Restoration(redirected from overcontoured restoration)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical.
Restoration, in English history
Restoration of Charles II
After the death of Oliver Cromwell in Sept., 1658, the English republican experiment soon faltered. Cromwell's son and successor, Richard, was an ineffectual leader, and power quickly fell into the hands of the generals, chief among whom was George Monck, leader of the army of occupation in Scotland. In England a strong reaction had set in against Puritan supremacy and military control. When Monck marched on London with his army, opinion had already crystallized in favor of recalling the exiled king.
Monck recalled to the Rump Parliament the members who had been excluded by Pride's Purge in 1648; the reconvened body voted its own dissolution. The newly elected Convention Parliament, which met in the spring of 1660, was overtly royalist in sympathy. An emissary was sent to the Netherlands, and Charles was easily persuaded to issue the document known as the Declaration of Breda, promising an amnesty to the former enemies of the house of Stuart and guaranteeing religious toleration and payment of arrears in salary to the army. Charles accepted the subsequent invitation to return to England and landed at Dover on May 25, 1660, entering London amid rejoicing four days later.
Politics under Charles II and James II
Control of policy fell to Charles's inner circle of old Cavalier supporters, notably to Edward Hyde, 1st earl of Clarendon, who was eventually superseded by a group known as the Cabal. The last remnants of military republicanism, as exemplified in the Fifth Monarchy Men, were violently suppressed, and persecution spread to include the Quakers. The Cavalier Parliament, which assembled in 1661, restored a militant Anglicanism (see Clarendon Code), and Charles attempted, although cautiously, to reassert the old absolutist position of the earlier Stuarts.
The crown, however, was still dependent upon Parliament for its finances. The unwillingness of Charles and his successor, James II, to accept the implications of this dependency had some part in bringing about the deposition (1688) of James II, who was hated as a Roman Catholic as well as a suspected absolutist. The Glorious Revolution gave the throne to William III and Mary II.
England during the Restoration
See A. Nicoll, A History of Restoration Drama (1923); B. Willey, The Seventeenth Century Background (1934); D. Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II (2 vol., 2d ed. 1955); G. N. Clark, The Later Stuarts (2d ed. 1956); C. V. Wedgwood, Seventeenth-Century English Literature (2d ed. 1970).
Restoration, in French history
See N. Hudson, Ultra-Royalism and the French Restoration (1936); G. de Bertier de Sauvigny, France and the European Alliance (1958), D. P. Resnick, The White Terror and the Political Reaction after Waterloo (1966); J. H. Stewart, The Restoration Era in France (1968).
in France, the period during which the Bourbon dynasty again ruled the country, after having been overthrown at the end of the 18th century as a result of the French Revolution. The First Restoration (1814–15) was separated from the Second Restoration (1815–30) by the period called the Hundred Days. The July Revolution of 1830 ended the regime of the Restoration, which had mainly represented the interests of the nobility and the clergy.
in architecture and art, the reinforcement and rebuilding of destroyed, damaged, or altered monuments of history and culture. Such monuments include architectural structures, objects of fine and applied art, and archaeological finds. A structure or art object is restored to preserve its historical and artistic meaning (more specifically, to bring back its original appearance). A major aspect of the preservation of historical and cultural treasures, restoration has great importance for both general history and the history of art (seePRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL TREASURES).
Research carried out in connection with restoration often radically alters existing concepts about historical development. For example, I. E. Zabelin’s restoration of the 12th-century Uspenskii Cathedral in Vladimir in the 1890’s established the basic stylistic features of ancient Russian buildings of the pre-Mongol period. The restoration of works of fine art sometimes plays an analogous role.
Attempts at architectural restoration date back to antiquity. However, until about 1800 such efforts usually only amounted to simple repairs. Until the turn of the 20th century the restoration of art objects and monuments of material culture was understood to mean the renovation of some object, a process in which the level of the restorer’s knowledge of the history of art and material culture was of major importance.
Around 1800 restorers concentrated their efforts on bringing back the original appearance or magnificence, as they called it, of monuments damaged or disfigured by later alterations. However, their efforts were wrongly conceived, since it is impossible to restore fully the original appearance of artworks altered over the course of centuries. A restoration methodology based on scholarship was also lacking. Works of architecture, art, and material culture were arbitrarily supplemented and altered to satisfy changing tastes and practical requirements. This led to distortions and even losses of cultural treasures.
E. E. Viollet-le-Duc proposed certain guidelines for carrying out restoration. For example, he emphasized the necessity for a comprehensive study of both the building itself and the architecture of its period before restoration. He rejected borrowings even from buildings of the same time period. Viollet-le-Duc’s architectural skills led to a number of successful restorations, particularly during the early period of his career (for example, the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, 1840’s and 1850’s).
Major errors were made in restoration work in Russia, even as late as the mid-19th century. The common striving for unity of style characterized, for example, the restoration of the Cathedral of St. Dmitrii in Vladimir. Not only the early 19th-century belfry but also the 16th-century chapel and the original 12th-century corner towers, mistaken for later additions, were taken down. However, a number of valuable restorations were properly conducted as early as the first decades of the 19th century.
It was not until the late 19th century that the accumulation of systematic knowledge in the history of art and material culture and in engineering and technology made genuinely scientific restoration possible. The Greek architect N. Balanos’ restoration of the Parthenon, Erechtheum, and Propylaea on the Athenian Acropolis (1898–1917) greatly influenced the theoretical and practical development of restoration. In Russia the work of the Archaeological Commission of the Russian Archaeological Society exerted a positive influence on restoration work. In his restoration of the Church of the Savior at the village of Berestovo (1903–04, near Kiev), P. P. Pokryshkin revealed the original 11th- and 12th-century parts of the building by removing later overlays; he also preserved the 19th-century belfry and 17th-century apses and cupolas. The restoration of the 12th-century church of St. Basil in Ovruch, which was carried out from 1908 to 1912 according to plans drawn up by A. V. Shchussev, is also notable.
Around 1900 a theory of restoration based on scholarship took shape; it was most fully elaborated in regard to architecture. This theory is reflected in the work and statements of C. Boito and G. Giovannóni in Italy, C. Bühls in Belgium, L. Cloquet and, later, P. Léon in France, M. Dvořák and A. Riegl in Austria-Hungary, and C. Gurlitt and G. Hager in Germany.
Modern restoration theory relies on specific methods of approach. Three methods are currently in use. (1) Conservation entails work that does not alter the appearance of the structure or object being restored. (2) The analytic, or archaeological, method, whose basic features took shape during the restoration of the Athenian Acropolis, was described fully in Italy in the Restorers’ Charter, which was adopted in 1932 and remains the basic methodological guide for restoration work in Italy. In the USSR this method was formulated by I. E. Grabar’ and has been applied in restorations performed under his supervision. (3) The synthetic method, which is rarely used, provides for total restoration of a structure or art object.
The main principles of the analytic method were established in Venice by the Second International Congress of Architects and Technical Specialists on Historical Monuments (1964). The method regards a monument as a document and a historical source. The basic aim of restoration is the “reading” of this document and the painstaking reinforcement of its original parts. The least possible amount of work should be done in restoration, and all newly restored elements should be clearly indicated. All additions must be built in a modern style.
All the latest advances in building technology and various physical-chemical methods are used to reinforce weakened structures. Different materials may be used for restoration but externally they must resemble the original materials. However, the difference between the old and new material must be clearly evident. Taking apart the original sections of a structure is usually unnecessary, since modern restoration technology permits reinforcement of the damaged masonry without destroying it.
All restoration work must be preceded by a painstaking study of the building. Research is conducted at the site and in the archives. At the site the cause of delapidation, damage, and destruction of the structure’s static equilibrium are investigated. Technical means are used to study the structural condition. Possible methods of eliminating damage and deformations are determined, and the specific properties of basic building materials and mortars are studied. If the condition of the structure is critical, some repairs are made during the process of preliminary investigation. The building’s original elements and details, stylistic characteristics, and later overlays and alterations (and their structural and stylistic features) are studied. The historical and artistic value of these overlays, additions, and alterations is determined by a special commission. Complete series of measurements and photographs of the building are taken. Archival research involves the study of all written sources about the structure, however oblique. Also consulted are photographs, paintings, drawings, and other depictions (such as medals and seals) of the structure.
Conservation is the approach used in the restoration of monuments of historical or artistic value and for objects having particular importance in the history of material culture. The analytic method is sometimes used but only to a limited extent: overlays having historical or artistic value are preserved. Monuments that have been destroyed somewhat recently and have major national significance are sometimes restored by the synthetic method. Often restoration is combined with a plan for adaptive reuse (for example, the conversion of a dwelling into a museum).
In the analytic method of restoration, various analogous features on other buildings (such as construction elements, decorative details, and type of stone foundation) are referred to only for general hypotheses and analysis of the monument. But in synthetic restoration such elements may play a central role in re-creating actual parts and details of the monument.
