1. Some scholars believe that the current restoration of Leonardo’s Last Supper went too far because the originality of Leonardo’s work has been lost. Scholars believe that the restoration should have been undertaken to preserve such a famous masterpiece. 2. The current restoration of the Last Supper began in 1979 and took 20 years to restore. 3. The Last Supper had conservation problems almost from the moment that Leonardo completed it because Leonardo used a new, untried technique to paint it and so it began to deteriorate as soon as he completed it. 4. Restorers filled in the areas that were so far deteriorated that they could not even be salvaged by adding light watercolor. 5. The purpose in presenting heavily damaged areas with watercolor was to prevent the painting from looking like a “false icon”.
6. Leonardo’s Last Supper is looked upon as a famous piece of art and so by restoring it, it tends to lose the meaning. Therefore, I don’t agree that the painting should have undergone such an extensive cleaning and restoration. When the painting was restored in the 17th century, there was a door under the painting that the restorers widened to ease passage and by doing so, the Christ’s legs and feet were cut off. Also, by attempting to cover up the deteriorations, restorers have covered up important elements such as wine glasses, finger bowls, etc. On top of that, there have been many attempts of painting over and touch ups that the painting no longer holds the same meaning as it did in 1498. The restoration only skewed the accuracy of the original painting.
1. The author’s main argument in this article is whether Michelangelo’s “David” is ready a restoration – whether it needs a clean-up, a complete restoration, or just remain deteriorated.
2. Out of the three options presented for the conservation of Michelangelo’s David, I believe the correct course of action would be to just clean it up. I think restoring it would cause a loss of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document