Engaged frames
When engaged frames served as integral parts of the support, the implica-
tions were structural as well as aesthetic (Cammerer 1990). Structurally, the
engaged frame offered a substantial contribution both to the strength and
rigidity of the support and to the lateral sealing of the panel. Such sealing
in turn acted as a moisture barrier by slowing down rapid variations in
humidity and protecting against the egg laying of wood-boring insects. The
cross-sectional detail of the engaged frame of Duccio’s Maestàshows how
the thickness ofthe engaged frame is the result of two overlapping poplar
moldings, while two outer moldings serve as lateral sealing (Fig. 28).Art-historical studies, technical analyses, conservation, and restoration
should unite to further the understanding of works of art. Restoration pre-
sents an occasion during which this unity may be fully understood, because
of the imperative yet apparently contradictory requirements to both
respect and restore the original integrity of the work (Baldini 1992a). In
this regard, it has been shown that collaboration among these various disci-
plines best serves the long-term interest of the work of art (Ciatti 1992).
An important attribute of today’s artisans in Florence is their
awareness of their connection with the artisans and artists who conceived
and made the panel paintings in the Florentine bottegheso many centuries
ago. Indeed, when faced with a particular problem, they often ask them-
selves, How would I have done this work or solved this technical chal-
lenge, had I myselfbeen faced with the original problem? The concepts
discussed in this article, therefore, owe a great debt to the past, as well as
to the many restorers, artisans, art historians, and fellow scientists (truly
good and experienced friends) who have contributed to the technological
knowledge of panel supports outlined in this article. The author is
indebted to more people than can be mentioned here, fellow Florentines
who still maintain continuity with the great masters of our tradition.Among many others, the author wishes to mention Alfio Del Ser ra,
restorer, who patiently and graciously offered the experiences of his rich
working life during lengthy and fruitful discussions; Ornella Casazza of
the Uffizi Gallery, Florence, art historian and former restorer; Marco
Ciatti, Ciro Castelli, and their numerous coworkers in the Restoration
Laboratory of the Opificio delle Pietre Dure, Florence, who also greatly
contributed to this article through engaging discussions (often at the “bed-
side” ofartworks under restoration); Umberto Baldini, internationally
known art historian and curator; Orazio Ciancio, Gabriele Bonamini,
Marco Fioravanti, Giovanni Hippoliti, Martino Negri, Franco Piegai,
Lorenzo Vedovato, and Rosalia Verardo, from the University of Florence;
Stefano Berti and Anna Gambetta from the Italian National Council for
Research (CNR) Istituto per la Ricerca sul Legno, Florence; Elio Corona
from the University of Viterbo; Franco Lotti from CNR-IROE, Florence.
The author also wishes to acknowledge Renzo Turchi, Giovanni Cabras,
Renato Castorrini, and Barbara Schleicher, restorers, from whom he
gained deep insights about wooden artworks and restoration techniques;
Gianni Marussich, “ancestor” of many restorers, who has performed his
work on both sides of the Atlantic from Florence to Malibu; Anna MariaAcknowledgments
Conclusion
H O P-M T C I 129Figure 28
Drawing showing cross section of an engaged
frame. Duccio, Maestà.