Here is an article and short video on the Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) by Elías García Martínez (19th c.) in Borja, Spain that a faithful parishioner attempted to correct. Should conservators try to fix this, or leave it alone?
Professor M. Och
ARTH 114 and ARTH 115: Introduction to Western Art, University of Mary Washington
In some ways, I think the painting should be fixed from its current form and redone to look like the original, but in other ways I think that may be taking even more away from the original by Elías García Martínez, if that is possible. I agree with the family of Martinéz and would also be angry if this happened to my family. Because the painting was not being preserved correctly and was in such bad condition, I understand why Cecilia Giménez wanted to do her best to make the painting look restored once again. I understand both stances on this issue and on one hand feel bad for the Martinéz family, but also feel sorry for all the shame that is being put on Cecilia Giménez for her simple gesture at making the church look a little nicer.
If you look at just simply making the painting look like the original, I do believe that conservators should attempt to fix the current mistake.
I see people all over the internet making fun of how Cecilia Gimenez restored the painting, and I kind of agree with them. Even though you couldn’t really make out Jesus’s face, you could see how beautiful the painting was. It’s hard to take the painting seriously now because of how she restored it. Yes, i agree that some paintings look better after being restored, but to me it seems like that is taking credit away from the original artists. In my opinion, I don’t think artists should go in and fix paintings like this.
I think it is too late to be fixed. It was definitely in a good condition to restore before the botched attempt, but now after it the damage is irreversible. The original work is now covered by what looks like many layers of smeary paint, apparently done by an ill equipped woman. In my opinion, because the restoration did not in fact restore the work, it should sadly be destroyed. Either destroyed or left as is if the town is so keen on, and ok with, attracting tourists to the mistake. It reminds me of when Mr. Bean similarly defaced a painting in one his movies. Total joke job.
This is vandalism and should be treated as such. It should absolutely be fixed, but by a professional this time! She has destroyed a piece of history. The image has become “internet-famous” and has brought many tourists to view the image that was not particularly famous prior to the incident. Cecilia Giménez is now seeking royalties, but I think this is just ridiculous. She should be punished, not rewarded for her vandalism, regardless of her intentions. No one would walk into the Lourve and expect to “restore” the Mona Lisa without punishment.
I think this “restoration” is horrid. It looks like the paintings you would see in an elementary school art class. And it in no way represents the work beneath it by Martinez. His original painting was beautiful and historic no matter how much of it was left. But by Gimenez attempting to save it, she completely altered it. The only resmemblance it has is that you can make out that it is a depiction of Jesus. I feel bad that Gimenez is recieving so many negative comments about her work, but as an artist she should be used to it. Also, I don’t believe she had the right to attempt to conserve this without help of those more experienced with art preservation. While I find her vandalism obscene, I do not think anyone else should try and work on this painting. I fear it would simply fall farther and farther away from its original self.
I believe that the painting should be restored to it’s original form. While it was a kind gesture on Gimenez’s part, I do not believe that she should have attempted to restore this without professional help. In order to pay respect to the original artist, this work should be cleaned and restored to the original paint and brushwork of Martínez.
When I first saw this piece of restoration I was baffled. I did not understand how this particular artist and/or conservator could believe that this was the original intent of Martinez. I understand that a lot of the painting is missing or has been worn away, but the crude and simple way that this has been recreated is appalling. On another note, the face that the artist recreated is reminiscent of faces done by Picasso that are inspired by the African masks, The bold lines of the eyes and the nose resemble those in many of his works. However, I am fairly certain this is not the intent and I believe the work should be cleaned and restored the original seen on the left.
I think, most definitely, that this piece should be attempted to be restored. While I applaud the intention of the “conservator/restorer”for trying to be involved in the art community, I think she should have realized that art preservation is a difficult, tedious field. The article says that many people walked into the museum while she was doing her “restoration” work-while the artist herself pretty much destroyed the work I can’t help but be frustrated at the passerby’s, who could have told the woman in advance that her work was not up to par. This not only would have saved the work, but would have alleviated the horrible guilt this poor woman feels. The woman is not a bad person, and I know that she meant well, but as they say, “leave it to the professionals.” The work is a surviving historic piece which deserves to be put back to its original condition. The article says that some art historians view the “new” face as an allegory or statement- yet I just can’t agree. The original purpose of the work has been lost. The original artists’s vision and purpose has been lost, and should be recovered.
