Double glazing
Sir: In his response to my account of National Gallery restoration practices (Arts, 30 January), the director, Neil Mac- Gregor (Letters, 20 February), implicitly supports the refusal of his staff to disclose the names and strengths of their cleaning solvents. One wonders whether this infor- mation is made available to the trustees who are responsible for the well-being of the pictures and who alone may authorise their cleaning.
Mr MacGregor attempts to counter my claim that aesthetic falsification has been inflicted on Bramantino's 'The Adoration of the Kings' through cleaning, by stating that I 'misunderstood' X-ray photographs in the gallery's dossier on the painting. This is mystifying. In October last year, I specifi- cally asked the gallery whether glazed mod- elling had been removed from the picture's pink casket and was told that it had 'faded', not been removed. Now, Mr MacGregor argues that of course the glaze was removed — it should never have been there in the first place. It was only the work of a restor- er attempting to suit the painting to 19th- century taste. This new claim is quite implausible: the casket is one of two identi- cal ones in the painting. The other retains its original shading. The now removed shading perfectly matched the retained, original shading. Why, then, was it removed? Why has a sculptural effect been converted into one of flatness?
The present, newly imposed inconsisten- cy of pictorial language is more suited to a Cubist painting of Picasso's than to a Renaissance painting. Are restorers still not aware of the function that glazing served in the establishment of form in painting of this period? A round column in Titian's `Danae' was reduced to a flat pilaster by restorers' cleanings in the 18th century. Beams of timber in Canaletto's `Mason's Yard' were converted by the National Gallery's restorers into planks during the 19th century. Will this elemen- tary lesson never be learnt?
Michael Daley
15 Capel Road, East Barnet, Herts
Previous page
