The Delicate Science Of Preserving A Masterpiece | The Art Of Preserving Art (Ep 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 ноя 2022
- The environment and the slow passage of time make objects and artistic materials vulnerable to deterioration, but we have developed techniques to stop the damage. With the help of technological advances and technical processes, art conservation has grown over the last century. Conservators analyze pigments, glazes, glues, and materials in order to preserve them through a range of preventive and curative treatments. The conservator’s determination to preserve and recover the colors and forms of the past attests to, and protects our collective memory itself.
Subscribe and click the bell icon to get more arts content every week:
/ perspectivearts
Perspective is RUclips's home for the arts. Come here to get your fill of great music, theatre, art and much, much more!
📺 It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'PERSPECTIVE' bit.ly/3zj7Soo
From
Content licensed from to Little Dot Studios.
Any queries, please contact us at:
perspective@littledotstudios.com
I'm in uni for archival science, and I think everything to do with conservation techniques is absolutely fascinating. Good to see a general documentary about the subject. Although it seems a few years old, considering the CRT screens. 50:18 ah, it's from 2009.
Thank you!
Great presentation. Keep it up
Great Pretension!! Keep it up!
Extremely tedious work, to which I am not a stranger. Nerve-racking... but most rewarding.
I was going to agree but then, reading on, realized you weren't referring to the tediousness of this video.
There are quite a few youtube channels by actual art and museum conservators documenting how they actually work that are far more interesting than this dated voice over. Perspective is usually the home of high quality content and hopefully Little Dot will think twice about diluting it down.
Who narrates this film...??? His voice and diction are superb...
I find it quite irritating!
@@Britgirl58 Same, it's a bit muddled. It's also from 2009, so it's not actually made by this channel. Just bought and displayed for our enjoyment :)
@@helmaschine1885 I did enjoy it, just his diction. There are now, and then, so many really good narrators, it's a shame, I thought, that they chose him. Thank you for taking the time to put the video out there!
@@Britgirl58 it's as if Prince Philip had a side job
@@lulubelle0bresil Lol. I's have preferred it if King Charles 111 had narrated it, at least it would have been a bit of a laugh.
what is that music piece at 25:00 minutes? I thought I died and went to heaven for a minute there.
Preservation is great until some stupid kid throws a can of tomato soup on it. 😢
The Conservator, preserves, conserves cultural heritage. It is his decision and responsibility of how to treat an artwork, always minimal intervention and complete reversibility in mind. All the treatments are based on scientific knowledge and should never be an art!
The restorer, fixes, repairs, restores artworks often with little regards of the level of reversibility or minimal intervention. It is an art not a science. Most are self trained DIY artists.
The natural science analysis is generally undertaken by a conservator and curators and conservators use this information in their daily work.
Many collections do not have proper funding to hire a conservator. So often the cheapest option is a restorer that can tantalise an artwork.
Conservators are university trained professionals. The minimum training is 5 to 6 years of theoretical and practical training. To describe them as restorers is indirectly demoting the profession to technician level.
So, the art is lost then. Because it has come out of the act of art.
Would you preserve graffiti, with the same treatment? When the majority of graffiti artists want and know the art will be destroyed.
Do you think Caravaggio painted for history? Or was he commenting on the time he was in?
The narrator almost sounds like a high quality AI version of the actor James Mason. ( 1909--1984.) I imagine the documentary was originally not in English, but as its been for sometime the general lingua franca, "we need a English version for everyone else, because doing it in twelve other languages would cost too much on our budget." So thus we have this version that English speakers as a second or third language can perfectly understand, but natives find a little too measured and lacking personality.
I was interested but the bland narrative and shallow dip into each aspect comes across as a very expensive advertisement aimed at corporations and institutions rather than being educational.
If you cant find love for where you are!! Go somewhere else!!
It is common . Not very delicate . Ancient books are more delicate than canvas or wood with paintings . But museums make from it something special )
I told you doing bad to others is no good
Question: the paintings that were destroyed by protesters, can those paintings be saved?
They werent deatroyed. Those paintings were covered in glass.
