WITNESSING THE TRANSFORMATION

Restoration and conservation of the work’s substance

 
‘I visited the Greek-Roman museum. There wasn’t much: some small statues similar to the Tanagra figurines – superb. Some still have their colour so well-preserved that they now seem as if they have just come from the artist’s hands…’

(from Cesare Pascarella’s diary, June 1900)

 
“Why eternity? We cannot understand what it may be... We are so fashioned that our mind is always leaping beyond – that is all – but it is not proven that time really exists, therefore the problem of our caducity would.”

(From Cesare Pavese’s diary, 23 March 1948)

 
“The damaged work can be worth more that the intact work”

(“Wrong idea no. 4” by Cesare Pietroiusti attributed to Maria Morganti during the performance “Dare via idee sbagliate”, Teatrino di Palazzo Grassi, Venice, 28 September 2017)

 
In this chapter I deal with the question of the work’s material fate, primarily taking into consideration the regulations determined by our order and the rules of ‘good’ restoration, but at the same time forcing them and turning them on their heads to establish others that correspond to the feeling I have about what I do.
Some unusual works have resulted from the connection between my practice and thought with restoration techniques, theories and practices. 
In this chapter I describe a few examples.
 
 
The reflections on this theme began through an emotional, unconscious fact, when one night, in 2007, I had a dream. Here below is the description taken from my diary ‘Ruminating’: ‘Last night I dreamt that my paintings were crumbling before my eyes. All the paint was becoming detached from the surface and was falling to the floor in flakes. I found myself in front of white, untouched surfaces.’
 
Reasonings took place over the years at various stages. One of these was a fundamental encounter with the Artist’s Archives Course organised by AitArt. It was there that I understood that some rules in Italy regarding the question of others intervening on a work of art actually work, confirming – or more often contradicting – the thinking behind the relationship I have activated with my work.
Below are some notes I took during the lessons to which I have added some personal comments.
 
GENERAL RULES * 
Notes taken from the AitArt course‘Responsibility for the work’s conservation’: the correct conservation of the work of art is the owner’s responsibility (Tribunal, 22 December 2001; Milan Tribunal, 20 January 2005); poor conservation of the work of art can lead to the artist’s reputation being damaged (art. 21 copyright law).
Maria: It is not the immobilised conservation of the work as a given that keeps the meaning of what I do intact so much as the vitalisation that is renewed whenever a human being makes it theirs.
 
A: ‘Duty to restore’ (Milan Tribunal, 20 January 2005): in the abstract it can amount to a violation of the artist’s moral right, in accordance with art. 20 of the copyright law, even in the case of the work’s decay due to the passing of time, with the additional contribution of other specific negative factors, imputable to the holder, considering that the decay itself, having gone beyond the limit of natural deterioration, could damage the integrity of the figurative work of art. Detriment of this kind could, in fact, negatively influence the public’s perception of the work and therefore damage the artist’s reputation.’
M: Nothing makes sense if the restorative act is obligated. The work created at a certain point in a certain way continues to exist only if it is interpreted each time through a desired and not an imposed act.
 
A: ‘Responsibility for maintaining and transmitting the cultural value of the work’: Legislative decree 22 January 2004, no. 42, Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, clause four, defines restoration as ‘the direct intervention in the good through a range of actions finalised to the material integrity and to the recovery of the good, the protection and transmission of its cultural values’.
 
In the case of the work’s deterioration, also in relation to the technique used to create it, and except in the case of defects, the purchaser is required to consult the artist, who has to give indications for the work’s restoration; the costs are the responsibility of the owner.
M: The artist sets her work free in the world. In that moment, the work relates to other entities and starts out on its own path. The artist indirectly continues to try to keep alive the possibility that the work remains vital even when it has distanced itself, even without her presence. The new owner takes care of the materiality and the spirituality of the work they own.
 
‘Right of the integrity of the work’. If the restoration required involves more than 50 % of the work, this will no longer be considered an original. The artist can disown the work if it has been handled in such a way as to completely transform it.
M: The artist therefore constantly continues to recognise her work even when it suffers events and transformations due to chance or the will of others.
If the work is transformed in any way due to deterioration over time, or restoration work or any voluntary or involuntary act, documentation should be kept that reconstructs the event. In that case, an update would be made in the archive.
Regarding this point, I have expressed myself conceptually and emotionally in the text which is attachment no.1 of the certificate of authenticity in which I define the owner as a witness who after me and lie me, will continue to witness the work’s transformation, imagining it more as an act of care to keep the spirit for which a gesture is potentially reiterated ad infinitum, rather than the preoccupation of physically maintaining the work. As I explained in the second attachment to the certificate of authenticity, I consider maintaining the memory of the work more important than focussing on its materiality.
 
