Author: Rebecca Rushfield

According to Randy Kennedy, writing in the Inside Art column of The New York Times (“Made Not to Last”,  July 10, 2015), this summer a number of New York City galleries are mounting shows of works painted directly on the gallery walls. When the shows end, the works will cease to exist—either painted over or, in the case of the Andrew Edlin Gallery, demolished along with the building. However, considering the high value of art, one suspects that fairly soon conservators may be called upon to try and recover these murals.

In a recent article about the destruction of monuments and cultural heritage sites by representatives of the Islamic State (“Islamic State Destroys More Artifacts in Iraq and Syria”, The New York Times, July 4, 2015), reporters Rick Gladstone and Maher Samaan note that there is some speculation that the photographs posted by Islamist media outlets of destroyed statues from Palmyra, Syria seized from a smuggler may be of fake statue remains and that the sculptures were smuggled by the Islamic State fighters themselves. Is the resolution of these photos good enough for conservators who are experts in stone to determine from the edges and breaks whether the remains in the photos are old and of the type of stone they should be if the real thing?

According to a story by David W. Dunlap in the July 2, 2015 issue of The New York Times (‘Restoring a Lackluster Sculpture, for Legacy’s Sake”), $40,000 of public funding is being spent to restore “Freedom of the Human Spirit”, a bronze sculpture by Marshall M. Fredericks that has been standing in Flushing Meadows Corona Park since the 1964 World’s Fair. A prime example of mid-20^th century monumental sculpture, the work is now out of fashion and favor. Yet, Jonathan Kuhn, Director of Art and Antiquities for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is quoted as saying about its restoration, “Our responsibilities as custodians transcend our aesthetic proclivities.” These words could be the conservator’s motto.

It takes years to restore one of the painted caves at Dunhuang, China. Even after restoration, that cave will be endangered by the presence of visitors who raise the temperature, carbon dioxide level, and humidity inside of it. Yet, according to The New York Times (“Plan for Theme Park at Centuries-Old Chinese Caves Rattles Preservationists”, by Edward Wong, June 16, 2015), officials from Gansu Province working with a company in Beijing have developed a plan to build a huge theme park near the caves, bringing thousands more tourists to the already overcrowded site. It would seem that the officials have been swayed by the idea of huge amounts of tourist money and are putting that before cultural heritage.

According to an article in The New York Times’ arts section (“Disputed Painting is Declared a Rembrandt”, by Nina Siegal, June 10, 2015), after eight years of examination and research by its conservators, the Mauritshaus recently declared as an autograph work of Rembrandt its “Saul and David”. The painting entered the museum as a Rembrandt in 1898, but was downgraded to “Rembrandt Studio” in 1969 after the scholar Horst Gerson questioned it. It’s a Rembrandt again and the Mauritshaus has developed an exhibit around the forensic examination of the work.

Mirwais Adeel, writing for Khaama Press/Afghan News Agency, reported on June 6, 2015 that using a very expensive projector and 3D image display, the Bamyan Buddhas destroyed by Taliban militants in 2001 were “returned” to the empty niches which had held them (“Return of Bamyan Buddhas with help of 3D image display”). If a one hundred and eighty foot tall sculpture can be successfully recreated, imagine all of the smaller damaged or destroyed works of art that could be virtually restored.

According to David W. Dunlap  (“A Rare Visit Inside a Deteriorating Gem (Hard Hat Required)”, The New York Times, May 21, 2015) who recently had a tour of its’ crumbling interior, the Soldiers and Sailors’ Monument in Riverside Park (New York City), built in 1924 was in terrible condition by 1954. Its’ present condition is even worse. The last repair work on the monument took place in the early 1960s. Now, the Riverside Park Conservancy is about to raise half a million dollars for an exploratory study of the structure’s condition. It’s been a long time coming and it’s about time.

In her review of, “Van Gogh: Irises and Roses”, the Metropolitan Museum’s exhibit of four still lives painted by Vincent van Gogh in May 1890 using an unstable red lake pigment (“A Study in Scarlet: Evanescence in Bloom”, The New York Times, May 22, 2015), Roberta Smith mentions that a slide show which accompanies the exhibit includes postcards of the paintings, produced over several decades which clearly show the fading of the red pigment. Until now, I had not given much consideration to the usefulness of postcards and other inexpensive reproductions as conservation research tools, but from now on I shall.

Conservators, preparators, and installers usually work anonymously. Museum wall panels and catalogues seldom mention the names of the people whose work made the displays possible. Therefore, it was good to read in  The New York Times article about the installation of Picasso’s “Le Tricorne” stage curtain in the New York Historical Society building (“Picasso’s Stage Curtain Is Unfurled At New Home in a Precise Operation”, by Annie Correal, May 18, 2015), that  lead installer Tom Zoufaly and the rest of the crew signed their names to the wooden slat that holds the curtain to the wall alongside the signature of James Lebron —the man who installed the curtain in its former home at the Four Seasons Restaurant in 1959.

In the May 3, 2015 issue the The New York Times’ T Magazine, Jessica Dawson wrote about “Filthy Lucre”, Darren Waterston’s take on James McNeill Whistler’s “Peacock Room” which will soon be exhibited in the Freer and Sackler Galleries along with Whistler’s room.  According to Dawson, “Where Whistler produced unabashed luxury, Waterston has made melancholic decay: In his version, paintings molder, pigments puddle and shelves splinter.”  She noted that it took Waterston and a team of craftsmen eight months to produce this “decay”. How long would it have taken the ravages of time to create similar looking but real decay?