Some people talk to plants.
The Carnegie Museum of Art’s chief conservator Ellen Baxter talks to the paintings she’s restoring.
“You have to …tell her she’s going to look lovely,” she says, above, spreading varnish over a 16th-century portrait of Isabella de’ Medici prior to starting the laborious process of restoring years of wear and tear by inpainting with tiny brushes, aided with pipettes of varnish and solvent.
Isabella had been waiting a long time for such tender attention, concealed beneath a 19th-century overpainting depicting a daintier featured woman reputed to be Eleanor of Toledo, wife of Cosimo I de’ Medici, the second Duke of Florence.
Louise Lippincott, the CMA’s former curator of fine arts, ran across the work in the museum’s basement storage. Record named the artist as Bronzino, court painter to Cosimo I, but Lippincott, who thought the painting “awful”, brought it to Ellen Baxter for a second opinion.
As Cristina Rouvalis writes in Carnegie Magazine, Baxter is a “rare mix of left- and right-brained talent”, a painter with a bachelor’s degree in art history, minors in chemistry and physics, and a master’s degree in art conservation:
(She) looks at paintings differently than other people, too—not as flat, static objects, but as three-dimensional compositions layered like lasagna.
The minute she saw the oil painting purported to be of Eleanor of Toledo… Baxter knew something wasn’t quite right. The face was too blandly pretty, “like a Victorian cookie tin box lid,” she says. Upon examining the back of the painting, she identified—thanks to a trusty Google search—the stamp of Francis Leedham, who worked at the National Portrait Gallery in London in the mid-1800s as a “reliner,” transferring paintings from a wood panel to canvas mount. The painstaking process involves scraping and sanding away the panel from back to front and then gluing the painted surface layer to a new canvas.
An X‑Ray confirmed her hunch, revealing extra layers of paint in this “lasagna”.
Careful stripping of dirty varnish and Victorian paint in the areas of the portrait’s face and hands began to reveal the much stronger features of the woman who posed for the artist. (The Carnegie is banking on Bronzino’s student, Alessandro Allori, or someone in his circle.)
Lippincott was also busily sleuthing, finding a Medici-commissioned copy of the painting in Vienna that matched the dress and hair exactly. Thusly did she learn that the subject was Eleanor of Toledo’s daughter, Isabella de’ Medici, the apple of her father’s eye and a notorious, ultimately ill-fated party girl.
The History Blog paints an irresistible portrait of this maverick princess:
Cosimo gave her an exceptional amount of freedom for a noblewoman of her time. She ran her own household, and after Eleanor’s death in 1562, Isabella ran her father’s too. She threw famously raucous parties and spent lavishly. Her father always covered her debts and protected her from scrutiny even as rumors of her lovers and excesses that would have doomed other society women spread far and wide. Her favorite lover was said to be Troilo Orsini, her husband Paolo’s cousin.
Things went downhill fast for Isabella after her father’s death in 1574. Her brother Francesco was now the Grand Duke, and he had no interest in indulging his sister’s peccadilloes. We don’t know what happened exactly, but in 1576 Isabella died at the Medici Villa of Cerreto Guidi near Empoli. The official story released by Francesco was that his 34-year-old sister dropped dead suddenly while washing her hair. The unofficial story is that she was strangled by her husband out of revenge for her adultery and/or to clear the way for him to marry his own mistress Vittoria Accoramboni.
Baxter noted that the urn Isabella holds was not part of the painting to begin with, though neither was it one of Leedham’s revisions. Its resemblance to the urn that Mary Magdalene is often depicted using as she annoints Jesus’ feet led her and Lippincott to speculate that it was added at Isabella’s request, in an attempt to redeem her image.
“This is literally the bad girl seeing the light,” Lippincott told Rouvalis.
Despite her fondness for the subject of the liberated painting, and her considerable skill as an artist, Baxter resisted the temptation to embellish beyond what she found:
I’m not the artist. I’m the conservator. It’s my job to repair damages and losses, to not put myself in the painting.
Related Content
The Art of Restoring a 400-Year-Old Painting: A Five-Minute Primer
Watch a 17th-Century Portrait Magically Get Restored to Its Brilliant Original Colors
A Restored Vermeer Painting Reveals a Portrait of a Cupid Hidden for Over 350 Years
Free Course: An Introduction to the Art of the Italian Renaissance
– Ayun Halliday is the Chief Primatologist of the East Village Inky zine and author, most recently, of Creative, Not Famous: The Small Potato Manifesto and Creative, Not Famous Activity Book. Follow her @AyunHalliday.
WOW…
Talk about glamor shots!
Makes one wonder how many countless others around the world are like this!
The restoration is an abomination — she completely changed the face, the chin, the nose, the eyes and the forehead. Additionally, the beautiful and sensitive sfumato has disappeared, replaced with amateurish hard transitions at the chin, eyes and nose.
The piece is ruined.
I must be crazy, I liked the before pic better.
It hasn’t been restored. It’s been altered into another painting and ruined.
You obviously didn’t read the article.
I think that the above comments failed to notice that the pretty Victorian over paint was not the original, and did not reflect the actual woman whose portrait was made in the original.
