i couldnt imagine the pride someone could feel knowing that, literally hundreds of years after the creation of your work, after some sort of inevitable mishap, people took literal YEARS putting it back just the way you made it. these people were using what they would have believed to be MAGIC JUST TO FIX this. that alone is extraordinary.
That's exactly what the European curators said. Along with. "If we wanted Michaelangelos shattered we'd keep them here and do it ourselves", just like the hammer attack I recall from the news in the 70s, when I was a boy.
The restoration of this the Venetian sculpture of Adam is in itself a work of art. The conservators and restorers have every right to feel pleased. I'd like to think that the creator of the piece, Tullio Lombardo (please forgive this scribe if I've misspelled his name) would be more than thrilled that his marble Adam has been kept for posterity.
6 лет назад
"A renaissance sculpture outside Italy is not common" yeah WeLl I WONDER WHY
"On a plywood pedestal" ? That's conservatory criminality. Send it back to Italy. The only saving grace was the dedication of the restoration team. A sad story nonetheless.
@Anti-Federalist 1776 nope, tullio lombardo was italian, what they said is that the marble is one of the few high quality outside of italy and ome of the firsts nudes.
Yup, the sculptures in Italy have lasted for centuries, often outside in the elements. Tullio's Adam lasted for over 300 years in Venice unharmed, but gets taken to the USA and gets dropped on the floor after only 70 years. Ruined.
Plywood does not automatically mean bad or cheap, its just how the wood was constructed. Layers ("plies") of wood are stack on top of one another with the grain rotated to increase stability, strength, and reduce warping. Quality plywood is stronger than and can sustain higher stress than regular wood
@Kingston Anderson they received the statue in that condition. the plywood was of high quality and was reinforced internally with struts and other supports. literally no one could have predicted that the pedestal would have given out when it did.
@Anti-Federalist 1776 and yet that not-cheap-piece-of-non-home depot wood failed and look at the consequences. had the statue been placed on something that was literally more concrete, i'd argue we wouldn't even be watching this video.
nacs This is more than hindsight being 20/20. From a physics & structural engineering perspective, using a substandard wooden base was an imprudent choice that could've been realized relatively easily beforehand.
The pedestal always looked cheap/cheesy to me - you could see it was plywood painted gray; I never understood why they didn't have it on a beautiful stone pedestal, as it deserved to be. Now, in hindsight, it apparently was truly foolish. I don't understand why such a decision was ever made. As I remember it, the other large Renaissance sculptures in the Blumenthal courtyard were on similar plywood pedestals. The courtyard layout has been redesigned since then. Initially the story was that the sculpture was smashed as they were installing new pedestals, and the inadequacy of the handlers caused the fall. Now they say the pedestal gave way. I wonder what the truth is.
Top-quality plywood is actually very strong and very durable. It should be a perfect material for pedestals, so long as each one is properly designed and carefully constructed. Stone pedestals, on the other hand, may very well have invisible faults - and their weight when combined with the sculpture above is potentially devastating to flooring underneath.
actually , when a person who works at the museum or the visitors break something on accident ( literally anything that isnt someone intentionally , consciously damaging a piece ) they have a lot of money to cover the damage and repair costs. Basically everyone is safe because accidents do happen be it because they failed to use a proper pedestal , or they bumped something or whatever it may be, accidents are inevitable. Plus I doubt most people would visit or work in a museums if they were terrified that they may have to pay a ton of money because they tripped or something. I guess that system lacks a sense of justice but that's how they decide to do things.
When they pulled out the 3D modeling and mentioned they kept every single piece I guess I was a little disappointed they disnt end up genuinely rebuilding the entire thing seamlessly using those fragments rather than just putting in a plaster filling in the gaps.
@t fi from what they showed it looked like a nice replica of the David. I don't think saying it's kitche can count for something that purposely a replica of an existing piece.
Sorry to be blunt but what genius put such an important and heavy sculpture on a wooden stand? Give it to an institution which knows how to treat such unique objects!
No, they took so much time because late 20th century and early 21st century restoration/conservation has the principle of total reversibility. There is also the problem of steel pins doing considerably harm in future falls. So, they took the time to find pins which would hold up but not do damage in a fall and acrylic resins which can be completely removed but will hold firm indefinitely.
A sculpture of such importance should not have been put on a cheap plywood pedestal. I think it's highly irresponsible of Met to even use such materials. Concrete or stone is cheap and much more durable, and I think Met can afford it. It's just the American attitude of cutting corners to make things only appear to be good quality. Please, save money on other things, not materials.
Wood construction is fine, much more economical, easier storage, maneuverable. Moving 600lb of stone for each piece in an exhibit would be senseless. Plywood, though. Man wtf. I hope she was exaggerating.
@@evindrews not really there are supports and systems that makes moving tone/ marble pretty easily. and you should have to move it all that much or often.
no perfect thing is exist, the most exciting thing is the way and process we pursue the perfection, especially the team work with all top scientists and professions.
Your conservators should be very proud of the work they did. They did a terrific job that respected the artist's original work, preserving as much of the sculpture as possible.
Watching this again, I still cannot believe it ! That a museum cannot afford to make a solid base, the same museum that spends millions of things like the met ball ! this was an impecable priceless work !
kudos to the consevators, but I can't help to be angry at the museum's display management. How is it that they didn't regularly check on the pedestal of a piece of such importance? Why would they trust a 60 year old structure so blindly? A solid pedestal should've been implemented. This was a highly preventable incident.
Hart braking! I was fantasizing about how I would have prevented the pedestal from giving out. How to make it much more stable, how it should have been reenforsed to keep it from buckling. Hope they evaluated other works that have the same pedestals and replaced them.
I wonder how long that marble had been standing on that pedestal. And how many other marbles stand on the same material. It could have been standing for generations long before people even thought about material stresses. But everyone responsible for the "health" of these items dropped the ball. I bet they had a team working overtime to correct any other potential disasters.
According to the New York Times, the pedestal was 2 years old www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/arts/met-s-15th-century-adam-shatters-as-pedestal-collapses.html
if they dont have money for solid pedestal im ok with playwood. But please at least use metal frame in it. Over all i dont like life size sculpture on a pedestal.
If you cause the damage the repair does not have to be reversible. There are very clear reasons for why repairs should be reversible. Causing the damage yourself does not qualify as "historically important" enough to reverse repairs.
They are reversible so that if, for some reason new and better materials or techniques are developed, they can undo the current ones with little effort and no damage to the piece. Also, restoring materials, even if they are top-quality, sometimes age differently from the rest of the piece and sometimes it is necessary to remove them.
but... but... you could have measured the strength and resistance of the pedestal and compare it with the weight and density of the statue and you would have known that the thing wasn't appropriate support in the first place.... Am I missing some sort of crucial detail that justifies the incident? This seems like pure negligence to me.
The statue had been on the same base for over 70 years, nobody thought to recheck the same stand that had been working for ages. Apparently it dry-rotted at some point and slowly gave way.
They were all saved! Meaning all the hundreds or even thousands of pieces and maybe even dust from the unbelievably beautiful statue. What did you do? Break out the Broom??? ROFL Sorry I’m actually serious. How did you get the very,Very small pieces up?
0:01 to 0:09 0:31 😉😜😏 0:36 to 0:41 cc 0:55 cc 1:24 to1:28 cc 👌🏻 1:40 1:45 vs 1:42 1:59 to 2:33 4:04 to 4:29 4:31 to 4:34 4:37 to 4:48 cc 4:48 to 5:04 cc 5:21 6:15 6:26 to 6:45 6:55 to 6:57 cc 7:04 7:17 to 7:22 cc 7:31 to end
What a disaster. Itz a amazing restoration. But I think the base should be a dark marble or a real wood but nat so high up if it waz on a lower base I think the breaking would haft been less. How was it originally displayed. I would Reacessed the other bases to keep outher amazing works from tha same falling
