The Atlantic: When Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he did so, for the most part, using the light of the sun that streamed through the windows of the building. And for the past 500 years since then, viewers have admired the results of that work, for the most part, with the help of that same light source. It wasn’t until the 1980s that, concerned about solar radiation damaging the frescos' paint, Vatican officials blocked off the chapel's windows. In their place they installed a system of halogen light bulbs that emitted pigment-preserving, low-energy light.
14 comments:
I would think that artists and museum curators alike would resist the change to LED lighting. Ive heard the argument before that LED lighting isn't good for viewing artwork because of how narrow the range of wavelengths of light is, without light sources that emit a full spectrum of colors, some specific pigments wont show up like they would under sun light or incandescent. Although with the amount of money that the Vatican and Osram are putting into the project, I'm sure that the lighting designers thought about how to get the full spectrum of colors.
It seems that the lighting designers are putting a lot of thought into where and how these lights are going to be placed in order to best view the artwork. I think they have a unique opportunity to illuminate one of the greatest pieces of art in a way that could never have been imagined in the 1500s. They do have the opportunity to illuminate the work in a way that might be able to give viewers a more intense and up close view of the art. However, I think the most amazing thing about the ceiling of the sistine chapel is the context in which it was made. The lighting designers have to be careful to not destroy that original feeling that Michelangelo created.
This sounds like it could be a really good addition to the chapel. I hope they succeed with their efforts to get a good color balance. It will be a shame if they waste all that money on installing these LEDs and then to have it look terrible. I can understand their want for a non-damaging light. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is a beautiful piece of our history, and it would be a shame if it continued to fade.
Unfortunately, the pieces will continue to fade no matter what we do. It is a blessing that dust cannot easily collect on the surface because a lot of it is on the ceiling. There are many pieces of art that cannot be saved, or have already decayed past recognition. We cannot save all the art.
An alternate idea is that they should put up some scaffolding that will raise the audience closer to the ceiling so that the can see the art better. One of the concerns is that the viewers cannot see the detail, so just bring them closer.
LED ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!! Who knew the terminator machines being built in the basements of the CIA will be equipped with never end LED tape to illuminate 360 degrees and intimidate all of their victims.
It kool that they are taking the time and money to increase the enjoyment of the visitor and also preserve the art just a little bit better. The Sistine Chapel is most definitely somewhere I would love to visit and now I will be able to fully view all of the amazing paintings that are on the ceiling.
LED technology is crazy, it just seems to be everywhere and doing everything. They just need to come down in price a little bit more and I will put them in my house. I do like the LED just always everywhere, and just a little to expensive for me currently.
Light is actually a huge problem when it comes to artwork (painting usually) in museums. Light can cause the chemicals in paint to go bad causing the pigment to fade. It's not just light though! Oxygen is also an evil force that these great painting have to live with. Did you know that the painting of the last summer is destroying itself? Yeah... fun fact... There's more to it, I just don't know much about the chemicals and everything. Anyway, back to the article. I wonder what the lighting will look like. There's a big difference between looking like natural lighting and natural lighting! I understand why they blocked the windows, but I think having that natural light was part of the experience, so it's a little upsetting to hear. (I've never visited the Sistine Chapel but if I did, I probably would have ben disappointed because of that...) I hope it all works out, though, and that the LEDs do create a good illusion because that is a beauty that should be preserved and seen as it was intended to be.
This is such an interesting example of old and new coming together to create a beautiful blend. The trick is for the lights to enhance the chapel's natural beauty, not detract from it. It's difficult to find the balance between the historical and the modern, but it can be done. I think this will be a great addition to one of Michelangelo's great masterpieces.
Echoing Chris's comment, have LED manufacturer's brainwashed the world already? Although I understand the quality of light is improving in LED sources, they still do not emit the full spectrum of color, in which case some pigments will not look like they would if they were under natural sunlight. That being said, I suppose LED lighting is the best compromise between practicality and quality. It is clear Osram has put a lot of thought into the project, and I'm sure they will pick the best LED fixture for the job.
When I visited the Sistine Chapel a few years ago, I do remember it seeming pretty dark inside. I sat down on a bench on the side of the chapel and stared up, wondering what it was like for Michaelangelo to paint the piece. I do appreciate the technology and work these artists are putting into preserving the pigment of Michaelangelo's masterpiece. However, I can't help but wonder if the placement of these LEDs will take away from the experience of the artwork. When I visited the Sistine Chapel, one of the most remarkable things about it was how natural and serene the atmosphere seemed. Everyone in the chapel seemed to have the same sense of admiration, yet it was so quiet and holy. I hope the designers implementing these fixtures take this into account, and are careful to not disturb the natural essence of the most beautiful and magnificent pieces of art in the world.
This is incredible. I saw the Sistine Chapel this past year, and while it was beautiful, it was disappointing how difficult it was too see after seeing the digitally enhanced photos online. I imagine that it will be difficult to light the piece well while keeping the integrity of the ceiling intact, but if anyone can do it, it's probably people funded by the Vatican. If this kind of lighting can work in the Sistine Chapel, I look forward to see when this technology spreads to aid the consumption of art everywhere.
This is incredible. I saw the Sistine Chapel this past year, and while it was beautiful, it was disappointing how difficult it was too see after seeing the digitally enhanced photos online. I imagine that it will be difficult to light the piece well while keeping the integrity of the ceiling intact, but if anyone can do it, it's probably people funded by the Vatican. If this kind of lighting can work in the Sistine Chapel, I look forward to see when this technology spreads to aid the consumption of art everywhere.
(Sorry, this was me. I forgot to put my name)
I’m very excited to see if this produced the effect that they are looking for. I’m sure the Sistine Chapel isn’t the only venue that would benefit from this type of LED outfit, it just seems that the Vatican is the only organization that could afford it.
I think there’s about 1000 uses for this super soft super clean LED lighting. Simulating daylight or open windows on stage, or in museum displays. Sure, lighting designers have been doing this for years using lekos and R-SomeNumber, but this technology could really bring a new level of reality to simulated natural light.
On an arts appreciation level, I think it’s incredible that so much time and effort and money is being put into recreating natural light so that the art can be appreciated in the way that Michelangelo intended for it to be viewed.
This sounds like an interesting way to deal with a difficult problem. Still, I feel like we as a society should be able to figure out a way to preserve these priceless works of art while continuing to allow them to be displayed in the lighting for which they were intended - the sun. That being said, until that day I think carefully color mixed LED's are probably one of the best ways we could go about preserving the work while still showing off exactly what the artist intended.
I don't know how I feel about the use of LEDs on illuminating such iconic works. LEDs are a technology still in development, and though they are improving they still do a very poor job of replicating natural light. I can't say for certain that the LEDs would be a bad idea, but they might taint the way we see the work that was created using purely natural light. Wouldn't it be not only possible, but more practical for the vatican to cover the windows with some UV filter that protected the integrity of the paint without altering the visible spectrum? Maybe I'm being too skeptical, whatever works works, and I hope that this LED project the vatican has undertaken helps people appreciate Michelangelo's work.
Post a Comment