The Tuesday, December 20, 2016 Science section of The New York Times contains a front page article by Milan Schreuer on a multi-year project to study and restore the “Ghent Altarpiece” (“Uncovering a Master’s Strokes” ). The article discusses how macro-x-ray fluorescence analysis, a technique developed at the University of Antwerp which allows one to observe the paint surface in 3D and see how the layers are structured, is being used to differentiate overpaint from original paint on the panels. It’s a huge, expensive, transformative project. The kind we love to read about and the kind which generates excitement—hence the front page story. But do articles about such projects give the public a distorted picture of the work that the average conservator does?
One thought on “A distorted picture of the work that the average conservator does?”
Comments are closed.
We keep forgetting that the profession of conservation is still new. The general public is still ties to the previous methods, because that is all they know. We need to be patient and diligent in ushering in this new (and constantly changing and advancing)approach to “restoration”. We can not blame them, we need to educate them. However, with Rebecca’s query, we know what we must do.