Have you ever felt that some things never change and remain an inspiration for all time? That was the divine inspiration of the Sistine Chapel, now stripped down with harsh chemicals and looking shockingly out of place.

The problem is artists are romantics and scientists are doubters and they fall at opposite ends of the human spectrum. Romantics try to see everything in a vale of beauty where scientists try to create a logical understanding of the world to make a safe place for them and others. One talks in abstractions and subjective feelings about warm fuzzy stuff and the other in mumbo-jumbo terms no one can understand. The object here is not to agree but to understand each other’s differences.

For centuries restorers have exercised the most extreme care to preserve and maintain in tact Michelangelo's grandest achievement, the Sistine Ceiling. There has never been a period of more than ten years time where some restorative measures have not been preformed on the Sistine Chapel be it small or a complete cleaning. Salts and mildew were constantly forming over the fresco and repeatedly brushed and washed off. All in all there have been five major cleanings, many overpaints, repairs and varnishes added over the centuries. In the past half century restoration has shifted its point of view sheltered by science and historical research; to experiment with our art treasures, without responsibility for the out come of these interventions, or the artist's complete l’ouvrier. This last decade of cleaning the Ceiling has made apparent the disregard for the artistic esthetic and is a pure manipulation of art as an object in a scientific world. The ‘Last Judgement’ suffered tremendous deterioration and repair, and as a result of the cleaning it looks ever more disjointed.

From the artist’s point of view the scientific procedures and historical documents of restoration is destroying the harmony of masterpieces. From the scientist’s point of view, GianLuigi Colalucci, restorer for the Vatican who restored the Sistine Chapel, under the Director of the Laboratory for the Restoration of Pictures in the Vatican Museums, Carlo Pietrangeli, it is logic. Colalucci, a restorer from the Instituto de Restouro in Rome, had experimented with cleaning solvents on frescos. Most notably the 'Coronation of Charlemagne' by Raphael also in the Vatican, which he cleaned, and to his credit, exposing a whole array of beautiful colored banners which at some point had been painted over. With this success and great acclaim there was nothing less than to try this new solvent on the greatest fresco ever painted.

The object of Colalucci’s success is the solvent AB-57. The solvent is a soda reactant like Easy Off the oven cleaner and removes anything that isn’t ‘buon fresco’ (or color impregnated into the lime) It is applied in a gel and left for three seconds then removed with distilled water and repeated three times. However, it is irreversible and there are no studies on AB-57 with regards to pigment migration over time and discoloration of the pigment. The scientific premise is that Michelangelo painted only in 'buon fresco', a nice easy solution for the problem solver, but too simplistic for the romantic who is bound by his feelings and wonders about the retouches, corrections and ‘la velatura’ glazes. It had been stated by Armannini, the Florentine color supplier, that ultramarine blue was put on 'a secco' as was the gold. These ‘a secco techniques were acceptable as 'buon fresco' at the time, and to what extreme Michelangelo used these techniques is now uncertain, however he used as his technical advisor among the most respected fresco painter in Florence, his friend Vasari.

Colalucci remains adamant that Michelangelo used only ‘boun fresco’ on the Sistina, although contradicting himself, he writes in his paper “Michelangelo’s Colors Rediscovered”.

“Technical and scientific research, concentrating primarily on an analysis of the pictorial technique, was undertaken on the ‘Eleazar and Matthan’ lunette. By the end of this investigation Michelangelo’s use of ‘boun fresco’ was unequivocally vindicated. He had worked in the purest Florentine tradition, using only colors suitable for fresco, avoiding any that would have required application ‘ a secco’. He had worked ‘a secco’ to a minimal degree, on the ceiling, but not at all in the lunettes, not even to carry out small alterations as he worked. Nor had he painted the colored or uncolored glazes containing binder, that some had taken to be not the result of a restoration, as in the fact they are, but the later, improvised corrections of Michelangelo himself.”

Here Colalucci admits to some ‘a secco’ treatment on the ceiling and continues to argue the use of only ‘boun fresco’ on the lunettes. How can he be so certain, one but not the other, not one single mistake on the lunettes?

