Talk:Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

message: See main article Sistine Chapel 
--Amandajm 10:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of the Sistine Chapel 

message: I've just removed an insertion re Vasari and Condivi's comments. 
Reason:- 
* It had been dumped in beween two paragraphs that flowed in sense from one to the other. The introduced comment disrupted the meaning so that the beginning of the second paragraph which referred directly to the preceeding paragraph became unintelligible. 
* The paragraph referred to whether Michelangelo worked on the ceiling "a secco". It stated- 
However, this seems unlikely since Michelangelo's contemporary biographers (Vasari and Condivi) indicate that Michelangelo did not have the time to add the 'a secco' additions after the initial painting due to the Pope's insistence concerning the removal of the scaffolding for viewing of the ceiling. 
There is a misunderstanding as to what Vasari and Condivi meant. It was usual, as is described in Sistine Chapel ceiling to work over an entire fresco "a secco" with gold leaf and bright blue made from ground lapis lazuli. This is to be found in Giotto's work Scrovegni Chapel and Fra Angelico's chapel at the Vatican. This would have been a time-consuming process and would have been done as a second stage. All the other frescoes in the Chapel, including the Last Judgement, have blue and/or gold. It wasn't done in the case of the ceiling, except, as I have written in Sistine Chapel ceiling on the shields. 
On the other hand, touching up the details and shadows of each individual figure would have occured on a day to day basis, as each figure neared completion. Because of the rate at which plaster dried and because a large figure could take more than a day, sometimes the completion would have occurred when the plaster was dry or nearly dry, as I have explained within this article. That is the reason why some figures have black details painted "fresco" and some had details painted "a secco". These details have now gone. 
I hope this makes it clear. It doesn't conflict with what Vasari and Condivi said.
--Amandajm 11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Secco 

message: The article mentions both a 'Matthan' lunette and a 'Mathan' lunette. Reference searches do reveal sources for both spellings of the Sistine Chapel lunette.  Assuming the article reference is the same, in the absence of a direct quote the spelling probably should be made consistent within the article. The most appropriate spelling is a decision I leave to the more informed. Michael Devore 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matthan lunette

message: Can we have before-and-after pictures of the same piece at the top, since the restoration is the subject of the article?  When the pictures finished loading on my browser I did a double-take - "That's one heck of a restoration."  Tempshill 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have before-and-after pictures of the same piece at top? 

message: There seems to be an inconsistency with the starting and ending dates of the ceiling and last judgment, if you follow the links from this page to the individual pages for the ceiling and the last judgment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.51.82 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between dates 

