacuna in the face less
distracting. Ten conservators decided in favour of the neutral retouching. One conservator opted for the suggestive colour retouching, one for the simulative technique and another for the light
retouching as an alternative solution. Here, too, there were many comments about the difficulty of falsifying the face, but also the lacuna that requires too much attention without treatment.
Conservators quotes:
“In order not to get involved in practices of 'forgery of history', I would choose a neutral colour here in order to calm the whole and bring more harmony to the readability of the depiction.” “Too much disappeared to fill in again. You don't want to make something up, but you also don't want your eye attracted to the lacuna.”
Visible distinction between retouching and original material
The importance of the visible difference between retouching and the original material became apparent in the motivations of two conservators. One opted for the tratteggio technique and the second for the simulative technique. No exact reasons were given as to why the difference should be clear, but rather that it should be clear.
Conservators quotes:
“Less striking but recognisable as a retouching”
“So there is recognition of what has been retouched and what is original.”
The pictorial content needs to be reconstructed
The motivations of seven conservators showed that they thought it was important to reconstruct. The seven conservators chose 5 different techniques in total. Two of them found the suggestive retouching with colour the best option. Two others also opted for the suggestive retouching but with outlines. One person chose neutral retouching (but with additions of lines), one for tratteggio, and the one for an alternative solution in which the contours of neck, face, hair in lighter/dark contrast can be slightly accentuated. According to the motivations, it turns out that reconstructing the face was not the ultimate goal for anyone. In many cases, the reconstruction should be very restrained and, above all, it should be supportive without too many interpretations.
Conservators quotes:
“I'm assuming in this situation that I don't have images of the original situation. I would continue the lines of which I logically know how they run and possibly disturb the rest with a neutral colour.”
“But in this case, much more subdued. So don't fill in the face, but a neutral colour matching that of the face. The contour line of the face - not the lips or other details. When a retouching is too much of your own interpretation, I think you should be very careful.”
