Art restoration is the act of repairing and cleaning damaged or old works of art. The goal is to return the artwork in a form that is as close as possible to the original. A conservator is a person trained to use art, history, and science to examine, preserve, and restore artwork. They have a duty to respect the artist’s original intent on whatever piece they are working on. What happens when the conservator, who is supposed to save a work of art, is accused of having compromised it? The controversial restoration of the painting Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III by Barnett Newman reveals the limits of restoration as well as the responsibility of the conservator for preserving the work of art.
In 1986, a visitor took a box cutter and slashed into Newman’s painting in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. The museum hired Daniel Goldreyer, an American conservator who had worked with Newman previously, to repair the damage in 1988. Yet, when the painting went back on display in 1991, many people began to question the methods employed during the restoration process. Goldreyer was accused of disobeying the “rules” of minimal intervention, process documentation, and reversibility to restore the piece. Using a microscope, scientists were reportedly able to discover that the paint did not match the original oils and a glossy film covered the entirety of it. In response, Goldreyer said he had used a “seal” to protect the work and still argued that his restoration was faithful toward Newman.
A couple of years later, the City of Amsterdam filed a lawsuit against Goldreyer claiming he breached the terms of the restoration contract. However, he also pursued legal action against the city, claiming that all of the criticism he had been receiving damaged his professional reputation. Then, in 1997, the City of Amsterdam and Goldreyer reached an out-of-court settlement where the city agreed to pay Goldreyer. The settlement ended the legal dispute without a court ruling determining whether Goldreyer’s restoration had violated his contractual obligations.
The initial vandalism of the painting was an intentional, destructive act. However, controversy surrounding the restoration of the painting has raised a number of questions, including whether an attempt to preserve a work of art can lead to its destruction. While the vandalism was clearly intended to cause damage to the painting, Goldreyer’s attempts to restore it were intended to repair it. However, the methods he used to do so have been found to have caused permanent damage to the original work, leading people to argue that his actions were as destructive as the initial vandalism. This raises several questions including where the line is drawn between attempting to restore a work of art and causing its destruction, and who is responsible for damage caused by the conservator.
Art can be destroyed in many ways. Not just by physical damage, but also by lack of accountability for the people who are responsible for the preservation of our cultural heritage. The controversy surrounding Newman’s painting brings up some serious ethical questions about the responsibility of conservators towards artists and their artworks. Although restoration is meant to preserve artworks for future generations, any changes made to an artwork during restoration can alter its original characteristics and thus its meaning and value. If an artwork can be destroyed by someone intentionally damaging it, is it also possible to destroy it by trying to save it?
