Volume 67, Issue 7

Bogus Reminiscences of Antiquity and Au Courant: Joseph Sheppard, Raman Microscopy & The Landscape of Memory
By Menachem Wecker

Memory is deceptive; people taint memory with wishful thinking to create a false past.

- Dubitzky 2002

“I never knew words could be so confusing," Milo said to Tock as he bent down to scratch the dog's ear.
“Only when you use a lot to say a little," answered Tock.
Milo thought this was quite the wisest thing he'd heard all day. 

- The Phantom Tollbooth

There are three side effects of acid. Enhanced long-term memory, decreased short-term memory, and I forget the third. 

                                                  - Timothy Leary

Over the past couple of weeks we had three unique and stirring experiences, diverse as a pot of multicultural cholent, which we would like to share with you due to their artistic value.  We saw Ringside: The Boxing Paintings and Sculptures of Joseph Sheppard and The Book of Kings: Art, War and the Morgan Library's Medieval Picture Bible at the Walters Art Museum (MD) with our grandmother, we heard the very informative if not brilliant lecture of Dr. Gregory D. Smith on Raman Microscopy in Art History and Conservation Science and we listened attentively to Professor James E. Young of UMASS-Amherst (yet another proof Boston is the intellectual capital of the cosmos) speak of The Landscape of Memory: Berlin, Jerusalem & New York.  For esthetic reasons, we would like to discuss them simultaneously; an endeavor we hope does not prove too artificial.

As we listened to Dr. Smith weave together an intricate, rococo tapestry to the order of Dispersive and Fourier transform (FT) Raman microscopy, Rayleigh scattering, vibrational spectroscopy and Stokes Raman photons (we will explain these unpretentious, straightforward terms to you when you are older), we were reminded of Sheppard’s boxing scenes.  In the trompe loi style, the artist toys with the idea of the belligerent combatant frozen in time; whether the preparation for the struggle, the warrior hunched over wearily post-fight in the locker room or even the battle itself, time has been expertly held to a complete standstill. 

In a manner akin, Dr. Smith braved time by battling with words, as he explained the intricacies of the modern Raman technique as manifest in inauthenticating paintings and testing samples for purposes of restoration.  Dr. Smith’s goal, in part, as expressed in a paper he coauthored with Professor Robin J. H. Clark (UCL), is to expose and to respond to the reluctance of museum officials to use cutting edge technology.  Like a disorientated viewer trying to follow a swiftly hit ping-pong ball ricochet back and forth, we extracted what we could and understood that Raman microscopy does something with these things called photons and a laser and scattering, and bounces some stuff off an holographic notch filler, which then leads to the drawing of cute charts of absolute wavenumber scales of Stokes and anti-Stokes.  In short, the technique allows for the chemical analysis of paint – in a much less intrusive and less destructive manner, much to the delight of the curator – which in turn catalyzes the process of analyzing paint samples, successfully dating them and, if need be, reversing previous restorations that oftentimes actually degrade the very samples they hoped to protect.

Dr. Smith’s and his colleagues’ work raises the colossal question of altering past artwork and the effects (philosophical, moral), if any, of restoration on the work in question’s genuineness.  Clearly a restored painting is more esthetically pleasing and, in fact, more closely resembles the original work as it used to appear; however, if a scientist wants to restore, say, a Cassatt or a Kahlo (although we would sincerely doubt either is worth the effort), would the restoration really be authentic, or a mere fraud?  Enter Professor Young.  In his study of “the texture of memory,” Mr. Young utilizes postmodernist attitudes (we fear “thinking” would yield an oxymoron) galore to demonstrate how “There is no such thing as memory outside of its political utility.”  To be fair, Mr. Young did amend his statement in response to a lackluster question we posed, and added the adverb “usually.”  He then established that specifically in the field of Holocaust memorials, although we feel we presume correctly that it applies mutatis mutandis to any piece of art, “Curators make a fetish of these objects.”  By this he laments the fact that viewers must need focus on epic relics to the exclusion of life.  Would not a shrine to the living trump a tombstone celebrating death?

We feel we are not exceedingly audacious to see a residual hodgepodge of Mr. Young’s theories in the illuminated Bible (made in 13th Century France) we saw at the Walters.  In the words of a leaflet from the Walters, this awesome work illustrates the Old Testament with “magnificently detailed images of life in 13th-century France.”  In Mr. Young’s words, tributes turn the material object into an “object of veneration.”  In portraying the Bible, the French monks synthesized the stories of old with the modern landscape.  Monuments are at once historical services and valuable objects of historico-sociological study.  If this is the case – if a Vermeer is not a detached, irrefragable historical document but more a self-promoting piece of quasi-yellow journalism – there would appear to be no damage in adding our own modern touch, much like a chop on a Chinese brush-painting.  It would not disturb the painting so much as redefine its role as a cultural (subjective) piece.

Mr. Young further explained the inherent paradox of commemorating destruction with construction.  A monument based on a landscapeal void, an installation, perhaps, that mirrored the cultural cavity would be in better taste, an absence venerating absence, instead of a fascist, authoritarian (Mr. Young’s words) piece of art demanding that the viewer add modern idiosyncrasies to his memory.

To smear on the last layer of varnish to tie together all the loose ends, Mr. Young embraces the view that art is not viewed in isolation.  It is always part of a greater cultural backdrop, whose views have a nasty way of diffusing themselves not only in the artwork, but also in the memories it pays tribute too.  If this is the case, we see no moral or philosophical objections to restoring paintings – nay, we feel, in fact, that paintings must be restored so as to preserve the original harmony and cohesiveness of the work.  We would personally like to thank Professor Young and Dr. Smith for their excellent lectures and for exposing us to new ideas, the vastness of which we could never have even feigned to pursue on our own.¨

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.