Behind the Scenes: The Restoration of Isabella de' Medici

[@Ickerus13]

What an honor it would be to have your painting taken care of so meticulously so long after you finished it.

[@lasvegas531]

diminish in value after the restoration

[@DoNaCOMMENTS]

I really hope they do it for the sake of history and not for a question of value..

[@camelazo]

Sure 0:22

[@OriLOK2]

Luca Dondoni the value of art goes beyond monetary

[@mindymaria871]

I thought that too

[@LokiHiddlestone13]

She's a genius. How crazy is that that you can remove the "fake" painted-on layer without damaging the original layer?!

[@charmedprince]

There was coat of varnish after any painting us done and also restoration is done, so that future "restorers" can remove added paints without having to damage the original painting....... watch Baumgartner Restoration videos, well explained there

[@madiis18account]

@@charmedprince whilst it is likely that the original varnish is what made this possible, I sincerely doubt the Victorian vandals who painted over the original did so with any intent to conserve or have the original be returned in the future

[@charmedprince]

@@madiis18account well, the Victorians just wanted it to look pleasing to their taste during that era. Let's just be glad the restoration people today are expert at what they do that they can remove the Victorian gloss-over to reveal the true nature of the artworks

[@JOOLVAUR]

Well she’s not really a genius, all restorers do this

[@prizmarvalschi1319]

@@JOOLVAUR it's still a really amazing skill because they need to test multiple solvents just to get one color off

[@me-cq7wv]

That lady is a genius. She must get a lot of satisfaction while working and discovering things in the painting while she works. Looks a very happy person in her work. I bet she is a joy to be around.

[@M.shakeZulla]

Thank the art gods for xrays

[@Lytton333]

'Genius'. Lol. Skilled and dedicated at a craft she's assimilated into a competence would be more apt.

[@tricia4479]

S O there is someone much better.

[@ITSONLYMEWATCHING]

Seriously?? She got my nerves with her overtalking. I think genius is stretching it a bit far.

[@scarletpimpernelagain9124]

Tricia I prefer Julian’s narration but that’s only me.

[@Allie-ny8sp]

Isabella's portrait is consistent with 16th century beauty standards in Italy. She is shown with pale skin, prominent features, and a lot of rouge, as well as being richly garbed. Portraits were always supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, with is why the Victorians changed it in the 19th century, so it would fit in with their style of beauty. Unfortunately a good portion of Rennasaince portraits have been over-painted by the Victorians.

[@brxzbze]

Yeah, the amount of people saying that the modern restored version is better because she is ‘less perfect’ are missing the point. The whole thing is a good way to see how beauty standards had evolved (and have continued to do so of course)

[@reginaldforthright805]

Was the horse face also in style?

[@reginaldforthright805]

@@brxzbze haha no. The original painter just stunk. Look at Titian, Botticelli or Raphael’s paintings if you want to see Renaissance beauties.

[@SwimmerPrince]

@@reginaldforthright805 Titian, Raphael, Boticelli were from earlier part of the Renaissance period. This painting was done in Italian Mannerism style, therefore the visual is bizzare and serpentine in nature. Conserving painting is also preserving history. An evident of such movement existed.

[@CheshireCad]

That might make sense if the Victorians had kept her recognizable, but slightly touched up a few features that they considered 'distinctly unappealing'. Such as the forehead size, hand size, skin tone, or nose shape. Instead, they copy-pasted the face of a completely different person onto her. And turned her direct and confident expression, into the placid thousand-yard stare of a particularly empty-headed heiress. Also, screw urns. Urns are literally the worst thing. Get that stupid urn out of my face right now. Only dumb idiots like urns.

[@sarahno4748]

For a sec I thought she painted a different face until I watched the video and realized that the older looking face was the original. Thank you for fixing it. Everyone looks different and we should never retroactively change people or things to be "better or prettier". If you change history to fit what you like, then you're making fiction.

[@blacriderv]

Lol same 🤣

[@thelasttaarakian]

Much of history IS fiction.

[@sammygecko_]

I mean, the artists could’ve easily been making things up. Possibly to fit the beauty standards then. And when standards inevitably changed, maybe someone thought it was any of their business to give it an “update” Total speculation btw. Biggest point I wanted to make was how artists can embellish things.

[@kennypitts4829]

Yeah, well. Nobody wants to stare at a painting of Jen Psaki.

[@enderlove2794]

@@kennypitts4829 art isn't all about conventional beauty standards dude.

[@HollieTash]

The amount of comments that really show people paid no attention to the video at all. The before and after that show a younger ''prettier'' woman was the work of someone that wasn't the original painter and was done over a hundred years later. They painted over the original, the older woman, to make her face more suitable for the Victorian era. This woman did not 'ruin' or 'change' the original into the after photo for the hell of it, that was THE original before someone else tampered with it. Get off your high horses and take in information that is given to you before talking, thank you. edit: 6 years later and youtube gives me my first notif for this, what happened here lmao

[@isolatedpeople]

How is ‘painting over the woman’s face to fit the victorian era’ not considered as changing? She is still painting in her perspective on how a victorian women should look like. Just saying, i think you’re contradicting yourself.

[@leodurham5033]

Sabrina, I think you misread the comment. The woman in this video didn't paint over her face to look victorian, someone else had already done that before it came to the museum. This woman simply removed that layer of victorian paint to reveal the original work. (And this video is just her touching up some damaged spots on the original painting, not changing it at all!)

[@ricebubble7805]

But isn't retouching the original painting even as damaged, kinda changing it? Does it increase in value when retouched? I dunno but when you have a damaged painting and its old, I think thats what makes it cool and expensive.

[@Shaphina]

Rice Bubble It depends who is putting the value on it. For most the people who will own or could own this painting having it fixed would be better. Art galleries and rich people want to display their artwork. Having a painting look like you pulled it out of a dumpster doesn't help.

[@ricebubble7805]

thanks pretty lady

[@pollyflores418]

“You have to talk to the painting, too, tell her she’s going to be lovely. And she is, she’s going to be lovely,” this woman is the kind of person that inspired me to study art history, you can tell how much she loves the art she works with

[@reginaldforthright805]

Sounds like a loon to me

[@Teuwufel]

@@reginaldforthright805 You are the biggest loon here, with no imagination. Go away.

[@Devilcakes]

@@reginaldforthright805 True. I usually speak to some things that I find to be very precious to me. And then I was told it's signs of an underlying mental illness.

[@gabrielas3796]

@@reginaldforthright805 sounds like someone who loves her job

[@honeyLXIX]

When the restorer told the story of Isabella and said it was a bit of a bad ending, I thought to myself how it was sweet that this professional that cares so much about the painting's history got a chance to restore it.

[@wellesradio]

This restorer essentially removed the Instagram filter and gave us the real face.

[@inspectorspinda]

well who knows what the real face looked like x'D i mean it's still a painting. hopefully the real person didn't have eyes on different levels. that would... not at all be healthy.

[@sparksfly6149]

Inspector Spinda ...it’s common though. Lots of people have that.

[@inspectorspinda]

@@sparksfly6149 no it really isn't x'D lol i have looked at humans before you can't convince me. i mean people from that time were very diseased and inbred so id believe it if that were the case.

[@sparksfly6149]

Inspector Spinda Nobody has perfectly parallel eyes. It’s physically impossible.

[@Anastasija-ow4jn]

@@inspectorspinda My right eye is literally higher than my left one...

[@quizyjest1616]

I love how the Restorer talks so tenderly and sweetly to the painting and while working. It really shows how much she enjoys and takes pride in her work.

[@reginaldforthright805]

Should be locked up, I warrant.