Yes, they weren't destroyed. They were all protected by glass. But how long will it be before one of them isn't, is a huge unspoken issue. If they start screening bags for liquids, will they consider that as too intrusive to the art experience? And lets say the protesters succeed with some unprotected masterwork, what will they do then? The experts in this video are amazing, but can they work miracles if acid is used on an unprotected masterwork? Or paint thinner? Maybe I'm being alarmist and all these paintings are protected. I hope I am. The tragedy of the loss of a Rembrandt or a Monet or others in such an idiotic manner, is too tragic to even contemplate. Playing wait and see is almost as stupid as these grandstanding kiddy protesters who actually think what they are doing will have any worthwhile response.
Fortunately, oil paintings have one or more layers of varnish applied once they’ve cured (about a year). Conservators won’t have much trouble cleaning them unless a chemical is involved that breaches the varnish. But every restoration takes time and has its own risks.
@@DutchCreekRanch1 Most restorations I've seen have the varnish removed to bring out a painting's best look. And even if varnish is still there it doesn't answer what I said if acid or paint thinner are used. They both act fast, and will strip or melt paint or varnish almost instantaneously, at least through to the canvas. If they are used, forget it, that's permanent damage. All that will be left will be paint by the numbers in destroyed areas. The group responsible is not known to me. So perhaps they are intentionally choosing protected paintings for media attention, not willing to do harm. Lets hope that is the case. But the reason for my original comment remains. Should hope be the only recourse against the possible irreplaceable loss of cultural patrimony? Is checking bags as I said for liquids, such a hard thing to do, knowing the possibly horrifying results if you don't?
Both the Monet and the Klimt were behind glass and were not damaged. However, the glue that the vandals used to stick their hand to the frame will have caused damage to the frame.
When varnish is removed during restoration in order to clean the painting, it is always, always revarnished when the restoration is complete. The varnish on very old paintings tends to yellow, darken and crack (or craze) with time. And the yellowness is dependent upon the formulation of the varnish and its age. But the conditions in which that painting was kept also play a factor; smog, smoke, mildew, all sorts of things come off when you clean the painting. Once you take the varnish off, however, you are down to the original paint. If the conditions have affected the actual canvas itself, that paint may have actually started to flake off. Once you start restoring a painting flake by flake, you are in for a long haul and it may take years. For insurance purposes, museums keep all of their precious Masters paintings behind glass. The glass also reduces certain wavelengths of light that can fade the colors. It’s a shame that we have come to this point as a society that we can’t trust each other not to damage our treasures just to make a point. My paintings will not be behind glass, but they are varnished as soon as they cure.
bruh
🕷
✌️ 𝓟Ř𝔬𝓂𝔬𝐒ϻ
Hire me and I'll be glad to rewrite your English subtitles. They could do with some serious correction. I kept smacking myself in the head with every error (I suspect this was the fault of using voice recognition, which is fine), but please have a human who knows both English and Spanish go over the text. There is no "Reynaud Sofia" Museum!
The overly flowery language the narrator uses sounds like it was translated from another tongue, in this case, most likely Spanish. Pretty distracting and hard to sit through for me.
A masterclass on how to talk way too bloody much and say absolutely nothing useful. No voice would be better than this pretentious pointless rambling
All this will be a thing of the past with the new AI ARWORK. LOL
it seems like a overly costly amount of money to preserve and where is that money going?
If we are awake then surely the money needs to go back to us.
But, it seems to disappear away. People who profit from other peoples art are surely lost.
People who educate, that is different.
Surely. if you were doing it for the love of it. Then we would all have fulfilment. And no-one would profit.
What are we trying to preserve? A pseudo intelligence of enlightenment or are we enlightened?
What do you mean money goes back to us? Are you suggesting that they just let cultural artifacts rot where they rest? Are you saying that museums should instead of restore older works invest in artwork of living artists?
As for why they are preserving them, I’d say it’s because they are pieces of our cultural history as humans and because of that, they should be preserved for future generations. If you want to analyze it from another angle, people pay to go to museums to see old artwork. Artwork ages and degrades based on how the work was made, and must be maintained so people can see them and enjoy them in the future. Honestly they answer all your questions in the documentary.
