Mikó Árpád szerk.: "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" M S Mester vizitáció-képe és egykori selmecbányai főoltára (A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiadványai 1997/1)

TANULMÁNYOK / ESSAYS - MENRÁTH PÉTER-HERNÁDY SZILVIA: M S mester Vizitáció-képének restaurálása

more emphasis. The cleaning of the painting revealed a previously unknown detail above the heads of Mary and Elizabeth. Behind the architectural structure earlier completed into a symmetrical building, we found the fragments of another building supported on posts. It also became apparent that the peak of the rock below them reached right up to the second building. As we were aiming for the complete restoration of the painting and the uncovering of the original 16th century paint surface, we decided to remove all the overpaints and retouchings, along with the fillings added to repair larger lacunae, regardless of when and for what reasons they had been added. It was this picture, in which only the original work was retained, with occasional paintlosses going right down to the wood, that Master M S had bequeathed to us and what should, therefore, form the basis of both the aesthetic restoration and the comparative analysis for art historical studies. After the complete removal of all the traces of the restoration carried out in 1952, as well as of any other previous repairs, we saw the emergence of a very clearly composed and minutely executed painting. It was only then that we discovered that the work had been repaired and overpainted several times, even though a complete overpaint - as mentioned in the introduction - could not be proven. In the course of cleaning the painting we found that the overwhelming majority - about 95 per cent - of the paintlosses in the original paint layer dated back to the period before the painting's restoration in 1952. The paintlosses had been repaired several times, and the panel revealed various layers of ground and paint. The Aesthetic Restoration Just as the work of restorers cannot be limited to aesthetic restoration (as seen from the above), so it cannot be limited to the - otherwise extremely important - areas of preservation, uncovering and cleaning. Restoration forms a complex series, which cannot be broken into different segments, and in which the sequence of the various tasks is predetermined, with the various phases of the work following from one another. Yet, the point at which the wooden material has to be conserved, and the paint layer fixed, is clear to anyone, in the same way that the point about the need to carry out special examinations has by now become inevitable. When it comes, however, to the important role aesthetic restoration plays in introducing the originality of the picture, there is a wide range of opinions. In aesthetic restoration the inevitable starting point must be the condition of the original paint layer. Restorers cannot do anything about the natural ageing of a painting, which reflects the various painting techniques and the use of different materials; nor can they change the character it acquires in consequence. This is not the case with the distortions resulting from the inappropriate modifications, which do not belong to the character and the individuality of the painting. The extent and the method of aesthetical restoration is basically determined by the size, the extent and the position of these distortions. The thinness and the fragmentation of the finishing modelling and the glaze are regarded as surface losses. As the quality of the painting is determined by this top (and quite often extremely thin) paint layer, its condition is crucially important from the viewpoint of the extent of restoration. In case of small surface losses a minimal amount of retouching could be sufficient. If more extensive, the same type of thinness or paint losses might call for repairs of a reconstructional character, regardless wheather the original paint layer has survived. Since the original character, the craquelure and the colour tone of the painting are given in this case, the reconstruction must be based on these, with the repairs organically adjusted to the surrounding. By surface discontinuity we mean that in a well-defined area the paint layer is completely missing. In cases when this interferes with the enjoyment or interpretation of the painting, greater reconstruction seems justified. The presentation of works of art in their fragmented condition forms one of the distinctive, and nowadays quite fashionable, methods of aesthetic restoration. In this case the restorer presents the work of art in the state that it has survived, displaying the „new beauty" produced by the ravages of time and emphasizing the historic-value of the work. As another possible approach, the emphasis could be laid on the original aesthetic value of the work, which the restorer tries to achieve by physically restoring the continuity of the surface. To harmonize these two approaches, which require diametrically opposing techniques, restorers - instead of relying on the didactically emphatic method of making the repairs stand out by fitting them into a neutral colour tone - should make repairs distinct with the help of the rigattino method, thus enabling the viewers to enjoy the original qualities of the painting, without concealing its past and seeing their task in the harmonious aesthetical restoration. In the case of the Visitation, complete loss of the paint layer can mostly be found along the joints between the boards. The majority of these losses were in the gilded background. We were of the opinion that providing the painting with a new gilding was not justified, as the even and homogeneous effect of the metal surface could be achieved using an even, neutral retouching with small even brushstrokes without causing the original, thinned-off parts to stand out obtrusively. On the aesthetically extremely irritating paintlosses running vertically, i.e. those found on the head dresses, necks of both Mary and Elizabeth, as well as on Mary's