JessicaTurner

VISA-3006-001: Art of the Italian Renaissance

OCAD University, Toronto, Ontario

Prof. Dr. Heather Coffey

November 27th, 2019 

Restoration of the Sistine Ceiling:
A New Michelangelo

The Sistine Chapel, built by Pope Sixtus the IV and completed in 1481, has had three known restorations: the first restoration done by Domenico Carneval through 1566 to 1571, the second by Annibale Mazzuoli in 1710-1713, and the third and most controversial by Gianluigi Colalucci and Fabrizio Mancinellifrom 1980-1994. The third and final restoration has been up for debate amongst historians and restorers as to whether this was ultimately a destruction of Michelangelo’s work, or if it revealed the ceiling as it would have genuinely appeared after its completion in 1512. It’s revealing prompted questions not only regarding previous statements of Michelangelo as a colorist, but would have significantly changed prior knowledge of his influence on his contemporaries, such as Raphael. Professor James Beck, and restorer Gianluigi Colacucci, have been most notably in disagreement upon the Sistine Ceilings’ most recent restoration; Beck protesting it was ultimately a destruction of Michelangelo’s work, and Colacucci debating the restoration as a revival of the artist’s work, allowing for viewers to finally witness Michelangelo’s true colour palette. Whether the restoration of the Sistine Ceiling was a destruction of the artist’s work or not, science has revealed valid support to both arguments. 

From 1508-1512, Michelangelo Buonarroti, acclaimed sculpture, architect, poet, and painter, painted the most famous interior fresco in the world, located in The Vatican, a small city state surrounded by Rome, in the Sistine Chapel. On June 25, 1496, the young 21-year-old Michelangelo arrived in Rome after leaving his home in Florence, Italy. From the period of 1514-1521, Michelangelo took on the task of painting the Sistine Ceiling after being commissioned by Pope II. Prior to taking on the Sistine Ceiling, Michelangelo proved first to be an outstanding sculptor, creating the Pieta which went into a side chapel of the Old St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. He used a single block of Carrara marble, depicting a youthful Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Christ in her arms. This piece was significant in relation to how Michelangelo painted the frescos on the Sistine Ceiling. He became known for his somber, muted, and delicate use of tones which reflected a sculptural quality which opposed his known rivalry, Raphael. Michelangelo and Raphael weren’t significantly different in style, and it wasn’t until the revealing of the new restoration of the Sistine Ceiling that Michelangelo’s influence on Raphael was evidently far greater than previously thought.

In the late 1400’s, the Sistine Chapel was built for the Vatican’s papal conclave, a place to host the election of the new Pope. When the Sistine Chapel was completed in 1481, Lorenzo de’ Medici had Florentine artists such as Piermatteo d’America to fresco the ceilings. The vaulted ceiling, which was initially painted by Piermatteo, was a gift from de’ Medici to The Vatican, marking the end of war between Florence and The Vatican.[1] The ceiling was a deep blue lapis lazuli with stars painted with real gold, but shortly after it was painted (a few decades) the structure didn’t withhold, and a long line could be seen disrupting the fresco, as the ceiling had cracked due to water damage (Fig. 1). This is when Michelangelo had his opportunity to prove himself as a true painter - when Pope Julius the II was appointed in 1503, he commissioned Michelangelo to restore the ceiling with new fresco, some say to cover up the previous cracking in the ceiling. Michelangelo would prep the ceiling for painting by wetting the surface and adding a layer of lime plaster called arricio. Once this dried, pigments were mixed with limewater and applied to the arricio, fusing the pigment to the limestone to make it permanent. 

Since Michelangelo began his career in painting, art historians separated his Florentine style from the Venetian style due to his use of disegno. Whereas the Venetian artists acquired more of colorito, or focused use of colour, Michelangelo was preoccupied with crystalline lines and contour. When the restoration was completed in 1994, it is the difference in colour which had Dr. Walter Persegati, secretary and treasurer of the Vatican Museum, said “these tests brought forward such colours that we were both scared and excited…It was decided that the procedure developed for the cleaning of the van den Broeck and Metteo da Lecce was applicable to Michelangelo’s frescoes. Therefore, we decided we had to do it.” [2] Originally, it made sense for Michelangelo to avoid the bright colours schemes which were revealed post-restoration, due to early knowledge that “overly vivid colours disrupted pictorial unity, creating a tapestry-like effect that was frequently criticized in sixteenth-century text.”[3] As a Florentine artist in central Italy, Michelangelo was known to have focused heavily on the use of disegno, or precision of drawing and design, as opposed to the judicious application of the Venetian colorito, focusing on colour over design. However, once the restoration was completed, it is evident that Michelangelo was more concerned with colorito than previously thought. This means art historians' comments of Florentine and Venetian works prior to the restoration seemed debunked, and believed was up for debate. 