@Rick — Those “hard transitions” are actually the original features. The “abomination” here is the Victorian attempt to revise the painting according to the artistic merits of the time, i.e. in this very case, the Leedham’s revisions — something like the Instagram filters of today.
The “abomination” and what “completely changed the face” was painting a new face over the original one 300 years later. The face of Isabella de’ Medici was turned into a generic Victorian face that didn’t resemble her at all, just to make her “prettier” and “modern” looking. What if that was done today to Mona Lisa? *shudder*
That look horrendous what in the bloody world did they destroy her face
I get cleaning dirt but it’s Beyond me as an artist that a so called artist is allowed to touch another’s and then call it A Master s it’s bee tainted this angers me as an artist
It’s a disservice can we just stop painting Over other peoples hard work ugh
I have to say (and I mean this with all respect and sincerity), I believe that the tabloidish gossip that has been afforded to women of that time is an even greater alteration than one could do to their likeness through a painting. It is painting a legacy largely based on rumor (just as it is today) with very little to no proof and all that legacy ever has to do with is her rumored sexual appetite/behavior. Truly I would rather know the name of the subject and to be able to gaze upon their unique portrait and wonder what their life must have been like based upon their age, familial background (not rumored sexual background), and the empathy behind their eyes than to time and time again be force fed that every woman of that time was nothing more than a bad girl and a promiscuous harlot. I don’t know. It just doesn’t seem fair, and indeed in those times women weren’t allowed or expected to do much of anything especially in court life other than serve a man of rank, but I am sure they wanted to. I am sure they had things they were good at and were loving doting mothers with dreams and hobbies and things that made them special and unique. This is just such an exciting discovery and it’s so dimming to it’s magic to treat this woman’s character just like every other woman who’s portrait was done centuries ago. If we can find out such information about their sexual lives surely information can be found about what they actually were like as individuals. And if not don’t they deserve to be treated more respectfully, especially in death, than a rounding up their entire life story all whittled down to their rumored sexual escapades and who they may or may not have slept with? I just feel like if people put in enough of an effort to find out more about the women of our past other than their sexual history they most certainly would find information, and I for one would be much more interested in knowing about that than about the same old cheesy, sensationalized stories about their sex life.
Seriously. I think more than one person failed to actually read the article. The person who painted over the original is the one who ruined the original painting. Clearly people think it is “ruined” because the face portrayed in the original they don’t deem to be as beautiful as the altered painting. I think it’s incredible that they were able to restore the original. What a magical thing to be able to do!
Did you read the article? It explains that a prettier, daintier woman was later painted over the original subject, and that this restoration was based upon an extant copy of the same portrait.
The “original” that was restored is less visually appealing — I wouldn’t hang the restored version in my home — ugly.
Agree with Rick,looks like an entirely different person.
You’re absolutely correct. I feel almost heartbroken to see what has been done to this lovely woman’s portrait. The first thing I noticed was the completely altered forehead. The expression went from soft and warm, to harsh and glaring, as if she’s being given the third degree, with a bright lamp in her face. At least we still have images of the original before it was ruined. Please don’t allow this butcher to alter another painting.
I don’t think anyone is doomed because they party. A man murdered her. That is not her fault ever.
Well, it’s not ruined. it’s restored. But I like the “original”.
The before picture was NOT the original. It seems you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Don’t worry though, seems at least half the commenters have the same issue…
They painting had been previously ‘restored’(Victorian Era)and a prettier Victorian style face was painted over the original which you see in the before image. While I agree the restoration is less appealing it is likely far closer to the original than the generic pretty wash it got back in the Victorian days. If you look at painting styles of the time when the painting was actually created, the restoration style is much more similar.
AGAIN PEOPLE THE BEFORE PICTURE IN THE ARTICLE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE!
Before you criticize art restoration work, you should try learning how to read!! I think I have some old Dick & Jane books in my basement that you could borrow! Don’t worry, their faces are all blandly stereotypical, so it won’t be frightening for you.
If you go back and actually read the article, I think you will find that the art conservator has a very similar point of view to you.
Whoops lol comments don’t actually post in response to people so I just sound aimlessly belligerent. Sorry about that. I can’t figure out how to delete comments but mods feel free to hahaha
I understand the detailed work and yes, I read the article. The eyes… I know it can be just a millimeter difference but I have a problem with the eyes not looking aligned.
I couldn’t agree more!!!!.… it is beyond horrible!!!!!!.….ruined!!!…how was this person not fired for this…who was overseeing her progress!!…I just have no words for this!!!
I am not sure I like the removal of the second painting from the first. We lose such interesting history. If we find ruins below the colliseum, should we roll the bulldozers to get to the original?
Despite my misgivings, it is interesting to see the differences in the face, while the clothes were left the same. I would have thought that changes in fashion would have occurred faster than changes in beauty standards.
Thank you! She looked beautiful young and beautiful before the now picture makes her look like her mother and not so pretty. I mean look at her nose and eye bags!
I’m guessing this painting was originally a commissioned work. Produced by the artist to earn a living. Not something that welled up from their soul and required expression. At some point the original owner or their heirs decided the work no longer appealed to them and they disposed of it. At that point it became a product for resale. I suspect the victorian artist altered the painting to make it more likely to sell and hence earn their living. The current restorer, not an artist as she admits, to earn their living was commissioned to restore it. The purest attitude of the current owner destroyed the beauty in that painting. Not the restorer. And so doesn’t deserve disdain.