[@CheshireCad]

also the restorer: **beating the everloving crap out of the painting, as if her and Isabella had a personal beef with each other**

[@CheshireCad]

@Colin Deal - Why are you commenting on a video you haven't actually watched? The version she restored IS the original. Someone during the victorian era painted a completely different face over it. Did you actually just assume that a professional art restorer would totally change a painting, even though that's the exact opposite of their job? At no point did you wonder if maybe, instead of jumping down to the comments to vent about this injustice, you should finish watching the video that you're so angry about?

[@erzas17]

watch the video and listen to her before going on saying that she ruined everything ! that painting was originally made in the renaissance era, hundred of years later the painting was painted over by ANOTHER artist to change the renaissance style into a "prettier" fake victorian style, all she did was take the fake layer off and restored the REAL original painting. she did NOT ruin the painting, she restored it's true value, and if you like the fake one better, it's your own taste, but it's not the original, i guess you can say it's a little of an art-theft

[@peterpantakemetoneverland7967]

Super Cinnamon I hate when people change a painting to be their own because they think it would look prettier or they can't do it and match color so they just completely improvise. I love that she is bringing back the painting how it should look. It was beautifully done.

[@kismyash123]

i love the original better, getting painted over destroys the artist's work

[@Skinnymarks]

Wish there was a way to transfer the top painting. How cool would that be?

[@PVilla27]

@Skinnymarks Hopefully in a few years 3D printers will be this advanced!

[@llavande]

And also the owner of the painting has the real saying if he wants previous or the cover up.

[@nenagravil]

I recently visited the Carnegie Museum of Art and when I saw this painting I immediately remembered this video and I was so excited to see it in person. It really looks beautiful, this was a flawless restoration.

[@iwavns]

The painter who painted over the original painting performed "plastic surgery" on Isabella de' Medici..😆

[@RedFlyingFox007]

John Cheng It's kinda funny how the beauty stadards changed so much. lop

[@miyu-miyu9771]

John Cheng hahaha you mean, 'paint surgery'? 😂

[@gayeurban7500]

Pottery

[@charmedprince]

@@gayeurban7500 pottery-less since he removef the urn/pottery

[@Thenotfunnyperson]

The first was a actual image of a ugly lady. 100 years later they just made it more appealing.

[@gokcee.6722]

I loved how she talked about the princess and the painting and the work she does on the painting, you can feel how passionate she is about her job.

[@deborahyeo96]

Anyone notice how her eyes are full of spirit and how sharp they were compared to the paint over "photoshop" version. The PS version looks like she was looking into space and staring blankly. While the original made you feel like she could look right through you. What a wonderful painter and princess!

[@scraperindustry]

I definitely think the Victorian paint over was done by a less talented painter. I'm glad they managed to restore it

[@niclasjohansson5992]

Hard call to make, since the latter was all covered with dirt

[@sab-nm9di]

the original version definitely had more personality in my opinion

[@anneboleyn1638]

Some people are arguing about altering the fake and losing that image without think the historical value of the original. You get to tell more stories, add depth to them with it and this comment sums it up in a nice way.

[@martinmoya9387]

Ha, the mighty medici doesn't need a Victorian repainting to impose theirselves

[@THEFlea1991]

This is one very talented lady. Passionate about helping restore these paintings but also making sure not to change what the original artist created. The stories behind these old paintings are fascinating. I am blown away that they were able to remove the overpaint so effectively. It came out great

[@Gwenny_Black]

The "victorian" painting was pretty, but the Original has so much more personality. And because it still is the original of that royal woman, it is good to see how she really looked like then rather the beauty standards in the victorian era.

[@julienpento3636]

The victorian face made the whole painting look like a victorian painting. It did'nt seem renaissance.

[@Gwenny_Black]

@@Jucelegario Well, you definitly know how the world is.

[@Gwenny_Black]

J.C. L. The cabal is everywhere and yet this painting has nothing to do with it.

[@Jucelegario]

@@Gwenny_Black Someone who "thinks" is called a woman. Keep believing everything the mainstream told you, like the good woman you are.

[@Gwenny_Black]

@@Jucelegario xD What is wrong with you, didn't you get enough love from your mother? I am sorry that you are the human being you are. Hope you become the best of yourself someday.

[@thatcoffeefeel8]

Victorian one looks timid, original looks like a boss

[@musicloverlondon6070]

Couldn't agree more! The Victorian image looks rather insipid and uninteresting to my eye whereas the original has so much more character and vivacity. The description of the sitter and her lifestyle isn't reflected in the Victorian image either. Nice to see how relaxed, confident and knowledgeable the restorer is. I always imagine art restorers approaching their work with fearfulness and a trembling hand. Very interesting video.

[@Tenorgeiger]

The Victorian version is such a “chocolate box” commercial!

[@rcamels3042]

that coffee feel totally reflects Victorian values on a woman’s place! Before the Victorian era, especially in the 18th century, women were granted many more freedoms when it came to work and career than was acceptable later on

[@mmc1086]

The fake one is looking away so as to be demure and non confrontational, but the original is looking straight at us as an equal 👌

[@Scuuurbs]

The original looks more amateurish. Or maybe it was the style of the time to have disproportionate features, or hell - maybe that really was her face. The Victorian version seems to have a better grasp of lighting than the original, too. I won’t argue that the original exudes more power, however.

[@Isabella-cm8wr]

"the painted over version was better bc she was prettier and nicer to look at" so? do all people in paintings have to be pretty? I'd be pissed if someone painted over my painting, specially a face, bc they thought it was ugly and needed to be fixed. It's not about making the prettiest woman, it's about conservating the original painter's work.

[@bustedkeaton]

@Redux Studio Skyfall not to mention it's a portrait of a real person. As a historical artifact, it's much more valuable when it actually resembles the person it's a portrait of.

[@sophieplumbob2900]

Altoid Bazingá I care. It’s good to see how the art really looked when it was first painted.

[@m.syauqiabdurahman2798]

@Redux Studio Skyfall and we know someday that vision will lost so Restorer Need To Restored Before It Too Late

[@marga8732]

I personally thought the original *before* the Victorian overpaint was way prettier…great that she looks now the way that she was originally painted and _intended to look by the artist!_ . . . ---

[@wowno.2269]

Yes like, just paint a new one NOT paint on the old ones.. I don't like this woman's way of conserving someone else's painting. And don't tell me to 'why don't you do it yourself?'

[@theblasblas]

"And I realized if I continued to go farther with the inpainting, I would probably be adding myself to the painting. I'm not the artist, I'm the conservator, it's my job to repair damages and losses, to not put myself into the painting." An amazing mindset, if only translators shared this mindset, global culture would be much better off.

[@cloverjoker]

Aren't translators basically contracted and follow terms set by their employers who dictate how much they want changed and the target demographic? Beyond that, translation is a much more creative process compared to restoring a painting and a lot of things can change depending on who you're writing for and what reason. Something more applicable who be if she took that painting, and tried to create another copy in a different style or medium.

[@theblasblas]

​@@cloverjoker From what I've observed, the distributers tend to not be too strict as long as the product still sells, some translators use that leeway to insert their own shit into the work. Regardless of whether there is more creativity in the process, the translator needs to acknowledge the fact that no matter what the work itself will never be theirs. That should be the foundational philosophy in translation.

[@Vingul]

There’s no such thing as global culture.

