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. Records 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 anoints 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.
Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in 2023.
Related Content
How Art Conservators Restore Old Paintings & Revive Their Original Colors
The Art of Restoring a 400-Year-Old Painting: A Five-Minute Primer
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 author of Creative, Not Famous: The Small Potato Manifesto and Creative, Not Famous Activity Book.
Honestly, i think this restoration is a bit harsh. She looked much prettier before the old varnish was removed.
It’s changed her eyeline completely.
It is no longer the same portrait more then the varnish was removed, poor restoration job.
Obviously no one above me read the article 🙄 given that the face they removed in restoration was painted over the original face. But, I know sometimes you just want to look at the pictures and then fire off somw comments 🤡
I am really surprised by the previous comments. How did the commenters manage to miss the point so badly? Were the comments serious?
Briefly, the purpose of a restoration of a paintingis to remove the work of a later painter who changed the painting.reveal the work of the original painter
If Charles’ comment had come in a little earlier I would have saved myself some embarrassment. I had scrambled my comment and while trying to fix it hit the submit button and then couldn’t find how to delete it. No, I’m not really good at managing comments but I was annoyed by the first three commenters. I still think that had to be a prank. I’ll keep my next comment to myself as a penance for making such a mess out of that one! 🤐
I completely agree, Andy
I like the old one better. Please don’t restore any more
I a not sure that you understand the point, or have read the article.to restore is not to “make prettier”. It to restore it to the original painting the original artist painted before the years have distorted it. Pretty has nothing to do with it.
What’s the point of the restoration, if the painting looks worse as a result? Hope they didn’t spend too much time on that project. Just made the world an uglier place. Why do they think it’s so important to get back to the original?.
Maybe because its rude to cover up or paint over someone else’s work especially in jusy parts. I found something I painted at around 8 years old and got offended that my ex wanted to paint over it and do it better.
I, Josef- Peter, shall read articles prior to leaving comments on them from here on out!
Clearly I don’t understand how art restoration works, due to not reading the article.
The portait now is a totally different painting.The bone structure is different between the original. The restoration should be to lift up the dirt,but to always retain the character, stylization of the original.
The original portrait has been ruined. This was a poorly done restoration.
She should have given her a little hat with a flower.
Dickens these articles are voted on. 1Trillion for Selena & Simone.
Hi there,
This is the editor of Open Culture, and we’re just wondering if anyone can tell us how they found this article since it is getting a lot of visits right now.
Thanks very much,
Open Culture
It is baffling how many are missing the entire point of the restoration of this painting. The girl on the right was the real girl. She was the actual girl in history that literally sat and posed for the artist while he painted her. Another artist obviously did not approve of the way that poor girl looked and changed her entire face… into some fictional girl. Why change history? When I look at a portrait I want to see who the real person was! What did that party girl in the Victorian era actually look like… I want it to remain historical and real. I don’t want a fake, fictional person. There is no point to that, and it ruins everything.
Oh, Helen Keller Can Tell The Difference Between Before & After…
There’s Two Separate Paintings.
Don’t Piss On My Shoe And Tell Me It’s Raining Outside.
Catherine De Medici, Queen Isabella Of Spain… Italian Chefs Taught The French How To Cook, French Thought Tomatoes Were Poisonous Hence Tomatoes Thrown At Those About To Be Beheaded…
Please Don’t Finger Fuck Up Anymore Historical Art Masterpieces If You Yourself Don’t Flick Your Bean On Friday.
HIGH🤟FIVE!💦💦
TIZZLE~TIZZLE 🍷😎⚘️👍👍
This is a desecration. She used to be cute. I don’t know if he was thinking about his ugly mother or what happened, but someone needs to hit CTRL‑Z.
It just appeared in my feed. I watched the video. I found the conservator’s restoration to be fascinating. I am a painter so I see many art related videos and articles.
Looks more like another attempt to change history. “Well it’s 2025,time to switch everyone’s genders” Took a beautiful painting and reduced it to a they/them. Nice work🙄
Face is completely different! Eyebrow line and shadow… lips and nose are different. Looks like 2 different ppl. Sadly ruined this piece of history.…
You Trumper dipshit. She RESTORED it. Back to what the original artist painted. Back to what the woman ACTUALLY looked like. I realize reading, reasoning, and ratonal thought are difficult for your kind, but do try sweet pea.
It’s misogyny. No interest in seeing her if she doesn’t appease their eyes. And def no interest in learning about the piece. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a few had sexual fantasies about her when visiting 5 finger Rosie. Oh lovely misogyny. Surprised no one commented on her rack yet.
In response to Open Culture Editor- I found this page on my Google feed, with caption calling her an ill-fated party girl or something to that effect. So it was more the click-bait-ish caption rather than art restoration info that piqued my interest. Nice painting, restoration, article AND comments section!
I also saw this in my Google feed (my interests are food, travel, arts and culture). You swipe right on the Android home page to get a scrollable feed of random Internet stuff Google thinks you’ll find into based on all it knows about your browsing and internet habits. I clicked because learning the secret of who the painting was really for/about and seeing the legitimate source (a quality publication) implied this article would be worth reading. And it was!
These two women do not look alike .
The former one is a normal looking pretty lady with soft lines .
The person who restored the painting depicted her as if she had hyperthyroidism with popped eyes 👀
Are you sure this is not fake
A nice pair of Oakleys would have made her a total horse of a different color.
The girl in the BEFORE version was prettier. The AFTER version makes her look more “Hapsburg”. Whichever is the more accurate depiction if the real person we will never know.
She purposely or subconsciously transformed a classic beauty, as was also painted by other, more talented artists during her own lifetime (Check her painting on wikipedia), into a dog. That’s not restoration, that’s destruction with a tinge of female jealousy.
And to the naysayers, if time and yellowing of age turned ugly women into classic beauties, no woman on earth would ever wash her own face.
Wait so he restored it? More like He changed it!!!
So the gray reveals layers of stuff put there by the original artist. I doubt anyone ever had the audacity to restore paintings until us.
So you take away the layers to change the characteristics of the subject to what you want instead of the original artist. You freaking ruined it by making it something that isn’t it anymore!!
Idiocy it’s total Idiocy!!
I meant xray not gray my apologies
It was in my Google suggested articles. I follow a painting restorer on IG so maybe that’s how it was suggested to me.
This!
Looks horrible after the “restoration.” It’s a totally different painting.
Well done! If people understood the work put into repairing, restoring original art they would have better appreciation. It is important we see what was supposed to be there and, know the why then to make it up as we go along for our wants and, have to relearn what should have been and, guess the why.
We may never know the truth without artists like yourself. Brava.
we actually will :) restoration artists can see past the layers of paint that covered the original. it also helps when the model was rich and had other paintings to reference for the face. ones that weren’t destroyed by a rando Victorian revisionist. he covered her with his own time periods beauty standards so we know she DIDN’T look like that. it’s basically the same as someone today taking the portrait on the right, and deciding she *needs* lip fillers, fake lashes and a bbl. to each their own, but the restoration artists job was to show us the og face before the removable layers of paint were caked on. if you like Victorian era art more then the 16th century style and that’s ok! but the original painting wasn’t made to look like that.
Gracious these comments are daft. Almost every single one has missed the point that an artist in the 19th century PAINTED OVER an original done in the 16th century. They restored the 16th century original. It doesn’t matter if you think the 19th century version was prettier, it’s still not the original or what the subject actually looked like. It is, indeed, restored.
calling a 16th century woman a they/them cuz our beauty standards have changed over the past 400 years is just pathetic slug brain rot and a massive you problem. you wouldn’t be able to recognize a real natural woman if one punched you in the face.
it really is comments like this that keep my sane, thank you for having reading comprehension. seriously, thank you.
Hi, this articlepopped up on my Google “Discover “ feed.
I hope that helps!
This was recommend to me on my Google phone browser, you see a few articles and news on the homepage and this one was among them.
It’s really cool anytime they find a cover up.. but it also sucks. I hate it when they restore it like this. There is a reason it was changed.. the cover up is part of its history.. there is a story behind it..(lol literally) we might not know what that story is.. but its fascinating. Its fun staring at them.. to imagine why it was changed.. maybe that’s just me..but I would prefer they add its xray next to the painting.. or even have a replica made for a side by side. Still super cool.
There is a story behind cover up. I mean.. technically the updated version could still be the real woman.. lol. vanity has always been a issue with women. She could have seen that original and she said hellllll no.. absolutely not.. fix it and fix it now.. this is their filter moment for that timeframe. I understand why they do this.. but I don’t agree with it. I’d prefer a replica be made.
Only a liberal could turn a simple comment into a political statement. Get off the TDS Kool-Aid, Sweet pea, and grow up.
I thought similar too until I read the article. Now I can see beauty in the original rendering vs. the 1800’s “photoshopped” pretty girl version applied over the top. Totally can picture her as a party girl. Sad way to end, and glad they left the urn in her hands. Great article!
The “restored” face has a completely different look! Not impressed!
Not the same painting!!
Why remove the new paint job? Is that not as important as the original, at this point? It sure looked better before… She looked beautiful now. She look bland. Leave art alone if it’s old!
LOL at all these comments.I was an art history major in college. Read the article fully. Reading comprehension is important. The restorer did an exceptional job, both on the painting and philosophically. An art restorer’s job is to return a work of art to its original state or as close to it as possible. This was her job. This is what she did. The colors were restored. The face was restored. Now the painting is not a complete paint-over. Important: it now shows the original artist’s intent. This is what art history is about. We need to respect the intent of the artist, which the restorer did beautifully.
This was in my “Google cards” for some reason and the before and after caught my eye because they were so different.
The headline does not mention that it was previously painted over or “uncovering the original” so it seems like one of the botched restorations where they completely repaint the face.…until you actually read the article, which it seems many people did not LOL
That “Girl” is a Dude! They transgendered their children back then too. It’s part of their religion. Coming out parties, gloves and white makeup sure helped disguise the manly features.
I agree. The pre-restored version is better.
The original painting was an “original” portrait of a lady.
The new restoration not only changed the emotional perception of the subject, mutating the general feeling of this art piece, but also literally altering the physical look of the noble woman.
The new experience of the painting is now a work of deception!
Who did it?
It’s featured in my google feed. Interesting how they even had “filters” centuries ago. 😝
Agree
Why do women put on pounds of makeup over their face? Thats ok but not on a painting? Maybe she, like almost everyone women on this planet, was embarrassed by how they naturally look and wanted to touch up her ugly parts?
Thank you for sharing your response. People should READ the article before making foolish and incorrect statements. Yes,this is two different women!
It was pushed to me in my Google Newsfeed. This may just be an example of a random story “bubbling up” as it aquires more clicks.
I’m not a Trumper dipshit and even I’m not sure she did exactly what she claims for all we know that’s what she wants us all to believe but in reality it’s quite opposite and she took some liberties of her own with what she claims is nothing but a restoration! Unless there’s some video or pictures of the whole process and any of us actually got to watch her fully restore it truly all we can do is take her word for it which nowadays doesn’t mean much!
I found it in the Google news feed. Pretty sure most of these readers your seeing aren’t your typical audience, though maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem like a majority of the people here even read the article, and if they did, don’t seem to know what the word restoration means.
Has anyone seen any of the rest of the Medici Family? They were not attractive by today’s standards. Look into the Hapsburgs too. They RESTORED the ORIGINAL painting (the one on the right). What later people did was the equivalent of painting over the Mona Lisa to give her eyebrows and a big smile because it would “look better”. The people desecrated someone’s work and it’s been restored back. Stop being so harsh. You don’t have to like the result, that’s a “you problem”. Kudos to the restorer for the time and patience put into this piece.
Hey, I came by way of googles news feed. Normally I only get articles about physics, math or technology but never art. I was looking at facts on Estonia which had its airspace breached by Russian fighters which caused Italian 35s to respond. Italian planes and Italian paintings, who know might be enough for googles algos.
What is with these comments? The original painting from the 16th century was painted over by an artist around 300 years after the original was painted.
It was now just restored to what it originally looked like. This was a fabulous restoration. It’s shocking how many of you can’t seem to read. What’s the point of commenting if you haven’t read the article?
Bravo! Beautiful job!!!
The article never says in plain words that three have was removed.
It has 8 paragraphs about the painter and the subject, one paragraph about a recliner job, and one sentence about scraping off Victorian paint.
At no point does the article tell us that a new face was painted over. It also ends by telling us the restoration added an urn that was never part of the painting.
At best it is lightly implied that the “Before” appearance was actually an inaccurate previous restoration job
Whenever I open a new tab in Google it has suggestions for me, this was one of the articles.
Yup, exactly the same for me.
They aren’t the same. The first has a demure sweet rosy soft face with healthy feminine features, slenderer than “after” canvas which appears very Habsburg in the face length and all.🤔 You know, the inbreeding caused the prominent German family offspring to bear down syndrome features, protruding slack jaw-line, slight lazy yet bugged eyes, lack-less luster of skin tone. You see it! It’s completely another woman. 🤷🏽
This subject popped up in my feed. Even though it’s way out of my algorithm. However, my latest grandmother was a (not famously known) artist. I inherited 2 of them. Before I inherited one of them, I cleaned up (restored) one piece in particular. Now I’m not an expert or licensed restorer. All I did was use a damp cloth, using only luke warmed water. Cleaning off the dirt, dust, smoke, etc. It didn’t fade the paint or come off. It did brighten up yo its original colors. So what “solutions” or “chemicals” are you using to “restore” paintings? I’m having mixed feelings about this whole article. I do, myself, enjoy the “so-called” non restoration painting better than the “original”. Personally I think “professional” or not, a person would still be able to tell if it had been altered or not. My opinion, I see it as 2 totally different paintings. Just saying.…
Have you ever considered that perhaps the second painter was called in to FIX the botched original portrait? I would prefer that no restoration be done to the adjusted painting on the left. It is/was beautiful. I have done some portraits for families who were dissatisfied with the original effort by another painter. Maybe more concern should be given to the importance of the original adjustments to the painting by those who chose to do them (the original commissioner?) than seeing the horrid job of the original painer, regardless of his historical importance.
It doesn’t even look like the same person. The new painting: the nose is longer, the head is longer, the hairline is more receding, the hand is fatter, the eyes are bigger. That’s not a restoration that’s an entirely new painting. What is that thing that the new painting is holding? Completely added an object. Seriously, ” no”.
I, too was prepared to comment like the initial comments above, thinking she was prettier in the “original.” But I learned something about restoration. The more I read about it, the more I discovered that truly original paintings have often been compromised. In many cases, the painting did not carry the prestige it does now, so tampering with it was not sacrilegious. A contemporary might have felt Mona Lisa needed a bigger smile and gave her one. To do so not, due to the significance and value of the painting would be criminal. Isabella is, indeed less attractive in the restoration, but that’s apparently what she looked like.
Then again, I may be totally incorrect.
Google news bar when I swipe left on my phone.
To be fair, an article’s title is supposed to con ey critical information. Maybe something like “An Art Conservator Removes Defacement of Famous Painting of the Doomed Party Girl Isabella de’ Medici: Before and After”
Funny when a restoration revives uglier and worse art than the apparent secret painter that painted over this who isn’t the artist.…?
The whole deal is silly but yea, maybe leave it how it was. No one has an issue w the original (not actually original apparently but the art world is full of crap so🤷)
This appeared in my Google pushed feed for the day. Not 100% sure why. I do read some design and architecture content, but mostly science and nature.
If I saw the old painting, and they were trying to tell me that was a 16th century painting of a Medici woman, I’d laugh. It used to look obviously fake, more like a 19th century painting, more British or French. This restoration makes for a more realistic, insightful, ultimately more enjoyable work, really impressive work.
Not only does she look like a different person, but she looks like she’s from a different part of the world. She looks like Queen Elizabeth I. Is that what you were going for?
No, I think you’re missing an important detail. The image that’s labeled as “before” is not the original artist’s painting. It’s the painting after a different “restoration artist” had come in and changed the actual painting. What the restoration expert here did was remove the layers that the previous restoration artist had added, which had fundamentally changed the portrait, and made it more true to what the original artist had actually painted.
Y’all just sound mad that her actual face isn’t as pretty as the fake face that was painted over her, likely done because they found her a little too ugly, too. But that’s not really the point of a portrait, is it?
For me, it came up as a suggested article in my Google news feed app.
Uh… You failed. That desaturated garbage shows us more of your need to see an optometrist than anything. AND you totally changed her facial expression! This is what happens when idiots think they’re smart.
The sheer number of outraged comments here is the definite proof of what is wrong with the society in this era of social media exposure. Monkey sees shiny object, monkey thinks it must be gold. Does anyone actually read any longer?!
hey there OC! this article showed up in the news feed on my Google Fi Pixel. (I clicked through because I had the same reaction as most commenters, good thing I decided to read before writing…)
It takes a talented, diversely educated woman to unfurl the history of other woman. Love it thank you.
Agree
Great Article, very informative on both the restoration process and the subject of the portrait. The comment section may be the place to look for a sequel to revive a
READ THE ARTICLE OR DON’T COMMENT.
The finished painting is actually EXACTLY like the ‘original’, the true original, before it was painted over by another artist in the 1800’s. They didn’t give her new features, they removed the fuzzy filter that was painted over her actual facial features.
You are literally the person you think you’re complaining about, idiot that thinks he’s smart. Read the fucking article. The restorer didn’t change her expression, she restored the subjects original expression after it was painted over by the second artist. My God.
Maybe the subject requested it be improved. No one knows why or who made the initial modification as far as I can tell. It did LOOK better before the restoration. Clearly restoration is not the same as preservation.
The after looks terrible.
This post is garbage… There’s no reference to what the model actually looks like at all… So people have literally no idea what it’s supposed to look like or what it should like… Just reading this was a waste of time for me. The restoration looks awful to me in comparison to what it was… Sometimes the beauty of the art should stay with the art painted not depend on the models beauty… Meaning she’s not that attractive if this is the restoration… Moreover… I’d appreciate a playboy magazine more than this… Which is exactly my point… The art is supposed to be attractive and so should the model and in most ideal cases look even more attractive… Not less. This is the art of ugliness revered… It’s like saying Ben Affleck was too good looking to play batman because less face it… The original, Michael Keaton wasn’t the greatest pick… I’d argue that Michael isn’t good enough looking but he’s still a great actor… Then they did a restoration that Robert Pattenson brought forth from it… Mr. 47. Every batman actor is a great actor, so much so that I think it’s a 5 way tie… No one wants to see Michael Keaton star as batman again… That’s basically what I’m saying. He was great as the Vulture though also… I’m being truthful and honest, not sarcastic also… Great.. it’s restored to it’s natural likeness and ugliness that resembles the original model (supposedly… Again NOONE HERE HAS A REFERENCE TO…) AND AGAIN… THIS POST WAS NONSENSE WITHOUT THAT REFERENCE NOT BEING SHOWN!
I agree 💯;;;
She restored it to the painting if the original artist!!! The restoration is the real girl. It would help if all the ones who loved the fake cute girl would actually read the article or watch the movie of the restoration. She did an amazing job in restoring the painting to its original state.
If the latest rendition of the painting of Isabella de Medici is a more accurate physical depiction of what this young woman actually looked like, then it should be accepted as such.
One should want to have a more accurate physical depiction of this historical figure rather than a fairy tale rendition.
I completely agree!!
I agree!!
No. Just no. This is a disgrace and embarrassing as an artist. I don’t see a cleaning/restoration job, i see someone’s over done ego on display. Sad
Loved this feature. I need to find an art conservator for my painting. As a retired museum professional, I realize the importance of finding someone who is experienced.
Could you make recommendations.
Thank you.
Lb******@***il.com
201–921-4158
History has been erased and rewritten. This is merely Trojan horse censorship
Right? Did they not read it? They missed a fascinating story!!
Sounds like the commenter prefers the Mar A Lago face that was painted over the original portrait.
Totally agree with you. My mother was an antique dealer in the Frech Quarter of New Orleans and a member of the International Appraisers Society. I want art and antiques as they were intended by the artist. Here in New Orleans, we have people whose careers are the restoration of old art, antiques and old buildings. It’s pains taking work and expensive but worth it for the results.
The article was under the Google search engine on my phone. Hope this helps :)
Let’s all flick our bean! 💧
Let us flick each other’s bean!💧
The more you mess with a painting and so on it really will change it in the next 1000 years think of it!!
I while heartedly agree!!! I love seeing the TRUE image of people in the past. Not some made-up “Disney version” that is picture perfect! The restoration is incredible!! And I for one am seriously impressed at the process of getting a painting restored, just amazing
I found it in my Google list of random stories. Pixel phone thing, not sure if other Androids do something similar. I find cultural and art stories interesting.
The issue is the face changed from the original artist. The fact that the original artist’s work has been edited. I don’t think any artist would be cool with someone CHANGING their work. There is a difference between color correcting aging paint back to its original intent — bringing it all back to its original glory, and editing according to what the next person felt it Should look like. This is an issue of altering a historical piece of art. The restorer should have just created his/her own interpretation all together rather than change the og.
The original painting was restored. The one on the right was painted over in the 19th century to look like it did on the left. She took off that layer of paint to reveal the original. Read the article, please. If that 19th century painter wanted to paint a different girl, he should have made his own painting instead of ruining the original.
Agreed….restoration didn’t do Isabella justice.
I completely agree that she looked better before. They probably didn’t know that they were taking off subtle layers which made it an amazing painting.
EXACTLY.
It’s not a good reatortion. The clothing,lace,material, pearls, hair, all poorly done.Tgen the face, rhe skin and tone quite ugly abd harsh.Bone structure totally different,with elongated jawline, pointy and not smooth.It’s to redo an original person’s look who is long gone and likely never depicted realistically in this painting (lucky for her).
Say what you will about people complaining about the downgraded looks of rhe “restored”, there is no excuse to flub the silks,laces,ornaments, hair, skin tones. Then to add that urn! Ready to again wash feet? You hadn’t done enough damage already?
It wasn’t restored, it was altered.
The restoration messed up all of her facial features. She looks less beautiful with a harsher nose and a different mouth. Her eyes are different as well. Very sad.
As an actual artist, I’d be furious and be rolling around in my grave if someone took one of my pieces and destroyed it like this person did in a extremely failed attempt at restoration. They made her look horrible, she looked better before. They changed her entire face shape and expression. They took something attractive and soft and made it harsh and ugly. I’d fire this so called restoration person and tell them they need to find a different career path. They clearly have no business touching a canvas.
There was some misinformation a while ago around this piece. Some clickbait article showed the difference with no context and ‘the internet’ got angry at the conservator.
It is because restoring the artists true work instead of a coverup is more revealing to the historical context then trying to make the world ‘prettier’. Conservators are meant to conserve history, not reinterpret it.