Sadly I agree, the beauty and fine art of the original is gone, it does no longer attract my view
Ha. Obviously these people did not read the story. Yes. Totally fascinated listening to her and watching her reveal what was in the x‑ray. Baxter’s conversation with us as she was working was remarkable. She has so much knowledge. Bravo.
Please read the article. The portraits are of two different women. The original portrait depicts Isabella de’ Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany’s daughter and a notorious party girl. Isabella was married with a number of lovers, and she was protected for years by her adoring father. After her father died, Isabella died mysteriously, allegedly at the hands of her husband. Then in the 19th Century, Isabella’s portrait was painted over to feature another woman entirely. The second woman is reputed to be Eleanor of Toledo, wife of Cosimo I de’ Medici, the second Duke of Florence. It’s possible that the overpainting was an attempt to erase any memory of Isabella and replace it with the image of a woman whose behavior was considered more fitting for her rank. But they are two different women, and the original image of the first woman, Isabella, has been restored.
For those of you who enjoyed watching this process, you need to check out Baumgartner Restoration. He takes you through each piece of art restroration, complete with the removal of overpaint.
https://www.youtube.com/@BaumgartnerRestoration
I agree with you Rick, how incredibly sad. My heart sank when I saw the after picture. Her original features are gone. It’s not even the same person. The forehead is just atrocious. Even her hand is altered! The sfumato gone, what a shame :(
The x‑ray fortunately revealed the true painting beneath. It definitely looks more like a Bronzino after the restoration. A very interesting painting, if not the best portrait done of Isabella.
Look again ! She wasn’t ruined, she was restored. The Victorian’s ruined her, now she’s back to her original glory
This was a poor attempt for sure. Not in restoration of the ORIGINAL painting. But in the making of the video. I came to the comment section with the same thoughts as most of the people here. It was only then I realized the painting was altered by someone entirely different than the original artist. This should been more clear in the outset and not a brief footnote, that made it seem like the original artist, whoever that is, had second thoughts. Maybe as a result of the subject not being happy with her image. I have had this happen to myself in the past. Anyway, ‘good job’ to the restoration artist. A far cry from the lambasting I had in mind.
Good grief. People read a few lines and then write an opinion. The “Prettier” version was the fraud. The repaint. It was restored to what it was originally. It was cleaned of dirt and paint used to obscure the original painting beneath.
Considering the fact that it is a portrait of a real person it was meant to actually look like the person that modeled for it
I think it’s no coincidence that the ones who are calling the restoration “ugly” are the ones who didn’t read the article.
Fascinating restoration, revealing a true characters behind all the Victorian ‘filters’!
It would indeed help the reader and prevent some of the misunderstanding if the pictures were not labelled ‘before’ and ‘after’, but 1) With overpainted face 2) After restoring the original painting underneath… or something along the lines.
Very interesting. As an artist, I see both sides of the table. I found this piece amusing. This is where the saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder comes in. Imagine our world and history without rose colored lenses; would it evoke the same reactions? Would we be more accepting or subconsciously gravitate towards the collective ideals of the times? How beauty is consistent, but subtly changes? Very, very interesting.
Totally ruined the portrait. The ‘after’ restored image has lost her feminine softness. The shading of her face, protruding forhead,darkness around her eyes. Its all horrible. such a shame. But what do I know.…
It’s not ruined because it doesn’t suit your liking.
Read. The. Article. The restoration was based on an existing portrait of the actual woman. The “before” you like so much is actually not the original. What you’re seeing was painted on centuries after the original work was made. Restoration simply took away the Victorian edits.
I think some of the people’s pretending not to understand the before and after are just trolls getting you for fun. People can’t be do stupid, right?
I completely agree. The 1st pic has soft features. She totally changed everything about the face. The forehead n nose look lumpy & her eyes are not level not the same size. Gonna tell me that under all that build up this is what was waiting. It is ruined. She put herself in the painting & it shows. She must not touch another.. EVER
Another example of restoration malpractice. Thankful there are pictures of the originals.
The before picture looked 10 times more beautiful than the after picture. Why does the after picture have all those wrinkles and why does she look kind of mannish now. These are not the same paintings this restoration is absolutely bad. The eyes are absolutely messed up her eyes are not symmetrical she has wrinkles as she doesn’t have in the original picture the skin is pallid she looks like she’s dying she kind of looks like a man now as well. Wow
Thanks for the explanation this really clears things up a lot. What a horrific story. Did he murdered by her husband and then have your portrait even paint it over just for having a couple flings who cares
Wow how did she manage to elongate her forehead? I think she should be fired It’s a travesty she completely changed the entire look of her. Should have just left it alone.
The before picture gives it a beauty to the lady. Should not change!
Lindsay, I could not agree w/ you more! The conservator is very clear when explaining what her position is; She’s not altering the painting, but rather restoring it to it’s original likeness. She explains that it’s not her place to embellish since she is not the artist. To my understanding, she removes the overpaint to expose the original & she only repairs obvious signs of wear. It amazes me that so many fail to pay attention to the actual facts, yet take the time to share their faulty assumptions. It’s very strange, IMHO! Also, the video shows the original work via an X‑ray, so we can all see that nothing was changed by the conservator’s work. Lastly, the restored painting reflects the time period from which it came; It now accurately depicts 16th century portraiture.
Thomas, I truly wish they were just trolling, but sadly, I don’t think that was the case. Apparently everyone is an expert, except for the woman w/ the degree.
Colin, I’m grateful to have read your comment prior to leaving my own; I just made sure to add a name when responding to a specific commenter~ lol.
This is grotesque.
Beauty made homely.
The before is way better then the after. Looks like 2 completely different paintings. She restored the painting like the marketing whiz at Bud Lite.
That is a completely different and uglier picture!!! It is ruined! Why was this allowed? a beautiful master piece is now a piece of common garbage. Sad!
I can’t decide which is more incredible. The exquisite restoration of this art piece, or the number of people who don’t know how to read articles or think critically. This comment section was superbly entertaining and helps me understand how misinformation is so prevalent. If you’re infuriated by this art restoration, take a few deep breaths and re-read the article. Take it slow and sound all the words out…
He took a beautiful painting and destroyed it. Made her look like a guy in drag. 🤨
They removed the “beautifying” retouch done during a preservation process in the 1800s. The sharper image is what it looked like when originally. There’s more about it in the article, but I think the history behind both versions is fascinating.
I AM COMPLETELY DUMBFOUNDED BY HOW IDIOTIC HALF THE PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY HAVE NOT READ THE ARTICLE AND ARE THE VERY EXAMPLE OF HOW AND WHY THIS PORTRAIT WAS RUINED IN THE FIRST PLACE. PLEASE TELL ME I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE WANTING TO PULL MY HAIR OUT AT HOW STUPID AND UNCULTURED THESE CRETINS ARE. I’M EMBARRASSED TO BE IF THE SAME SPECIES AND BELIEVE THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP AND PUT ON DISPLAY IN THE TOWN SQUARE POSED IN A MANNER THAT SHOWS THEIR TRUE STUPIDITY.
BRAVO TO BAXTER FOR UNDOING SOME TALENTLESS, IMMORAL “ARTIST” DID TOO DESTROY THIS BEAUTIFUL WORK OF ART. HEY MORONS, THE BEAUTY AND SUPREME TALENT OF THE TRUE ORIGINAL ARTISTS DEPICTION IS NOT THE BEAUTY IN THE EYE OF SUCH LOW BROW BEHOLDERS, BUT THAT THEY CAPTURED THREE VERY ESSENCE OF THIS WOMAN’S SOUL NEARLY AS PERFECT AS IF THEIR MEDIUM WAS A PHOTOGRAPH. PLEASE, GO TO A MUSEUM TODAY AND BUY YOURSELF AN HOUR OF CULTURE AND INTELLECT HIGHER THAN FOLLOWING THE NORM OR THE CURRENT BEAUTY FADS.
END RANT.
And please excuse my typos. I am very heated up by this. Lol
Thank you! Clearly those that think the conservator changed this painting haven’t read it at all.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
It was so poorly done that it could possibly be of two different women. The forehead knows and mouth look nothing alike.
Appalling to have done something to an iconic work of art.
Reading the comments, now we know how Trump and Brexit, and why there’s a pro-Putin 5th column in some of the West. Lots of very, very stupid people in these comments who cannot read.
The AFTER IS THE TRUE ORIGINAL!!!! It is remarkable to me how many people who have commented either did not actually read the article or did not understand what they read, then broadcast their righteous ignorance for all to see. Explains a lot about the state of things in the U.S. these days.
Is it supposed to look shit? Did it originally?
Are most of us not understanding what the word restore means? that the before picture is the one that is painted over… she removed all the paint that was painted over the original and RESTORED it to what the painting should have been. The AFTER that most are complaining about IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL ARTIST PAINTED. Tell me you don’t have a clue about Victorian Era painting without telling me
It appears no one actually read the article. The overpainting (done after the original work was created) was removed and this IS the original painting. Articles are not picture books, guys. You have to read the words, too.
The amount of people who would rather the woman be ‘pretty’ than authentic is … depressing.
I agree…what you see now is the original painting…it had been painted over with another face. Does no one read the articles? They sure don’t teach much in schools these days apparently.
Good point! Its time we stop viewing history from the puritanical male gaze. No doubt people of her socio-economic level frequently had affairs, and certainly the men were no different.
It’s also interesting reading the commentary about how this woman’s face was ruined by representing her as she truly was. The comments tell us so much about our desire to whitewash history and to make ordinary women look like models. The purpose of a portrait was not to display a model but to display the actual person being painted.
That’s not a restoration.. That’s a different picture. Don’t call it a restoration. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read.
The “restorer” destroyed the painting. The chin, the hairline, the eyes, the cheeks and ears are all different. It is truly sad to see.
I don’t understand how all of you are so stupid. Did anybody read this article? The pretty face is the wrong one. It’s the overpainting.
You’re all so mad that she’s ugly now- that is the actual subject. The conservator didn’t change her face, she removed the basic and boring face that the victorians covered her up with .
