The Restoration of Rembrandt’s Syndics

IF 0.2 4区 艺术学 0 ART
E. van Duijn
{"title":"The Restoration of Rembrandt’s Syndics","authors":"E. van Duijn","doi":"10.52476/trb.9763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the reason why a cleaning controversy about the restoration of Rembrandt’s Syndics broke out nearly two and a half years after the work was completed in 1929 and how Rijksmuseum director Frederik Schmidt-Degener dealt with the challenges. Initiated by local artists from the Amsterdam artist society Arti et Amicitiae, the controversy was fuelled by provocative questionnaires circulated among artists and restorers by the daily De Telegraaf. A vindictive letter by Rijksmuseum restorer Pieter Bakker, who restored The Syndics in 1929, but left the museum on mental health grounds in 1930, fanned the flames still further, even though it was not published in the end. This cleaning controversy was not unique; arguments about the supposed dangers of cleaning paintings were fought out in public in European countries throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. After a cleaning controversy about Frans Hals paintings in Haarlem – which dragged on between 1909 and 1927 – The Syndics cleaning controversy was the second in the Netherlands. It was also the last. This previously unexplored episode in the Rijksmuseum’s conservation history carries a lesson in open communication regarding the restoration of cultural heritage. It is a lesson that is still valid today.","PeriodicalId":40677,"journal":{"name":"Rijksmuseum Bulletin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rijksmuseum Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52476/trb.9763","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article focuses on the reason why a cleaning controversy about the restoration of Rembrandt’s Syndics broke out nearly two and a half years after the work was completed in 1929 and how Rijksmuseum director Frederik Schmidt-Degener dealt with the challenges. Initiated by local artists from the Amsterdam artist society Arti et Amicitiae, the controversy was fuelled by provocative questionnaires circulated among artists and restorers by the daily De Telegraaf. A vindictive letter by Rijksmuseum restorer Pieter Bakker, who restored The Syndics in 1929, but left the museum on mental health grounds in 1930, fanned the flames still further, even though it was not published in the end. This cleaning controversy was not unique; arguments about the supposed dangers of cleaning paintings were fought out in public in European countries throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. After a cleaning controversy about Frans Hals paintings in Haarlem – which dragged on between 1909 and 1927 – The Syndics cleaning controversy was the second in the Netherlands. It was also the last. This previously unexplored episode in the Rijksmuseum’s conservation history carries a lesson in open communication regarding the restoration of cultural heritage. It is a lesson that is still valid today.
伦勃朗辛迪加画作的修复
伦勃朗的《辛迪加》是在1929年完成的,但在将近两年半的时间里,关于修复伦勃朗的《辛迪加》引发了一场清理争议,而荷兰国立博物馆馆长弗雷德里克·施密特-德格纳则是如何应对这些挑战的。由阿姆斯特丹艺术家协会Arti et Amicitiae的当地艺术家发起,争议是由每日电讯报在艺术家和修复者中分发的挑衅性问卷引起的。国立博物馆的修复者彼得·巴克(Pieter Bakker)在1929年修复了《辛迪加》,但在1930年以精神健康为由离开了博物馆。他的一封报复性信件进一步煽风点火,尽管这封信最终没有发表。这场关于清洁的争论并不是唯一的;在整个19世纪和20世纪,在欧洲国家,关于清洗绘画的所谓危险的争论一直在公开进行。1909年至1927年间,哈勒姆发生了一场关于弗兰斯·哈尔斯(Frans Hals)画作的清理争议,此后辛迪加(Syndics)的清理争议是荷兰的第二次。这也是最后一次。在荷兰国立博物馆的保护历史上,这一以前未被探索的事件为文化遗产的修复提供了一个开放交流的教训。这一教训至今仍然有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信