The Greenwich conference was a landmark. It changed attitudes
and set in motion a whole new rationalization for the treatment of paint-
ings, establishing the policy that minimal treatment is best. It is also inter-
esting to note that although a few of the authors in the present volume
attended the Greenwich conference, only one actually presented a paper:
this author is Andrea Rothe, who also delivered a paper at Oxford and
whose original idea for a panel-conservation workshop resulted in this
symposium and this proceedings volume.
Let us try to contextualize our theme of the structural conserva-
tion of panel paintings. During this symposium we shall be asking ques-
tions, considering choices, and describing actions. I shall begin by posing a
simple puzzle to you: Let us say I have two groups of world-famous paint-
ings. In the first is Titian’s Assunta in the Frari, Botticelli’s Primaverain the
Uffizi, and Rubens’s Samson and Delilahin the National Gallery, London. In
the second group is Titian’s Pesaro Altarpiece,also in the Frari; Botticelli’s
Birth of Venus,also in the Uffizi; and Rubens’s Garden of Lovein the Prado.
What is the difference between these two groups?
Given the context of this symposium, the answer appears fairly
obvious: the first group are all on panel, the second on canvas. But if we
had asked the question at random ofart historians or conservators not
necessarily preoccupied with our subject, I imagine they might struggle
for an answer and even then not be certain of all the facts. If we then pro-
duce another group offamous paintings—Raphael’s Foligno Madonnain
the Vatican, Leonardo’s Virgin of the Rocksin the Louvre, and Pontormo’s
Cosimo de’ Mediciin the J. Paul Getty Museum—and ask what distinguishes
them from the other two groups, the art historians and conservators
might well be further confused—for these are all paintings originally on
panel, nowtransferred to canvas.
Few individuals think about or are even aware of the structural
basis of paintings. This lack of awareness of physical structure has serious
implications for the few of us who take responsibility for these matters. A
disregard for the nature of painting supports leads inevitably to a disregard
for their importance or condition. Because practically no one monitors the
versos of paintings, the responsibility for establishing guidelines for sound
practice and observing those guidelines falls to us. It is inconceivable that
the excesses of the early nineteenth century could ever be repeated—we
only have to think of some four hundred Renaissance panels pointlessly
transferred to canvas in St. Petersburg to realize the scale of it all—but it
is incumbent on us to reach the same conclusions as those who met in
Greenwich in 1974: our actions, great or small, must be logical, account-
able, and ethical, bequeathing an honorable and defensible legacy to those
who will care for paintings in the future.
I have mentioned that we are going to consider choices during
this symposium. The papers at this symposium are loosely arranged in his-
torical progression, beginning with the nature of materials and the making
of panel paintings. Therefore, the first choices that we must consider are
those facing the painters themselves. In general, the earlier panel painters
operated within traditions that almost totally circumscribed their methods
and materials. Perhaps because they were not aware of choice in the way
that we now interpret the concept, they left few remarks to guide us.
Nevertheless, there is much that can be learned from documentary sources
and from examination of the works themselves that can inform us about
the manner of their making.xiv Bomford