“Vasari is explicit on the matter. ‘(Fresco) resists both atmosphere and water and will always withstand any kind of blow, but one has to be careful to avoid having to retouch it with colors bound in animal glue or egg yolk or resin or gum tragacanth, as many painters do; because, besides preventing the fresco from showing forth its natural luminosity, the colors become veiled by the retouching on top and in a short space of time become black. Therefore, let those who wish to paint on a wall work with courage in fresco and let them retouch ‘a secco’ because, besides being a weak and cowardly thing, it shortens the life of the painting.’ “No such weakling was Michelangelo…”

Interestingly Colalucci disregards the reports done on a 1935 to 1938 restoration saying,

“ the restoration of the ‘intonaco’ surface in the 1930’s; these last were not encouraging, since they spoke of the bad technique of the frescoes, of their perhaps being ‘varnished’ with animal glue and pigment and of their being ‘burned’. However, these were subjective impressions, often mutually contradictory, vitiated by the state of conservation of the frescoes at that time and by the considerable distance from which they were often observed.’

Ironic, I could say the same about Colalucci’s subjective restoration.

The restorer must make an artistic study before starting a restoration and understand the development of the continuous light effect over the fresco as well as in other works. To clean the entire ceiling equally from one corner to the other wiping off at three-second intervals is incentive and irresponsible. Art can't be cleaned like dipping your damaged furniture into a paint removal vat. Some passages are more delicate and have to be treated with special attention, while others are more decorative and broad. The restorer must comply with the artist’s formation of the central light effect, which is the basis of rendering in the Renaissance or else it becomes the interpretation by the restorer. He must have an understanding of the principles of art, one of, which is half tone.

Half tone is one hue that is both light and shade, thus the word half- tone. The artist can’t always control the use of half tone; many times it just happens like magic – an accident, through developing the light effect. This simple accident makes art attics of many artists. The tone is mixed in the middle hues of the pallet, where light meets dark, for obvious reasons, because one tone cannot be both dark and light at the same time if they are very far apart in value. The easiest way to get this magical tone is to paint at close value in the middle of the pallet and glaze over it with a complementary tone. Unfortunately when the glaze is gone so is the magic.

Michelangelo created a grand effect, transforming this modest barrel vault into an all-inspiring statement of the Divine. His romantic illusion was to compile the trials and tribulations of man’s struggle of the Judeo Christian era creating hope (or fear) of ascending into the Temple that is the Glory of God. Constructing a monumental edifice with an artificial impediment supporting a balustrade of pilasters, he joined transverse beams, which delineate a series of chauffeur-like framed areas from which to house the Biblical narratives. The vault is separated into three zones. The first zone is the lunettes under the impediment and depicts the ancestors of Christ representing humanity. Secondly, there are the Prophets and Sibyls located between the pilasters, although human look above to the divine heroes in the third zone that tells of the Biblical narratives at the apex and most dramatic part of the ceiling.

Artistically, the impediment cast a shadow over the lunettes, the least elevated group, the ancestors of Christ. The next level upwards are the prophets and sibyls which are in half light projecting strong cast shadows to create three-dimensionality. As the effect ascends to the central narratives of Divine Power, they are in full light highlighting the power and glory of the central effect.

Historically the lunettes are in the past and pictorially they are of lesser importance, for this reason Michelangelo put them in shadow under the impediment or cornice which naturally would cast a shadow, building up the greater effect in the central ceiling. The result of cleaning the shadow glaze from the lunettes makes them more prominent, since they are frontal to the viewer (on the wall before it turns into the barrel vault) closer, and more important than the central figures simply because of their position, taking away from the central effect and over all three-dimensionality of the work. Each lunette is approximately fifteen square meters and it is documented that Michelangelo painted a lunette in three days, without cartoons, freehand, painting five square meters in one ‘giornata’ (days work). The fact that he didn’t use cartoons on the lunettes reveals their secondary importance. At the time most painters were only painting one half a square meter per day.