What makes you think these people were all naturally gorgeous? Why would a fake painting be more appropriate? One of you commented you wouldn’t hang it in your house, why should you be able to hang something like this in your house? Why should you get to decide she’s too ugly now? Who who are all of you and why are you even half reading this article and bothering to reply. Pathetic, ignorant narrow minded people. Buy a print of the old one, and fake to your friends that you are so smart and know that this was the original painting. Then talk about how you know better than the Chief conservator at Carnegie. I’m sure they’ll believe you.
Hey Alisa, why don’t you open your eyes a little wider and read the article? Or did you only look at the pretty picture and then decide you have an opinion.
Doesn’t matter if the new face was prettier if it was painted over the original. It was bland and boring and could have been put on any painting of anyone. The original she restored it back to actually looks like a real person. Sorry she’s not pretty enough for you. Kind of sad all of you are just looking for a pretty face in these paintings and don’t care about how they originally meant to be represented
Well Anthony, I question your ability to read at all, since you totally missed the point of this article.
The pretty face you’re so fond of is wrong and was covering the restored face. The conservator didn’t just go in there and make her ugly for fun. She wanted to see the original intended portrait. Which is more important than the “pretty” Victorian commercial face that was painted over the original.
Why is everybody just looking at the pictures and then pretending that they read the article
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.
The original was the right hand side. Someone painted over her features to make her look softer and warmer 300 years later. There was nothing soft about Isabella d’Medici’s features. This restoration is perfect.
Haven been an art student, it looks like another person. Hairline has been moved upward about 3/4 of an inch. Everything that makes her look feminine has been removed. She looks like a peasant now. Hard not regal.
I TOTALLY agree! That’s trash, it’s so obvious
Lgbtq change it seems.. nonetheless it’s a trashed painting now
She is restoring it to the ORIGINAL. another person altered the original to look like the version on the right. The left is the true original.
It literally is another person. Read the article.
It reminds me of when high definition televisions came out. You suddenly could see all the details flattering or not on reporters. It looked so different then low resolution.
I did read the article. Yes it is a disgrace. Total remake. They may as well have set it on fire.
Some people are gullible.
You are making the assumption that the unrestored versions the original, and missing the point entirely of what restoration means. Read the article more carefully, the unrestored version was modified by an unrelated curator many years (hundreds?) after the original was painted. The unrestored version is fake. They restored the real version of the painting. It’s not “amateur” to produce realism, and the fact you think the glamorous version of beauty is the “real version” tells something of your prejudice and assumptions on what women should look like.
DK… that’s exactly what I was thinking. People don’t pay any attention to what is important, even when it’s pointed out to them with facts, but they still get an opinion and still get to vote. SMH
read it again. this is what the original looked like. someone else painted over the original and this is restoring it.
Literally saw this YouTube video 8 YEARS AGO.
Many readers are obviously confusing an idea of beauty with the the issue of being authentic! The before restoration is paint applied Over the Original! The Original Never was attractive by our standards. The Original was Not Even The Same Woman!!!Please, I AM an artist! The restoration was a different woman entirely!!! Please do ReRead the story.
I read the article. I understand that the original painting was of the ugly woman. I understand that somebody painted over that ugly mess and actually made a work of art worth hanging on the wall. Why anybody would seek to restore the original is beyond me. Many people throughout history have painted ugly things that are not worth saving or restoring. This horrendous “restoration” is just part of the pathetic attempt to redefine beauty standards. It’s not working. Please bring back the dainty woman.
Where do you get off judging other people’s standards of beauty? People have every right to judge the beauty of a thing. If they correctly identify some long dead Italian woman as a horribly ugly then who are you to question their truth. It seems you are the one being narrow minded here. The original was painted over because nobody wanted to look at it. If people enjoyed looking at it it would have remained original.
Just because a thing is old and original does not make it beautiful.
The original painting is the one on the right. It had been painted over and given the face on the left. The painting was restored to what it originally looked like.
I thought the same as they did upon seeing the pictures, reading the article changed my mind.
Clearly they haven’t read it
She really Rusty Tromboned it.
I get the idea but the altered painting is just as much a museum piece at this point in time.
And honestly to me it kind of feels like they just ruined a far superior piece of art to remake a different one.
Even the stuff that could just be age and wear like the yellowed metal bits, lighter background, and darker skin tone look better to me.
To such an extent I was thinking the restoration looked horrible before I even zoomed in and noticed the face is different.
I agree!
It’s amazing how many people have not read the article and yet comment so confidently wrong!
This comment section is a perfect representation of how abominably, confidently ignorant people have become. They read a title. Look at a picture. Assume they know everything about the situation. Make sure they don’t read anything that might alter their opinion. Make rude, erroneous, mind-bogglingly stupid statements. Rinse. Repeat.
The fact that so many would rather see the fake “pretty” woman over the actual portrait of the real woman is… Well, it’s not surprising either.
Brilliant job. Amazing restoration.
You hit the nail on the head. Her restorations are more her emotions than the original artist
Restored back to her inbred glory!
What’s ironic about your comment is the “paining over the the original” occurred about 200ish years ago. Baxter agreed with your sentiment and restored the painting to the original artwork created in the 1500’s. It helps to actually read, or at least skim, the article.
