Presentation by Giovanni Urbani
(Director of the Central Institute for Restoration)

History of art magazines usually only give space to conservation problems if the subject is restoration for "recovery" or "rediscovery" purposes – rightly or wrongly, presenting a well-known work as though it had never been seen before, since it has now been restored to what is claimed to be its pristine condition. 
The result is that for many people restoration only means comparing photos taken "before" and "after" the event, without the doubt ever occurring to them that such an exercise can only take place if they abandon the actual experience of the real work of art, which exists beyond a purely imaginary “before” and “after” only to be seen in photos. 
But together with the actual reality of the work of art, what never emerges from such a limited concept of restoration is the real problem regarding conservation, since in a “before and after” comparison there is nothing measurable or visible concerning what they really need to know – in other words, the effective state of conservation of the work, which in all probability corresponds to a chain of material events where a “before and after” comparison is only one of many elements. 
This being the case, it is easy to understand why, given the advances in conservation techniques, there is a growing tendency to deal with the subject of conservation in areas outside the traditional ones focusing on the history of art, with the result that there is an marked decline in objectivity whenever the specific problems of one sector are touched upon in the other. 
Maybe it is too much expect that this series of articles, originally published in the Art Bulletin, will have a marked effect on this tendency. The relationship between historical-artistic matters and technical-scientific interests seems to lean clearly towards the latter; even though it is fairly clear that, since the subject is Giotto, it is not by directing the project that one can obtain a different and more open approach of the former. However, it is the first time that a conservation research project has been accompanied by such a precise and complete summary of historical events, backed up by photographic documentation that is wholly appropriate to the subject matter – in this case, the series of historical photos of the Giotto cycle spanning the period from 1867 to the present day. 
In terms of conservation, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from these photos is that none of the restoration projects that has taken place over the years, even when they have achieved enduring improvement in the "legibility" of the frescoes, has had the slightest effect in correcting the tendency towards gradual deterioration of the materials that the frescoes are made of. This unfortunately leads to the conclusion that some of the projects may even have helped speed up the process of deterioration. This inevitably happens since the use of special restoration materials always causes  the relatively simple aggregation of the original materials to become more composite, and therefore less stable. 
It is worth saying again that every restoration project, independently of the quality of the aesthetic results achieved, always leads to a further risk for the future conservation of the work, unless it is accompanied, or better still preceded, by all the steps required to make the surroundings in which the work is set, suitable for conservation.
On the question of improving the environment before undertaking restoration work, there is by now, or there should be, a general consensus of agreement. The fact is that these pages contain the first complete study of the environmental situation of a work of art; while most restoration work continues to be carried out without a report on the quality of the surroundings where the art work is set, in conservation terms. Or when the environment is harmed by an attempt to improve the work’s visibility (too much illumination), or when the work’s conservation is put at risk (central heating or unsuitable insulation). 
As will be seen in the following sections, the main advantage of an accurate study of the state of an art work, in relation to the characteristics of its conservation environment, lies in the fact that the conservation steps to be taken almost always lead to solutions that are not only of the maximum simplicity and economy, but are also such that formal restoration will no longer be urgently needed, or at least will come within the limits of ordinary maintenance. 
In the case in question, environmental factors responsible for deterioration of the frescoes are due to the causes listed below in order of seriousness.

I) THERMAL IMBALANCE AND PASSAGE OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANTS, DUE TO THE UNCONTROLLED OPENING OF THE CHAPEL'S MAIN DOOR 
Both these factors can be eliminated by permanently closing and insulating the main door of the Chapel. To ensure that the new access, obtained by re-opening the door in the left wall (sealed off a century ago for no good reason), does not cause the same problems, it will be necessary to construct an air-conditioned reception area for visitors, in the adjacent public gardens; fortunately, such a new structure would not cause any visual disturbance to the outside of the Chapel. 

2) THERMAL IMBALANCE CAUSED BY THE WINDOWS ON THE RIGHT WALL 
This can be significantly reduced by fitting external double-glazing, so that air will circulate freely in the gap between the panes of glass, thereby reducing the effect of summer heat. The heat-transfer characteristics of the windows and the whole wall would be improved considerably by planting tall evergreen trees in the surrounding gardens.

3) THERMAL IMBALANCE CAUSED BY ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING 
This can be improved by replacing the present incandescent light bulbs by cooler mercury-vapour lamps. 

That sums up the proposal – but it should be clear that the reason for simplifying the actions so drastically is to speed up the bureaucratic process of taking decisions, not because of any lack of inventiveness in terms of how such proposals could be applied to improve the state of conservation. 
On this subject, it should be pointed out that the results of these studies were published more than three years ago, and have been available since then to the people who are responsible for taking decisions, together with an even more detailed description of the proposed solutions. 
This said, the scientific rigour of the surveys that have been carried out forbids us to draw the alarmist conclusion that, since the date when the surveys were completed, a period of time has slipped by, at the end of which we shall be forced to say that delay in taking action has caused a worsening which can be seen clearly in the present state of Giotto’s frescoes.
However, all things considered, the state is relatively good, or anyway stable enough not to deteriorate at a speed beyond that which can be measured by the instruments available at present. 
But we are talking about the same state which many people have already reacted to instinctively, urging immediate action in terms of the usual pattern of restoration with consolidation-cleaning-reintegration. The only effect this would have, apart from an elaborate display of “before and after” photos, would be to delay resolving the problem of conservation for many years, at the same time making it more complex and difficult to deal with.