Letter: New life for the Old Masters: careful restoration or careless destruction?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Bryan Appleyard's article on conservation at the National Gallery ('Old Masters vanish before our eyes', 8 April) contained a selective and misleading account of his long conversation with my colleague Nicholas Penny and myself.
One specific error is so important that I must correct it. Mr Appleyard says: 'I asked Martin Wyld, chief restorer, to identify any mistakes in that gallery's huge post-war restoration programme. He could think of none.' This is not true. Mr Appleyard's question was on the narrow but important point of whether original paint had been removed during cleaning from pictures at the National Gallery. I replied that it had not.
Dr Penny and I took Mr Appleyard around the galleries, showing him the paintings that were distorted by discoloured varnish and repainting, but which it would be too dangerous or difficult to clean; pointing out where we had decided to leave the reconstructions of previous restorers; and noting that in some cases it was our policy to reconstruct old losses, whereas in other cases we left them. Yet he presents the National Gallery policy as one of single-minded militancy.
Far from being disrespectful of the craft tradition Mr Appleyard invokes, we actually discussed its breakdown with him, citing Sir Joshua Reynolds as an example of a painter who had already lost touch with it in the 18th century.
As for Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne, it may look wrong to Mr Appleyard. I expect that, were it to be seen in its original condition, it would look even more wrong to him and, indeed, wrong to all of us.
There is something worrying in the certainty that great art of the past should never be surprising or puzzling. But some things can be verified, and Titian's 'startling' blue sky is no less brilliant in the reliable enamel reproduction of the painting by Bone, made almost 200 years ago and exhibited beside the picture in 1969. This, too, we explained to Mr Appleyard.
Yours faithfully,
MARTIN WYLD
Chief Restorer
The National Gallery,
London, WC2
14 April
(Photograph omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments