Page 26 - Accelerating Research and Impact - Issue 6

Philosophical and
pragmatic perspective
on art restoration
Whether by accident, malicious intent, or natural process, beautiful and culturally significant works of art tend to change or deteriorate over time
In his work in the field of art restoration, Prof Rafael De Clercq of Department of Philosophy has drawn on his understanding of aesthetics and metaphysics to answer two fundamental questions: first, what is art restoration supposed to achieve; and, second, what is permissible in the achieving of this goal.
The most common current guidelines for art restoration – such as The Venice Charter for buildings - assume that, when a work is restored, what is original and what is not should always be visible and immediately apparent to all viewers, not just experts.
Prof De Clercq, though, is unconvinced by the prevailing arguments for such a rigidly purist attitude to what constitutes permissible approaches to restoration. Though all sides of this argument accept the principle of “minimal intervention” - in other words, no more should be done than is necessary to achieve the goal of restoration - he considers a key restriction on what is permissible relates to identity.
While accepting, of course, that practical considerations, as well as the goal of the restoration, should be taken into account, he believes there are circumstances in which it is perfectly acceptable to add new parts to an artwork without making these additions immediately apparent. If the additions are documented, and there is no attempt to falsify the historical evidence, Prof De Clercq does not see why this should be viewed as a form of dishonesty.
23
Accelerating Research and Impact