Friday afternoon Challenge question, back by popular demand!

[CTyankee]

OK, put your thinking caps on as there is no pic this week...

This fourteen foot high devotional piece from the 13th century caused an intense, if somewhat brief, controversy in art circles in the mid-1960s. What is it and what happened to make it so controversial?

[Hissyspit]

1. You know, I should know that...

Why no pic?

[CTyankee]

2. It would be too easy...this is pretty much a research question if

you don't happen to just know it...

[cbayer]

3. Is the story described in "Blink"?

[CTyankee]

4. I haven't read "Blink" so I don't know...

[cbayer]

7. Nope, years are all wrong for it anyway.

It was a story about a sculpture purchased by the Getty that was determined to be a fake.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

8. Sounds like just the kind of story I would LOVE. Must read that book...

[cbayer]

9. Great book, highly recommended. Was Warhol involved in this one?

[CTyankee]

11. I'm not sure he weighed in. It's possible, but I really don't know...

[Me.]

40. Wasn't The Getty Kronos Fiasco The 80's?

[RandomThoughts]

5. Not sure of the year, but is this it?

Not that important, but some discuss it.

[CTyankee]

6. Is that considered "devotional"?

[RandomThoughts]

41. It is comical :)

Note that I said not that important, to answer that question.

[Mz Pip]

10. Vierges Ouvrante?

The controversy was that it might not be authentic, but carbon dating proved otherwise.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20169134

[CTyankee]

12. fascinating work but no...

[Hissyspit]

13. Stained glass, apse mural or triptych?

Was it a restoration controversy?

[CTyankee]

14. You are in a good place....

[NYC_SKP]

18. Yes! It was a restoration controversy!

Well, if I'm right about it being Cimabue’s Crocifisso c. 1288, that is.

The painted part of the the crucifix was severely ruined by flood water, and the controversy was whether to leave it as is or to try to have someone carefully copy what they though Cimabue had painted there.

I like their solution, they used a sort of infill technique that provided a sense of the original whole, but was vague or different enough from what original work remained that nobody would mistake the original for the infill.

http://arthistoryalive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/[e-mail]


Of course if the answer is some other devotional thing, just go ahead and forget this!

:hi:

[TriMera]

15. Is it the Madonna della Strada? n/t

[CTyankee]

16. not the madonna della strada...

[NYC_SKP]

17. Cimabue’s Crocifisso c. 1288

Which was so damaged by severe flood waters and mud in Florence in 1966 as to have removed most of the painting work.

Dilemma, try to repaint this or leave alone?


:hi:

EDIT: spelling.

[CTyankee]

19. Hey, Skip, how did you get this (or did you just know it)?

Here is the original:



Here is the restored work today:



The “Crucifixion” by Cimabue (c.1288). It was severely damaged in the Florence flood of 1966 and 3/4 of the paint of Christ’s body was washed away. The controversy within art circles was the question of whether art work can or should be “restored” or should be left as an “authentic remnant.” The “restoration” was actually a compromise, as recounted here by writer Robert Clark:

“Cesar Brandi was perhaps the first person to attempt a theory – a set of first principals – that might govern a more sensitive restauro (restoration), and in particular the problem of the “gap,” lacunae or heavily damaged spots in an artwork in which part of the image had been lost. The gap both was and was not a part of the work: in one sense, it was a deficiency, a loss, but in another sense it became part of the artwork in the way that a scar does a body, a piece of its history if not of its original essence. To fill a gap was to falsify that history, but to leave it untreated was to falsify the work’s soul, the artist’s intent, the life of its meaning.


Brandi’s solution was a kind of neutral inpainting, designed neither to hide nor to highlight the gap, called tratteggio, “hatching,” the infilling of gaps with lines or cross-hatching in neutral tones based on the color of the intact surrounding painted surface. From a distance, the eye would fill in what was missing, but close up the gaps would still be subtly but clearly gaps. The integrity of both art and history would be respected.”

[NYC_SKP]

20. I'd read about this but had forgotten, so I had to Google it.

But when I saw it I knew it was the same.

They chose the perfect solution to the dilemma, IMO.

The Dilemma:
What was left of the crucifix when the waters receded, was the original cross, that had been constructed by the artist, swollen to four times its normal size and waterlogged to about 1,000 pounds. Two thirds of the Christ painted on the cross had washed away in the flood waters.

Should the art restorers attempt to repaint and fill in the areas destroyed by the water? Should they try to bring Christ’s image back to Cimabue’s original creation? If so, does it remain an original Cimabue? No matter how meticulously brush stokes are copied and colors matched, isn’t it still an imitation? Should a disclaimer follow it for the rest of its existence?

Should they slowly and carefully dry the crucifix and leave it as they found it, the way an archeologist digs up an ancient vase and displays it as is, an “authentic remnant”? But what does this have to do with art? “Isn’t it the beauty and transcendent value in these works that are supposed to make them worth looking at in the first place”? Or, should we look at it in the same way a body receives a wound that leaves a scar? Isn’t it all part of the life span of the piece of art?

Is the crucifix in such terrible repair that it should simply be removed and put away? Almost immediately the mold and mildew became visible in the widened damp cracks in the wood. Perhaps it should be let go like a person that is dying? Perhaps this was simply the death of this piece of art?

