Letter: How the science of restoration prevents tyranny of taste

Mr Julian Pritchard
Friday 09 April 1993 18:02 EDT
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: Bryan Appleyard, in his timely plea for humility and caution in picture- cleaning (8 April), says that 'few of us have sufficient faith in our eyes to argue subjectively with the experts'. May I suggest this is because when we stand before cleaned pictures, it is hard to recall in detail what they looked like before and thereby recognise the changes which the restorers are only too happy that we forget.

Readers may be glad to know of one aide-memoire provided by a former director of the National Gallery, Kenneth Clark, in his One Hundred Details (1938) and More Details (1941), from pictures in the gallery. From the comparison of those photographs made before cleaning with the originals after it, one can get a good idea of what has been lost since the last 'cleaning controversy' 50 years ago.

With reminders such as these, we can press for explanations of why specific changes have been made. Of course, there is no arguing subjectively with a restorer who regards aesthetics as irrelevant because unscientific. Aesthetic objects can never be safe in such hands.

Yours sincerely,

JULIAN PRITCHARD

London, W6

9 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