Removal of overlays, when necessary, is carried out one layer at a time and with great care, since valuable fragments or traces of fragments may be contained in them. Such work is carried out only after preliminary soundings or test holes have established that valuable and well-preserved elements exist under the overlays. The replacement and re-creation of destroyed elements are based only on indisputable data concerning their original or former appearance. In the quantitative correlation between original and reproduced parts, the former must predominate. The entire process of restoration is recorded in detail in notebooks and photographs.
The restoration of works of fine art and material culture is usually aimed at bringing them to a condition and appearance as close as possible to the original. As in architectural restoration, the concepts and methods of both conservation and restoration proper are combined.
Modern restoration is based on a study of the materials and technology with which a given object was created and an examination of the causes and degree of the object’s damage and disfigurement. Equally important is a comprehensive study of the history of art and material culture. Restoration is preceded by a thorough examination of the object, using chemical, optical, and physical means to identify the materials and technological process that went into the object’s production. Procedures used include spectral analysis, chromatography, microcrystal analysis, X-ray photography, microphotography, macrophotography, and infrared radiation analysis.
The mechanical strength that an object has lost is restored by introducing materials similar to those already used (for example, the impregnation of the plaster layer behind a wall painting with a lime solution and the application of animal glue on the prime layer of icons and oil paintings and on the paint layer of tempera paintings). High-strength synthetic materials that will not damage the object may also be used. Damaged parts of the support, ground, and paint layer of paintings are repaired, and paint and gilding on works of sculpture and carving are removed. Sections of an object that have undergone chemical or structural change are removed (wholly or partially) or restored. Darkened lacquer or paraffin is removed from a painting, and crumbling patina is taken off sculpture and various other objects made from alloys of copper and other metals. Paper is whitened, and the colors of white leads are restored. Later additions to sculptures, objects of applied art, and easel and monumental paintings are partially or completely removed. Additions to a painting are retained for their own artistic and historical merit, providing that they do not interfere with appreciation of the remaining original parts. When possible, later layers having artistic or historical value are lifted off and transferred to a new primed support.
The re-creation of lost fragments of a painting, sculpture, or object of material culture is permitted when strength must be added to the remaining original parts (as in the restoration of the plaster layer behind murals, the ground [levkas] in icons, lost pieces of canvas and primes in oil painting, and missing sections of paper in works of graphic art and in documents). Sculptural details that have become separated are rejoined and reinforced, sometimes on a specially prepared frame. Bright white or colored protrusions of prime coats that interfere with perception of the painting are toned down with easily distinguished, receding colors. The arbitrary reconstruction of lost areas in a painting is generally not permissible. In special cases lost areas may be re-created in oil and other paintings, provided that the original layers of paint and prime are isolated from the supplements by a layer of easily soluble lacquer.
Since the first years of Soviet power, the restoration of historical and cultural monuments in the USSR has been carried out by state institutions. In May 1918, on the initiative of I. E. Grabar’, the All-Russian Restoration Commission was created. The commission was concerned with the restoration of architectural monuments. The restoration of works of fine art was under the jurisdiction of the Commission for the Preservation and Discovery of Art Treasures. The All-Russian Restoration Commission was later transformed into the Central State Restoration Studio, where, under the supervision of Grabar’, a methodology for restoration was developed. The restoration projects that were carried out in the Moscow Kremlin during the first decade of Soviet power received widespread recognition in the USSR and abroad.
Since 1948 a broad network of studios has been established in republics, oblasts, and large cities for restoration work, primarily of architectural monuments. In 1958 the All-Union Central Research Laboratory for Preservation and Restoration was founded. Since the prerevolutionary period there have been restoration studios at the Hermitage and Russian Museum in Leningrad and the Tret’iakov Gallery and Historical Museum in Moscow. Now many museums of art and history throughout the country have restoration workshops. There are departments of book preservation and document restoration in large libraries, manuscript repositories, and archives. Groups working on the restoration of paintings, sculpture, and works of applied art associated with architectural monuments are affiliated with architectural restoration studios.
In the USSR restoration projects are carried out systematically and on a large scale (architectural and historical monuments, museum collections). Restoration was particularly large in scope after the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, when numerous architectural monuments were restored in Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Suzdal’, Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, the Baltic republics, and the Middle Asian republics.
An outstanding achievement of Soviet restorers has been the restoration of palace and park complexes outside Leningrad—in Pavlovsk, Petrodvorets, and Pushkin—where the fascist invaders inflicted particularly severe damage. The task of a complete, integrated restoration of these palace and park complexes was set forth in view of their great historical and artistic importance. Also recognized was the need to preserve the works of outstanding 18th- and 19th-century architects, sculptors, landscape architects, and builders for future generations. The synthetic method was used in these restoration projects.