I would rather have this painting restored to its former glory. Now it looks like a fifth grader with water paints was trying to draw a monkey. Though the original work was damaged very badly, you could still see the painstaking detail in the face and hair. The re-painted version looks like it was done in an afternoon. I hope that someone takes the initiative to restore this painting to the beautiful piece of art it once was, if not fo th painting itself but in respect to the artist them-self.
I have to agree with most of the comments and say I think this should have been restored; however, I think Giminez did a sub-par job. In my opinion, the restored version is less detailed and looks sloppily done. It could be mistaken for something painted during an earlier time period.
While I am a supporter of restoration work, it must be done properly. In this case I feel that Gimenez’s restoration job has not done the painting justice. The painting looks to be in a completely different style. Let’s hope that he did this with non-permanent materials.
• Some negative attention has been turned towards 81 year old Cecilia Gimenez last year for her less than appealing attempt at restoring a 19th century fresco of Christ. However not everyone sees Gimenez’s work as a bad thing. “More than 10,000 people have subscribed to a petition calling for the fresco to be left as it is.” The family of the original artist (Elias Garcia Martinez) had not taken this lightly and panels of art experts “were due to examine the painting to see if the restoration work could be reversed, along with a potential for legal action called into place. What is important to know though is that Ms. Gimenez had actually acquired permission form the church priest to have the honor of restoring the painting. Anyone that entered the church was able to see her paint and had the ability of stopping her work if they believed something was no looking quite right in the restoration process. I personally see nothing wrong with the painting. True a classic piece of history has been tarnished but it was done with the best intentions. Not to mention that an attempt in trying to reverse the restoration may result in the total destruction of the work all together. I feel the work should be left as is.
I don’t like to judge Gimenez’s attempt to restore the work, and I certainly don’t know what the original artist’s intent was with the painting, but I would have to agree with other comments that the painting should be restored. I think that Gimenez should make a copy of her painting and show it off as her own interpretation of the Ecce Homo, but that the original Ecce Homo should be restored so that people can enjoy both works separately.
While the attempted restoration clearly does not fit the original artist’s intent, perhaps the best solution is to attempt to strip or restore the painting to the way it looked before Gimenez attempted to restore it herself. Blame certainly cannot be placed on Gimenez for undertaking her attempt, as no one else seemed to be interested in restoring the piece. If anything however, the piece may finally get the restoration it deserves after being pushed into the spotlight due to Gimenez’s poor attempt to fix it.
I am in complete shock! I wish the video would have had a side by side, but that is horrifying! I enjoy painting, I would never attempt to repaint a masters work over their painting. I don’t think any repainting restoration should ever happen. Things can be done to preserve what is there, but if it the art (painting) didn’t come from the artist, it does not belong there. Yes, what she did is art in itself, but it comes at the vandalization of another artist. Is painted over a copy of his art, fine, but not the original. It says she warmed up by practicing on copies, she should have realized she was horrible at recreating his original work. I am deeply disturbed by this.
The “Behold the man” painting by Elias Martinez should not be fixed. Only he truly knows what he was trying to achieve went he created this masterpiece. I think when we have art works lie this, we should let the age naturally. For example we can put them in a museum in a nice exhibit. If we get people to paint over the fading pieces, were could possibly mess up the originality of the work. These days we can only guess what kind of techniques these artists were using and what measurements. We don’t necessarily paint the way they did during the 19th century. But I do understand why someone would want to save such a great art piece.
When it comes to restoring old or damaged art work it is difficult to decide wether it is restorable and who should be the one responsible for restoring it. First off, why did a parishioner decide it was her job to restore Ecce Homo? I believe she thought she was doing the right thing and as a religious person wanted to have that honor but obviously she was not qualified for the job. It is important when restoring art pieces that the end product still captures the ideas and essences in which they were created in because these arts works are famous and well known for a reason.
I’m torn between restoration and leaving it alone. The artwork originally is absolutely beautiful. I’m afraid if anyone were to try and restore it it would take away the astonishing effect of beauty and technique of how it was created. However, restoring the painting would all us to enjoy the painting longer and see what it once was like. Also, I’m also a little skeptical if the restoration would actually cause more harm then good. The painting should’ve be preserved a long time ago.