T
his added a new dimension to the
debates with its emphasis on science,
rather than subjective opinion. But
controversy was far from over and a new
wave surged with “The Great Cleaning
Controversy of the 1960s” in a fresh
venue.
The Burlington Magazine, founded in
1903 in London, had become a leading
journal for art history and informed
commentary. Unlike letters to the editor
in newspapers, the Burlington gave
significant and equal space to multiple
viewpoints on issues under discussion in
a single forum. A series of exchanges in
the Burlington in 1962-1963 continued
the unsettled debate of 1947. Although
the issues are extremely complicated, the
heart of the contention could be boiled
down to what constitutes an artist’s
original intent and what role time and
the artwork’s history ought to play. On
the pro-cleaning, scientific side, it’s the
paint beneath the varnish and accretions
that matter: strictly what was left by the
artist’s brush. Opponents from the realm
of art historians asserted that artists were
aware of the effects of time and either
brightened their colors in anticipation
that time would mellow and harmonize
them or applied some overall, darkening
coating to achieve that effect.
Counter-arguments went on at
considerable length in these erudite
articles. But while some clarity about
ongoing confusion over what the terms
glaze, varnish, and patina should rightly
describe, the practical matter of what
constitutes “over-cleaning” remained
unaddressed – where is the actual
boundary for cleaning to stop?
40
ART CHOWDER MAGAZINE
Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572)
A Young Woman and Her Little Boy
c. 1540
oil on panel
National Gallery, Washungtin, D.C.
– except for a contribution by Stephen Rees Jones, conservation scientist at the
Courtauld Institute. He offered a note of caution: in 1961 Dr. Nathan Stolow had
proven the paint-varnish barrier to be permeable; solvents penetrate the paint layer
and can leach out components of the original oil medium.