A: The artist is not obliged to restore her work, but she always has the power to intervene even when the work is no longer in her possession. The artist has the right to tweak the work for as long as she lives.
 M: The work contains the meaning of transformation. Everything is in constant evolution. If and when the conditions are created, even after the work has left the artist’s studio, it can still find a form of change.
I would not disown the work if it changed. For me, the new owner has the right to act how they want. Their responsibility is rather to refer each transformation and movement, whatever it may be, to the archive. It is more important to keep the history of the work alive than the work itself.

A: It would be better for the artist not to adjust the work if it is owned by another party, because that is the responsibility of a professional restorer. If the artist adjusts the work this could result in it being transformed, thus making it a different work. 
M: The work back in the artist’s hands later is always the same work, but it contains two different works with two different dates.
Sooner or later the work could deteriorate due to its nature, or it could undergo an alteration due to the action of others. If anything should transform the work, I would give the owner the choice of how to act. I do not want to work on it again. At least not unless I felt it were necessary and as long as it was not me who decides that there is something urging me to find a new meaning and to update the thought. If I had to intervene, I would consider it at this point a new work. For example, if a person brought me a ‘Sedimentation’ to restore, they would bring it to me with a certain colour and I would see it was returned with another. A colour is added to the others and its temporal story would shift forward with this new addition.

A: According to current restoration practice, when cracking appears on the painting, the decision is not to close the cracks but to stabilise them.
M: Crackling is something that is not caused voluntarily, but naturally. It is determined by material and atmospheric factors. It should be accepted as a given and as a transformative agent. Its action determines and unexpected form that is completely new and which magically shows a piece of the painting’s history.
I would end this introduction by saying that in general I prefer not to give any precise rules about if and how a work should be restored, nor about how it should be conserved and neither about how it should be hung. I would like to think that everyone can take it in their hands and make it become something by interpreting it and caring for it in their own way, drawing it into their own world. I would also add that in any case I won’t avoid giving my opinion. Through the archival systems, I state and communicate my personal but not unequivocal position.
* Notes taken during the Course for Archives organised by Aitart. (I would like to thank all the lecturers of the Aitart association for all the information regarding some legal aspects, for the stimuli they gave to my consideration of the subject, and for all the commitment and passion they have for defining a central question for those who make art, for those who treat it, conserve it, study it and archive it, and for those who possess it and hand it down.)
 
MY OUTLOOK AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS 
Regarding this point, I have expressed myself conceptually and emotively in the text that constitutes attachment number 1 of the certificate of authenticity in which I define the owner as a witness who after me and like me will continue to witness the transformation of the work, imagining their stance as an act of care to the spirit keep alive so that a gesture can potentially be reiterated infinitely, rather than worrying about maintaining the physical work. Just as I have explained in the second attachment to the certificate of authenticity, I consider keeping the memory of the work alive more important than concentrating on its materiality.
Here below are some further reflections starting from some previously explored points.
 
If the work were transformed to any extent due to deterioration over time, restoration or any voluntary or involuntary action, documentation of what happened should be kept. In this case, the archive entry would be updated.
 
Sooner or later the work could suffer some deterioration due to its nature or could undergo an alteration due to the action of others. If anything should transform the work, I leave it up to the owner to take responsibility for how to act. I do not want to touch the painting again unless I feel it is necessary and decide that there is something that urges me to find a new meaning and reactivate the thought process. For example, if a person brings me a ‘Sedimentation’ to restore, they would bring it to me with a certain colour and I would return it to them with another. A colour would be added to the others and its temporal story would move forward with this new addition.
 
I would not disown the work if it changed. In my opinion, the new owner has the right to act as they see fit. Their responsibility is to refer each transformation and movement, whatever it may be, to the archive. It is more important to keep the story of the work alive than the work itself. 
 
(Written in 2020. Modified in 2021, 2022)