message: Wouldn't it be better to call this article Restoration of the Sistine Chapel ceiling frescoes? It doesn't really discuss the restoration of Michelangelo's Last Judgment or the works by other painters. Skarioffszky 08:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This is a great article by the way, kudos to the writers. The images in particular! --SGGH speak! 08:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nice job to all involved.  I had no idea I would find this topic interesting until I started reading the article and couldn't stop.  --Doradus 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: The books produced by the restorers and those who have an interest in the restoration are successful in justifying why the restoration was done. And they successfully produce a great number of pictures to show  that cracks have been repaired, that salty deposists have been removed, that flaking and bubbling has been counteracted (this was fortunately not a major problem) that old structural supports and repairs were checked and stabiliised. These are the benefits of the restoration and all these things are discussed in the article. None of these matters is contentious. There is no negative discussion about this stuff at all, because no-one has made any criticism of these measures whatsoever. This material is simply presented as the facts. Moreover, it has been presented with accuracy and understanding, because, although I have never been involved with a fresco restoration, I am personally well aware of the general conservation (restoration) procedures set in place by the Vatican, and which, if taken as strict guidelines, are really very cautious in their approach. As it happens, they were world leaders in establishing conservation procedures.
The matter of contention is not that the ceiling (and lunettes) was restored. Neither is it the fact that the ceiling was cleaned. The problem lies in the decisions as to what did and did not constitute Michelangelo's intentions, and Michelangelo's own work. It is more at this point than any other that the restorers ought to have erred on the side of caution. They were told. they were warned. They ignored statements by the previous restoration team. They ignored all the arguments put up by critics, painters and art historians. They refused to respond when the whistle was blown. They went ahead anyway. And they did it, taking a universal approach that removed human judgement from the equation, despite a stated position that they would respond to each area of the ceiling as a separate case. 
Do you really expect that some member of the team is going to put their hand up and say "I went up there on the scaffold, I looked into the intense and compelling gaze of the figure in the Jesse lunette, and then applied three layers of solvent that removed first the automotive exhaust deposits, then the candlewax and carbon deposits, and thirdly, after those eyes had been clearly revealed by the removal of most of the dirt, the final layer of glue-size and paint, and swabbed the eyes away, leaving two blank sockets." ? That is what somebbody did. That was the decision mmade in relation to that figure. That was the supposed sympathetic response to each individual part of the ceiling. 
The facts are plain. When the team started cleaning those areas of lesser importance, eg, the archhiitectural details of the frames around the pics, they could see that every single bit of detail looked similar. But as they cleaned, in some cases it stayed fixed, because it was "fresco" and in some cases it came off because it was "secco". In the ccases where it was secco, the process employed destroyed the details. This was very obviously apparent. A proper response to this obvious loss of detail would have been to take a more cautious approach, bbut that was not done. 
I suppose we can just thank God Almighty that Michelangelo painted the eyes of God, and Adam, and Eve in the famous "Creation of Adam" scene while the plaster was still wet. Because if he had painted that particular scene in the dry Italian summer and put the finishing touches at the very end of the day, (as one might expect) then that interaction between God and Adam, and the wondering and slightly alarmed look of Eve as she sees her husband-to-be come to life would have been lost forever due to the restoration.
Yes, the restorers can show a thousand beautifully coloured pictures to support the fact that the ceiling needed cleaning. I have presented ten similar pics in the article that illustrate that point. But they have never justified the approach taken to the cleaning, or discussed the losses of definition. To put it in the simplest possible terms, the compositions, tonal scheme annd details should all be much mmore apparent with the filth lifted. In some areas, eg, the Creation of Adam, this is the case. But in other areas, eg most of the Jonah figure, the Haman scene, many of the lunettes, several of the spandrels, some of the other prophets and many areas of the architecture, the details are greatly diminished. Why? Because they've been removed and Michelangelo's intended finished appearance has been lost. 
The full impact of this may be very hard for a person who is not an artist, or art student to comprehend. But we are talking about the most famous frescoes in the world. We are talking about a series of paintings which hhad profound impact on the direction of art, and which have bbeen irreversibly changed, It's like knocking the nose off the sphynx and saying, "Oh yes, but we've removed all the sand so you can see it better."
No-one will ever deny the pleasure of seeing the colours. That point does not need to be proven, and it cannot be used as justification for removing the linear details, the shadows and the eyes that were painted in black. This is the matter that has brought critism and this is the matter that has never been adequately addessed, not even in a $1500 book. 
... and as for the National Geographic.... it is easy, as I have said already, to justify the fact of the restoration, the repairs, the stabilisation, and the removal of filth. If you use this as your pro-case, then its very easy to say "oh well, perhaps a few losses are necessary for the greater good." I personally would not expect the National Geographic to present a strongly negative case, in the face of the Vatican.
From a conservation point of view, it was not the fact of the restoration, but its methods and its failure at appropriate response to the specific conditions that are challenged. The irreversible nature of the losses contravenes all good conservation practice. This is the guts of what the critics are saying, and what has been presented here. A large and impressive book funded by a global enterprise might fool the general public, but not anyone who has ever been involved in conservation. I want to point out to you that the critics of the restoration have nothing whatsoever to gain by their opposition. And while the critics keep right on bellowing, independent supporters are strangely silent.
Amandajm (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV- the difference between the whys and the hows

message: As someone relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm having trouble understanding why some topics in Wikipedia are chosen to be articles, instead of being sections of higher order articles.  It seems to me, if I were using a paper encyclopedia (which I know Wikipedia is not, no need to send me that link), it would never occur to me to look up Restoration of the Sistine Chapel as a separate entry.  Instead, I would expect a long section called "Restoration" under the article "Sistine Chapel," making that article more useful.  Does anybody have a rule of thumb as to what qualifies a sub-topic to have its own article?  Thanks.  BWatkins 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Wikipedia is not paper, and (2) Wikipedia:Notability Raul654 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This *is* sort of a section of the "Sistine Chapel" entry. It would be very unwieldy to have such long and detailed sections all incorporated into the main article; instead, there is a short summary at the main entry with a link to this article. So you're not really expected to look up "Restoration..." as a separate entry; instead, you'd look up "Sistie Chapel", find the section "Resoration and controversy", and follow the link. It's simply taking advantage of the hypertext medium. 217.226.28.246 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is different. Articles are not discrete but overlap and often even repeat each other. There is no hierarchy: every topic, large and small, can be a featured article if someone wants to take the time and care over it. I don't think most editors think in terms of "sub-topics". And since everyone is a volunteer, we cannot force them to write the "higher order" articles first. So the accumulation of high quality articles is somewhat random: we have some brilliant articles on narrow topics while we still have some terrible ones on major topics. It's a vast work in progress. qp10qp 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are size constraints on articles (based on loading time etc). If this were stuck on the end of the ceiling article, the combined one would be too long. Johnbod 21:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is his area of expertise, clearly we should ask Ceiling Cat and see what he thinks of the matter. Raul654 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, the restoration of a work of art or significant building does not warrant a separate article. But this case is different because the effect that it has had upon a very large and uniquely significant artwork is profound, even to the most casual observer, and the amount of contention it has caused is extreme. The restoration is very much a topic in its own right and subject of many articles and a very large book.Amandajm 10:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This work was clearly notable enough on its own to warrant its own article.--Grahamec (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this an article? 

message: Again and again we see a work of art that has been obliterated in some cases due to over enthusiastic restoration.  I blame committees.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.21.203 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old story 

message: Please stop treating my summary as if it is a quotation. Amandajm (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a quotation

message: Please move the article to be titled "Conservation and restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes". This would be in keeping with the language developed around the article Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please move article 

message: This article is tagged for citations needed, and will need to be submitted to WP:FAR if not brought to FA standard.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed