|
Abstract
This paper aims to describe the study and scientific treatment of the 16th century panel painting "Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Saint Elizabeth" by the painter Thomás Luis. At the present time the painting is exhibited in its original location, the church of the Holy House of Mercy (HHM) at the old Aldeia Galega do Ribatejo, now the city of Montijo (Portugal). The interdisciplinary study and treatment, based on the principles of authenticity, compatibility, stability, reversibility and differentiation principles, are here briefly described. Criteria of de-restoration, re-restoration and exhibition are also discussed. The main objective of this paper is to sensitize the owners and future conservator-restorers to three key issues: the uniqueness of the cultural object (unicum), the authenticity ("less is more"), and the differentiation between conservator-restorers versus other “similar professionals”. Editor's note: This article was updated on June 2010 at the request of the author. The original version was published in February 2010 and is available in pdf format in Issue no. 13 of the magazine.
The Meaning of the Visitation at the Holy Houses of Mercy
The HHM was founded in Lisbon by Queen Leonor of Portugal, influenced by her confessor Friar Miguel Contreiras, the same year the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama discovered the sea route to India, in 1498. Later, this charity institution spread to other parts of the country. The HHM of the old Aldeia Galega do Ribatejo (now the city of Montijo), which had social and strategic importance due to its location near the Tagus river, was already known in 15551. The Visitation of the Virgin to St. Elizabeth, so far the only easel painting known by the mannerist painter Thomás Luis, was commissioned by the founder of the HHM of Aldeia Galega, Nuno Alves Pereira, to the mannerist painter Thomás Luis (also named «Thomás Luis B» [1] or «Thomas Lewis» [2]). The preference for this painter might be explained by the fact that the founder maintained connections with the House of Braganza [3] for whom he would work in Vila Viçosa, namely at one ceiling at the Monastery of Chagas (c. 1595-1600), and four ceilings at the Ducal Palace (1602-c.1603).
A decade
after the construction of the church (1571-1578)2 the HHM
ordered the Visitation’s altarpiece wood structure (figure 1).
This painting’s subject, the meeting between the one that helps and the one that needs to be helped, is deeply connected to the spirituality of the Houses of Mercy, hence being its patron [1]. The day of the Visitation was established by a royal charter of King Manuel I at June 17, 1516. The HHM of Aldeia Galega is currently a private institution of social solidarity engaged in the practice of Christian charity and whose main objective is, according to the 1993 commitment, to make "acts of social solidarity and Catholic worship"3. Technique and original materials The interdisciplinary study of the technique used in the Visitation revealed that the work involved the contribution of three artists. This fact is essential to understand what techniques were used as well as the role of artisans and painters in the late 16th century of Portuguese painting within the contemporary European context. At that time, the panel structure was not prepared by painters. The carpenter's workshop acquired the wood, prepared the board surfaces and built the frames, friezes and columns. In cities where the painting “industry” was somehow developed there were often guilds of carpenters specialized in the preparation of wood panels and frames. Documents revealed that the Visitation’s altarpiece wooden support was commissioned to a Flemish master. In August 1588, the HHM ombudsman Diogo Botelho hired the master carpenter Jacques (or Jácome) de Campos, that was living in Lisbon at the time, to execute an altarpiece in behalf of the Church of Mercy for the cost of “one hundred and twenty thousand reis” [3]. The monumental panel (291.5 x 212 cm), composed of 8 boards with vertical wood grain according to the board’s height, is assembled with double dovetails and reinforced with horizontal wood bars (unfortunately lost) united by thin hand-forged four-side nails, with triangular heads, inserted by the front side (figures 2-4). Studies show that the use of nails in this particular way was used in contemporary Spanish and Italian panels [1]. The wooden longitudinal and transversal support sections were analyzed with the help of a dichotomous table to determine the type of tree specimen used [4]. Thus, it was concluded that the wood is a deciduous Quercus, more precisely an oak tree which is very common in Portugal, especially in Lisbon, and that was also imported from the Baltic countries through merchants from Bruges and Antwerp. In May 16, 1591 the ombudsman António da Gama de Mendonça did a contract (with exactly the same cost of the wooden work) with two artists, also from Lisbon: "Thomás Luis, oil painter" [5], and "Domyngues Pachequo [Domingos Pacheco], tempera painter" [5], who performed the "gilding of the columns and the upper frieze" according to a 1592 receipt [6]. The two artists signed the aforementioned receipt that refers to a «middle panel painting». By the monumental dimension of the painting and its subject, the Visitation is likely to be the center panel of the altarpiece, finished in 1592 [1].
In the 16th century the tasks performed by painters were distinct from those performed by craftsmen. The application of the ground layer in the Visitation, task performed by craftsmen at that time, was most probably applied by Domingos Pacheco. It is composed of one [1] layer with the thickness of 122 µm (analyzed by optical microscopy – OM –, and polarized light microscopy – PLM [7]), composed of gypsum and skin glue [7] identified by Microchemical Tests (MT) complemented with X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR) [7].
Although the painting front surface was subjected to Infrared Reflectography (IRR) up to 2000 nm no underdrawing was observed.
The presence of a localized coloured imprimatura [1] was detected in some areas of the painting by close observation of the paint layer with a magnifying glass and by microscopic analysis (OM and PLM) in some of the eight samples removed analyzed by microscopic analysis (OM and PLM [7]). This yellowish layer, with a thickness of 63-70 µm, was not applied for physical reasons, as a sealing intermediate layer between the ground and the paint layer, it have an optical function that affected the tones of the subjacent paint layers in the following areas: the Virgin’s mantle; Saint Elizabeth robes, namely the cap, cloak and tunic; and the carnation and bonnet strip of the second female character. The cross sections analysed showed that Thomás Luis applied in general two to four paint layers of an average thickness between 20 and 80 µm. Only occasionally, with an incidence of two from the eight areas analyzed, the painter used thick paint layers: one, with a thickness of 121 µm, is a layer that corresponds to a pentimento (repentance or, in this case, more precisely, an hesitation of the painter in the orange robe of Saint Elizabeth) while the second, with a thickness of 166 µm, corresponds to a layer of azurite (on the bonnet strip of the second female character), pigment which required to be applied thick to achieve a good colour saturation. The pigments analyzed by OM, PLM, MT, XRF and FTIR [7] were identified: azurite, charcoal, yellow ochre, vermilion, red ochre, lead white and a brown which is most likely raw umber [1]. The excellent cohesion and adhesion between the paint layers confirms that the execution was correct. Thomás Luis, however, applied thin paint layers and velatura in certain areas which, with the inevitable natural aging of the materials, permit the observation of the underlying pentimenti. This is an authenticity aspect of the painting. Above the oak support, the following structure and materials are observed: one layer of ground made of a protein-based binder and an inorganic filler; absence of underdrawing; localized yellowish imprimatura made of inorganic and organic pigments with egg and oil mediums; two to four paint layers with inorganic and organic pigments and the same two previously mentioned mediums; and an old resinous protective layer [1]. Historic Background The painting was found as a fragment, in an extremely poor conservation state. To understand the forms and extension of the observed severe degradation we had to investigate the historical background of the artefact. After its creation, the Visitation reached its apogee, followed by a decadent period. Most likely, the painting was in good conservation state for a century and a half after it was commissioned, once a 1710 document [8] refers to works in the church but mentions nothing yet concerning the painting. After the 1755 earthquake the church was subject to major works in the main chapel although unfortunately those were not described in detail. It is likely that during those works the painting had been removed from its place and treated carelessly because in 1768 it was already described as in «state of oldness and incapacity» [9]. In 1789-90, the HHM of Aldeia Galega hired the carpenter Eusébio dos Santos and the painter-gilder Matias Gomes Neto to perform works in the main altar [10]. Considered useless, it is most likely that the painting was used at this precise time as a work support judging by the long incisions (vertical, horizontals and even semi-circular from compass) that are present on the painting’s surface. The almost definitive decadence of the artefact occurred probably in 1799 when the painter Manuel António Araújo was hired to paint a new Visitation for the tribune [11]. At that time the painting was used for an alternative objective: as a wooden wall of the 18th century Church of Mercy’s tribune. For this purpose, the painting was mutilated, cut and chopped on both sides, back and front. Its bars were torn out and discarded, leaving some of the nails that connected them, in the panel. After being fitted in the tribune, it was repainted with white paint were it was visible, on 90% of its surface. Punctually, the support presented a localized old (inactive) wood attack whose occurrence can’t be dated with precision. The painting was forgotten for over two centuries until its providential discovery in 1998 (figure 5). Afterwards, the painting was subject to two conservation and restoration intervention in the space of half a decade. The 1998 discovery was an important contribution to the history of Portuguese Mannerist painting, in particular for the work of the master Thomás Luis. Before this finding the painter was known as an oil and fresco painter, although only examples of the latter technique mentioned were known. Following its discovery, the painting was subject to a first intervention that was performed in two phases. The first stage consisted in the cleaning of the paint layer which involved the removal of the white paint, the varnish and "three paint layers" [12]. As Serrão refers, this intervention only contributed to "enlarge the wounds" of the painting through "an unfortunate intervention that was uninformed (and unaccompanied)" [13] (figure 6). The outlines of an underlying painting (painter’s pentimenti), hardly visible by naked eye, have probably suggested to the 1998 technicians the existence of an older painting. Thus, they opted to sacrifice “three paint layers” to uncover the supposedly older painting. The criteria of intervention were not applied in thoughtful and critical manner, with prior knowledge of the painting´s original technique and causing two irreversible pathologies: leaching4, with loss of original paint layers (figures 7-9) and the rare pathology transposition5 (figures 10-12). Beyond these alterations, the intervention also left residues of the white paint and varnish (figures 13-15). The analysis of the paint layer under normal light and ultraviolet (UV) radiation allowed the detection of extensive areas where the varnish was intact, not removed, and others with dispersed residues (figures 16-17). The second phase of the 1998 intervention covered also a “curative [remedial] conservation” [14] treatment, which included the removal of the boards from the 18th century tribune, their levelness and stabilization by the placement of eight new bars on the back of the panel. It also included a punctual "restoration" [14] of the support and paint layer, namely the filling of the gaps with plywood and monochromatic retouching with a light pink tone [15] possibly for readability of the painting (aesthetic intervention). The cleaning was not completed. The painting remained for half a decade with varnish to be removed. The leaching, transpositions and varnish residues were only detected above the “white line” left between the cleaned areas (that had been painted in white) and the areas that were hidden in the tribune structure, thus without white paint, and that were in good conservation state apart from the presence of oxidized varnish. The chronological analysis of the Visitation allowed detecting that the pathologies were caused by three different degradation factors: environmental, biological and anthropological. The last factor was the main one and the most dangerous of all. The second and last intervention, herein described in detail, was performed between 2003 and 2004. Scientific Treatment Because of the problem´s magnitude the Visitation presented, it was subjected to a complex, lengthy and rigorous interdisciplinary study and conservation-restoration treatment that involved thee different specialists: the conservator-restorer, a chemical engineer and an art historian. Unfortunately this practice which is fundamental for the proper preservation of the cultural property authenticity is still rare in Portugal. The treatment based on scientific criteria was divided in two phases: a direct intervention (curative conservation, and restoration) and an indirect intervention (preventive conservation).
From left to right:
Figure 6. Panel after the conservation and restoration intervention of 1998.
Figure 20. Detail of the Virgin before treatment. Note the horizontal, vertical and oblique directions of the transpositions: in the column, hat, veil, hair and ear of the Virgin.
Figure 21. Same particular of the Virgin after treatment. Note the knot of the Virgin hat’s cord that before was almost imperceptible among the lacunas, transpositions and varnish residues.
Figure 30. General view of the painting during conservation treatment (filling of lacunas).
Figure 31. General view of the painting after the conservation treatment.