Immediately after the liberation from occupation, the damage to the palaces and park structures was surveyed, and weakened buildings were reinforced. Surviving fragments were collected, the parks were cleared of rubble, and young trees were planted to replace those destroyed. Later the vast system of fountains at Petrodvorets was restored, and restoration of the exterior and interior of the palaces and pavilions was begun. (Interior restoration has not yet been fully completed.) In a strictly scientific way, through the extensive use of archival and pictorial materials, many of the structures were re-created, along with their decorative sculpture, moldings, ceilings, gilded wood, and inlaid parquet floors. New techniques for modeling and re-creating ornamental details were developed in the process (including techniques of carving wood and plaster moldings).
The restoration projects outside Leningrad, the most extensive restorations in the world, were carried out by a large team of urban designers (including N. V. Baranov), restoration architects (A. E. Gessen, I. N. Benua, E. V. Kazanskaia, A. A. Kedrinskii, F. F. Oleinik, V. M. Savkov, S. V. Popova-Gunich, M. A. Tikhomirova), sculptors (including I. V. Krestovskii and V. L. Simonov), painters (including R. P. Sausen and A. V. Treskin), and specialists in other fields.
In the course of restoration, the original appearance of structures that had been altered in the 19th century was sometimes re-created. For example, the Hall of Acts, in the Lyceum in Pushkin, which had been destroyed in 1843, was restored to its pre-1843 appearance. These projects, as well as the restoration of architectural monuments in Novgorod, Pskov, and other cities that had been destroyed during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, defined the general direction of Soviet restoration work; that is, restoration to “optimal appearance”—an appearance close to the original.
Major Soviet restorers include the architects V. S. Banige, P. D. Baranovskii, A. D. Varganov, L. A. David, P. N. Maksimov, N. N. Pomerantsev, D. P. Sukhov, A. V. Stoletov, and N. N. Sobolev; the painters V. O. Kirikov, P. D. Korin, A. D. Korin, E. I. Briagin, N. I. Briagin, V. E. Briagin, D. E. Briagin, S. S. Churakov, V. V. Filatov, and V. N. Iakovlev; the sculptors M. A. Aleksandrovskii, I. V. Krestovskii, and V. L. Simonov; the graphic artists V. N. Krylova and Iu. P. Niuksha; and the applied artists T. N. Aleksandrova-Dol’nik and F. Ia. Mishukov.
The exchange of information among restoration specialists of different countries is promoted by the International Council of Architects on Historical Monuments.
REFERENCESKudriavtsev, E. V. Tekhnika restavratsii kartin. Moscow, 1948.
Kostrov, P. I. “Tekhnika zhivopisi i konservatsiia rospisei Drevnego Piandzhikenta.” In Zhivopis’ Drevnego Piandzhikenta. Moscow, 1954.
Filatov, V. V. Russkaia stankovaia tempernaia zhivopis’: Tekhnika i restavratsiia. Moscow, 1961.
Semenovich, N. N. Restavratsiia muzeinykh tkanei: Teoriia i tekhnologiia. Leningrad, 1961.
Grabar’, I. E. O drevnerusskom iskusstve. Moscow, 1966.
Mikhailovskii, E. V. Restavratsiia pamiatnikov arkhitektury. (Razvitie teoreticheskikh kontseptsii.) Moscow, 1971.
[Tselikov, A. I.] Okhrana, restavratsiia i konservatsiia pamitanikov russkoi arkhitektury (1917–1968): Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ literatury. Moscow, 1970.
[Volkova, L. V.] Restavratsiia, konservatsiia i khranenie muzeinykh khudozhestvennykh tsennostei: Ukazatel’ literatury. Moscow, 1974.
Metodika i praktika sokhraneniia pamiatnikov arkhitektury (collection). Moscow, 1974.
Opolovnikov, A. V. Restavratsiia pamiatnikov narodnogo zodchestva. Moscow, 1974.
Voillet-le-Duc, E. E. “Restauration.” In the book Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XI-e au XVI-e siècle, vol. 8. Paris, 1866.
Riegl, A. Der moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. Vienna, 1903.
Petr, F. Ostarých malbách a jejich restaurování. Paris, 1954.
Slánský, B. Technika malby, part 2. Průzkum a restaurování obrazů. Prague, 1956.
Marijnissen, R. H. Degradation, conservation et restauration de l’oeuvre d’art, vols. 1–2. Brussels, 1967.
E. V. MIKHAILOVSKII (restoration of architecture) and V. V. FILATOV