29 The Annunciation retable and refining its presentation. Reconstructions were to be avoided wherever possible. The conditions here were much better than for the Nicholas altar, as the loss of substance had not been quite so extensive. All those involved shared the impression that the conditions here were sufficiently good to favour such a restrained approach.33 As a guiding principle for the decision, the authors adopted the following premise: conservation instead of restoration and reconstruction, thereby following the lead of Dehio, whose views are still ground-breaking.34 Refraining from reconstruction also means that the work is recognised as unrepeatable and unique. Due respect is paid to the authentic original. Damage and ageing is accepted as part of its history. What is lost cannot be replaced. However, the fragmentarily preserved work also possesses its own aesthetic values and calls for an engagement with its meaning and the desire for a positive reaction. Are the historical intention and the pictorial representation sufficiently legible? Does the viewer’s optical discomfort prevail or is the overall impression coherent in itself despite the damage? This is where subjectivity comes into play, requiring decisions to be made in a larger group. For this reason, examples of possible approaches for the treatment were first tested and put up for discussion. The final restoration concept was derived from the opinions formed in these discussions (Fig. 34). Fig.34: Entablature; test area for the retouching concept; left side untreated / right with retouches
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NTQ=