The original metallic elements were removed where possible and kept for future reference. The remaining nails, impossible to remove without damaging the painting, were treated in three steps: cleaning (removal of unstable oxidation products), stabilization and protection. The treatment of the support aimed to complete the previous intervention and to return the original rectangular form to the painting. The conservation intervention included the following steps: removal of the plywood, cleaning, board levelling, placement of two missing reinforcement bars and substitution of five reinforcement bars by two, filling of gaps (total lacunas and some partial lacunas), punctual consolidation, and insecticide application on the back of the panel (preventive action). Only one step of restoration was done to the new support fillings, namely the inpainting with a brown monochromatic glaze tone similar to the original wood tone. Three stages of conservation were performed for the paint layer - cleaning, filling and protection, and one of restoration - inpainting. The cleaning was performed in five different stages and with equipment and products according to the type of material to remove. The stages were: superficial cleaning and removal of transpositions, white paint residues, resinous varnish residues and retouching with punctual monochromatic light pink overpaint. This paper refers to the criteria and results of the removal of three alteration products: transpositions, monochromatic retouching with punctual overpaint and residual varnish. The transpositions, the monochromatic retouching and the overpaint altered the Visitations reading and raised the problematic of de-restoration [16] which requires the dialectic between the technical, aesthetic and documental (or historic) character of the preceding intervention. In this sense, one of the problems left by the previous restoration is discussed in this study. Behind the Virgin’s head there is an object that could not be clearly identified. That area may be seen in detail in figure 18. Could the object, most likely a column have been painted to hide the hat (pentimento)? Could it be overpaint? Is it a rare degradation? Could the hat, in the place of the frequent halo, be an innovative attribute used by Thomás Luis on the Visitation’s representation? Although no underdrawing was detected on the entire painting surface, the IR reflectography highlighted the existence a thin hat crown, not visible at naked eye, and that was transformed by the painter into a much larger crown (figures 18-19). The Visitation Virgin’s peregrine hat resembles that on the Raimondi's Flight into Egypt engraving (based on a Dürer’s drawing), and another painted by Tomás Luis with a different iconographic value, profane and playful, in the fresco’s ceiling at the Évora Counts of Basto’s Palace, Eugénio de Almeida Foundation. In 1563 the Council of Trent defined the principles of religious iconography. Saint Charles Borromeo, who played a decisive role in that council, mentions in his Instructiones fabricae et supellectilis ecclesiasticae (1577) that the saints should be distinguished by a “halo” [1]. At the same time, Cardinal Paleotti recommended in his “Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane” (1582) that the sacred character should be represented by symbols that believers were used to observe [1]. The painter Francisco Pacheco (1564-1644), contemporary of Thomás Luis, writes in his treaty Arte de la Pintura (published after, 1649) that the Virgin from the Visitation should be represented with a “hat” [1], doesn´t mention the halo. It is possible that Thomás Luis was influenced by Pacheco’s theory, he didn’t follow the counter-reformist rules, instead of the halo, common attribute seen in his contemporaries, around the Virgin’s head, he placed only a hat. The column that covered the hat crown (figure 18) was a transposition. This pathology was also visible in other areas of the painting such as on the hat’s brim and on the mantle of Saint Elisabeth. The transpositions’ craquelure in the three areas previously mentioned did not match the aged craquelure in the direction of the vertical wood grain of Thomás’s surface paint layer. The presence of this alteration modified the aesthetic and historical reading of the work, confusing the observer. To undertake any conservation treatment it is fundamental to consider always the need and the feasibility of a curative treatment without forgetting that there are no standard treatments. When tests do not show effective results that respect the best interest of the object, helping to preserve its authenticity, more experienced