3 ms·

This painting really needs some Baumgartner intervention. There are hints of overpainting around the right eye (left side facing us). Background plus eyebrow.

by geuis 1y ago

This painting really needs some Baumgartner intervention. There are hints of overpainting around the right eye (left side facing us). Background plus eyebrow. Too smooth, doesn't have the same crackle as the rest of the painting. The veneer may be quite yellowed. Looking at the cloth on the top of the head over the blue fabric. Might originally be a bright white, but now appears yellowed due to exposure of the last veneer aging and yellowing under UV light.

BrandoElFollito 1y ago
A man of culture I see :) I watch his restorations with onesie, but his narrative (when it's not technical) is tiring because it wants to be fancy but it sounds fake to me. His technical work looks great to me, I have no idea about conservation outside his videos. I heard that he got a lot of hate from conservators (which I do not understand) and actively fought critical comments on his videos (which I find petty). It's been two weeks he has not uploaded anything and it is annoying :) BTW I also watch cow hoof trimming and always wondered how many people have such weird lists of videos (art, hoof trimming, software dev, history, action movies, science, cooking, middle age, tables building, ...) - some I do a lit, some not (I saw a cow live twice)
- atombender 1y ago
  My layperson's understanding regarding the criticisms against Julian Baumgartner is that he uses a lot of invasive methods that don't meet the strict technical standards employed by professional conservators, and this creates a misleading impression of what conservation actually is. For example, you will frequently see Baumgartner do over- and in-painting of fairly large areas that have been lost. Modern conservation has slowly evolved to distance itself from mere restoration; the objective of conservators who work for museums or major collections is to only apply non-invasive procedures that can bring the artwork closer to its original state (e.g. grime removal) and shore up the structural integrity of the physical object to preserve it, but without adding anything non-original if possible. Baumgartner claims that all his changes are reversible, but you still see him prying lacquer off with a scalpel, completely replacing the wood of wood-panel paintings, and many other techniques that cast doubt on those claims. I'm not a professional, so I can't judge whether all of this is accurate, but I find the drama fascinating. In the field of conservation, Baumgartner is an outsider, as he mentored under his father rather than study conservation in an academic setting. Baumgartner's videos look absolutely world-class, but he probably wouldn't meet the bar for qualifications imposed by major museums, which typically require a postgraduate degree in conservation, including formal training in chemistry. So there's probably an element of disdain for amateurs to the criticism, as well. To be clear, what Baumgartner does is probably perfectly acceptable for many artworks, where the owner's directive is to restore the artwork back to what it may have looked like when it was made. But I'm not sure he should touch a Vermeer.
  - BrandoElFollito 1y ago
    To me, it is a question of the specific artifact. You may want to have a painting (or other art) in the form it used to be - and then you look at a "whole" painting where you can imagine the object as a continuous thing to look at -- or at what time has done to it and just at the original parts. I like both, it really depends on what you are looking at. Venus of Milo is fine as it (mostly because I am used to it) and is quite unique. Fitting the arm back would turn it into yet another sculpture. Watching a detailed painting with a lot of losses would derail me from what is happening in the picture itself.
  - curiousObject 1y ago
    If someone is so skillful that they can restore the painting to its original state, then I think they would be skillful enough to make a perfect copy, so there’s no need to tamper with the original work. Their expert copy of the work would be valuable and educational in itself, and avoid damaging the original
Joel_Mckay 1y ago
Keep in mind many painters of the day would intentionally distort the perspective to compensate for the viewing angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homography Beauty is complicated, and imperfection itself can form a timeless lesson: https://sambourque.com/blog/kintsugi-beauty-in-imperfection https://sambourque.com/blog/kintsugi-beauty-in-imperfection In many ways, some suggest it is an allegory for how people grow throughout their life... and for others it is just broken pottery. Have a wonderful day, =3

by geuis 1y ago

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

A man of culture I see :) I watch his restorations with onesie, but his narrative (when it's not technical) is tiring because it wants to be fancy but it sounds fake to me. His technical work looks great to me, I have no idea about conservation outside his videos. I heard that he got a lot of hate from conservators (which I do not understand) and actively fought critical comments on his videos (which I find petty). It's been two weeks he has not uploaded anything and it is annoying :) BTW I also watch cow hoof trimming and always wondered how many people have such weird lists of videos (art, hoof trimming, software dev, history, action movies, science, cooking, middle age, tables building, ...) - some I do a lit, some not (I saw a cow live twice)

atombender 1y ago
My layperson's understanding regarding the criticisms against Julian Baumgartner is that he uses a lot of invasive methods that don't meet the strict technical standards employed by professional conservators, and this creates a misleading impression of what conservation actually is. For example, you will frequently see Baumgartner do over- and in-painting of fairly large areas that have been lost. Modern conservation has slowly evolved to distance itself from mere restoration; the objective of conservators who work for museums or major collections is to only apply non-invasive procedures that can bring the artwork closer to its original state (e.g. grime removal) and shore up the structural integrity of the physical object to preserve it, but without adding anything non-original if possible. Baumgartner claims that all his changes are reversible, but you still see him prying lacquer off with a scalpel, completely replacing the wood of wood-panel paintings, and many other techniques that cast doubt on those claims. I'm not a professional, so I can't judge whether all of this is accurate, but I find the drama fascinating. In the field of conservation, Baumgartner is an outsider, as he mentored under his father rather than study conservation in an academic setting. Baumgartner's videos look absolutely world-class, but he probably wouldn't meet the bar for qualifications imposed by major museums, which typically require a postgraduate degree in conservation, including formal training in chemistry. So there's probably an element of disdain for amateurs to the criticism, as well. To be clear, what Baumgartner does is probably perfectly acceptable for many artworks, where the owner's directive is to restore the artwork back to what it may have looked like when it was made. But I'm not sure he should touch a Vermeer.
- BrandoElFollito 1y ago
  To me, it is a question of the specific artifact. You may want to have a painting (or other art) in the form it used to be - and then you look at a "whole" painting where you can imagine the object as a continuous thing to look at -- or at what time has done to it and just at the original parts. I like both, it really depends on what you are looking at. Venus of Milo is fine as it (mostly because I am used to it) and is quite unique. Fitting the arm back would turn it into yet another sculpture. Watching a detailed painting with a lot of losses would derail me from what is happening in the picture itself.
- curiousObject 1y ago
  If someone is so skillful that they can restore the painting to its original state, then I think they would be skillful enough to make a perfect copy, so there’s no need to tamper with the original work. Their expert copy of the work would be valuable and educational in itself, and avoid damaging the original

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

Keep in mind many painters of the day would intentionally distort the perspective to compensate for the viewing angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homography Beauty is complicated, and imperfection itself can form a timeless lesson: https://sambourque.com/blog/kintsugi-beauty-in-imperfection https://sambourque.com/blog/kintsugi-beauty-in-imperfection In many ways, some suggest it is an allegory for how people grow throughout their life... and for others it is just broken pottery. Have a wonderful day, =3