Art conservation, publicity and the Met: Revisited

The Picasso painting, "The Actor," damaged by an anonymous woman who fell into it, was returned to the public galleries by the Met's Conservation Department. The Times has an short article, with these nice details:

The conservators had to act quickly because canvases, like people, “have a memory,” she explained. That is, the torn portion of the canvas had to be gently coaxed back to its flat state, otherwise it would have a tendency to return to the distortion left by the accident.  [....]

Restoration involved a slow and careful realignment of the painting, and that meant time. So for six weeks “The Actor” lay face down, with varying weights on it to counteract the “memory” of the damage. First, Ms. Belloli said, she placed small silk sand bags that she made herself on the affected area; then slightly heavier ones, the kind seamstresses use to hold a pattern in place; and gradually heavier and heavier weights, stopping at one pound. Once the canvas seemed stabilized, she placed a clear Mylar patch on the back. “We didn’t want to hide any part of the other painting,” Ms. Belloli said.

And retouching was done. Nice that the conservator told the reporter that the retouching will age at a different rate than the rest of the painting. And the painting is now protected by Plexiglas.

(The Actor and issues related to art conservation was previously discussed here).

Art Conservation, Publicity and the Met

I'm fascinated by issues relating to conservation of cultural objects, but most of the publicity goes to fine art conservation--if there is any at all. Friday's disaster at the Metropolitan Museum, where a woman taking an adult education class fell on an early Picasso, The Actor, and tore a 6" hole in the canvas, got some play in the tabloids and finally made the New York Times.

The New York Post concentrated on the question of the painting's $130 million appraisal being shaved in half and then raised the question how could the public get so close to something so valuable. Here's the first story which talks about the accident and the follow up story on Jan 26, noting a $65m loss of value; one of the commentors raise the question of getting close.

The Times's coverage started with a brief Jan 25, 2010 notice, and then a longer article on the same day by Carol Vogel about the incident, but included lots of good commentary from experts (this is what the Times is great at):