professionals should be consulted or the task should be postponed until future technologic advances are available. According to Cesare Brandi each artwork is unique (“unicum”[17]), Cultural Heritage can never be compensated for an unfortunate works of conservation and restoration. After testing different methods and products, it was found that transpositions could be removed without leaving marks on the painting´s surface. In fact, although the transposed painting had a reasonable cohesion, it had a weak adherence to the original paint layer which presented a high resistance to mechanical removal. The removal of the transpositions was thus performed with the help of a scalpel, a magnifying glass and a binary solution of non polar organic solvents used solely for visualization. The varnish residues, subjacent to the transposition, were removed with an adequate solvent gel. This way it was possible to save precious details, previously hidden under the transpositions, such as the Virgin’s golden hair locks and her hat knot and cord (figures 20 and 21). Apparently, the monochromatic pink retouching was stable and there was no risk for the physical or chemical integrity of the painting. However, in ranking light it was seen that it covered punctually the original paint layer altering its aesthetic reading in areas such as the sky and the few cloud traces. The 30 mm thick light pink overpaint analyzed by MT and FTIR was made of titanium white and an oil-based binder (figure 22). The overpaint applied in the previous intervention was progressively removed using a binary solution of non polar organic solvents, leaving untouched the original paint layer (figures 23 and 24). The red-brown varnish layer was removed with the help of a carefully selected solvent gel, due to its advantages, such as the control of the solvent’s action by its limited area of actuation and its reduced toxicity. It was prepared with a ternary mixture of solvents, two organic and one hydrophilic. The level of cleaning was attained using UV radiation. Since the painting had large lacunas that disturbed its aesthetic reading, the interdisciplinary team considered several options for inpainting: general inpainting; punctual inpainting in the central vertical area; re-restoration of the upper left corner (already retouched in 1998); or minimum intervention, leaving the large lacunas in the tone of aged wood. It was decided that the large gaps of the paint layer should not be reintegrated and that new wood additions should be exclusively integrated with a brown tone, as previously referred. This way, the conservator-restorer does not take the role of the artist, nor is he/she inventing new figurative forms that never existed as sometimes still happens, originating ambiguous historical, aesthetic and iconographic readings. Given this criterion, it was preceded to the filling of gaps within the limits of the existent drawing with a water-based material fully compatible with the original ones, being stable and reversible. The inpainting was performed by the differentiation method of selezione cromatica with to facilitate the comprehension of the fragmented work. First, tempera based tones were applied and later glazes with pigments in an acrylic binder. Between these two stages of inpainting a thin layer of varnish (cyclohexanone) was applied to act as barrier against external degradation agents. The inpainting was based on laboratorial analysis and according to traces of the original paint layer. Before performing the Virgin’s tunic (chest area) inpainting it was fundamental to analyse a cross-section of that area, to confirmed the existence of an underlying green layer. The inpainting of the inferior area of Saint Elisabeth orange tunic was also based on the scientific analysis results. The cross-section analysis revealed that the beige drapery that crosses the orange tunic of Saint Elizabeth corresponds to a hesitation of the painter with two overlying paint layers, orange over pink, almost removed in a previous inadequate cleaning. The mentioned layers are based on the same organic and inorganic pigments and mediums (oil and egg) as in the other seven samples aforementioned. This data allowed us to reintegrate the Saint Elizabeth orange tunic with regard to the original technique and to the painter's intentions (figures 30 and 31). In an interdisciplinary meeting between the specialists it was also decided not to cover the pentimento visible in the Virgin’s right hand in order to allow future studies and to make the public aware of the dangers of uncritical cleanings. The pentimento seen because of the materials natural