[@Lofirainbows]

Or the opinionated news media

[@user-ly3li3ex8c]

Translators ultimately have to work with the language and the one its being translated to, which can often lack words that would properly convey the meaning of the original terms used and the historical meaning attached to them during that time

[@kattriella1331]

I honestly prefer the older version, the version this woman brought back to life through her restoration. Rather than being a soft, demure, and meek looking girl, the restored version makes her look powerful, standing tall and proud. She may not be the prettiest flower in the garden like the Victorian "touch up" wanted people to believe, but this restored portrait shows a woman who, if she spoke, you'd better stop and listen, and I love it.

[@ssj-rose4572]

Yeah because of last name not because of her

[@ksp-crafter5907]

She was nothing more than a satanic witch with a big name!

[@nou4716]

What’s wrong with being a soft meek girl... edit: guys i get it now. Some of you guys were rude af tho lol.

[@pgadeb]

@@ksp-crafter5907 What?

[@andreanicolette4647]

Debbie Anne the Medicis owned one of the biggest banks in europe during the renaissance, they were so fucking influential and could do whatever they want really

[@xtxpxhx]

Imagine how good you have to be so you could be trusted with such a major task. Respect.

[@alexandrajohn1814]

I thought this too

[@nearestyoutube]

She's no Mr Bean :)

[@nataliacarrillolinares6905]

I feel like I'm cheating on Julian

[@Beelzebeag]

same lmao-

[@loonemist]

Ikr-

[@addyben3686]

Me too 😭

[@robert2246]

Frrr, this lady seems a little rough ngl.

[@Todomo]

seriously

[@Jhfisibejoso8pkabrvo2is8]

The Victorian version isn't even bad, and that's the shame of it. Whoever felt the need to "fix" the image back then clearly did have painting skills, and could've better utilized that talent by creating their *own* paintings instead of vandalizing preexisting ones. I think it's a shame that people are automatically characterizing the younger version as "soulless," "boring," or "unrealistic." Because in reality, the Victorian version isn't unrealistic- it's just NOT Isabella. There are plenty of women who may genuinely look like that younger version, and there's nothing wrong with that! Both versions are beautiful in their own right. The issue is the fact that one was the original, and one was vandalizing for the sake of vanity.

[@HamidKarzai]

I think it's way more probable that whoever felt the need to "fix" the painting was its owner who hired an artist to do it. Could have even been motivated by commercial reasons, so it could sell better. Or maybe they just wanted to see a less imposing face on their wall. I find it hard to imagine some painter going "no no, this is wrong, I must fix it" on their own on what was probably also an expensive art piece even at the time as well

[@mike-0451]

I’m glad he decided to “vandalize” the painting by improving it. These vandals sure are something.

[@HamidKarzai]

@@mike-0451 Good point, I'm sure if someone made a painting of you it could then also be improved by painting Brad Pitt's face over yours

[@mike-0451]

@@HamidKarzai Yes.

[@gabrielas3796]

@@mike-0451 The point is, the victorian version wasn’t Isabella. They made her a strange, someone who never existed. Following the exemple here in the comments, if someone tries to improve a painting of you, changing your features to look like Brad Pitt, at the end you are not the one in the painting, neither is Brad Pitt himself. It’s someone who simply doesn’t exist.

[@whatevergirl19]

People who think that the “prettier” painted-over ver was better and that she just “ruined it”...Are the people that can’t take selfies without using full settings on snow app ..

[@lemonicowo]

Aura RedWolf - yeah it was very common for painters to make people a LOT whiter because being pale was a symbol of wealth (because u could sit on ur ass and do nothing all day). the forehead is probably a not quite exaggarrated since a large forehead wasn’t particularly a beauty standard back when this was originally painted, and this looks like a commission portrait for the Rich People tm. perhaps she already had a larger forehead at birth and wearing her hair up tightly made her hairline recede a fair bit (like jojo siwa lmao)??

[@lovelylychee2255]

your pfp is great~

[@savannahmcgill61]

Aura RedWolf super sorry for the essay Lolol! Im like exactly as white as the original painting after the removal of the dark varnish, and the tampered painting has a disproportionately small forehead. The original has a large, but not abnormally sized forehead, as if you study proportion, on average, the eyes should rest at the very center of the face from top to bottom. And the tampered one has eyes that are way way way too far in the upper half. The restored one looks way more like a real person. With more realistically sized eyes, hands, more realistic ears and so on. the restored version looks way more like people I know in real life. I’ve never seen anyone like the tampered version before, even online. So bottom line is, I respect your opinion and you are entitled to feel the way you do. And I’m not bashing on you at all. I’m just kind of perplexed since I’m not sure where your opinion comes from since the tampered version is proportionally messed up to the max and her skin isn’t abnormally white either. People did lighten skin for portraits, but her skin is like, normal natural white person white. And if she was wealthy she was probably pretty pale as she wouldn’t need to do hard outdoor labor like lower class citizens. The restored one has more character.

[@everlynevins]

@@savannahmcgill61 Very well said. Plus the paint-over makes her look like a bland IG influencer. The original actually tells a story.

[@cerebrumexcrement]

😆😆😆😆😆

[@aserta]

The original is absolutely stunning, once more, the destruction of art is evident in our misguided ancestors. Most impressive work of restoration and preservation in this one painting.

[@almeggs3247]

Tremendous. Looking at the microscopic castanet rolls of hair is amazing I could study this painting forever As El Grecos folds in his clothes or Velazquezs las meninas Such perfectionists back then I can feel her soul Thru the painters love! Thanks

[@kaivona04]

Wow! The painting is so pretty. I wish I had it.

[@Mayakran]

Definitely says something about the two conservators and the values of the societies that produced them.

[@dodgedabullet670]

to aserta: LOL...why would anyone waste their breath on someone like you who thinks "Barbie" makes a better image than say Sophia Lauren!? You have your taste in your mouth! Please stay away from any painting or other piece of art...you are a danger to all great art fool! You know NOTHING!

[@AUGUSTALLEN28]

@@dodgedabullet670 What is so offensive in aserta's comment?

[@elvis459]

The video is rather confusing because it comes in at the very end of a long process. It would have been nice to see it from the beginning, from the discovery of the original and the subsequent removal of the later painting to reveal the original painting.

[@fengweifeli]

You should check out Baumgartner on youtube! He explains every little detail of the process

[@angela.luntian]

@@fengweifeli of this particular painting?

[@fengweifeli]

@@angela.luntian Not this one specifically but his videos are great just to see the techniques and detailed process of restoring a painting. I feel like his explanations are way more thorough and easier to understand :)

[@I.luv.my.choppa]

@Felicia Fanny yesss Julians videos are so satisfying.

[@sitas9827]

Lmao I just commented the same thing xD

[@Mp3tjuh]

Omg this woman needs her own channel, she’s for some reason really soothing to listen to.

[@opterimuor1165]

When u have watched so many videos from : Baumgartner Restoration that you are understanding everything they are doing Edit: omg 5 k i actually forgot i commented this Edit2 : nahhhhh 6.7 k 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺

[@wombleofwimbledon5442]

Damn Skippy.

[@ЕленаБобкова-э7ъ]

Baumgartner Restoration - the best channel ;)))

[@vickyceledon1215]

I was looking for this comment because SAME

[@teodora9280]

She has such a chaotic energy compared to him, it's funny seeing the different approaches to the same thing

[@ceciintheusa5970]

right!

[@deleteme8774]

Lot of history information, you guys have probably very poor english if you don't get the fact, that the "after" is actually the old, original painting.

[@feministamagotchi6663]

Vanessa Melissa Chan you dont need to be xenophobic. Really nasty comment.

[@heartspadeace584]

Misheru Momo wow that was like the dumbest response I read on Yt all week long thanks

[@JustyMe]

Misheru Momo lol you don't have to be a native English speaker to have poor listening skills so she wasn't being xenophobic.

