Zuzana Bauerová: „Čo raz z obrazu zmizne, je nenávratne stratené.“ making process of conservation-restoration treatments, as well as to explore a background for the analysis and interpretation of the situation in one of the Central Eastern European countries in the preservation of its movable cultural heritage. The author of the paper believes, that understanding conservation-restoration’s past helps us to clarify the reasons for false mystifications and create a platform for wider conservation-restoration interpretations in the future. Conservation-restoration thinking of Karel Veselý First part of the paper is dedicated to the arrival of conservator-restorer Karel Veselý to Slovakia in years 1949 and 1950. He left his promising carrier as a chief conservator-restorer in the National Gallery of Prague for Slovakia, in order to become the founder of the modern conservation-restoration in Slovakia. Generally, it was expected, that after his practical experience in the foremost cultural institution (the National Gallery in Prague, since 1937) and his cooperation with his teacher and acknowledged conservator-restorer Bohuslav Slánský, he would publish his conservation-restoration “program” including his statement towards actual conservation-restoration methodological and technical issues. However, Veselý published only modest article entitled Pictures restoration in the Slovak periodical Umenie (1949). His contribution can be interpreted as practically based effort for recognition of the profession within the society influenced by the state official policy. Avoiding analysis of methodological approaches in conservation-restoration, Veselý introduced his theory and methodological approach based especially on the importance of artistic interpretation by the conservator-restorer and stressed the importance of craft skills, scientific approach and retouching as the conservator’s interpretation. It was him, who already in 1949 warned: “What once from the painting disappear is lost forever”. Conservation-restoration intervention on panel paintings from the Saint Elizabeth main altar In the second part of the contribution, the author’s aim is to find the answer to the question, whether the conservator-restorer Veselý was occupied with this “warning” during his conservationrestoration intervention while conserving-restoring panel paintings from the main altar of the Saint Elisabeth church in 1950s. The question – What original are we looking at nowadays? – is arising from contemporary and recent conservation-restoration and art historical interpretations of mentioned panel paintings. The paper gives the history of the interventions on panel paintings during the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, including details about their transfer from the village Hejce, where they were hidden during WW II. Since the paper is focused on the material changes and “losses” during Veselý’s intervention, the whole part is dedicated to the description of the structural and material conditions of above mentioned panel paintings [pic. 1, 3, 4] Following, the paper gives details on used technique and technology, used conservation-restoration material and especially the decisions taken by Veselý. These cover also the issues of removal of later additions (retouching and varnish layers from previous periods) and artistic interpretations of the conservator-restorer Karel Veselý – filling lacunas [pic. 7–13], retouching, varnishing [pic. 14, 15, 16]. All interpretations are based on the archival material (conservation-restoration documentation) from the Office of Monument Preservation. Summing up, the lost parts were substituted by the interpretation of Karel Veselý and as such prominent medieval work of art was “returned into life”. The conservator-restorer could take place next to the prestigious conservator-restorer Bohuslav Slánský, working on the high-status panel paintings from Karlštejn castle in the Czech Republic. Conservator-restorer in the sphere of politics and social relations Final part gives the description of the post-war situation in relationship to the conservationrestoration of above mentioned panel paintings, highlighting the political interventions that led to establishing Karel Veselý a chief conservator-restorer of addressed intervention. Except for the professional skills of Veselý, it was also the political and social pressure from the official government institutions (Povereníctvo SNR) that brought about recalling of other that time active conservatorsrestorers – Peter Julius Kern and Kotrba brothers. Although the preference to complete the conservation-restoration treatment was given to educated conservator-restorer Veselý, interventions on wooden (architectural) altar constructions were still left on conservators-restorers Kotrba brothers, who were not considered as the professionals in the sense of artistic education. Therefore, the main altar as Gesamtkunstwer was “sentenced” to the different conservation-restoration approaches. This division of competences was determined by the social prejudice. Since Karel Veselý did not publish any of his attitudes towards the situation, nor his position towards the division of competences, we are not able to conclude whether he was aware of Wolters Report or any other internationally accepted or published documents regarding discussed task. As a result, we can only claim, that behind all the myths concerning the work of Karel Veselý we find only the diverse interpretations of his conservation-restoration approaches from following generations of conservators-restorers, as well as art historians. English by author
200