The purpose of all art and of all women is not to be attractive to you. I’m sorry that you came across an article that had too many words for you to read. In the future I suggest keeping your opinions to yourself until you actually understand the context in which you are speaking…
This article is the perfect example of the death of media literacy. People used to be forced to read to be able to uphold conversation in social settings, now they just read titles and pictures… I bet I could guess the political affiliation of all those who left hate comments for the conservator and their restoration…
Yes he restored took more than liberty in repainting this portrait. Honestly looks as though damage was done before “restoring”.
Yes he restored took more than liberty in repainting this portrait. Honestly looks as though damage was done before “restoring”. The perspective angle of the face has been changed as well as adding to the hand.
Read the fucking article. Are you illiterate? The girl on the right IS the ORIGINAL painting. The one on the left was painted many many years later by a different artist. You must be stupid.
I guess none of you idiots can read. How ignorant and embarrassing for you. The painting on the left is NOT THE ORIGINAL PAINTING. Someone painted over it in a different century, a different artist, and changed the woman’s features. The woman that restored it REMOVED the alteration and it is now again the original painting. Why even click on something if you aren’t capable of reading a few paragraphs?
Wrong. Try reading the article if you are capable and have more than a 2nd grade education.
Another person who can’t read. Get off the Internet if you can’t be bothered to read a few paragraphs of the corresponding article. Stick with childrens picture books. The painting on the left isn’t the original. But illiterates wouldn’t know that would you? The painting on the right is the original woman. The one on the left is fake. She was not real. Painted over by another artist in the 1800s. Your comment is embarrassing.
Your comment is an embarrassment. You either didn’t or couldn’t read. The painting on the left was not original. A completely different woman was painted over by a different artist in the 1800s. The painting on the right has been restored to the original painting as it was painted in the 1500s. The state of peoples intelligence now is what is sad. 90% of the people leaving completely ignorant comments did not read a single word of the article.
Good one Molly! I can’t believe that 90% of these people are too stupid to read… Oh wait, actually I can. And it was a fascinating article about a fascinating person. How interesting that a wealthy mobile from the 1500s loved his daughter so much he allowed her to do as she pleased and protected her from any harm. Of course after her father died her husband wasted no time in killing her for doing the same thing he was doing. Unfortunately her brother was a man of his time.
Hahaaa — this is the best comment …love it!!
Absolutely terrible. What gives them the right to change and ruin the most important part. Should be fired and never be allowed near another artist’s work. Disgusting.
It’s pushed into my Google feed.
It looks awful and almost cartoon-ish. They changed the eye position, the nose, the jaw line. The background was taken out. Shadows and the warmth disappeared. Just a pale white cartoon. They didn’t just take the varnish off a painter seals their work with, they “repainted ” it in a vile and unprofessional way.
By the way Jess. I don’t give a damn about what you read, the criticism i am giving is based on the painting as it stood before what it became on the right. So before you throw a fit like you have done all over this article comments…this comment isn’t based ok n your topic, so move on.
I agree. The “after” looks like a totally different painting. And yes, not nearly as pretty as the original. Computer generated and poorly done.
She absolutely DESTROYED this painting!! It’s God awful and completely changed. She needs to find a new career.
Why not keep it as it is now and create a replica of the x‑ray to recreate the Medici underneath both have value erasing one to have the other seems a poor choice
I feel that those who wish to leave a comment should be first quizzed as to determine the level of knowledge pertaining to the objective of the article or the footage thus to weed out the words which serve only to diminish the overall intellectual capacity of society and the community sharing these exposures. The woman who performed the restoration was keen to stay on point of the purpose for ALL restorations, even going as far as to word by word explain such at the end. Anyone making hideous suggestions such as a “little hat with a flower” or making critical, nay cruel commentary in reference to the ORIGINAL physical appearance and bone structure of the handsome woman simply because she no longer resembles the falsely presented dainty delicate smiling likely publicly fearful bafoon of a woman with no structural integrity and with teensy little useless fluttery fingers and palms rather than the robust and confident structurally sound handsome woman who need not be that tiny little waif of a thing the previous molester had committed against her for the narrow minded undeserving community I feel should have to pay a sum to the industry for the privilege of speaking that others will have to be subjected to and thus suffer far more than they claim the painting has at the the talented tip of the most recent honourable restorators paint brush.…..great restoration job, kudos to your determination to stay true to the original life of the subject.
