Preserving the Present: Theory and Ethics in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Paintings

The conservation of a painting is a nuanced process that requires an in-depth understanding of both an artwork’s historical context and the materials used in its creation. Whether caring for paintings from centuries past or for works created in recent years, conservators face distinct challenges in the course of every treatment. I had the unique opportunity to witness such challenges first-hand across two different conservation labs over the last year: the paintings lab at the Conservation Center at the Institute of Fine Arts, NYU, where students are trained on Old Master paintings; and the private practice Art Conservation Solutions, which is dedicated to the conservation of modern and contemporary paintings.

Exposure to these two contrasting environments resulted in the following comparison of the conservation approaches for Old Master versus modern and contemporary paintings. I was especially intrigued by the fact that modern and contemporary conservation does not have the same canon of ethical theory to guide its practitioners in decision making. Furthermore, the philosophies that guide Old Master conservation may, or may not, apply to the conservation of more recent work. This blog post reviews the theories that grounded my Old Master training at the Conservation Center of the Institute of Fine Arts, and explores how those theories can be adapted for modern and contemporary art.

Early on in my career as a graduate student, I read excerpts from writings by two fundamental conservation theorists: Alois Riegl and Cesare Brandi. These texts guided my concept of how conservators make decisions and have heavily shaped my own conservation practice.

Alois Riegl’s theory of restoration was published in his 1903 essay Der Moderne Denkmalkultus (The Modern Cult of Monuments). This text outlines the idea of a “monument” (which can also include a work of art) as a culturally significant object with multiple values that should be considered during preservation and restoration. These values include: historical value, reflecting the era of their creation; age value, which respects the aesthetic of natural aging; and use value, relating to their function. Riegl argued that restoration should balance these values according to need, potentially preserving both historical context and signs of aging rather than aiming to return a monument to its “original” state. 

Cesare Brandi’s theory of restoration, presented in his 1963 book Teoria del Restauro (Theory of Restoration), focuses on preserving both the aesthetic and historical aspects of an artwork. He argues that restoration should honor the artist’s intent, maintaining the aesthetic experience of the work, but without altering the original material. At the same time, historic authenticity must be upheld, and any interventions should be reversible and distinguishable from the original artwork to the trained eye. Brandi also emphasizes the principle of minimal intervention, to the extent possible, allowing the artwork to show its age while ensuring its legibility and visual unity. His approach seeks a balance between respecting the original creation and preserving its aesthetic qualities.

Old Master conservation generally focuses on minimizing further degradation while respecting the passage of time and patina of age; its other primary aim is to preserve the artwork’s visual unity and function as an aesthetic object. As Brandi summarized, “restoration should aim to re-establish the potential oneness of the work of art, as long as this is possible without committing artistic or historical forgery, and without erasing every trace of the passage through time of the work of art.” 

The adaptation of Reigl’s and Brandi’s theories to the conservation of modern and contemporary paintings is complicated by two essential differences between Old Master and recent paintings. First is the potential involvement of a living artist, who may have opinions about the conservation and presentation of their work. Second, there are differences in artists’ attitudes toward permanence: some contemporary pieces are designed to be ephemeral or interactive, raising ethical dilemmas about how to conserve an artwork that was never intended to last indefinitely; other artworks are intended to remain pristine. The conservation of recent work is not just about material preservation, but also about maintaining the conceptual integrity of the work. Because the material of a contemporary work is often an idea, conservators of these objects become stewards of intangible as well as tangible heritage.,  It is in this nuanced context that we are establishing theories to guide the conservation of modern and contemporary art, considering which historical principles are useful and which should be modified in order to adapt to new purposes. 

Brandi’s principles of minimal intervention, respect for the artist’s vision, and reversibility within reason are readily applied to the conservation of modern and contemporary paintings. The application of Reigl’s theories is less straightforward, as which of his values are prioritized varies from treatment to treatment. By my observation, the concept of “age value” is not as prized in modern and contemporary paintings as it is in Old Master paintings; this is evident in the limited tolerance for visibly aged or damaged contemporary paintings in the art market. The importance of condition is supported by the number of crack-flattening treatments that I conducted over the past year (figure 2). This technique involves the coordinated use of moisture, adhesive, heat, and weight to reduce the visibility of cracks. One concern that clients (who may be private collectors, artists, and/or dealers) often have about this treatment is the potential for the canvas to be stained on the reverse, which could serve as evidence of conservation intervention– something that they are often looking to avoid. This technique and the reasons for clients’ worries about it demonstrate both a lack of tolerance for signs of aging in contemporary paintings and also a hesitation to acknowledge that they were ever conserved.

