On December 14, 2014 the architecture critic Martin Filler wrote in the New York Review of Books blog of his horror at seeing the restoration work in Chartres Cathedral during a visit in the fall (“A Scandalous Makeover at Chartres” ). He said that the trompe l’oeil marble painting on the limestone surfaces was like something found in “some funeral parlor in Little Italy” —a strong indictment of what will have been when it is completed in 2017, an $18.5 million, eight year restoration project. Filler maintained that since little is known of the church’s original appearance and since for most of the church’s eight century history, the walls were not painted, the walls should not have been repainted– especially since the lighter walls feel wrong and change one’s perception of the stained glass windows. Although he quoted architectural historians and medievalists to bolster his case, in the end whether Filler’s view prevails or that of Frederic Didier, the restoration architect in charge of the project, for the individual viewing a restored work of art or architecture it always comes down to feeling and perception.
Skip to content
AIC Blog Archives: Conservators Converse
Former Blog of the American Institute for Conservation