A more pristine Sistine
I’ve never seen the Sistine Chapel in person. The one time I was in Rome, long ago, the Chapel was closed for something or other and no visitors were allowed. Anyway, that was before the controversial restoration that brightened Michaelangelo’s frescoes and removed the patina of age that had given them a depth and resonance—and murkiness—which some had deplored and some had admired.
Now any lingering murkiness is further demurkified by new LED lighting that purports to illuminate the images while doing the fragile artwork no harm.
Here’s the photo:
What do you think?
We visited the Vatican in April and thought the Sistene Chapel, while impressive, was least impressive of all we saw there. The massive crowds, herded in like cattle, might have been a factor, but that was the case with the museum and St. Peter’s Basilica as well.
It was better without LEDs.
Ones iris is going to recalibrate either way.
The solution is to just turn the LEDs off.
I have seen it before and after. My impression was the cleaning removed ‘shading.’ I have never been too impressed with how restorations are handled in Italy.
People assume he painted this while lying on his back. Actually, he did this standing and such was his discomfort that he wrote a poem in which he expressed his hatred of the project. If he had his way we would never have had this great work to enjoy.
Sharon’s right about the crowds. It’s exasperating. People wouldn’t shut up. Remember how in kindergarten the teacher would have to shush you a few times before it “took”? It’s like that every thirty seconds in there. I had my problems with the tour overall – you could spend a week in any room in the Vatican Museums – but that was the most frustrating stop.
As for the lighting, that’s the kind of thing you couldn’t possibly answer based on a picture. I remember the thing that struck me most about the Sistine Chapel was that it’s really big. I’d never gotten that impression from pictures, because it’s a very tall and long room. But it’s spacious. I wouldn’t trust a photo to make a judgment about the optimal lighting.
I visited in 2007 and based on the photos I think I prefer the pre-LED light views. It was easy enough to make out the details without the bright lights, as I recall. The oppressive crowds, which are a constant, definitely detract from the Sistine Chapel experience.
My favorite Vatican experience was a visit to the Scavi (excavations) under St. Peter’s Basilica, where you can walk through a Necropolis that culminates at the location of St. Peter’s bones under the main altar. Extraordinary experience, particularly for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I remember a non-Catholic archeologist was part of my group and she marveled at the pristine Roman brickwork now underground.
Because the tour groups are so small it’s much more personal and unforgettable:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0735.html
I visited the Gardner Museum a few years ago, and the colors of the Botticelli paintings just glowed. I suspect that cleaning the Sistine frescoes, bringing out the colors, was the right thing to do. About the lighting I have nothing to say, not having seen the work either before nor after.
Too bad we can’t see Greek statues in their original painted glory. I’ll bet it would make them much more lively and interesting.
I visited in 2002, and yes the crowd was a bother, just as they are in the Met here in NYC. But the entire experience took my breath away. I had just started to do colored pencil copies of the sybils so I thought I knew what I would see. True the room is huge, but it is not only the ceiling that is amazing. The sybils and prophets between the window heads. The infill paintings in the spandrels. The Master paintings further down the walls, the carvings everywhere on wainscot, moldings and brackets, and the casmatu inlaid floor, I could have camped out there for days. But people come from all over the world to see it, so I will always be glad to have my quick glimpse. It stays with me still.
er, Sistine.
I visited in 1985 – way before the restoration and the new lights, and yes, it wasn’t nearly the aesthetic experience it could have been. It’s a huge room, tall and very narrow, and there is painting on every surface, as jimg says … you could spend days looking at it, at leisure. I think I got more out of looking slowly through a book of photographs of the paintings – more detail visible.
Speaking of an ornamented building interior that is even more impressive and gorgeous than any photograph can tell you – the late Roman mosaics in the various churches in Ravenna. They were simply magnificent – the basilica of St. Apollinare, with the procession of saints along the upper walls of the nave, all of glass mosaic on a background of gold-backed clear glass. There were tall trees outside the basilica, and when the wind shifted the branches, the whole mosaic seemed to shimmer and ripple. The mosaics all looked as fresh and clean and new as if they had been installed last year, not twelve or thirteen hundred years ago.
Have to agree with Sharon W. My wife and I were there in June, and the crowd was just awful, we were packed in like sardines. And noisy, despite admonitions on the sound system.
Would be delightful if you could see it by yourself, with a reclining chair or air mattress and a good pair of binoculars.
Never realized the ceiling was so high.
I’ve been twice and it was just as magnificent both times. The secret to seeing it is to go in late winter when there are many fewer tourists and to see it before looking at anything in the museum. Camp at the front gate before the Vatican Museum opens and when it opens march the mile or so to the Sistine Chapel without looking at anything else. You can then work your way backwards through the exhibits. The
Stanzas of Raphael, which you pass through just before the SC, are equally stunning but on a human scale.
Beverly:
Will fix.
I was there on December 16th, 2008, just a week and a half before Christmas. The Roman weather was atrocious that day. It was pouring rain and cold. I was part of a tour that went through one floor of the Vatican museum and then the Sistine Chapel. (About 9:00 AM) There were about 25 people in our group and, except for the gendarmes, we were the *only* ones in the chapel – maybe 30 people altogether. I had free run of the place for about 45 minutes.
It was wonderful.
What I wanted to do was lie down on the floor and just stare up at the ceiling. (However, I also did not want a tour of a Roman jail, so I didn’t try it.)
This was post restoration, but the interior lighting was a mixture of artificial light plus the subdued light coming from the windows. I came away very impressed.
But wait! There’s more!
As we were leaving the chapel by the side door, our tour guide stopped us and said that she had never in all of her time giving tours of the Vatican seen such sparse crowds as they were that day. She told us that there was *no one* waiting in line for the papal crypt below St Peters. Perhaps that was because the line for the crypt formed in the open area between the Sistine Chapel and St Peters, and did I mention that it was pouring down rain that day? (And this wasn’t just some warm, misty Presbyterian rain. No, this was cold, hard Catholic rain.)
She asked us if we wanted to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the planned tour route so we could go through the crypt. Well, of course we did! So after giving us a few rules – no talking and NO photography – off we went through the pouring rain to the door leading down to the basement of St. Peters and the crypt of the popes.
I’ve been to Rome 3 times (and gone to the Vatican each time). I’ve only taken one tour and wouldn’t take another one, but I’m more of an independent traveler. It might even be better to go alone to the museum and churches.
I have never been to Rome but had a chance to visit Milan and see a spectacular cathedral there.
Reading some of the comments here about the art in the Sistine looking better before it was cleaned, makes me wonder if the artist would think it was a compliment that his work looked better when it was covered up with crud.
I don’t have an opinion since I’ve never seen the Sistine, but I couldn’t help wondering in Milan how beautiful the intricate marble carvings at the cathedral would have looked when they were new.
I have been to the tomb of St.Peter twice and knelt next to another pilgrim.Both times, the men kneeling with me wept.I will never forget this.