SCIENZA E BENI CULTURALI XXXII.2016
Paolo Bensi1, Fabio Frezzato2,
1
Dipartimento di Scienze per l’Architettura, stradone Sant’Agostino 37, 16123 Genova, paolo.bensi@arch.unige.it
2
Centro Ricerche sul Dipinto – CSG Palladio s.r.l., Strada Saviabona, 278/1, 36100 Vicenza, fabio.frezzato@fastwebnet.it
The technological development of the scientific tools used in the analysis of paintings in the last thirty years cannot, on its own, eliminate the problems coming from a lack of real knowledge of the potentialities of scientific instruments and of the correct use of scientific analyses. In a conservation project, the right connection between the effective need of analyses and the most appropriate methodologies should be considered of vital importance, along with a correct diagnostic plan. At the same time the creation of specific analytical protocols drawn up by an authoritative body of experts could greatly improve the reliability of scientific research, so crucial both for the conservation field and for the history of painting techniques. Moreover, scientific analyses often allow us to question the orthodoxy of technical sources, where they reveal features which are not described in the technical treatises or when the dating of a painting or of a conservation intervention are concerned. Scientific knowledge can positively influence choices in conservation practice, especially when a material is conventionally, but erroneously, considered out of context, at risk to be removed. Some of the technical methods of mural painting revealed by recent analyses are different from those commonly known. For these reasons nothing can be taken for granted in the interpretation of data, which requires both a continuous updating of knowledge and a correct approach to the technical sources.
Parole chiave/Key-words:
Analyses, protocols, othodoxy, interpretation, updating