| Restoration Issues Authenticity of a Violin as -- Art, or Tool? RIN:378 Richard Brune: was on the Guild's (GAL) very first membership list in 1972. He's a founding member, a former Guild president and board member, the organizer of the 1975 Convention, a frequent author, and a lecturer at several past conventions. He is also a classic guitar maker and dealer. |
|
|
| Article: It is very common for fine old classical and flamenco guitars to assume distorted soundboard shapes, and rarely does this impact their musical function. Usually the distortion revolves around the eye of rotation which is the saddle point of contact for the strings, so the actions will remain constant, and there is no effect on the tone of the instrument. I have instruments in my personal collection that are well over 150 years old which show this distortion, yet still play and sound perfectly. I would not recommend a top replacement or rebracing the soundboard, both Draconian courses of action which would not only devalue the instrument, but also permanently change the original sound and performance as it is now. I'd like to comment on the larger issue your question raises. It's difficult to make hard-and-fast rules about how to approach a restoration question. Much depends on the instrument itself, the owner’s intentions and goals, and the integrity of the restorer. In a way, these issues are litmus tests for the knowledge and prevailing attitudes of the various subdivisions of the music world. Few museums would ever advocate restoring a 16th century rifle to shooting order in order to shoot it again, but some still advocate restoring musical instruments to playing condition for the purpose of playing and recording with them. Yet as we have seen through history, the restorers of past eras were total idiots and hacks, while those working today are well informed educated researchers... who eventually will no doubt be proven to have been hacks and idiots by future restorers. |
| On the other hand, the violin world currently values hot-rodded 18th century fiddles more highly than ones in pristine untouched original condition. The bottom line is, attitudes about value, musical utility, and primary function of a musical instrument (is it a tool or an icon?) are constantly in flux. The only certain thing is that you cannot be criticized for doing is nothing, and many museums now are adopting this approach, where conservation is their only function, and “restoration” is not even in their vocabulary. In a crass sense, this certainly benefits their strained budgets, and keeps at bay the snipes from ivory tower professors who will inevitably find fault with any attempt at restoration. Recently, the Italians decided to clean Michelangelo's David which caused a full blown war in the fine arts world between divided camps opining as to what kind and how much cleaning should be done. |
| Ultimately, the issues revolve around monetary value for all involved, and this really opens a can of worms, as there really is no logic beyond the rules of supply and demand to account for the disparity of values between ancient and modern musical instruments. Many old instruments carry values far beyond their intrinsic (replacement) value. The distinction between an instrument’s function as a tool and/or icon is nearly completely lost among those involved in this business, and yet, it is totally dependent upon the assignment of an identity, usually via a label, but sometimes via authentication of an “expert” in order to assign a value. If we imagine for a moment that all musical instruments were suddenly stripped of their identifications and assigned the authorship of “anonymous,” leaving them to be marketed solely for their musical utility, there would be an upheaval of the marketplace unprecedented in the fine arts world. The benefit to musicians would be enormous, as only a musician of a high caliber would be able to distinguish between a jewel and a clunker, and therefore demand for instruments would be limited only to those who actually need and use them. And the questions of restoration would only revolve around keeping a tool in top musical function, a no brainer for anyone experienced in making these tools. |
| Unfortunately, the musicians themselves have polluted the bath waters by insisting on instruments by certain authors as used by their teachers/idols/admired colleagues, and so on. Obviously, this situation has always been and will always be, but philosophically the distinction between tool and icon is not a function many have really considered, and so the confusion between these two concepts has lead to the conundrums we face (and our predecessors faced) in deciding what to do about any given restoration. How we respond represents our current cultural biases, but may not necessarily be kindly viewed in the future. Therefore, it is best to charge by the hour, as there will be little glory in this as time goes by. |