aging, which increases transparency in the top paint layers and leaves the under layers visible, such as in the face of the second character (figure 12), was not covered due to its importance as authenticity elements – “less is more”. The Visitation is not less valuable if it shows signs of patina. The inpainting and the protection layer were both performed with carefully selected materials - compatible, reversible and stable -, taking into account the environmental conditions of the church. In the second phase of the treatment, preventive conservation guidelines were offered to HHM on a voluntary basis concerning the light, relative humidity, fire, water, accidental impacts and vibrations. This phase also included a project for the proper placement and exhibition of the work on a wooden structure [9]. Regarding the authenticity of the “setting” and “function” (devotional) of Thomás Luis’s Visitation - two of the authenticity parameters defined in the UNESCO’s, ICCROM’s and ICOMOS’s 1977 Paris Document [18], reinforced and complemented in the UNESCO’s 1994 Nara Document [18]-, the painting was exhibited near its original location, in the HHM church’s main chapel, without relocating it, and making it available to cult (figure 32). The task of the conservator-restorer is similar to that of a “surgeon” [19] (ICOM-CC’s Ethic Code, 1984), and entails knowing how to evaluate the impact of his actions. The conservator-restorer “is not an artist nor a craftsman” [19] (E.C.C.O.’s Ethic Code, 1993), it is his role to preserve the authenticity of cultural property for our benefit and that of future generations. Acknowledgments Filipa Raposo Cordeiro thanks to: the Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT) for the PhD Scholarship for the study of Thomás Luis work; Vítor Serrão (IHA/FLUL), art historian and thesis coordinator; João Gaspar, Montijo HHM ombudsman; Tenente-Coronel José Manuel Sarreira Lopes, old ombudsman; Manuel Cortiço, old Montijo HHM secretary; Dr. Maria José Moinhos, from the Conservation Department of the Institute for the Management of the Archaeological and Architectural Heritage (IGESPAR IP); Isabel Ribeiro, chemical engineer and director of the Laboratory José de Figueiredo of the Institute of Museums and Conservation (IMC IP); Dr. Maria do Céu Ramos, director of Eugénio de Almeida Foundation and to the team of Veritage, Preservação de Bens Culturais, Lda. that was involved in the Thomás Luis Visitation last treatment. Photographic Credits Figure 5: Municipal Historic Archive of Montijo (AHMM), photographic documentation of the 1998’s intervention on the Visitation by Thomás Luis, unpublished report; Figures 17, 19 and 27: Lab. C&R JF - IMC IP (ex DEM – IPCR), Visitação da Virgem, IMC IP Archives, José de Figueiredo Laboratory, Lisbon, 2004, unpublished report; The other figures: F. R. Cordeiro, Visitation of the Virgin Mary to Saint Elisabeth, Photographic Documentation Archive of Veritage, Preservação de Bens Culturais Lda, Estoril, 2003/2004. Notes 1 The founding date of Aldeia Galega do Ribatejo is not consensual. According to José Simões Quaresma, it may have been founded in 1520. In J. S. Quaresma, “Albergaria, Hospital e Misericórdia de Aldeia-Galega do Ribatejo”, Author’s edition, 1948 2 The construction of the church was authorized by royal charter from King Sebastian at July 17, 1571. The mason Fernão Fidalgo worked in the church from 1571 to 1578. In J. S. Quaresma, op. cit, 1948 3 Recovered in November 15, 2008; www.misericordiadomontijo.pt 4 Leaching is caused by the cleaning with a solvent that reacts with the material to preserve. Upon contact of the paint layer with the molecules of a solvent or mixture the medium is weakened; when the solvent evaporates there is contraction of the paint layer and loss of medium and pigment. The level of leaching depends on the type of solvent used, the time of contact with the solvent, the thickness and the nature of the film. The danger of leaching lies in its irreversibility. 5 Transposition, term introduced by the author in 2003 in an interdisciplinary meeting, is, like leaching, caused by an inadequate cleaning. The main difference is that while in the leaching a partial loss of the paint layer occurs, in transposition the paint layer is displaced to a neighbouring area. After the swelling of the paint layer in response to an inadequate solvent, it can occasionally be transposed mechanically form its original place to a nearest area causing alteration of the physical and optical characteristics of the painting. References [1] F. R. Cordeiro, “Thomás Luis, pintor maneirista do sacro e do profano: história, conservação e restauro”, undergoing PhD thesis, Institute of Art History/Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 2009 [2] Simancas, Consejo de Estado, nº 839, Junho de 1594. In M. Hume (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Spain (Simancas) – 1587-1603, Vol.4, 1899, pp. 612-613 [3] AHMM, Lº 1º dos Inventarios desta Santa Caza da Mizª, 1586-1589, fl. 25, in V. Serrão and F. R. Cordeiro, Tomás Luís e o Retábulo da Igreja da Misericórdia, Edições Colibri/ Câmara Municipal do Montijo, Lisboa, 2005 [4] J. Vasconcellos, Identificação de Madeiras pelos seus Caracteres Macroscópicos, Agros, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa, 1929 [5] AHMM, Maço de avulsos da Mizª, sécs. XVI-XVII, in V. Serrão, O Maneirismo e o Estatuto Social dos Pintores Portugueses, Ed. Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 [6] AHMM, Maço de avulsos da Mizª, sécs. XVI-XVII, “doc. Nº 62”. In V. Serrão, O Maneirismo e o Estatuto Social dos Pintores Portugueses, Ed. Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 [7] Lab. C&R JF - IMC IP, Visitação da Virgem, IMC IP. Archives, José de Figueiredo Laboratory, Lisboa, 2004, unpublished report [8] AHMM, L.º de Rec. e Despesa da Miz.ª de 1708-1734, fl.19. In V. Serrão, F. R. Cordeiro, Tomás Luís e o Retábulo da Igreja da Misericórdia, Edições Colibri/ Câmara Municipal do Montijo, Lisboa, 2005 [9] V. Serrão, F. R. Cordeiro, Tomás Luís e o Retábulo da Igreja da Misericórdia, Edições Colibri/ Câmara Municipal do Montijo, Lisboa, 2005 [10] AHMM, L.º de Rec. e Despesa da Miz.ª, cx. 44. Recibo de 8 de Março de 1789. In Idem. [11] “Os Painéis da igreja da Misericórdia do Montijo’”, Nova Gazeta, 26 de Novembro de 1999. In V. Serrão, F. R. Cordeiro, Tomás Luís e o Retábulo da Igreja da Misericórdia, Edições Colibri/ Câmara Municipal do Montijo, Lisboa, 2005 [12] Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Montijo, Ofício ref.ª 614/04, 07/12/2004, photographic documentation [13] V. Serrão, “O pintor maneirista Tomás Luís e o antigo retábulo da igreja da Misericórdia de Aldeia Galega do Ribatejo (1591-1597)”, Artis - Revista do Instituto de História da Arte da Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa, nº 1, Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa/FLUL/FCT, Lisboa, 2002, pp. 211-235 [14] Terminologies and contents used by F. Figueira, “Terminologia para a definição da conservação-restauro do património cultural material, Resolução aprovada pelos membros do ICOM-CC durante o 15º Encontro Trienal, Nova Deli, 22-26 de Setembro de 2008”, translation and adaptation of the french version, Conservar Património, nº 6, ARP, Lisboa, 2007, pp. 55-56 [15] Oral testimony given by Florindo da Silva Gonçalves, main craftsman from the ex Institute José de Figueiredo, actual IMC IP. (private work). [16] F. Tollon, “Quelques questions sur la dé-restauration“, Restauration, Dé-Restauration, Re-Restauration, 4ième Colloque de l’Association des Restaurateus d’Art et d’Arqueologie de Formation Universitaire, Paris, 1995, pp. 9 -16 [17] C. Brandi, Teoria del Restauro, Giulio Einaudi Editore, Torino, 1977 [18] ICCROM’s, ICOMOS’s and UNESCO’s 1977 Paris Document, UNESCO’s 1994 Nara Document, cit J. M. A. P. Costa, “Estudos Cromáticos nas Intervenções de Conservação em Centros Históricos”, LNEC/University of Évora, PhD thesis, Évora, 1999 [19] ICOM-CC’s (1984) and ECCO’s (1993) Ethic Codes, cit A. I. Seruya (Dir.), Cadernos de Conservação e Restauro, Ano 1, nº 2, Instituto Português de Conservação e Restauro, Lisboa, 2001
About the author
Filipa Raposo Cordeiro
Conservator-restorer
Contact: f.cordeirofurtado@gmail.com Filipa Raposo Cordeiro is a paintings conservator-restorer with 16 years experience. She graduated in 1995 at the Superior School of Conservation and Restoration (ESCR) in Lisbon, with a specialisation in easel paintings. Afterwards, she performed international internships in the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, the Canadian Conservation Institute and the Victoria & Albert Museum. She also founded the company Veritage, Preservação de Bens Culturais Lda., dedicated to the study, conservation and restoration of Cultural Heritage. At the moment she is a PhD candidate with the thesis “Thomás Luis, mannerist painter of the holly and the profane: History; Conservation and Restoration”, oriented by Professor Vítor Serrão, at the Institute of Art History (Faculty of Letters) at the University of Lisbon.
▲TOP
This html version may not include all features of the article.
To read this article with images at full quality please Download this article
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/866 |
||||