Let me just start by saying…
I AM an artist. I’m not sure why I’m telling you that — It really has nothing with what I’m about to say nor my ability to understand art related articles, and absolutely under no circumstances gives you any reason to trust my basic observation skills or intelligence but I saw other people say it and it looked cool — so I just wanted to try it out. I do feel better about myself now that I got that out of the way.
If you skip that first part it’s ok, art schmart, I know the comments are the real meat and potatoes in this crowd, which is I why I’m here — This has to be one of the most incredible comments sections I’ve ever read. Especially after reading the article (just in case it’s not clear: I looked at the words > my brain did some processing stuff > boom, magic > I knew what this shit was about.) However, I am not sure if I’m crying from laughing too hard because it’s hilarious or if I’m crying because it’s sad that there are so many people (like actual grown ups) walking around this earth that deserve to be laughed at.
What can be achieved with insults?! There are civilized ways of expressing ones views/opinions!
You obviously did not comprehend the article — the “prettier” face was painted ~over~ the original some 300 years later. The restoration artist only removed the “repaint” to show the original that was hiding beneath it. The restoration artist did not paint another new face.
Debra DuBose said: “It was so poorly done that it could possibly be of two different women. The forehead knows and mouth look nothing alike. Appalling to have done something to an iconic work of art.”
*sigh*
The orignal portrait of Isabella was PAINTED OVER with a generic Victorian FANTASY female face 300 years after the portrait was painted! What if someone painted a new pretty model face over Mona Lisa to fit the 2020s style of beauty. Would that be an iconic work of art? No, it would be VANDALISM!
Zascali said: “You hit the nail on the head. Her restorations are more her emotions than the original artist”
No, the before picture didn’t show the work of the original artist, because the portrait of Isabella had been painted over centuries later by someone else to fit the tastes of the Victorian age. It wasn’t a portrait of Isabella anymore, but of a generic fantasy woman. That layer was removed by the restorer, and the orignal face of Isabella restored, what the original artist painted.
Sorry, the before piece was better. That’s art that I know. It would be abhorrent if all beautiful works of art were refinished. I’d never visit another art gallery again.
Absolutely appalling! This is not even the same painting anymore! This “artist” just decided to make this actual historical person into someone else! You can’t even rightfully call this by the same name at this point! We have so many extremely talented artists in this world who hold the deepest respects for historical art and the importance of maintaining it in its original vision, and yet all of our most important works around the world are being dumped into the hands of “visionaries” with more “vision” than talent. Sad
What you ordered: left; what you received from wish.com: right
As many others have said, that was not restoration but ruination of a fine piece of art. The face is very different and not in a good way.
On the left you have a fine looking piece of art. On the right you have an AI generated rendition. Lol. I read the article, I understand what took place and all that jazz but man… in my subjective opinion, the before version looked better. Oh well,
No, the piece was ruined by the Victorian artist who painted a completely different woman on top of the face of the *original subject.*
The piece now looks like it did when it was first painted. Pretty? No. Neither was the subject, Isabella de Medici.
I liked it before. The cleaning to me ruined the peice. They are two different pictures now. One I like it’s calm and soothing. The before picture. The now pictures looks like someone turned on a flourence light bulb and destroyed an artist entire peice because of the two very different perception I can see and feel. Just my point of view. One very intriguing. The other not even worthy of bathroom art at the local subway sandwich shop. I would ask management to put up a replacement I would select for the goodwill. Bravo to sabotage of real art with your wash cloth and gasoline.🤮
I agree! I like the painting BEFORE she “restored”. The artist painted over it for a reason!
I totally agree. The woman in the original painting is beautiful. The after results is harsh and took her beauty and personality away. It’s like taking the Mona Lisa and changing her smile & distorting her face. The person that was in this painting is no more. Very sad indeed.
He turned a soft and pretty looking lady into a harsh looking Dragqueen.
It is amazing how a little cleaning can make the original face longer, thinner, and with a man brow. Incredible how a cleaning can make a pendant appear and the hand of the woman look larger than the original. Yes, it is quite astonishing how cleaning a painting can give a woman such masculine features. Wow, how the intentions from back then creep into today’s trend. Simply….unbelievable, how a masterpiece can be ruined and because of the social climate, it’s ok.
“The minute she saw the oil painting purported to be of Eleanor of Toledo… Baxter knew something wasn’t quite right. The face was too blandly pretty, “like a Victorian cookie tin box lid,” she says. Upon examining the back of the painting, she identified—thanks to a trusty Google search—the stamp of Francis Leedham, who worked at the National Portrait Gallery in London in the mid-1800s as a “reliner,” transferring paintings from a wood panel to canvas mount. The painstaking process involves scraping and sanding away the panel from back to front and then gluing the painted surface layer to a new canvas.”
There. I put the text here because clearly someone has to hold someone’s hand through reading. The BEFORE image was NOT the original painting. Someone painted a “prettier” lady over the original lady. Literally a scummy artist painted over the “ugly” lady. This wonderful restorationist SAVED this painting by putting the original “ugly” lady back. I point my finger and LAUGH at these “fellow” artist who claimed that this painting was ruined. SHAME.
R/whoosh
Took a work of art and ruined it. That person should be kept from “restoring” anything else cause they suck at it so bad color looked better before and looks like a completely different woman as the face was changed.
