Medieval Stained Glass and the Victorian Restorer

Sarah Brown
{"title":"Medieval Stained Glass and the Victorian Restorer","authors":"Sarah Brown","doi":"10.16995/ntn.2901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recovery of the ‘true principles’ of stained glass as an integral part of the Gothic Revival of the nineteenth century grew out of a complex relationship between restoration, reinvention, and startling creativity. The tensions between craft, commerce, art, and scholarship were quick to surface in Victorian debates about restoration, and the descriptions of earlier nineteenth-century restoration practices found in the relevant literature in the years from c. 1900 onwards, much of it derogatory, imply that there was a homogeneous approach to stained glass restoration that could be described as both ‘Victorian’ and destructive. Infamous restorations, such as the Betton and Evans work at Winchester College, have been compared (unfavourably) to the projects in which pioneering stained glass scholar Charles Winston exerted an ‘enlightened’ influence. This article considers to what extent, and why, medieval stained glass required restoration by the Victorians, and to what extent they rescued rather than diminished an endangered heritage. It discusses the surprising variety of approaches adopted across the period, and to what extent these principles and approaches have shaped and influenced modern practice. It will also suggest that by the turn of the twentieth century the proponents of stained glass and its restoration, predominantly artists, were beginning to lose touch with an increasingly science-based understanding of the underlying causes of stained glass deterioration, factors that are also now undermining the survival of our nineteenth-century stained glass inheritance. In many late twentieth-century restorations of ancient stained glass, the work of Victorian restorers was ruthlessly stripped away, usually with little, if any, documentation. A proper understanding of the significance and impact of this complex history is essential if we are to conserve historic stained glass responsibly and ethically, a challenge that now extends to the conservation and protection of the works of the Gothic Revival as well.","PeriodicalId":90082,"journal":{"name":"19 : interdisciplinary studies in the long nineteenth century","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"19 : interdisciplinary studies in the long nineteenth century","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16995/ntn.2901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The recovery of the ‘true principles’ of stained glass as an integral part of the Gothic Revival of the nineteenth century grew out of a complex relationship between restoration, reinvention, and startling creativity. The tensions between craft, commerce, art, and scholarship were quick to surface in Victorian debates about restoration, and the descriptions of earlier nineteenth-century restoration practices found in the relevant literature in the years from c. 1900 onwards, much of it derogatory, imply that there was a homogeneous approach to stained glass restoration that could be described as both ‘Victorian’ and destructive. Infamous restorations, such as the Betton and Evans work at Winchester College, have been compared (unfavourably) to the projects in which pioneering stained glass scholar Charles Winston exerted an ‘enlightened’ influence. This article considers to what extent, and why, medieval stained glass required restoration by the Victorians, and to what extent they rescued rather than diminished an endangered heritage. It discusses the surprising variety of approaches adopted across the period, and to what extent these principles and approaches have shaped and influenced modern practice. It will also suggest that by the turn of the twentieth century the proponents of stained glass and its restoration, predominantly artists, were beginning to lose touch with an increasingly science-based understanding of the underlying causes of stained glass deterioration, factors that are also now undermining the survival of our nineteenth-century stained glass inheritance. In many late twentieth-century restorations of ancient stained glass, the work of Victorian restorers was ruthlessly stripped away, usually with little, if any, documentation. A proper understanding of the significance and impact of this complex history is essential if we are to conserve historic stained glass responsibly and ethically, a challenge that now extends to the conservation and protection of the works of the Gothic Revival as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中世纪彩色玻璃和维多利亚时代的修复者
彩色玻璃的“真正原理”的恢复作为19世纪哥特复兴的一个组成部分,源于修复、重新发明和惊人的创造力之间的复杂关系。在维多利亚时代关于修复的争论中,工艺、商业、艺术和学术之间的紧张关系很快浮出水面,从1900年开始的相关文献中发现的19世纪早期修复实践的描述,其中大部分是贬义的,暗示有一种同质的彩色玻璃修复方法,可以被描述为“维多利亚式”和破坏性的。臭名昭著的修复工程,如贝顿和埃文斯在温彻斯特学院的工作,已经被(不利地)与先驱彩色玻璃学者查尔斯温斯顿施加“开明”影响的项目进行了比较。这篇文章考虑了中世纪的彩色玻璃在多大程度上以及为什么需要维多利亚时代的修复,以及他们在多大程度上拯救了而不是削弱了一项濒危遗产。它讨论了这一时期采用的令人惊讶的各种方法,以及这些原则和方法在多大程度上塑造和影响了现代实践。它还表明,到20世纪之交,彩色玻璃及其修复的支持者(主要是艺术家)开始失去对彩色玻璃退化的潜在原因的日益科学的理解,这些因素现在也正在破坏我们19世纪彩色玻璃遗产的生存。在20世纪后期对古代彩色玻璃的许多修复中,维多利亚时代的修复者的作品被无情地剥夺了,通常很少(如果有的话)有记录。如果我们要负责任地、合乎道德地保护历史上的彩色玻璃,正确理解这段复杂历史的重要性和影响是必不可少的,这一挑战现在也延伸到了哥特复兴时期作品的保护和保护上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Title Pending 11044 Title Pending 11184 Review of ‘Defying Expectations: Inside Charlotte Brontë’s Wardrobe’, Brontë Parsonage Museum Review of John James Audubon’s Birds of America at the National Museum of Scotland Afterword
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1