The artist of this painting is unknown, but it dates from the middle of the eighteenth century and it depicts the Coronation of the Virgin Mary. This sort of painting was likely once the centrepiece of a church altar, part of the visual storytelling for congregations, many of whom might have been illiterate, but could still spot a divine coronation when they saw one. The artwork has that unmistakably decadent Baroque flair of dramatic skies, dynamic poses, and a generally high angel-to-square-foot ratio. But, despite all that excitement, I didn’t like it.
The reason for my general disapproval, and I witter on a lot about this theme, but for me, and I know views vary (and mostly disagree with me), I would have rather that they had left this instead of restoring it. I felt what I was looking at now was something too perfect, removing all evidence of its history and heritage. I understand that there was evidence of previous restorations, bits of paint were missing and some of it had faded, but I like the authenticity of what they had. What they’re ultimately doing is creating something fake, they’re changing things to try and make the imperfect somehow perfect, but history can’t be turned back. I do like that the museum has put this information board up to explain the restoration process and there’s obvious huge skill involved with this whole endeavour which I respect. But, I don’t really see why they don’t just leave the artwork and then paint an entirely new one for visitors who would like to see what it was intended to look like.