All the people saying that the woman appears “uglier” don’t support real art. You guys are the reason why real art gets destroyed. Art is a representation of expression and historical meaning. The “ugly lady” is the original painting!!!! The “pretty lady” was painted OVER the “ugly lady” and was restored to its former glory! Man, I’m glad you guys don’t read! We can see who actually appreciates REAL art and not what looks “pretty.”
@Blaze Bro didn’t even bother reading, congrats you’ve showed us that you don’t know how to read! 👏👏👏
I agree with you Nicola! People only care about a pretty face and not the history or real meaning of an art piece! People on here saying it’s “sad” that the painting got “ruined” when in reality it’s sad that people only care about how something looks rather than keeping the original.
The real question is why was this article published EIGHT YEARS after the original video with 3 million views was uploaded?
A little late to the draw. This is practically ancient history at this point.
Zed, thank you for the link!
Algernon said: “Absolutely appalling! This is not even the same painting anymore! This “artist” just decided to make this actual historical person into someone else!”
Again, it was a painter in the 1800s who painted a fantasy woman’s face on top of the portrait of Isabella de Medici, just to transform it to a “pretty Victorian woman”. That later paint was removed to reveal the original painting, the portrait of Isabella.
The “actual historical person” was restored by the restorer. The overpaint didn’t depict any historical person at all, but a woman that didn’t exist at all.
What if someone decided to paint over Mona Lisa with a sexy model alà 2023? Would that be right? Would you be appalled if a restorer restored that painting back to Mona Lisa? Why?
Darlene said: “I like the painting BEFORE she “restored”. The artist painted over it for a reason”
The original painting was overpainted 300 years later, by a Victorial artist, and the reason was probably to make it sell for more money because the new fantasy face looked more “pretty” in the Victorian eyes. So it wasn’t the original artist who repainted it, and he basically erased the portrait of Isabella while doing it. It wasn’t a portrait of her anymore.
Would you glue the face of some pretty Kardashian celebrity over the face of your great grandmother in a photo to make the portrait prettier? Would it still be a portrait of your grandmother?
If that’s her original features, I can see why the artist in the before wanted it changed
Not only do the misinformed in this comment section fail to read the article, they fail to read the plethora of comments before making their asinine conclusions. Who actually cares which portrait is ‘prettier’? What matters is that we get to see a piece of history after the restoration.
It is not right to berate the restorer and suggest it would be better to keep the version that had been painted over because of some silly notions that your taste in art and women trumps all. Historical paintings were not made with the intention to hang in your house, nor should they be used for that years later. They provide us a snapshot of that time period where cameras did no exist, where we can see a piece of the real woman and the real artist. The history of the paint-over is fascinating and I’m glad we have the ability to record both versions, but I’m pleased we get to see the original piece!
To all the people who see a picture and ignore the information, to all the idiots claiming to be artists and, worse, to those making this a political issue, shame on you.
You’re absolutely right! Thanks for pointing this out. It’s easy to get sucked into “tabloid”/sensationalized histories of people from.the past, and from the present too, and it’s a shame to have their lives be so one-dimensional. I wonder if we could find out more about Isabella.
Way to completely alter the painting. This isn’t a restoration. This is an abomination. Don’t bs me as though she merely restored what once was by removing layers. The hand is significantly thicker and the ear is an entirely different shape, to name only 2 of a great deal of prominent alterations. She ruined it utterly. What a sham.
What a horrible restoration! Did she remove the pretty final work and uncover an original concept that was never meant to be seen?? I want to cry!!
Age is beauty he totally changed leave something ALONE
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Thank God the guy who restored it got rid of that spooky stare. I’m guessing the guy who put on some of the lasagna coats noticed that spooky stare and averted her eyes to please his own likes. They’re both beautiful works of art.
couldn’t agree more. she says that it isn’t a conservator’s job to put themselves into the painting but… it’s exactly what she did. i found myself staring between the two for an embarrassingly long amount of time, trying to figure out how the hell it went so wrong!
my thoughts exactly. this conservator insists that it’s the job of the conservator to fix the painting, not inject yourself into it, but… that’s exactly what’s been done. i found myself looking between the two trying to figure out how the hell it went wrong… if you’re going to conserve a piece, conserve it. if you’re going to do an egregious amount of overpaint and just add details not original to the piece, make your own damn painting.
Carolyn said: “What a horrible restoration! Did she remove the pretty final work and uncover an original concept that was never meant to be seen?? I want to cry!!”
NO!! It was the final work of the painter that WAS PAINTED OVER — 300 YEARS LATER by another painter! The later painter DESTROYED the original by painting a fantasy Victorian face on top of the portrait of Isabella de Medici!
abacus wimberley said: “if you’re going to conserve a piece, conserve it. if you’re going to do an egregious amount of overpaint and just add details not original to the piece, make your own damn painting.”
Yes, so the conservator removed the extreme overpaint done by a bad victorian conservator and revealed the original painting, the portrait of Isabella de Medici.
If you think that’s unfair, the true unfairness is that she was murdered by her husband, shortly after the murder of her cousin Leonora, both by husbands, both with the approval of her brother, the head of the Medici family at the time. It is believed that her brother approved of the murders due to the rumors of adultery surrounding his sister and cousin. The aspect of her lovers is relevant because no matter if they were rumors or true, they are believed to have attributed to her death. With that being said, for the time that she lives, especially during her father’s lifetime, she had unprecedented control and power over for a woman of Florence. Despite the cruel end it would seem as if she enjoyed her life and lived mostly free from her husband’s oppression, and poor financial decisions.
