Print

Mail

wiki links

What to do with `David'?

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, FLORENCE, ITALY
Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, Page 16

Five centuries after Michelangelo's David was unveiled in Florence's Piazza della Signoria, there is a problem. Should the marble colossus be restored to its original perfection or simply cleaned of grime? Or should it learn to live with venerable old age? PHOTO: NYT

Five centuries after Michelangelo's David was unveiled in Florence's Piazza della Signoria, there is another contretemps about how to save this icon of youthful beauty from the ravages of time. Should the marble colossus be restored to its original perfection or simply cleaned of grime? Or should it learn to live with the inevitable streaks and blotches of venerable old age?

In the cradle of the Renaissance, whether a major art work should be cleaned, restored or left untouched is invariably the stuff of intense debate. Thus, when Florence's art establishment decided last year that David needed attention, it acted cautiously. It promised only a gentle cleaning of the 4.3m-high statue, which has stood inside the Galleria dell' Accademia since 1873.

Almost inevitably, a heated battle has ensued. Agnese Parronchi, the experienced restorer first hired to clean the statue, resigned in April, charging that the officially approved method was too harsh and could cause damage. Now a petition signed by 39 international scholars has proposed suspending any action pending review by an independent commission of experts.

That said, according to Antonio Paolucci, the superintendant of Florentine art who has the last word on such matters, the cleaning of David will finally begin in September, with a new restorer already named to replace Parronchi. On the other hand, 15 months ago, Paolucci canceled plans to restore Leonardo's Adoration of the Magi in the face of international protests. And he is known to dislike scandal.

For the moment, with David, Paolucci is playing down the dispute between the "wet" method proposed by the Accademia's director, Franca Falletti, and the "dry" method favored by Parronchi. "Both are gentle methods, both are very light," he explained. "We don't have a very serious problem of conservation. There are little problems of superficial cleaning. Nothing dramatic."

But there is no shortage of passion in the arguments brandished by Parronchi and Falletti and their respective supporters, arguments in which science and experience have been marshaled for partisan purposes.

When Parronchi was named last September, she seemed perfect for the job, having won acclaim for her cleaning of Michelangelo's tombs of the Medicis in the Lorenzo Chapel and of his two reliefs, Madonna of the Stairs and Battle, in Florence's Casa Buonarroti. Once installed at the Accademia, working from a mobile ladder in full view of visitors, she spent three months making 360 digital graphics of David.

Her conclusion: The statue should be cleaned using a minimally invasive "dry" method involving soft brushes, cotton swabs, an eraser and a chamois cloth. "Because David stood outside for so long, its pores are open and a lot of dust accumulated," Parronchi said."But this can be easily removed. The issue is not one of recovering the sculpture's original look because there is not one millimeter of its original surface left."

Here she was backed by James Beck, a Columbia University art historian and president of ArtWatch International, who has now organized the petition to Paolucci urging a halt. "There was no reason to clean David," said Beck, who keeps a second home outside Florence and has frequently campaigned against what he considers unnecessary restorations. "But if it had to be done, it should be done in the gentlest possible way. Agnese's approach was merely heavyduty dusting."

In contrast, Falletti's case for wet cleaning is based on a report prepared by a committee of scientists from the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, a government art-restoration department. After months of testing, they concluded that the greatest threat to David was posed by a light sprinkling of gypsum, a calcium sulphate which responds to humidity. They proposed removing this by applying wet poultices using distilled water which, they said, would also draw the dust out of pores.

"Agnese Parronchi's method doesn't reduce the amount of gypsum," said Mauro Matteini, who headed the team of scientists. "It may work aesthetically, but it doesn't remove the gypsum. Also, even if it is gentle, her brushing is a mechanical process. Why use a mechanical method when you can use a poultice?"

Falletti was even more forthright. "Agnese Parronchi's method and material are absolutely unacceptable to us," she said with some irritation. "The issue is removing the dust, not brushing it round. And by definition, you have to brush hard. This entire fuss is because an art historian -- Jim Beck -- has stirred up other art historians. But none of them has ever done a restoration."

Yet such was Parronchi's opposition to the "wet" method that she was willing to walk away from what could well have been the most prestigious project of her career. "The problem with the poultices is that they create a uniform look," she said, noting that the marble has natural colors and veins. "The issue is not wet or dry, but uniform or not uniform. My approach respected all the subtleties in the marble."

Of course, whether David needs cleaning at all is another matter, not least because the sculpture was never considered a perfect piece of marble. Excavated from Fantiscritti quarry near Carrara, the 5.5m-high block was abandoned and exposed to the elements in the courtyard of Florence's Duomo for almost 40 years before Michelangelo tackled it. And even after completing his sculpturing, he spent four months treating and polishing the marble before its unveiling in September 1504.

Since then, David has not always been handled respectfully. In 1527, his left arm was snapped off during a riot: The white mixture of lime and sand used to re-attach it is still visible. Then, having absorbed soot for three centuries, the statue was subjected to still greater damage by two botched 19th-century cleaning jobs. In 1810, it was covered in wax. And in 1843, the wax along with any of Michelangelo's original patina were removed with hydrochloric acid.

The wisest move was to bring David into the main hall of the Accademia in 1873, where it has since become one of Florence's greatest tourist attractions. In 1991, however, Piero Cannata, an unbalanced Italian artist, took a hammer and knocked off the second toe of David's left foot. A new toe was shaped from fragments of marble and plaster.

The idea of cleaning David again has been debated sporadically since 1991. Paolucci insists that next year's anniversary of the work's inauguration did not prompt the decision to act now, although he conceded that a clean David should be ready by next September.

He had read the petition signed by Italian, British and American scholars, including such Renaissance experts as Carlo Pedretti of the University of California at Los Angeles, Mina Gregori of the University of Florence and Paulo Barrochi of the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa. "It's an invitation to prudence," Paolucci said. "I agree. We are also very prudent. They propose a commission, but a commission already exists. It has been working for more than 10 years."

Ever the conciliator, Pasolucci also praised Parronchi as "one of the best restorers in Florence and in Tuscany," he said. "She is very clever, very good, and she will continue to work with us, but not on David."

Cristina Acidini, who heads the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, said the statue needed help. "Beck's petition doesn't surprise me and it doesn't scare me," she said. "The cleaning doesn't mean making the statue whiter or more beautiful. It may happen that it will be whiter or more beautiful, but that is not the aim. Our aim is to remove what is damaging it."
This story has been viewed 1590 times.