Can Immortal Works of Art Last Forever?

Perhaps no painting captures the torture of existential angst as well as Edvard Munch’s “Shrik” (“The Scream”). One has to wonder if that was the emotion being felt by two masked thieves in 2004 when they broke into an art museum in Oslo, Norway to steal one version of Munch’s haunting depiction, apparently dating from around 1910. Two years later the piece was recovered by police and earlier this year it returned to the museum on permanent display, as good as new.

Almost.

Apparently the thieves were a little careless with the priceless work of art when stowing it away because it apparently showed some tears, scratches and humidity damage. The museum employees were then faced with a choice: leave the painting as it was, tears and all, or attempt a restoration which if successful, could take away most of the damage, but if unsuccessful, could hurt the painting even further. They elected to perform restoration on the whole canvas except for a small part of the lower left corner which they considered too risky to restore. Now when patrons visit the museum they see an almost perfect version of this classic, which was probably the best they could have hoped for given the circumstances. This begs the question: when is it worth it to perform a restoration? Several factors influence the decision of whether or not to undertake this act: the value and fame of the piece itself, the level of damage or pollution on the work, the length of time it would take to complete, and not insignificantly, the cost.

One of the more controversial restorations in recent memory was that of Leonardo Da Vinci’s last supper, which lasted from 1978 to 1999. The before and after differences are startling. In the 1970s, the painting’s appearance was unrecognizable. 21 years later, when the restoration was finished, it looked better, but…different. Colors, tones and facial shapes were altered to the point where some art historians claim it had become a different painting altogether. Of course, some wear and tear should be expected of a 500 year old painting, and no critic alive today is aware of how the painting originally looked. Restoration often includes some significant tampering and if something goes wrong, the world could lose a treasure. But this rarely happens. Today, restorations are done by very skilled professionals who know what’s at stake. It’s hard to imagine even the most hardcore art purist finding fault with the retouching of the Sphinx in early 20th century Egypt; after all, if steps hadn’t been taken to restore it, it would probably be unrecognizable today, not enjoyed by anyone at all.

The truth is that restoration may cause some irreversible changes to a classic work of art, which may not sit well with some art historians. However, most patrons would likely agree that slight to moderate alterations of the original work are well worth preventing the complete deterioration of these paintings. It just seems a bit selfish that we can enjoy a work 500 years after its completion and not do our part to help it last another half millennium.