Time Is Running Out!

Back to school is almost here.
Ensure your class doesn’t miss a single issue!


Start your FREE TRIAL

Munch with a few friends in one of the artist’s outdoor studios in 1910.
Close Caption
Frøken Henriette Homanns Legat (Berg-Kragerø Museum)
The bird droppings that drip down this work have caused damage to the paint.
Edvard Munch, From Jeløya, 1913–15. Oil on canvas, 37x36.42in. (100x92.5cm). Munch Museum, Oslo. ©Munch Museum.
Save the Stains?
Years of exposure to the elements is putting Munch’s paintings at risk

Late in the 19th century, many artists brought their easels outdoors in an attempt to paint natural light. Edvard Munch even built several outdoor studios. There, he created hundreds of paintings—some of which he left outside for years at a time. Many of these works have begun to deteriorate, or break down, because of this exposure to the elements. Conservators now debate whether the artworks should be restored or left in their natural—but damaged—state.

When exposed to sunlight, pollution, and extreme changes in moisture and temperature, paint becomes brittle and unstable. The paint is cracking and chipping off of some of Munch’s canvases. Water stains, mold, dirt—and even bird droppings—are also harming the works.

Many art experts believe restoration is needed. They say this will protect Munch’s works from further damage and return them to a state closer to what they were when the artist was alive.

Others wonder if restoring the paintings would affect the works’ authenticity. Traditional conservation methods, such as adding glossy varnish to preserve paint layers, could alter the works’ matte finish. They also argue that a work of art is a historical document. They feel the damage to Munch’s paintings tells a story about how the artist created and handled his works.

So far, conservators have adopted a policy of “minimal intervention,” keeping the paintings as close to their current state as possible. What do you think: Should naturally occurring damage to paintings be fixed?

1. Describe how Munch’s paintings became damaged.
2. What arguments do conservators give for leaving the paintings as they are? For restoring them?
3. Should Munch’s paintings be restored? Why or why not?

1. When his paintings reached the exposure of the outdoors,the paint cracked and chipped off. 2. People wonder if restoring the paintings would affect the works authenticity. They also argued that a painting is a work of a hsitrical document. 3. Yes, they should so the paintings don't get more damaged then what they already are.
Posted by: Taylor S. | September 26, 2017 at 8:23 PM
I think that if an artwork is damaged it should not be restored. I think this because it is like taking someone elses artwork and changing it. Also even if the artwork has been damaged,not restoring llows the painting to keep its historical value.
Posted by: Aidan C. | October 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM
They should not preserve the painting because then it would not be his own painting if someone else fixed it.
Posted by: Dayton B. | October 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM
I think that you should not restore it because if you do it will take away the original from edvard munch.
Posted by: Josh M. | October 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM
I don't think the paintings should be restored because all of the emotion and thought is going to be wrewened by some people who are going to jut trace over the artwork with little or no intention of emotion or meaning at all.
Posted by: Ciara W. | October 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM
You shouldn't restore it because the artwork wouldn't be his any more and the stains make it look more like its outside
Posted by: Elijah B. | October 23, 2017 at 4:36 PM
You should restore it because is a part of ancient past history
Posted by: Jude S. | December 4, 2017 at 4:55 PM

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated by Scholastic Editors. Your comments will not appear until they are approved by the Editors.
Enter your first name and the first initial of your last name only :
Enter comments here: