ARTS
The Sistine Chapel
Talking of Michelangelo
Juliet Reynolds
Venturing through the portals of the Sistine Chapel these days, jostled and deafened as always by the milling throng of tourists, one perceives on looking heavenwards that a section of the ceiling is spanned by a narrow steel bridge. Screened from the public eye upon this marvellously neat construction — a replica of the wooden bridge designed by Michelangelo himself for the Sistine commission — a team of Vatican Museum restorers are carrying out their painstaking 12-year task, now exactly half-way towards completion. Working be- side the team are a cameraman and a photographer whose job it is to record every stage of the restoration' for the Nippon Television Corporation of Japan which is financing the project.
To one side of the bridge, one may observe the two-thirds of the ceiling which, together with the great 'Last Judgment' mural above the high altar, have still to be restored and which are characterised by the deep, sombre colours one has always The Sistine Chapel associated with the Sistine frescoes. It is in comparing these colours with those of the restored frescoes that the astonishing transformation becomes apparent. Wher- ever the restorer's hand has completed its task, the eye is struck and the senses awakened by brilliant, vivid colours which cause the powerful, muscular figures to stand out in bold relief, unequivocally declaring the sculptor's hand. Every detail has now become crystal clear to the naked eye so far beneath. The unrestored fres- coes, which may only be observed in detail through binoculars, appear in comparison as though covered by a black veil or, as an earlier restorer suggested, as though one were wearing a pair of sunglasses.
In Rome, not everyone is happy with the removal of this 'sunglasses effect'. Over the last months, indeed, the Sistine res- toration has become the subject of a furious debate and has so polarised the art community that some of its members are ready, as one artist described it, to face one another in the gladiatorial arena. Among the most vociferous of the restoration's opponents is a former director of Rome's Academy of Art who claims that the restorer's chemical detergent is melting Michelangelo's dry (secco as opposed to fresco) finishing touches and corrections. The sculptor Crocetti has accused the restorers of 'butchery' and has even written a letter to the Pope demanding that the work be halted before destruction of the frescoes is complete (the Pontiff has apparently not replied). An artist and journalist, Luigi Ghersi, states that the restored frescoes are causing him sleepless nights. In an article entitled 'Michelangelo in Auschwitz' published in the communist daily L'Unita, the in- somniac has described the new Michelangelo as `discordant, incoherent and brutalised' and has claimed that the restora- tion has 'frozen' the fi- gures that 'before were so alive and full of mo- tion'.
On the other side of the arena, staunchly de- fending the restoration, are figures such as Carlo Bertelli, critic of 11 Cor- riere della Sera, who has described the chief res- torer, Gianluigi Colaluc- ci, as a 'rigorous techni- cian'. The renowned (Mary Evans Picture Library) painter Guttuso has commended the restor- ers for their 'courage and responsibility', whilst Giulio Carlo Argan, the communist former mayor of Rome and one of Italy's leading art historians, has been attempting `to put out the fire' lit by the protesting artists whose accusations he has countered with a defence of modern restoration methods.
At the centre of everything stands the Vatican itself, its faith as firm as a rock in the restoration's infallibility. The methods employed by Colalucci, claim the Vatican Museum directors, are based on a precise knowledge of Michelangelo's own methods, both a fresco and a secco, and are therefore entirely accurate. They have also stressed that the restoration is not actually seeking to restore the frescoes to their original condition, but is rather cleansing them of four and a half centuries of greasy filth, caused by dust and the resinous smoke of torches that once illuminated the Chapel. Also being removed is a coat of animal glue that was diligently applied by an 18th-century restorer for the purposes of conservation but which, in effect, has been causing a gradual peeling of the paint. For this reason, states the Vatican, the restoration has begun not a moment before time, for without it the Sistine Chapel frescoes would be lost to posterity.
If the Vatican and its supporters are correct in their logic, which I honestly believe they are — the idea that so efficient and pragmatic an organisation as the Vati- can would set about systematically butch- ering its most valuable art treasure is utterly preposterous — what are the poli- tics behind the protest? This question was perhaps best answered by a group of little-known artists in a small bar just off Piazza del Popolo. 'Publicity,' was the opinion of one of them. 'Some artists will grab any opportunity to make themselves more prominent. And that includes our great leftist, Guttuso.' I asked him about Argan, whether he too was seeking the limelight, but he replied that Argan was sincere in the matter. Another painter suggested that it is the Japanese connection that has upset some people, blaming their attitude on spaghetti-football nationalism, described to me with graphic Roman ges- tures as though he were executing an action painting. He was just putting the finishing strokes to his theory when we were joined at our table by a television journalist whose opinion on the subject was heartily agreed upon by all: 'This restoration is undermining the authority of many of our worthy scholars and histo- rians. For generations they have been confidently informing us of Michelangelo's dark, restrained colours and so on. Now they're being forced to eat their words. The new Michelangelo has quite simply dethroned them.'
I was just reflecting upon this intriguing café table talk, and basking in the re- membrance of a baking hot Rome, when the actor's thunderous tones suddenly brought me back to cloudy, wet London. Such a climate, I thought to myself, could never have produced a Michelangelo. Why, even talking of Michelangelo is a dull, damp affair when removed from the passionate fires of the Mediterranean sun.
Previous page