@@kristoferolson1663 But it only seems to benefit one part of culture. And there are those who use a art experience, which the average person cannot afford to give them lofty ideas of enlightenment/transcendence. Its very pretentious and makes people turn away from it. If these people are so enlightened what benefit to society is that?
Also by us i mean we the people. How can you justify spending millions preserving art, when there are still enough problems in society. Maybe you are rich enough to be able avoid these things and therefore does not enter your consciousness.
@@danielboard9510 so everything in society needs to be beneficial to all parts of society? Even if 100% of art conservation funding went to something else, I disagree with the idea that throwing money at a problem fixes it. The justification for art preservation is in a few things: 1) there is inherent value in objects of antiquity because they tell a history of us as humans, 2) there is a massive industry of patrons backing and enjoying the experience of viewing historical work, and 3) because art is beautiful and meant to bring good into the eyes of those who see it, it brings much more good than any amount of bad you’re projecting.
Also if you think the average person can’t afford to buy a ticket to the museum you’re off your rocker. 25 bucks for a ticket, video games are 60 bucks, books are 25 buck, lunch out somewhere is about 25 bucks… even if the price were higher to a point where most people couldn’t pay, why should we take things away from people who can afford it just because some people can’t? Honestly I find your view to be pretty selfish and sad. The answer is definitely not to take things away that people love.
Possibly the role of museums could expand: show works of more living artists, that is a greater benefit that seems more realistic.
@@kristoferolson1663 You cannot preserve things forever, metal rusts, rocks will wear away. And to define somethings more important than others and therefore deserve to be saved is not logical, just because you have an emotional attachment to it. Sentimentalism means that we spend millions of pounds preserving buildings, when the logical thing to do, would be to take it down and replace it with something more efficient. But if you make such statements you get accused of being a philistine.
Not all art is beautiful and a lot of art is supposed to challenge your thinking, it is not necessarily bringing good to the world. And a lot of the concepts in art are anal and not really saying or doing anything.
There can be beauty in just making a mark on a piece of paper for some people and if that brings them joy, then who are to say otherwise.
I think we need to encourage expression in society, but there is an elitism within patrons of high art, that would not consider some peoples ideas of expression as artistic. And these same groups of people also get to decide what should be preserved.
I would not consider this view selfish, I think it is selfish to not say, that all parts of society needs to be beneficial to others.
You can use all the art you want to try and elevate yourself above being a animal, but if you forget what it is to be human. Its pointless.
@@danielboard9510 okay, so because artwork decays, we should let them fall apart? Honestly that makes no sense, it’s not like if the funding from art preservation would make any difference for whatever social cause you have in mind. It’s fine for you to think antiquity doesn’t matter, but that doesn’t mean it’s to be cast aside and left to die. Also the entire debate about elitism in art is so trite, isn’t everything at a high level elitist? Like it’s so tiring hearing this argument, it doesn’t effect you or me in any substantial way. We’re part of a capitalist society, people can buy and sell artwork, real estate, businesses, luxury items, whatever can be marketed for honestly stupid prices, who cares? Move on, get over it, just because something is out of your reach doesn’t mean it needs to be torn down to accommodate a people who can’t afford to buy a Rubens or a Picasso painting. It honestly doesn’t matter that common people can’t buy or own these pieces, you probably also can’t own a Lamborghini or a beachfront property in Hawaii. Does that mean that we should forbid people from owning these things too? Where’s the line? What’s too elitist? You sound like someone who would dump red sauce on a Van Gogh for gods sake. Cheer up and enjoy the work that you’re lucky to get to see because it should have rotted off the wooden panel a hundred years ago. You’re lucky to know most of these paintings even exist and I along with quite a few other people are pretty thrilled to get that opportunity to see them in museums. I’d recommend paying the entry fee and taking a look at some of the museums around you, maybe take a sketchbook and try to draw something too. You’d probably have a half decent time if you tried.
Oh dear ! This is THE most BORING documentary on the subject.