[@aditroitz]

Misheru Momo you're the nasty comment. seriously this kind of people need a slap on their faces.. god please, im enough with this kind of person

[@angie-gi5qn]

the comment is still nasty, the way she pointed it out was very unnecessary

[@cathl4953]

Whoever painted over the original painting is doing the 100 year old equivalent of what some idiots do on twitter , taking art , changing one thing they personally don't like and claiming they "fixed" them

[@mishaleafsong4164]

Great. Now lets do the same thing to the Mona Lisa. After all, there is an older painting underneath that one.

[@lemmypop1300]

@@mishaleafsong4164 I agree that we absolutely should but there's a catch: Leonardo was fond of experimenting with paints and surfaces that that original painting doesn't really exist anymore. This was just a picture that was pretty much painted over.

[@tallgnome3229]

@@mishaleafsong4164 yeah that's a pretty lame comparison - - the top layer of the Mona Lisa wasn't painted decades later by a different artist to fit the style of the time.

[@mishaleafsong4164]

@@tallgnome3229 There are many other examples, so many that in fact they give this a name ""Pentimento". Look it up. Who decides which painting we keep and which we destroy to "reveal" what is underneath? At what point do we become the new Taliban and destroy art "because"?

[@tallgnome3229]

@@mishaleafsong4164 that's an interesting question, but dont you think there is a difference between wrecking something completely for ideological reasons and restoring something to its original state while also respectfully documenting it? Likewise I still think there is a difference between an artist painting over their own work (as in the Mona Lisa and many other examples of pentimenti that are discovered with modern technology) and an artist painting over someone else's work because it didn't conform to the then popular style. I think the cover up is interesting from a historical point of view but an otherwise pretty generic painting from it's era. Comparing this restoration to the taliban destroying art is pretty ridiculous.

[@ivechang6720]

Thank you for restoring this lady's personhood. Far from her story ending sadly she has found her way to this awesome restoration artist and scientist. One of the more fascinating ways to time travel imo. ♡

[@rotagbhd]

Personhood?🙄 Burn your woke lexicon, it serves no useful purpose.

[@tp8077]

How did her eyes change so much. It went from her looking over my right shoulder to looking me in the eyes. So strange.

[@archonhalcyonvking4315]

I think the Victorian version wanted to soften her expression/look.

[@Talittli]

All has to do with shadows/light positioning and how big her eye pupils are

[@verybarebones]

They wanted to make her into a soft demure lady that didn't dare look people in the eye, I imagine.

[@vl9488]

Seriously...!

[@rainylupin]

She's absolutely correct. The original painting - before the Victorian retouching - has so much more personality than the "cookie tin lid" painting.

[@JasminMiettunen]

Not Alfie yes, she’s lived more, she’s laughed, she's been through hard things, she’s seen more life, she’s aged. Her face is a part of her story, she was a real person and a part of history, not a cover model or disney princess.

[@raulpetrascu2696]

I find it ironic that the same people who are complaining about Victorian beauty standards (that value romanticism) are calling the Victorian version bad because of current beauty standards (that value realism more than beauty). As in I'm sure if you were a Victorian you would say there's "more life" in the repainted version than the old. I like both, they're just different styles. But the act of painting over it was bad so this restoration was good. It being the original and it not looking as traditionally pretty doesn't make it nicer to me tho, I bet if it was the other way around you guys would be saying the original Victorian looked much better. I just feel like the sentiment is a bit forced and morally driven, sorta like when you tell someone they look better without makeup because it's good for them as opposed to true. I can't see where you're getting this "more personality" stuff from, it's just got a bit more unconventional detail

[@makayla1223]

@@raulpetrascu2696 oh my god stop writing articles for no reason just shut up

[@mike-0451]

@@raulpetrascu2696 I can reasonably jerk off to the painting on the left, but you’d have to pay me to pull it off with the one on the right.

[@raerohan4241]

​@@raulpetrascu2696 I agree that the morally superior undertone is very uncomfortable, but it's also true the original had character. Because that was the intention. This portrait was done in the Mannerist style, which us a style of movement where the feel (or manner) of the subject is more important to convey than the actual look of the subject. In other words, a style where artistic liberties can be taken so the character of the subject can be better conveyed.

[@egodreas]

This is a story very poorly told. They're showing it all backwards, and apparently hadn't filmed the actual restoration at all. Instead we see a little bit of touch-up, and get a confused retelling of the background. I really, really would have liked to seen the full process from the beginning.

[@louibeans]

Uhhhm. The "little bit of retouching" IS the entire restauration. The painting you see left in the thumbnail is a paint layer they removed to reveal the original painting, which is the lady on the right. And they just had to fill in the small spots where paint was missing to complete the restauration. All you missed is the removing of the yellow paint layer that had altered the original painting.

[@egodreas]

@@louibeans I understand all that. What I meant was that the removal of the old over-paint is the bigger and more interesting part of the restauration. The video should have started with that. Instead it starts with the final touch-up and then gives a summary at the end explaining what had been done earlier. It's poorly told, as is clearly evidenced by all the confused comments here on KZbin.

[@louibeans]

@@egodreas Be grateful for what you got to see instead of complaining about what you didn't get to see.

[@egodreas]

@@louibeans I see no reason why I can't do both.

[@JustyMe]

@@louibeans it was poorly told period. You just tried to correct him on not understanding something he actually did understand perfectly. Now you are just salty you were wrong lol

[@beepot2764]

What is wrong with all of the people in the comments. The original was a portrait of an actual princess, has incredible detail, and character.

[@c_m00]

Restoring it to the original is fine, what's ridiculous is commenters, including the restorer, who are projecting their low self-image on the restored one "it looked so weak and unrealistic and fake before, nobody in real life looks good, but the other one looks strong important, and real, because it looks like me!" There are plenty of real people that are that good looking, just because they and everyone they know isn't, doesn't mean there aren't. And childishly attaching negative traits to the non-ogre version out of jealousy is ridiculous.

[@beepot2764]

@@c_m00 oh good lord no one is projecting their low self image. It's just nice to see a painting restored to how the individual looked instead of the Instagram filtered image that was a poorer quality piece of art.

[@vioveo7440]

@@c_m00 Both paintings reflect the beauty standards of their time and place. That's what a lot of people in the comments aren't getting. The restored painting would have been considered beautiful in Italy at the time. They liked their women a bit meatier, and hooked noses and prominent features were popular. The Victorians liked dainty women, which is why they changed it. I wouldn't say anyone is projecting anything, so much as that they're missing the point. In a way both paintings reflect what people thought women should look like, and it's possible neither actually looks like the real person.

[@marypoppins9318]

I just find that the original has so much more personality in the face. We forget that flaws are what gives something character and hence I really prefer the original

[@seanleith5312]

Exactly right. That's between an artificial flower and a real flower, a mannequin and a real woman.

[@aprilcross6305]

@@seanleith5312 flaws are not the difference between either of the two things that you made comparisons about here. (O_O) "What's the difference between a woman, and a mannequin?" "The woman has flaws!" That sounds more like the punchline to a very sexist joke than real commentary on the differences between living and inanimate-but-humanoid objects in the world.

[@aprilcross6305]

I don't think anyone is forgetting that flaws create 'character', so much as recognizing that there is an inherent value to 'beauty' that is difficult to quantify, whereas there's actually a somewhat inherently negative value to ugliness, even though it can be compelling. Given that it seems most of us are not art historians and therefore derive essentially equal value from the original (now-restored) and the Victorian overlain portrait (which is to say, neither is fundamentally more valuable to us, it's entirely subjective and unweighted by any factors other than personal preference), well then all things being equal, would I rather have a wall decoration showing me a beautiful woman, or one showing me an ugly woman? No question, a beautiful woman. But if I'm not hanging this on my wall or otherwise having to look at it regularly, and I'm just spending a few mins looking at it right now, then it's easy to say that the ugly version is more compelling in a sense. It seems like the question that's in contention is, 'what is the value of beauty and how does context reduce or increase that value?'

