A little off topic, but I recently watched this documentary on YouTube about a poor Chinese copy artist Zhao Xiaoyong, who has sold more than 90,000 Van Gogh reproductions. They follow him to the Netherlands to see the real works of Van Gogh who's consumed his life for decades. You might enjoy it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGECg0K3gMI
It was awesome! I looked a bit into it and it looks like there are thousands of people just like him where he is: the dafen village in shenzhen. It looks like you can buy these reproductions directly on aliexpress but also order paintings based on pictures of yourself (although I couldn’t find where and the examples I looked at seemed to indicate that you should stick to a reproduction).
The idea of "restoring" art is really fascinating to me. There have been times in the past where the restorers' choices would likely have been in conflict with the artist's original intention. I'd love to know more about the people who do that work and how they justify the decisions they make because it's not always about making sure things look exactly as they did when the painting was originally completed.
This is so key to discussions about an "accurate" restoration of a piece of art. Just look at the restorations done of classic films. There's so much argument, in many of these cases, about whether or not the restoration is true to the artist's original vision but, even in the case where the original artist is involved in the restoration, there continues to be argument over whether that artist's own vision changed. I mean, just look at George Lucas and the restorations/updates of the Star Wars franchise. Fans are now clamoring to "properly" restore these films to their original versions while others claim that George Lucas's updates are the proper ones because he's the original artist. The idea that technology has allowed him to create what he "originally wanted" instead of what he had to release is a really interesting argument.
And then you have the case of monkey Jesus where an attempt was made to restore a piece of art that, arguably, either made it better or worse depending on what your view of the original piece is. I find it hilarious but a lot of people have suggested that the original piece wouldn't have been viewed by as many people or gained such popularity if it wasn't for that terrible restoration job.
The turning point in the art world was probably the restoration of the Sistine Chapel, which for most of the twentieth century was believed to be sort of dark and sinister, until a restorer finally pointed out that this was just the accumulation of centuries worth of candle smoke. The resultant restoration was controversial but certainly the right decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Cha...
A significant number of people in the arts world decried the cleaning - some even petitioning the Pope to halt it.
Whilst skillful, part of the appeal was the passage of the centuries, like shoes or furniture acquiring a deep marbled appearance after decades of cleaning and waxing, or the statue on the Charles Bridge given a unique luster, like a spotlight on a few scenes, by millions of hands over the years. It would be almost criminal to either darken the spots or frequently clean the rest of the statue to the same brassy finish.
Having been their recently: god no. With the patina it would have been an unimpressive dark box. It’s not a very impressive space without the paintings so having them obscured by centuries of gunk is just silly.
Yeah...they did goof a little on that. The examples where the eyes of the people depicted have been completely removed should make it obvious that there was some painting that was done after the plaster. It's a shame.
I don't know if Spielberg has examples like Lucus but at least for "Jaws" Speilberg acknowledges that if the tech had worked "Jaws" would likely just be a b-horror movie. The fact that the shark submarine didn't work forced them to film and edit the movie to not show the shark much which made it much better.
Wish Lucas would take that attitude as mostly the updates make his movies more cheesy imo
And there have been entire art movements based on ignorance of the artists' intentions, like the stately white statues of neoclassicism, in imitation of statues that were originally painted.
Art restoration is art too, as is film restoration. You just have to hope that the people making the choices are good enough artists to keep the spirit of the original work, and give you something closer to what the artist intended.
the Ecce mono is an interesting case. It was a disaster until thousands of people started making queues to have fun about it. At this point the former piece of art, tecnically competent but a little dull, gained an unique character and a totally different meaning, blending provocation, ineptitude and irony. This kind of change is, in itself, one of the definitions of art. Not much different to the Campbell's soup cans, the "artist's shit" of Manzoni, or the fountain of Duchamp
I you restore a work over and over is it the same work of art? A serious philosophical question goes: if you replace the planks of wood on a boat until eventually all the wood is replaced, is it the same boat?
Pigment durability was reasonably well understood. Oil paints are much more lightfast than watercolors, because the oil medium offers some protection from UV. Varnishes added another layer of protection. When applied as watercolor or gouache, many pigments will visibly fade in a matter of days if exposed to direct sunlight. Lightfastness was a major motivation for pigment research, especially in exterior applications like signwriting.
Even today, many artists pay little attention to the lightfastness of pigments, despite most manufacturers providing extensive information on lightfastness. The great watercolorist J.M.W. Turner was notorious for using pigments that were known to have poor lightfastness; many of his watercolors were severely faded within his lifetime. The relative lightfastness of oil paints may have lulled some artists into a false sense of security.
The latter half of the 19th century saw a huge increase in the number of available pigments due to advances in synthetic chemistry. Cadmium yellow was starting to replace the less durable chromium yellow, but it remained relatively expensive and was used infrequently by an artist as impoverished as Van Gogh. The chemistry of these new pigments was not fully understood, so some lightfast pigments used at that time have degraded due to chemical reactions with additives and impurities in the oil paint medium or varnish.
Even though a part of me wants to store everything (like Art) in exact detail when it was originally made, I'm building a certain appreciation for just letting things diminish and atrophy. Not needing to fix everything to be exactly how it was like brand new.
Lead-based pigments are really stunning—shame about the toxicity. Lead(II) iodide is another lovely yellow, albeit less stable than the chromate. I had a chemistry teacher in high school who used to work on paints and inks—he showed us several demonstrations of making beautiful and highly toxic pigments.
If he was color blind, why would his painting be far more vibrant than his reference points: what he saw in nature? No matter if he was or not, his paintings are more saturated in color than his reference points because that was what he wanted them to be.
He could have been compensating for his vision. If he were color blind, he probably figured out something was wrong with his vision even if he didn't know what to call it.