100 percent agreed. More feminine in the un-restored. The forehead is COMPLETELY different. The restored version has a much higher hairline. The mouth was prettier in the original. The chin looks more masculine in the restored version. The wrist isn’t as delicate looking, neither are her cheeks. In restoring, details should never be changed. Wow. Just wow.
I agree…she AGED her unfavorably…it doesn’t even look like the same person anymore😞
I completely agree. The face on the the original is feminine. The rework is very masculine. The light is also softer on the original. Sorry but I do not care for it. I think you should have left it alone. The artist soul is gone. It has been replaced.
She removed the face that the original artist was happy with, and instead repainted her face over the old one he had covered. How silly. Her face before the restoration was softer, more youthful, kinder. Her restored face is hard, harsh, too high a forehead, her eyes are not symmetrical. She does not look approachable, and I think the original artist is rolling over in his grave at this portrait. It’s been ruined. I’ve done portraits where the face looks off, and I’ll wait for it to dry, sand it down, and repaint it. If several hundred years from now, a conservator decided to completely remove the face and paint over the old one, I’d be horrified. This painting is no longer that of the original artist. Sadly.
I had it suggested via the Google suggestions.
The eyes are now not aligned and they were before. How does that happen?
Dude original face or not they should of left that face ALONE! Her forehead is extended with a bump on it, eyes puffed up, bigger nose, slight smile GONE! Now she looks more like a Hapsberg (I know that’s probably spelled wrong) but if you don’t know how they look you need to check that out. You know there’s a saying if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. This is a situation where that totally applies.
She went from a forehead to fivehead. Was their intention to restore a receding hairline?!
It was featured in the front of the Google page of the Google app.
The subjects whole fact is different. You didn’t resist anything. Her entire face shape is different. You ruined the painting
So fyi other than the dumba$$ ppl who went off the rails with their propaganda & anti christ driven input.
So I think it’s important to remember that this is only about art today. The painting was not commissioned as art or painted as art. The painting was commissioned as a portrait, a way to make a memory in a time before cameras existed. The purpose was to capture the likeness of the Model not impress ppl who have no clue What they are talking about 700 years later.
For the sake of anymore ignorant comments, think of it this way (solely based on the article and what the model actually looked like) the scenario is like you taking a selfie and using 25 different filters to make yourself look better & then in the future someone uses a tool that removes your filters & shows you as you really looked and then that was shared across the internet and people who had no clue their head from a donkey decided they should comment their mostly dumb thoughts about what you really look like.
(If you have 2 brain cells, you took a quick Google and found more portraits of her, while she doesn’t look identical to either version its safe to say the restored look is closer to what she looked like than the other.
I agree with you! This painting is so much more beautiful before the so-called restoration. The ‘after’ makes her look so much older and not attractive at all!
El curador dañó la obra, la original no se parece en nada a su versión restaurada,parecen pinturas de tiempos diferentes. Al alterar el color y técnica en la piel se perdió demasiado.
Yes…but what about the painting that was the first cover up? That one the she was pretty and the recent restoration piece is hideous to look at. The artist who did that cover up (the 300yrs later) did the cover up for a reason. What do you think the model in the portrait would prefer? Can’t the restoration be on a whole new canvas preserving both?
The shallow comments about the beauty of the subject, or lack of, are dense, at best. You do understand that the real lady was not a conventional beauty by any measure. This is a historical painting and was restored to the original way it would have looked. For those of you who just want a pretty picture to look at,while ignoring the historical significance, this venue is not for you.