In my experience, clients also request minimal inpainting because they worry that the inpainting pigments, which may become visible on examination with ultraviolet radiation, will reduce the monetary value of the painting. One way to mitigate this issue is to use inpainting media with little pigment, such as colored pencils, or to avoid pigments that fluoresce strongly. Colored pencils can also be conveniently used to simultaneously fill and retouch tiny cracks without the added material being visible in ultraviolet radiation. The effort to reduce the distinguishability of retouching through the use of a non-fluorescent pigment is a sharp diversion from Brandi’s tenet of maintaining the historic authenticity of the artwork.

Degradation and loss in modern and contemporary paintings may be approached very differently depending on the priorities of the stakeholders involved and, potentially, on the input of a living artist. I have encountered diametrically opposed views from artists concerning the conservation approach that they desire. For example, one artist I have worked with at Art Conservation Solutions insists on a conservation approach that may be understood as more traditional: losses and cracks on her works are to be consolidated, filled, and invisibly retouched (figure 3). Her conservation preference arguably skews towards the side of restoration and focuses on the visual reintegration, or unity, of the artwork. In another example, an artist-as-client brought in a large mixed-media painting that included paper tape, which had aged and had frayed corners. She wanted the tape to be secured, but she did not want there to be any attempt at correcting its discolored appearance. Nor did she want the frayed corners to be mended, stating that the signs of the painting’s age were akin to her gray hairs– a precious sign of time’s passage, not to be disturbed. This artist’s conservation preference prioritizes preservation rather than restoration, and emphasizes the object’s age value. 

These two encounters illustrate both the influence that living artists can have over treatment and the polarized preferences that they may have. At times, we are privileged to have a living artist tell us what their concept is for the artwork; at other times, we must depend on archival research and art historical context to approximate the artist’s intention. These encounters also raise the question of whether it is possible for modern and contemporary conservators to develop a theory of conservation that can be adhered to with consistency. The answer is no, they cannot; each treatment demands an individual approach. Conservators can, however, develop a decision-making process that considers the following factors:

• Material identification, the artist’s idea and the artistic concept
• The context of the work of art (whether physical, architectural, or socio-historical)
• The relationship between the materials/techniques and the artist’s intention for its aging processes

To conclude, the conservation of Old Master and modern and contemporary paintings involves navigating different priorities and theoretical frameworks. While Old Master conservation is well-grounded in established principles and practices, modern and contemporary conservation requires a more adaptive, case-specific approach. This flexibility is necessary to accommodate the diverse materials, conceptual intentions, and potential involvement of living artists. My experiences in both settings have shown that modern and contemporary conservation is still evolving its own theoretical foundations, with no one-size-fits-all methodology. Instead, conservators must develop tailored decision-making processes that consider the specificities of each work. Ultimately, both practices share the goal of preserving the artwork’s integrity—whether that means protecting its physical state, its intended meaning, or its relationship with time.

Brandi, Cesare. “Theory of Restoration II.” Essay. In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, 339–42. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute, 2010. 

Magar Meurs, Valerie. “Cesare Brandi and Contemporary Art: Theory, Aesthetic and Restoration. A Tempestuous Dialectic.” Conversaciones 7 (2019): 249–66. 

Reigl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development.” Essay. In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, 69–83. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute, 1996. 

Szmelter, Iwona. “Theory and Practice of the Preservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: Complex Tangible and Intangible Heritage.” Essay. In Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art, 101–19. London: Archetype Publications Ltd., 2010. 

Valentini, Francesca. Cesare Brandi’s Theory of restoration: some principles discussed in relation with the conservation of Contemporary Art. Accessed 2024. https://www.hornemann-institut.de/de/epubl_txt/hildesheimsito.pdf.