[@reginaldforthright805]

The flaws don’t reside only with the sitter, but also with the painter. In short, he’s bad. The Victorian painter is far more skilled, all the changes he made were notable improvements. The face is badly out of perspective with mismatched eyes and is floating on the misshapen skull mass. The hand is a deformed blob, and the vase is highly distracting and ruins the composition. The original has historical value, but that’s it.

[@NabekenProG87]

@@reginaldforthright805 the left one looks like a cookie cutter face of a woman. The old one may be of "worse" talent, but at least it probably had a reference and has a better chance of being true to how the woman looked in real life

[@rachelnstephens]

Is there any art or antiquities that the Victorians didn't nearly destroy?

[@dancingcarapace]

Rachel Stephens nope. They even ground up and snorted mummy remains like fucking cocaine

[@rachelnstephens]

Lexi Barrow yep. I think about that all the time. How much history did we lose because of them? Ugh.

[@voidface8827]

Lexi Barrow they also used mummy remains in paint, for a colour called "mummy brown".

[@mollie-wankenobi8655]

This isnt the Victorians(maybe it is in that time frame, idk) but one of the popes didn't like roman statues being naked so he had all of their dicks knocked off and then years later, historians armed witha box full of them played a game of "Pin the Dick on the Roman"

[@athenacaputo]

Mollie-wan Kenobi When I went to Italy last year, I went to a church in Rome that had a statue of Jesus that had been sculpted by Michelangelo. The church didn't like that Jesus was depicted naked so they had a different artist sculpt a bronze cloth to put around his waist to cover his penis.

[@fableagain]

This lady loves her job so much and it's a delight to watch.

[@kuribo382]

I loved hearing how interested and excited she sounded as she was telling Isabella's story. I adored her passion. She did this restoration great justice, it's really a beautiful painting. Ellen is very talented, I would like to see her own work too.

[@seaztheday4418]

I really appreciated the care she took to not put too much of herself into it, no additions, just repairing what was missing from the original. She set out to restore, and she means to do that with talent AND class, unlike whoever decided to scribble over a perfectly lovely painting

[@degenesis21]

She surely has plenty of class and talent. however I wouldn't call scribbles the work of the Victorian artist behind the previous covering, despite being a completely wrong approach to nowadays standards. They were artists of their time, with a different mindset and a radically different view of the past. No matter how much we learnt and the respect we acquired for original pieces of art nowadays, we shouldn't judge past artists (or even philosphers, historians, archeologists) with nowadays standards, whether they were right or wrong... should we?

[@Pastadudde]

@@degenesis21 I wonder why the Victorian-era artist didn't ... you know, paint a new painting but referencing the original. It's like an odd form of plagiarism lol

[@skullcrusade3436]

"Scribble over" I'm sure you can get your point across without insulting someone's work. Regardless of your feelings, that doesn't mean invalidating the covering art (which still required skill) is appropriate.

[@nekrataali]

Not putting herself into it and only repairing the painting is why she's allowed to be a restorer of Renaissance paintings lol 😂

[@reginaldforthright805]

Come on bro, the original painting is hideous.

[@BrightStarCat]

It’s bizarre that they didn’t START the video with the painted-over version. I ended up skipping through the video just to see what it looked like before restoration

[@Cora.T]

That is probably because the removal of the victorian version was done in a different video by a different conserverter, and the focal point of this video was restoration and not the uncovering of the original. But because its backstory is so interesting they probably put it in here

[@jackfntwist]

That would have made a better video, in my opinion.

[@vd_log5569]

I agree. I think that is one of the main reasons so many people are confused and are blaming the conservator for changing the painting. If she had shown the painted over version and her cleaning it and finding something else, a) it would have been more interesting and b) people wouldn't be confused.

[@kaylemathewcomendador6964]

I wonder why the video went like that. Did the part where the painted-over version got removed get the “oops, I forgot to press record” treatment or something?

[@askformore9293]

Idk I kinda like that like we got to see the original first, because it made me appreciate how pretty she was already.

[@nicywicy]

I like how fake and empty the first picture looks at the end. But then I love how the restoration brings character and real RELATEABLE connection. She looks like a REAL person not the copy paste barbiedoll souless army we see with everywhere.

[@llove4357]

#BLINK JJRL But the lady didn’t change it. The painting was distorted by someone a hundred years ago so that it could fit their standards of beauty back then. The painting had been signed by the real painter to begin with, so what she did was take an X-ray to check if the painting was damaged and discovered that there was a different design underneath (something really common in Victorian paintings) and just restored it to how it originally was. That’s her job. If she weren’t doing it, the REAL artist that painted it for the first time wouldn’t be credentialed.

[@ashnasingh9280]

#BLINK JJRL you wish the real painting was covered?

[@smolsannie]

@J but... the original work looks more like the one at the end

[@cutienerdgirl]

@J The original work is the one presented at the end. Someone painted over the original work centuries ago and the conservativer is just trying to make it look like it did when it was originally painted.

[@LearnLightAnimations]

what? am i insane for thinking it looks worse on the right, when they show a side by side?

[@gemgirl223]

I bet both the princess and the original artist would thank her for scrapping off that false restoration and bringing the true vision of the piece back into the work. ♥️

[@Batangbaito]

Imagine being the original painter then someone in the Victorian period decided to paint over your painting because it wasn't pretty enough.. Imagine being the original painter reading all these hate comments about how ugly your painting is and that the remake is much better. Imagine being the woman in this portrait then someone in the Victorian period decided to "photoshop" your face because it wasn't pretty enough. Imagine being the woman in this photo reading all the hate comments about how ugly you are and that the "photoshopped" version of your portrait was much better.

[@thetongueofangels1882]

I-

[@YusuffYT]

You packed all the "imagine" comments in one, perfect

[@lisafan5511]

Girl- calm down it’s a restoration it;s supposed to just restore it back to how it was before

[@ScoopOfButter]

Bruh

[@Batangbaito]

@@stinkyface420 Girl she didn't drew over it, a painter in the Victorian era painted over the original painting because the original didn't fit with the style of the Victorian paintings, she removed a layer of the painting in order to reveal the original painting beneath. And hun? There are a lot, A LOT, of people here in the comment section saying that she "ruined" it because the painted-over Victorian version was better than the original.

[@matthewcondon1985]

It is so amazing that we are able to discover original works hidden away, trapped under layers of paint intended to make them more desirable. I love seeing the work that goes into restoring these wonderful painting! GREAT JOB on your conservation work!!! I would thoroughly enjoy having her job!

[@KiRAlovesRyuk]

So many people saying the painting looked better before the restoration, but I think it looks way better restored!

[@Schnittwin]

Thing is, it doesnt matter what "looks better". The artist only painted one version, and that is the right one

[@miklomartinez8188]

Schnittwin They aren't adding anything on, they are cleaning the painting and retouching where the paint has faded.

[@bluebubbletea4]

Schnittwin they are removing the repainting, and showing the original

[@miklomartinez8188]

trying_digital_art No, if you paid attention that was already done along time ago.

[@bluebubbletea4]

Miklo Martinez sorry I meant have...

[@gallagherwitt]

Wow, these comments are nuts. The restorer didn't change the original or try to "improve" it. She literally removed the overpainting that was added later, and restored it to what the original artist painted. So much r/confidentlyincorrect in these comments.