This brings up the point of the shadow put on with a glaze ‘la liquisima velatura’. “This very dark, brown, glassy epidermis, consisting of layers of dust and fatty soot.” quote by Colalucci. A study was performed of the atmospheric patterns of the chapel to understand if pollution was effecting the surface. It was noted that some of the currents that circulating around the chapel effected the Fresco. The acidity of car pollution and particles of dust reached the surface, however, soot was too heavy and only reached four/fifths the height not contaminating the surface (‘Study of micro climate of the Sistine Chapel’ by Prof. Dario Camuffo of the Instituto di Chimica e Tecnologia dei Radioelementi de Padua). This is important because the whole premise was that the soot on the surface came from the soot from the torches in lighting the chapel. This leads to a number of questions. Why after analysis was there so much carbon or soot in the protein glaze coat (animal glue)? Why was this carbon concentration not found on the white marble plaques mounted with the prophet’s names or gold spindles that remained pristine? How could the soot from the lamps be so selective?

To explain this phenomena, I believe Michelangelo used lamp black in the glaze as did the Restorers of the 1930’s. Not only as a protective coat, but also as a tonal glaze unifying the entire surface. Granted this protein coating is the discussion of many debates and is the consequence of five hundred years of abuse and darkening which is only natural under the circumstance. What is ironic is that lampblack is made by taking the soot from inside the oil lamp and cleaning it to make black pigment which is what is found in the glaze. I believe the reason for the blackened glaze is that traditionally in Renaissance oil painting, which Michelangelo was familiar, the development of the design (shading the the form and turning the contoured edge) was done in black and white and then, color was glazed on top successively depending on the prismatic effect taking several days. In ‘buon fresco’ there is only six to eight hours, so he reversed the process of the black and white shading by juxtaposing different colored tonal values next to each other to give the effect of light and shade. For example, the Lunette of ‘Elaeazer and Mathan’ Michelangelo painted on the pant leg bright yellow on the lighted surface, and violet on the cool shadow side following the contoured line of the anatomy as it turns. Then he would put a lamp black glaze to unify these colors together, making them neither yellow nor violet, but a blend, creating in effect a Renaissance oil painting. This is why the colors in this Fresco appear so excessively vibrant like day glow hues, after the cleaning. Also by using the tonal glaze, Michelangelo could strengthen the three- dimensionality of the Fresco and easily make corrections. The result of cleaning the Fresco evenly over the surface and removing cast shadows and halftones has flattened the artistic expression into two- dimensional space. Colalucci admits there are ‘a secco’ overpaints and corrections. Unfortunately the evidence of this has been removed by the restoration

It is the duty of the restorer not to alter the intent of the artist, but the scientist cannot help himself. Who cares if Colalucci discovered Michelangelo as a colorist and can explain the Colorist trends of Pontormo and Rossi. His job is to make sure the thing is stuck on there and leave it alone. In comparing before and after photos there is much proof that Colalucci removed ‘a secco’ passages and left many areas sketchy and thin and. Proof of one single change of the artist’s intent is negligence of which there are many.

Michelangelo or any romantic painter is concerned with the complete illusion, the sum of its parts and not the specific elements. The Renaissance throughout its development from Humanism to the Baroque analyzed different elements of art and yet related it to an objective reality. Michelangelo falls in between two great periods of Classical art gapping Mannerism and Baroque, as Cezzanne connects Expressionism with the plasticity of Modernism. The difference with Modern Periods of art, like Fauvism to color, or Cubism to form, or Abstraction is that they are subjective realities and so on to non-derivative art forms. The identification of non-derivative art is that the viewer does not relate it to the culture but the subjective experience of the individual. Thus the focus on the ‘me’ generation, what I can get for myself - Consumerism.

I remember when I first went up the scaffolding to see the cleaning in progress. This was in the beginning when the headlines in Rome read ‘Michelangelo the new colorist’ ‘ A Fauvist painter’. How shocked I was to see the drastic contrast between the new restoration and the old familiar Michelangelo. How impressed I was to see how large the figures were. How could Michelangelo maintain his perspective over such a grand scale? I touched the surface and realized how abrasive it was, like sandpaper without any protective coating. I knew it was the beginning of the end. What a crime and what price to pay.

By Peter Arguimbau, An artist in Greenwich, CT.