 |
Why was the project necessary? |
| |
|
| |
Reasons for the most urgent actions
To come to a decision about whether or not to use urgent procedures,
we considered the following points:
1. For at least twenty-five years, there had been repeated requests
to take urgent action, especially in certain areas where the wall
paintings were badly deteriorated.
2. Up until May 31, 2000 - the date when the
new system came into effect to protect the Chapel against dust,
pollutants and dampness - it was not possible to carry out the necessary
conservation operations because of the unsuitable conditions inside
the Chapel, which would have rendered such operations useless, if
not actually harmful in some cases.
3. After May 31, 2000, we immediately started
the trial period lasting about a year, to check the working of the
microclimatic control system by means of monitoring parameters relating
to the atmosphere and the quality of the air.
4. The results of the monitoring showed an overall
positive trend, so it was possible to go ahead, at that point, with
the setting up of the conservation and restoration operations as
planned.
5. At the same time, we realised it would be
impossible to adjust the existing ventilation system to ensure that
it would remove the fumes of the solvents used to treat the saline
efflorescence and the old fixatives which had decayed and whose
presence would have harmed the overall results of the conservation
work. Consequently, we had to move ahead one step at a time using
only limited numbers of restorers and technicians.
6. A suitable method was devised for removing
efflorescence and fixatives, thanks to the use of products which
have only recently been tested and released. So they have to be
used extremely carefully, also because the manufacturers may improve
them while work is in progress.
7. The whole project, in all its complexity -
based on the innovative ideas of ICR's director, Giovanni Urbani,
twenty-five years ago - covering indirect activities (on the building,
which is of course an inseparable support for Giotto's paintings,
and on the environment) and direct activities on the wall paintings
themselves, is characterised by a highly experimental approach which
means that the results are not wholly predictable (there are in
fact no specific precedents) even though all the procedures were
thoroughly tested before being used.
8. There exists a formal undertaking signed by
the body responsible for protecting the Chapel (the Ministry for
the Cultural Heritage) and the owners of the property (the Padua
City Council) to re-open this extraordinarily important monument
to the general public within a short space of time, covering the
minimum time required from the technical point of view (nine months)
- a period which sits uncomfortably with the extremely long bureaucratic
procedures for normal tenders of this type.
9. A literal interpretation of the legislative
and regulatory norms contained in the overall legislation (Legge
Quadro) on the subject of Public Works, Presidential Decree (DPR)
554/99, would have led to delaying the start of work until after
December 15 (the Institute has always, by Statute, adopted the normal
practice of direct administration - given the fact that it has its
own staff of restorers and a school for restoration - and only exceptionally,
and generally partially, entrusts work to external operators). This
situation was reflected in the fact that the ministerial note no.
2125A, only issued on April 10, reported that the order for payment
of the restoration funds had been communicated to the Central Budget
Office for further confirmation.
10. In certain limited areas of the frescoes
but of a size that could not be ignored (also of significant quality),
deterioration in recent years had increased alarmingly, and there
could be no justification for not taking immediate action now that
the environmental conditions made it possible.
|