It appears the restorer put herself into the painting.
The ear,the eyes looking in a different direction.
I like the dirty girl.
I don’t understand. Isabelle was the wife of Paolo Giordano Ordini, Duke Bracciano.
The early modern dramatist John Webster wrote à highly celebrated play entitled The White Devil. I saw the play when it was performed in the Globe Theatre. It was brilliant !
I mean Orsini.
The name id not Ordini but Orsini.
Wrong spelling
Did you read the article? The dainty pretty face was painted over the original. That work was removed to reveal the original work. It’s not ruined, it’s restored. If you don’t like the original work, don’t look at it.
How awful. How did her head get bigger? Please hit Ctrl Z and undo it.
Amen Although I do love a good bad girl 😉
This is a vandalism, a ruin of the priceless painting, a crime. All who commissioned this, supervised this, executed this are liable. Practice your talentless “restorations” with your own materials and not the formally priceless originals. The “restoration” is almost hateful, like the “restorer” killed the memory of the face of this girl. Shame on you. No amount of articles spinning this fluke in a positive light would ever help.
I completely agree with Rick. Her youth and humanity was taken away-replaced by a middle aged scrooge. I can’t believe the disrespect for the original artist’s rendition. The original is ruined
Idc if you think the woman was ugly in her time but this isn’t “restoring” they completely changed the face.
In my opinion that’s just terrible and they ruined it. I will never stand by someone who fixes someone’s art work dead or Alive like this.
And it being historic makes it even worse.
No one is gonna look at that painting now.
I think that she removed the painter’s final revision of his painting down to a previous painting. Not as beautiful. I don’t think the artist wanted that one to show. I feel like it was a mistake to do that. Very sad. I love the look of old world paintings.
Absolutely ruined a great painting. All patina removed, stripped of depth, color and dimension. Horrible!! Art conservator my ass!
Painting conservator here. And Rick is SO SO wrong. The conservator who worked on the portrait did exactly the right thing via the painting. Removing the old overpaint which was completely covering the original features. Basically, the Victorian era overpainting was equivalent of a current conservator repainting over an older painting and retouching with the features with an appealing face with the features of a Kim Kardasian, or similar beauty of the era. The Victorian face is an idealised version of a ‘beautiful woman’ from the Victorian perspective. It is NOT how a 15th or 16th century painting should look, nor does it represent a the features, or a portrait of an individual woman and how she was presented in 15th of 16th century. Take your 21st century blinkers off. Look at the original version and appreciate the nuance, features and incredible detail the conservator has uncovered and thank your lucky stars there are well trained conservators who can ‘see’ through the dross of the overpaint, and uncover the reality of the original version.
The second Victorian version is like a Pears soap portrait or Gibson girl and completely inappropriate to be on a panel painting portrait from 15/16th century. Well done Conservator! A fabulous job. Plaudits from a peer conservator.
Look in the mirror, sister…are YOUR eyes perfectly aligned? Most people’s are not. The most attractive people have asymmetrical facial features. Even you.
First… To Karen, regarding your problem with the eyes not being aligned… I mean did you ever stop and think that the actual woman’s eyes were not aligned on her face I mean I have one side of my face that is lower than the other side of my face my eyes are not aligned my ears are not aligned my smile is not aligned it’s not symmetrical I smile much bigger on one side of my face than the other side will so that’s probably why just saying also the look on her face to everyone that thinks she looks bitter and mugged up that’s probably her natural face that’s probably the way this woman looked when she was resting her face there is a thing called resting bitch face pardon my language that is just some people’s natural resting face when nothing is wrong and they are content they just look mad but they’re not so just things to think about.
And yes please everyone that thinks that this person destroyed the painting by taking the abomination off which yes it was prettier version but like just in magazines today the filters the airbrushing the photoshopping that is not what these people really look like in real life today they do that these people don’t look that good this woman didn’t look that good women and men of that time did not look as elegantly pretty and dainty as everyone thinks probably it’s a much harder life back then a much harder time and people’s faces are not always supermodel beautiful I find that to be more beautiful than all of the photoshops and all of the filters and all of the restorations realness actual beauty is what is not what is created if that makes sense anyway yes I know this is one big run on because I am using talk to text because I hate typing
“Doomed Party Girl”? Was it really necessary to the story to condescend her important impact on Florentine history?
I agree with you.
The person that did the re liner of wood to canvas did the changes to the original portrait. After rereading
article at that point understood.
No restoration artist would alter a face to this extent unless there was a solid reason. It’s such a privilege to do this type of work.
Another story where a woman dies attempting to live with the same freedom of men in her class. The tone if this article is clearly unsympathetic towards her. Lest we forget! Only men can apparently can have fun!
She was prettier in the before, her nose is longer, eyes have bags under them. She looks old and tired. Before, her looks fit her personality.
Shame
Totally agree with you.
That is the original painting… the previous face is an overpainting (a cover up) by another artist decades later. Abomination? That is her face painted while she was alive.