And what about the cross itself? Some see the art applied to the cross, while others give reverence to the cross itself, decorated or not. For many believers, since 1288, Cimabue’s crucifix, not the painting on it, has been a tangible symbol of a deep commitment of faith. With Cimabue in particular, art historians knew that the rationale for his art was not aesthetic, but devotional. Further, because he created the cross himself, isn’t it art in and of itself?

more at: http://arthistoryalive.com/archives/date/2009/07

:P

[CTyankee]

22. I'm interested in how you googled it. I tried, using my key words, and it didn't come up...

[Hissyspit]

25. same here, I couldn't find it

[CTyankee]

29. It's one of those things. If you are a big art history person or college major, then you know this

story. It's huge in that context. In the general scheme of things, no. So you have to know what to google.

Since that recent book by Robert Clark, "Dark Water" there might be more interest, but who knows. A lot of people go to Florence and to Tuscany because of Frances Mayes's "Under the Tuscan Sun." So more and more people are exposed to art there.

However, this work, today in the Santa Croce church, has been under-reported in my estimation. It is a living example of the controversy whether art should be "restored." I find that fascinating...

[Hissyspit]

33. I AM a big art history person or college major.

That's why I'm annoyed. I had completely forgotten about it.

[NYC_SKP]

37. The dilemma and solution are both interesting, and reminded me of other such endeavors...

Such as when cultural anthropologists and paleontologists reassemble broken artifacts or skeletons.

They never infill parts that are missing with "reproduction" materials or paints (though they at one time did).

Instead, they typically use materials that complete the whole but leave clear what is original and what is not.

Good puzzler today!!!

Keep 'em coming!

:P

[CTyankee]

39. Why, thank you! I've got a few more up my sleeve....

see ya later...

[NYC_SKP]

35. Goggled: fourteen foot high devotional piece

Results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=fourteen+foot+high+devotional+piece&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I read through the descriptions til I got to number 12, and that was it.

"Jul 10, 2009 ... In 1566, a fourteen foot tall wooden crucifix, built and painted by Cimabue, c. 1288, is removed from above the high alter, where it has been suspended high above ... Isn't it all part of the life span of the piece of art? ... knew that the rationale for his art was not aesthetic, but devotional."


Number 11 would have been it, too.

:hi:

[Hissyspit]

38. So did I, but I threw in the word 'controversy' and I think that threw it, although

you would think that 1966 would have refined it, and it didn't. I also threw in the word Gothic and that probably didn't help because it is such a broad term nowadays.

[malaise]

23. Excellent

:applause: :D

[mdmc]

43. I had no clue..

Ah, next Friday..

[cbayer]

21. Congratulations, NYC_SKP!

:woohoo:

[CTyankee]

24. It was a sad thing, because the monks of the church of Santa Croce, which was where the

painting hung, had waded into the dark water to capture tiny pieces of the paint floating in the water with tea strainers. Unfortunately, it was not possible, given the minuscule bits of paint pieces, to somehow restore the painting with them. What a sad thing that must have been to the people of Florence...

The Santa Croce neighborhood of Florence, where this painting had been for centuries, was the hardest hit by the flood since that area was the lowest in the city of Florence. Flood waters there reached 20 feet.

This was no small matter in the art community. Relief efforts began at once. Hundreds of volunteers came to Florence to help, straining the city's resources even more, altho they were grateful for the help.

Jackie Kennedy was a key fundraiser in the U.S. to raise money to fund restoration efforts.

If you have a chance, read Robert Clark's book "Dark Water: Flood and Redemption in the City of Masterpieces." It is a great history of what happened.

[Hissyspit]

26. Ah, Cimabue sucked anyway.

Giotto would talk nice to his face, but behind closed doors...

(I'm making that all up) :D

[CTyankee]

27. Well, there was some talk about how Giotto "took over" Cimabue's reputation.

I think it may have been Dante Alighieri...of all people...

[Hissyspit]

28. Ah, Dante could go to hell...

:D

When I said I was making it all up, didn't mean it wasn't true.

[CTyankee]

32. Hey, so you were right! Dante had that comment...

[Stinky The Clown]

30. The Pieta; there were winkie issues, as I recall.

[CTyankee]

34. I thought you said "wrinkle". Uh oh....

[grantcart]

31. another successful challenge

I have no idea what it was about and couldn't get close with or without google.


Successfully confirmed as an art illiterate the challenge is now concluded lol.

[CTyankee]

36. It's sad that this was not covered as well here as in Europe.

Altho an American photographer for Life Magazine took this amazing shot of Santa Croce Church (probably the day after the flood hit):



But, apart from art historians and a few others involved in art, this has not been part of their memory. It's too bad. I think it is an important issue. How to treat a damaged piece of art that respects the artist but also its destiny...

[CTyankee]

42. Well, I'm retired and art crazed. I read everything I can on all kinds of art.

So it's kinda my hobby and my passion. All my travel is art centered as well...altho those days may soon be over given how expensive everything is these days...

[Tsiyu]

44. I love your Friday Challenge CTYankee

Just wanted to say that even if I only lurk.

thanks for bringing art appreciation to us plebeians :hi:

[CTyankee]

45. What a nice thing to say! Thank you!

I'm really just an amateur who's got some time on her hands...being retired...

Always wanted to be able to "do" art but can't draw worth a damn myself. It makes me appreciate the works of others more keenly...