before moving on to specific techniques used and results obtained by the restorers it is interesting to understand why such an urgent and careful study of a diagnostic work up of only seventy ' years.
This painting was commissioned from Picasso by the English Republic that attacked by the troops of General Franco wanted to send out a warning cry to all the world powers on its domestic situation dramatic. Just completed, then, the picture went around the world so that his message could reach more people. The continuous migration caused the most serious and immediate, so much so that already twenty years after Picasso himself, given the severe conditions in which the panel decided to restore it and keep it permanently on display at MOMA in New York. After the fall of the Franco regime in the painting was moved to the Reina Sofia museum in Madrid.
Its preservation is ensured by a team of conservators and scientists, which in this period have started a thorough investigation into non-invasive diagnostics:
- X-ray radiography to assess the presence of cracks and discern the different pigments according to their different absorption of X-ray;
- A high-resolution scanning camera, in order to obtain a digital image to the original;
- colorimetric investigations in various parts of the work to assess changes color over time and before and after a number of conservation measures;
- infrared reflectography going to investigate under the paint film and find the presence of preparatory drawings or second thoughts.
The results showed that since the last survey 10 years ago, the situation seems to have stabilized, so that the responsibility for its preservation, Jorge Garcia, has concluded (with a comparison so dear to the medical professionals in this field) that the work "is in a stable situation as serious" and that "has a bad health of iron."
As we have seen, too many trips and a few precautions used during undertaken by the various movements Guernica caused serious damage that still have not been resolved. The problem of shipments for exhibitions of works is a theme still relevant today and not at all resolved (see about the controversy began with the decision to send the Annunciation by Leonardo in Japan http://www.ilgiornale.it/a. pic1? ID = 163339 & print = S ) I would like to launch a debate among readers to know what you think about it. For my part I believe that each case must be dealt with individually and that therefore there is no single answer to the problem. Grant works for exhibitions and helps facilitate the understanding of cultures, traditions, histories ... other than his own, and there is image and the return of profits that can be drawn from the institution to pay his works. For these reasons, I think, in principle, we should always strive to agree to requests for works for exhibitions. All of these considerations, however, conservative estimates are subject to a work before leaving the place where it should be kept scrupulously studied and should be guaranteed the right precautions for transportation and for its maintenance during the exhibition. In addition, some works that can be seen as a symbol and a heritage for museums where they are stored, they should never leave the place where they are. There are two reasons: First, during the absence of the work visitors to the museum will be damaged in some way (can you imagine that the Japanese would do if they arrive at the Louvre's Mona Lisa was not there?) and secondly, for some works you should not take any kind of risk even if minimum.
References:
0 comments:
Post a Comment