First, let’s imagine that a university art museum has among its treasures a small painted chamber from a site that it excavated many years ago. This small painted chamber is no ordinary painted chamber of antiquity (if there is such a thing), but one which features in every survey of western art.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the state of this chamber’s preservation is deplorable. In fact, the chamber is preserved in a number of panels of plaster on which no paint remains (at least, so it is reported, for no outside scholar has been permitted to view them for decades).
Now, let’s say that the museum, as it plans for the re-installation of its ancient galleries, has a plan for their conservation. They will simply repaint the original plaster to recreate the original program. Yes, repaint.
Am I the only art historian who would finds this intellectually dishonest?
Now, I specialize in wall painting, and the church that figures most centrally in my research, that of the Monastery of Saint John in Muestair, Switzerland, has suffered from repaintings and retouchings. Plaster, similarly removed, but merely retouched, languishes in the off-site storage of the Landesmuseum in Zurich. But at least it is preserved. And conservators painstakingly reverse the retouchings that paintings still on the wall were subjected to in the mid-twentieth century. But full repaintings were reversed soon after they were made, their offense quickly understood.
I appreciate the usefulness of a recreation. The Museo Archeologico dell’Alto Adige in Bolzano/Bozen usefully recreates the interior of the Chapel of Saint Benedict in Malles/Mals. You can see a small photo of it here.
But such recreations should not come at the cost of the original, such as this museum has planned. The panels of plaster, although no longer the bearers of art, should still be preserved as artifacts. Isn’t it possible that one day, elements of the wall painting, invisible to the naked or even microscopic eye, could one day be discovered on or within the original plaster? Why can’t the museum just use new plaster, which would simulate much more authentically the original visual effect? Does this imminent action by the museum warrant coordinated scholarly outrage?