Prior to the restoration of the Sistine ceiling, Michelangelo’s work deemed to pay little attention to color, understandably, as he was firsthand foremost a sculptor, with a heavy use of chiaroscuro (light and dark), different than what scholars would describe his work today.[4] The muter, somber effects of the Sistine ceiling were defined by Michelangelo’s use of shadow, a quality which separated him and his contemporary Raphael, who didn’t understand the principle of light and shadow as well, or at least didn’t employ it as drastically.[5] The restoration of one of the most famous frescos by Michelangelo, “The Last Judgement,” covers the entire end wall of the chapel behind the altar of the Sistine Chapel, and has especially been scrutinized for ruining Michelangelo’s true intention. The Vatican’s own art historian, Professor Fabrizio Mancinelli, and head of restorer team Signor Gianluigi, were directed by the Pope in 1980 to complete the restoration despite protests against doing so by Professor Beck. 

In 1988, ProfessorJames Beck of Columbia University protested against the restoration of “The Last Judgement.”[6] It has been said that Michelangelo’s Sistine Ceiling documented not just one version of the genius sculptor, but of two, witnessed when “’The Last Judgement’ was completed; it was recognizable that his mood had altered drastically from 1512 when he began the painted ceiling, to 1541 when he completed "The Last Judgement."[7] For hundreds of years, the wall was effected by siliceous micro particles in dust, long-chain fatty acids from smoke of candles, gum Arabic from gum resins, and repainting’s from two notable restorations prior to the ultimate restoration in 1980.[8] These naturally occurring substances left thick, soot-like material left on the fresco, but it was difficult to tell these naturally occurring environmental changes from what could have been Michelangelo’s own touch. 

According to Professor Beck, Michelangelo had applied finishing touches to the buon fresco (wet plaster) after it had dried. This method, called a secco, included an animal glue substance for which Beck argues was removed after the restoration, removing fine details by Michelangelo in the process.[9] This animal glue (and retouching) would have given Michelangelo’s work a darker, gloomier look, as it collected dust and grime over the years, knowing to age paintings drastically. However, scientific results were contradicting, as according to art historian Colacucci, the a secco (layer applie dafter the drying of the fresco) was “identified and protected during the cleaning of the surrounding fresco.”[10] Not only were the colours intensely vibrant in comparison to Michelangelo’s previous palette, but were more somber and paler in comparison. One work in particular, the spandrel of the lunette Jesse, David, Soloman  had specific details such as the eyes completely removed post-restoration (Fig. 3). Prior to its restoration (Fig.4), the eyes were very prominent, leading to wonder if Michelangelo’s finishing touches of asecco really was removed by restorer’s in the 80’s, in the attempt of removing soot and grime. Michel Kimmelman of The New York Times recognizes the vast difference stating:

"The colors are not garish, as they appeared to some observers when the restoration was half-completed and flood lamps accentuated the shocking difference between clean and unclean, making the cleaned section appear flat and cartoon-like, as if shadows had been wiped away.”[11]

This ‘wiping away’ could be the result of the removal of a secco  Michelangelo applied foreshadowing and detail once the plaster had dried. However, restorers miraculously discovered a hidden area done by Michelangelo that hadn’t been touched by past restorers, revealing a Michelangelo which is truer to the final restoration’s vibrancy.  The restoration by Dominco Carneval between 1566 to 1571 had hidden a part done by Michelangelo, which was later discovered in the restoration of 1980-1989, and revealed startling similarities between the original and the product of the final restoration. According to Colalucci, “under the preparation of lime and pozzolana, an original fragment of the flesh painted by Michelangelo was discovered, wedged into the crack and held in place by two large-headed nails, as was customary for the intervention of Carnevali”.[12] The revealing of this area supported the argument that the final restoration had been executed correctly, and that Michelangelo’s true colours really were incredibly vibrant and intense, as seen in the before painting of prophet Daniel  (Fig. 4), and its final restoration (Fig. 5). This means that his contemporaries, such as Raphael, who was known for his vibrant use of colour, must have been influenced by Michelangelo’s colour more than previouslynoted by historians. 

Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, known as Raphael, had been known to frequently visit the Sistine Chapel to study Michelangelo’s work. Raphael studied Michelangelo’s techniques, such as his acute attention to anatomy and the sculptural quality very evident in his paintings. Although Raphael was historically deemed to be a true colorist, it was rarely regarded that Raphael used Michelangelo’s colour theory. Michelangelo was depicted as being true to form, with an almost genius use of foreshadowing which heavily influenced the Mannerist style. However, once the restoration had been completed, it was evident that Michelangelo had a much greater impact on his contemporaries such as Raphael than previously thought, solidifying the theory of Raphael being an imitator of Michelangelo in all aspects.[13] Michelangelo’s influence is most notable in Michelangelo’s Prophet Isaiah, also completed in 1512 (Fig. 7).  

Consequently, the restoration of the Sistine Ceiling has continued to spark arguments in regards to Michelangelo and the influence he originally had on the high renaissance, and later mannerist style. Although there is (some) scientific proof of the original Michelangelo being more vibrant than the Sistine Ceiling ever was prior to its restoration, the sculptural quality and softer muted tones which radiated emphatically from the ceiling for hundreds of years, is still a quality most relate to Michelangelo. The vibrancy that has been revealed post-restoration may still be of Michelangelo’s hand, but it is impossible to tell what was truly seen when it was completed in 1512. If the colour which was revealed is authentic, lacking the monochrome effect that had been visible for so long, this proves Michelangelo influenced Venetian colorists and Northern Italian painting far more than ever acknowledged.

List of Images

Figure 1

Drawing from Ernst Steinman’s Die Sixtinische Kapelle depicting the Sistine Ceiling prior to Michelangelo working on it. 

1480

Figure 2

Michelangelo

Jesse Spandrel prior to restoration

Sistine Ceiling

1508-1512 

Figure 3

Michelangelo

Sistine Ceiling

Jesse Spandrel after restoration

1980-1994 

Figure 4

Michelangelo

The Prophet Daniel, Sistine Ceiling 

(prior to restoration)

1408-1412

Figure 5

Michelangelo

The Prophet Daniel, Sistine Ceiling 

(after the restoration)

1980-1994 

Figure 6

Raphael

Prophet Isaiah

1512

Figure 7

Michelangelo

Prophet Isaiah

1512 

Bibliography

[1] Nickerson, Angela K. 2008. “A Journey into Michelangelo's Rome.” Berkeley: Roaring Forties Press. Accessed November 22, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

[2] Artwatch UK. “The Sistine ChapelRestorations: Part I ~ Setting the Scene, Packing Them In.” Artwatch, October14, 2014.http://artwatch.org.uk/the-sistine-chapel-restorations-part-isetting-the-scene-packing-them-in/.

[3] Bell, Janis C. "The Critical Reception of Raphael's Coloring in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries." Text 9 (1996): 199-215. www.jstor.org/stable/20698020.

[4] Colalucci, G. “Michelangelo Buonarroti: Restoration of the Frescoes on the Vaulted Ceiling and the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.” (2017). Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 16(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-9494/7166.

[5] Bell, Janis C. "The Critical Reception of Raphael's Coloring in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries." Text 9 (1996): 199-215. www.jstor.org/stable/20698020.

[6] Colalucci, G. “Michelangelo Buonarroti: Restoration of the Frescoes on the Vaulted Ceiling and the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.” (2017). Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 16(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-9494/7166.

[7] "Judgement day looms for Sistine restoration; Sistine Chapel." March 22, 2019. Times [London, England]. Gale Academic. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://link-gale com.ocadu.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A116964434/AONE?u=toro37158&sid=AONE&xid= 48bb7f61.

[8] Colalucci, G. “Michelangelo Buonarroti: Restoration of the Frescoes on the Vaulted Ceiling and the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.” (2017). Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 16(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-9494/7166.

[9] Beck, James. 1988. The Final Layer: “L'ultima mano” onMichelangelo's Sistine Ceiling, The Art Bulletin, 70:3, 502-503, DOI:10.1080/00043079.1988.10788585

[10] Colalucci, G. “Michelangelo Buonarroti: Restoration of the Frescoes on the Vaulted Ceiling and the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.” (2017). Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 16(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-9494/7166.

[11] Kimmelman, Michael. “Review/Art; After a Much-DebatedCleaning, A Richly Hued Sistine Emerges.” The New York Times. The New YorkTimes, May 14, 1990. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/14/arts/review-art-after-a-much-debated-cleaning-arichly-hued-sistine-emerges.html.

[12] Colalucci, G. “Michelangelo Buonarroti: Restoration of the Frescoes on the Vaulted Ceiling and the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.” (2017). Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 16(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1973-9494/7166.

[13] W.A. B. "The Cities of Art and the Early Artists. No. IV. Rome: MichaelAngelo and Raphael." Bulletin of the American Art-Union, no. 7 (1850):107-09. doi:10.2307/20646793 

Using Format