Response to Mark Rabinowitz's Letter

Dear SOS!:

I welcome the opportunity to respond to Mark Rabinowitz’s criticism of the article you asked me to write for the September 2000 issue of LodeSTAR. I am glad that he read the piece with interest, but I think that he may have missed its intent. As an historian, my objective in the article was twofold: to look back on the development of bronze cleaning methods during the last 25 years, and to consider the mixed success we’ve seen in efforts to maintain conserved works. I agree with Mr. Rabinowitz’s suggestion that we should focus attention on “issues of management and follow up care relevant to owners.” He also advocates a greater discussion of the dynamic roles of conservators, owners and curators in the mix. Both of these are extremely valuable topics for articles, but they were not the intent of mine. He takes issue with my review of the controversy that surrounded bronze cleaning methods, but it would not have been possible to discuss the development of the field without considering the methodological conflicts that formed its birth trauma.

Mr. Rabinowitz’s letter also casts me as a strict adherent to a “walnut shell-hot wax treatment regiment [sic].” I don’t think my article suggests this, nor does it reflect my view. I advocate treatments that are appropriate to the needs of a particular bronze and to the ability of its stewards to maintain it. Many cleaning methods have merit if used appropriately. As I further stated in the article, waxes and lacquers are both viable coating systems, but are dependent upon a commitment to the specific maintenance regimen that each requires. In the National Park Service, with our massive collections of bronzes at Civil War battlefield sites throughout the east, we have usually opted for wax coatings because our staffs can readily maintain them. I was surprised at Mr. Rabinowitz’s suggestion that wax coatings require maintenance twice annually. We are achieving much longer wax life, and I would suggest that he may be experiencing problems due either to his wax formulation, his application methods, or both. Later in his letter, he writes that a wax coating “fills up all the voids and hides the details [a sculptor] created…” further suggesting that faults lie not in the coating, but rather in its use. If a coating is applied properly, one sees the sculpture, not the coating.

Finally, I want to address Mr. Rabinowitz’s disagreement with my use of the word sculpture as a term to describe bronze statuary. For him, sculpture seems limited to the design that leaves the sculptor’s hand and does not extend to the bronze that is the product of the foundry that casts it. This definition seems both too restrictive and very idiosyncratic. I use the word sculpture is a broader and, I believe, a more widely accepted manner. A finished bronze is the product of many hands and intellects—beginning in a sculptor’s studio and finishing in a foundry. The result of those efforts is a work of sculpture.

Sincerely,
Dennis Montagna
Monument Research & Preservation
National Park Service
Philadelphia Support Office