Letter: Reasonable caution in the restoration of paintings

Mr Bryan Appleyard
Thursday 15 April 1993 23:02 BST
Comments

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: It is sad to read Martin Wyld's response (letter, 14 April) to my article questioning the National Gallery's restoration policy.

It is sad first because he is inaccurate. I asked Mr Wyld very specifically if he could think of any mistakes the gallery had made in its post-war restoration programme. He replied equally specifically that he could think of none. Now he appears to be implying that he does now have some. He should supply a list. It would be of immense value.

A further inaccuracy concerns Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne. Again, I very specifically did not question the blue of the sky but suggested there was something wrong with the tone of the whole picture. Mr Wyld's invocation of Bone's enamel reproduction is therefore irrelevant.

But the real sadness is that once again the National Gallery has responded to criticism by trying to discredit the critic. Once again, in other words, it refuses to answer the substantial issues or to engage in serious debate. The National Gallery still believes it possesses a monopoly of truth and expertise. Its critics are only asking for decent humanity and reasonable caution.

Yours faithfully,

BRYAN APPLEYARD

London, SE3

15 April

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in