[@RebekahHMartin]

This is so beautiful! She has done such a beautiful job restoring this magnificent piece of art and history! This would be a dream job for me but at the same time it would be so petrifying to handle and have so much responsibility of these incredible artworks

[@softsounds8453]

Not gonna lie this video gave me a heart attack when I saw it in my recommendations at first. I thought you painted over her to make her look prettier or something but thank god that was not the case. You did her right, restoring her to her natural state.

[@helenvanleeuwen4031]

This video should've been way longer, this genius woman deserves more time to show what a skilled woman she is.

[@customsongmaker]

So you're saying she's too stupid to make her own youtube video that's long enough

[@helenvanleeuwen4031]

@@customsongmaker Nope, not at all. But looking at the amount of views this video got, it would've been lovely to show how much effort goes into such a brilliant job of restorating/conservating in a more detailed way.

[@RosesTeaAndASD]

If she had a Netflix series - I'd watch it.

[@randombrokeperson]

@@customsongmaker I know this comment is 11 months old, but how tf did you jump to that conclusion? I need it explained to me like I'm 5. 🌜 592021-1005 🌛

[@customsongmaker]

@@randombrokeperson - if the woman is a "genius" who "deserves" a longer video, why didn't she make a longer video herself? As usual, feminists see women as helpless, in need of men to give them more.

[@jessekimxx]

The original painting of (Portrait, "Isabella de' Medici") was deliberately vandalized. Therefore, the woman in the video is taking the vandalism off (that is, "process of restoring") to showcase what was originally painted underneath. Once the restorer removes the felonious top layer, we finally see what's been underneath it--the original portrait in all her glory!

[@RosesTeaAndASD]

And we see the magnificent woman that was buried beneath👍

[@sergreysquirrel7753]

@Not Alfie But it is more realistic. The more "attractive version" is a fake and a product of Victorian beauty standards. The painting is essentially wearing an Instagram filter. It may be more attractive but it is not the real woman.

[@elieltonoliveira7862]

Disney VS HBO

[@AlexanderLittlebears]

It's not about recovering the real woman but the original painting

[@pogpogpurinn]

@@AlexanderLittlebears its about both.

[@vodcc4463]

"cookie tin lid box look" hilarious and spot on!

[@JENNIE_KIM615]

vodcc44 6 i

[@wombatelse8197]

May we please have the other half of this video back? The part where the real image is detected and the painting uncovered? This one is only the last step. I watched them both 5 years ago and I really miss the whole project. I appreciate you sharing this amazing saga with us. Thank you

[@Clint52279]

That's what the issue is then... As I watched this one I kept thinking that they were burying the lead as far as what would've been the more interesting part of the story... the removal of the overpainting.

[@Jayrah7]

For those curious, part of the reason the portrait looks wonky was the original artist was part of Mannerism, an art movement known for pushing artistic norms and making some odd looking people. My only concern with the restoration is the varnish may be a bit too clear. I know some artist in the past actually tinted their varnish to add warmth to their work. Durer is a famous example of an artist doing this during this period.

[@michellebyrom6551]

The wonky look that you mention is a result of a common technique at the time. A camera was used to outline the face for speed and accuracy. They didn't have the chemical knowledge to be able to fix an image to film and paper prints. The camera was simply a drawing aid. It showed an area roughly 12" each way. That's convenient for faces. Full length portraits were a series of joined up images. Look up David Hockney: Secret Knowledge.

[@Jayrah7]

@@michellebyrom6551 Maybe that's the case, but I know Vermeer used camera obscuras for portraits and his faces looked fine. I just know the Medici family appeared to have been major patrons of mannerist artists and that movement is known for distortions in bodies and faces.

[@raerohan4241]

​@@michellebyrom6551 They're not talking about the Victorian era overpainting, they're talking about the original Renaissance work that was underneath. Cameras did not exist in the Renaissance.

[@chensgold]

Dude, just imagine how much she works just to get the colors right. I have a lot of respect for people that do restorations...

[@chefsloth]

I like how these comments sounds like they know better than this lady who studied and has been commited in this field her whole life, they even have to study and restore a painting that could take up for decades because of all the process that they have to go through, its not like "omg I want to restore that get mah watercolors", it isnt as simple as that.

[@kieudiemtonnu6879]

I'm agree

[@lisamcallister6534]

Try being an antiques dealer. People think they know!!

[@z-beeblebrox]

It follows the principle: the less you know about a subject, the more you think you understand it. And the dumber you are, the smarter you think you are.

[@kellynorman9270]

The sad thing is there is a running joke in museums and in conservation on how qualified you have to be for how little you get paid. It is definitely a career you have to be passionate about.

[@sarahmchugh4169]

@@kellynorman9270 That's how I feel about people with a Mathematics PhD only to become an assistant professor

[@nat6704]

WOW. So even in the victorian era they had their own version of photoshop 😂im super glad the conservator and team were able to restore the original

[@盧璘壽로인수]

even the early photographs were crudely "photoshopped" for example a photo of Alexandra in her coronation robes was chemically treated so that her face looked "perfect"

[@nekrataali]

They also used a lot of paintings as porn where they'd commission a nude of their favorite hooker and hide the painting behind a curtain in their house which they'd then show off to their friends.

[@tiahnarodriguez3809]

Oh yeah, photoshopping (painting people to look better than they actually were) was even used in the medieval times. Some people would even send an altered portrait to their fiancé, but when the wedding day came the fiancé would see their fiancé wasn’t at all what their portrait portrayed.

[@Future_Pheonix]

Even most painters and artists throughout most of history altered the subjects of their paintings, sculptures etc to fit the beauty (and art) standards of their time. Those who didn't were considered the oddballs, laughing stocks and outsiders. The only difference is that now we have more efficient technology to do it for us.

[@simonorourke4465]

@@Future_Pheonix yeah here in the uk we have a particularly famous example with the portrait of Anne of Cleves painted by Holbein the younger and presented to King Henry VIII. According to historical tales Henry fell in love with the painting and agreed to Bring Anne to England to become his Queen despite never having met her. Once she arrived he apparently found her plain and pronounced her ugly, claiming he had been misled by the portrait. While I'm sure that the story has been changed and romanticised in places over the years, and the ever changing geopolitical situation in Europe at the time not too mention the temper and constant mind changing of King Henry had alot to do with the marriage and subsequent alliance with her family not working out too well. Many people still believe that the painting did play a role in the whole debacle.

[@Alucia0]

I could listen to this lady talk about this all day. The amount of passion that she has for what she does is very lovely.

[@serchmaabaatarchuluun5761]

If someone took my photo and used all the filter they can to make me look more "beautiful" instead of being thankful I would feel more insulted. I don't need to fit into your beauty standard to feel beautiful. Just like that I think that erasing the Victorian painting to show the real her was great sacrifice. Just cause the Victorian one was more "pretty" doesn't make it more valuable than the original. I personally think the original is more valuable because it showed the real Isabella de'Medici.

[@kla9689]

Love this lady's passion and honour for the story of the princess in this painting and honour for the original painting and all the work they did into transforming it to the original.

[@c3cil3]

Oh my god everyone in the comments saying she's disgusting and ugly! First of all, she's just a normal looking woman, second of all let's not enforce our ridiculous beauty standards on a painting, it doesn't have to look like a perfect little disney princess to be Art.

[@c3cil3]

@pyropulse There's no "belief" here 😂 Some women look like this, some women have more manly faces... Some women don't look like what you think they should look like, that's just a fact. Your opinion and your beauty standards doesn't make them lesser women.

[@junebug5296]

Proteuzumzone I guess that’s just your opinion, man.

[@bigtroglodyte]

Does look like a Disney princess the villain ones lol

[@normalgirls1]

@@ukrainesupportazovnazis3200 Perfectly understandable, I'd paint over your portrait too, to make it more aesthetically pleasing, of course.

[@archonhalcyonvking4315]

Yes, the Victorian version is intended to be prettier, but it's probably less accurate. Depending on the original artist's skill/comissioner instructions of course.

[@angryhedgehoglee6363]

The before version is cartoonish, almost unreal looking. The after, just breathtaking. Obviously, the work of the master himself, or one of his best students. She becomes a real woman of the period again after this masterclass restoration demonstration, instead of a victorian woman in costume. This restoration was done to perfection. A real accomplishment, saving a very important historical piece of art. Congratulations!

[@Tugela60]

The after looks like it was painted by a surealist painer though 😂 Her face is warped.

[@raerohan4241]

​@@Tugela60 It's painted in the Mannerist style

[@Tugela60]

@@raerohan4241 That does not mean the subject of the painting was happy about it. People tend to view being portrayed as a freak in a negative light, especially powerful people with dungeons at their disposal. The artist may have been given a not to subtle suggestion to fix the painting, or it was corrected by another artist.

[@Shcreamingreen]

@@Tugela60 No.

[@jessicas.6235]

The original woman is so much stronger-looking and unique, like a real person rather than the Disney-perfect girl painted over her. While the reconstruction was pretty, the original is so much more valuable to history and is much more visually stunning.

[@CHICKENNUGGET69360]

The original you are referring to is not really the original one. The restored version was closer to the original one.

[@humpydumpi]

@@CHICKENNUGGET69360 They meant the "original non photoshop" Ver.

[@CHICKENNUGGET69360]

@@humpydumpi oh I see, my bad

[@LogiForce86]

Looks more like a transgender than a woman to me though. 😂

[@cindellednic]

@@LogiForce86 Ugh, shut up and leave trans women alone. Y'all so obsessed you even post about them on art videos it's annoying.

[@justno8541]

I wish people would just pay more attention to the video before saying anything. Magnificent work - I wish I’ll have this passion for my projects too

[@rojaiwla]

The original painting has so much more personality.

[@zackinblack]

#artsnob

[@time8745]

Yup , the original one kind of sees you in the eye . It's much better to me

[@sleepyhammock3371]

The beforehand looked like a sheep.

[@customsongmaker]

You can pretend to prefer ugly women, but your internet history says otherwise

[@roelin360]

@@customsongmaker 1. Even if this was true, it's irrelevant. Just because you might sexually prefer one type of woman doesn't mean you'd think all depictions of women should be like that. We like art because it's interesting to look at, not because it turns us on, and the same "sexy' generic faces over and over again would get very boring very quickly. 2. You're making a major assumption that is more likely to to false than true. Attraction is cultural and individual and extremely variable. 3. Why are you implying and assuming they're attracted to women lol. You have no idea if they are.

[@angryhedgehoglee6363]

We are so very lucky to have the skills and tools of today necessary for bringing a painting back to life as it was meant to be seen by the original artist.

[@BR-jt6ny]

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY PEOPLE MISUNDERSTANDING THIS SCENARIO? Common, at least read a few of the comments before posting your own. She is a professional, maybe assume she knows what she's doing before jumping to conclusions.

[@KyrieFortune]

I've heard professionals scream at this blantant violation of the restoration ethics like this one since yeah it restored a work but completely destroyed another, idk about your buddy

[@midoriinchan2520]

So...we can find tracers and art thieves in the past too (o-o) Even though I liked the Victorian era painting, I prefer the original as we can see the soul of the artist in it 😊

[@lanwangji3882]

midoriin chan And it’s literal art thievery this time.

[@noodlechan3923]

The amount of stupid people in this comment section...... cringe. Watch the whole video, there's a reason why she's working at Carnegie Museum and you ain't.

[@wdanielt419871987]

Well , we have to called this a re painting not a restoration , cos a restoration means to repair a problem caused for external problems like time , dust , water but no changing the original image . On This one is totally different , if u see the before and after it looks pretty different each other , so, it’s not a restoration it’s a re painting.

[@MJ-cc4uf]

@@wdanielt419871987 - damn you're fucking thick. It's a fucking restoration. Now shut the fuck up and go watch some videos of kittens since it's the only thing your amoeba brain can handle.

[@lakhaulas]

@@wdanielt419871987 so you didn't listen to the narrator and just look at the before and after? The "before" picture is actually the repaint version because the ORIGINAL art was covered to meet Victorian standard, and the restoration ist to reveal the "after" paint which actually the original art of the first artist

[@wdanielt419871987]

Lakhaula S Aulia I will see it again .

[@jodygirrl]

Noodle Chan she skipped vital steps in a "restoration" process. She neglected to stabilize paint layers and remove it from frame. Old glue/adhesive is probably still on the back of the canvas. She just took off varnish rather haphazardly I may add and the layers of Victorian modifications. Even the retouching steps she did at the end didn't even have a filler medium. I wouldn't trust this woman with a priceless painting.

[@Hikarixhikarixhikari]

Wow this is amazing, it's always so incredible to see what was once thought to be the original painting turn out to be a previous restoration. This is incredibly restored, beautiful work returning her to her former beauty.

[@cecilyerker]

Maybe, in a weird way, the Victorian overpaint protected the original painting through the centuries, because at least there was a layer of varnish between the layers.

[@jaboi7709]

It definitely didn't help protect it, it would've already had a varnish on it (The more you add the harder it can become to restore)

[@offgun6466]

I mean I guess it protected it from being exposed to too much light

[@46Nekomaru]

@@offgun6466 No it's not. You can't "protect" an art by paint over it. And believe me, people in old days did better at "protecting" painting, because only the rich RICH one had painting in their home. Not to mention this is a painting of a PRINCESS. That'll be hella expensive even in old time & whoever have it will store it where even dust can't reach it

[@WAEA]

Victorian paint overs are essentially what Disney did to all its princesses after Tangled

[@margaretf667]

Disney films are all painting over original stories and folk tales, from the beginning.

[@GeorgiaGeorgette]

@@margaretf667 Spot on.

[@notlucyb]

I love how she speaks to and about this portrait; calling it by its subject’s name, Isabella, and using the humanizing “she” pronouns. She speaks to it not like a painting but a client. A living piece of history who‘s just in for a spa day.

[@mango-baby]

I could listen to this conservator forever. She seems incredibly knowledgeable and passionate about her work

[@CroweCreates]

It’s sad because I DO like the Victorian painting, but as it stood by itself. Knowing it covered over a historical original piece is so heartbreaking because inevitably to rescue the true painting underneath you do have to destroy another artists work. I definitely think the original is better thought :) Would love to see more of this restorer! She has such a personality I love how she interacts with the painting

[@cantbeleveitsnotnaru]

I'm so sad we didn't get to see the full restoration. It would have been a wild and amazing ride.

[@RosesTeaAndASD]

I would have tuned in the whole way.

[@marcelaamador7300]

"you gotta talk to the painting" she so sweet!

[@mycroft983]

I just cannot understand the comments. How anyone can complain,denigrate the Artist or previous restorers is beyond me. No one alive today should criticise just having a portrait commission was a major event can you imagine the fear of the original artist praying he will do a good job. Then after they are dead his work and Isabella is torn to shreads by such myopic comments. Just be thankfull that the painting has survived,just look at it as a glimps into another time and place. All these portraits are a blessing not one should be criticised "I could have done better" someone whose belly is full everyday and drives washes everyday goes to the dentist. Some of the comments are Ridiculous.

[@rinwesley3092]

Oh man, that Victorian rework is so jarring in the context of the style. What were Victorian era people thinking?

[@nate742]

Rin Wesley Oh Victorians, those sentimental repressed revisionists

[@luminousmoon86]

The Victorians tended to believe that all art had to be "pretty" or aesthetically pleasing in order to be of value. You can see this in a lot of Victorian art. It was the Romantic style and it prevailed for a long time. Obviously there were some artists who went against the grain, but whoever "reconstructed" this painting in the Victorian era was more in the Romantic school. They also didn't keep to the philosophy that this conservator does, that she's there to restore what's original to the painting, not to add her own style or taste to the painting.

[@1erickf50]

@@luminousmoon86 sounds like today's SJW but with artstyles

[@J_Kwan]

Erick Roldán lmao what do you mean? Where’s the correlation between the two

[@dudethouart]

@@1erickf50Dispelling the Victorian's simplistic and rigid standards of beauty because they value the look of the actual woman as herself seems much more in line with the SJW ethos. They would be more likely to say that you must find her beautiful, asymmetric and un-dainty as she is. The Anti-woke seem more obsessed with wanting to be rid of things outside a standard they like and in that way are closer to the Victorian sensibility. (for a less than serious example of this consider their passionate rejection of video game images of woman with any developed upper body physique as completely against nature)

[@Crosshill]

on one end, i love it when paintings show their age, because its their age that gives them authority and value. on the other hand, its preserving information, and this basically reset its age so it can last way longer, like a faithful photograph, and its satisfying to see the care that goes into it, i could watch these for hours

[@hebrews48]

Entraya Crosshill me too!!!

[@888pil]

conservation videos are usually very calm and soothing but almost a bit clinical? maybe very serious is the right term. i love this woman's energy and enthusiasm

[@juliac6256]

its an interesting mix of art and science/chemistry :)

[@Christine_R]

It's an amazing painting of Isabella de Medici. Thank you for removing the over painted panting of her and restored the actual painting.

[@SpecterVonBaren]

The paint over looked more like how she's depicted in other paintings of her though.

[@Fallenemiko]

The urn in her hand and the straight on gaze was a sign of power, so the complete removal of it and the averted gaze paired along with the “plastic surgery” done to make her more doll-like and demure was obviously done to make her more appealing to the male gaze overall. They took a real proud powerful woman and made her more digestible for men at the time. The return of her sharp eyes and status symbols is amazing, and I’m so glad it’s been done/discovered

[@liz-fd4jg]

,,,,,,are,,, the people commenting that the conservationist,,,,did a bad job,, actually serious?? She just removed the (honestly ugly) version that someone painted over the original years later? She didn't change the actual painting at all (except for filling in areas of color that had fallen off) I'm not a conservationist, but even I can listen and actually pay attention to what she's doing?

[@madelinebitts2766]

I don't understand why people like you use a million commas, like this: ,,,,, I see it around a bit, are you just nuts or do you not understand that the points of ellipsis are three full stops like this: ... and not just random amounts of commas?

[@kctrent7626]

@@madelinebitts2766 You're a real snobby ass person, aren't ye?

[@IronFreee]

​@@kctrent7626 She is right. I don't agree on how she said it, but punctuation have rules and being snob has nothing to do with it.

[@tsukumoyuuuki]

i agree :/ the commas look really annoying and its so informal.

[@katy2176-p3m]

jisung pwark not sure why you’re concerned with grammar in a youtube comment section but go off I guess

[@greenflowerstreet]

the restorer seems like a really wonderful person and her work is incredible!!

[@maakuw]

I LOVE this! I took renaissance art history and I've noticed SO many of these peices which were throught to have overpaintings are FINALLY being adressed.. revealing REAL faces under these shameful "improvements". What glorious tone and vibrant whites now. She actually looks like a person now, and not the "filtered" look they seemed to acheive in the subsequent period with these changes.

[@bookworms77]

I really enjoyed her talking specifically about how important it is not to leave your own signature style during a restoration. Beautiful job!

[@deeranfoxworthy6069]

I wish to have a job where I can love it and have so much pride in it as you do. This was fantastic! thank you so much for sharing the history and your fantastic love and skill of this craft! I'm so glad I stumbled across your video!

[@Hxrb]

20% : wow amazing 10 % : she changed it omg. 70 % : you not paid attention. the 'after' is the 'old'

[@maddieach]

But I think 79% should be "you not paid attention..." and 1% should be "she changed it" ciz I can't find any hate comments it's buried so under, i came a lonv way to find your comment and still didn't find any hate lol😂

[@Hxrb]

@@maddieach Bro I post this comment 2 years ago...

[@SleepyRoyalty]

I read the comments and couldn't understand the things people were saying about the reconstruction until I saw it and suddenly WOW! That looks like a real powerful woman compared to the almost dead-eyed Victorian version 🤩 :O I love seeing her return to her former glory! The costume she wears is elaborate and gaudy but seeing it on a regular/real looking woman who has big hands and flaws is so much more interesting than the "airbrushed" Victorian version

[@lebeaubastion]

As an artist, I am appreciative and grateful of restorers returning work to their original composure. Removing someone else’s interpretation painted over the original, removes the perversion of the image from someone else’s taste.

[@miranduri]

Good grief so many comments from people who know nothing of restoration. She uncovered the real original painting after it was submitted to xrays. Restoring art is preserving it, not changing it. And do not argue with me, I restored art for many years.

[@PandemoniumPirateRadio]

Restoring art is not the same as MAKING art. You are not even an artist. So you don’t really understand the purpose of art either just because you restored it with technical knowledge 😴😴😴😴😴

[@miranduri]

@@PandemoniumPirateRadio What an ignorant comment. I am indeed an artist, have painted plenty in my long lifetime. To restore art, you meed tons of knowledge about art. Go get an education.

[@Magnetron33]

I am so amazed that the layer of Victorian paint could be separated from the original. That is quite a feat! Thank you!

[@thorr18BEM]

The reason is the protective varnish layer which is between the old and new paint layers.

[@saraholson5946]

Everytime I see one of these it shows how often past conservators/restorers inserted themselves

[@mithramusic5909]

I don't know what I expected, but I'm surprised by how much straight re-painting actually happens over the years. Great work.

[@juliab7178]

Looks so much better with the Victorian overpaint off. Hoorah!

[@chaddyormillo1164]

This woman was so lucky to get her hands on this piece of art that has more history from it. With her talent of restoring this art with meticilous process I wonder how much she earn from doing them. 💖

[@ghostsuru8429]

I appreciate this lady knows when she might be over-stepping her powers of restoration by trying to fill in the missing fabric pattern. I learned recently about so many restoration artists completely painting over the painting cause they felt they needed to fill in all the missing pieces or fix all the flaws and couldn't stop themselves. She's a true conservationist. *gives video thumbs up*

[@nelsiegeografo9185]

Yah, people seem to like 'fixing' others' art to make them look 'better'. I posted a piece I just finished on my social media and someone already 'fixed' it. Kudos to the restorer for bringing back the original.

[@Christina.N.]

Wow that's rude. I suppose they couldn't create the original though!

[@nelsiegeografo9185]

@@Christina.N. On the other hand, they made it look better (I think) so I really don't know how to feel about it XD But it's true, not everyone would take it lightly. I guess I just don't take myself seriously. And I can still appreciate another version of my work and their skill. I don't like it when someone criticizes my work and tells me what to do when that person could not even hold the pencil the right way. I can't learn anything from that.

[@Christina.N.]

@@nelsiegeografo9185 the trials and tribulations of being an influential artist I suppose 😄