„BEFORE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW WE THINK”

The article deals with an interesting debate following a project that started with the question raised by the press: “Why not overpaint or reconstruct the missing parts of a famous wall painting?” and concluded with a panel discussion that conveyed a better understanding of restoration theories on the part of both the press and the parish. Moreover, part of the project featured an exhibition to communicate the basis of our restoration theories and understanding, whilst requesting a dialogue with the priest and the parish; so, they might communicate their intentions and opportunely discuss theological interpretations with regard to the missing part in the wall-painting, which was important for us in reaching an understanding of the principles behind their ideas.


Introduction
The evangelic church St. Paul (Fig. 1) in the southern German town, Ulm (Baden-Württemberg) was built by Theodor Fischer in 1910 as one of the first ferroconcrete (reinforced concrete) churches in Germany. At the same time the transverse rectangular choir was painted by the famous Stuttgart Academy Professor Adolf Hölzel (Fig. 2, 3). The creation of the niche with all its details and especially the Crucifixion is very important for Hölzel's oeuvre: both for his theory of colours and the fact that it is the only wall painting created by the artist himself. 2 Detail of the rectangular choir with the niche painted by Adolf Hölzel in 1910, with many special irrecoverable details to keep in mind: background of the crucifixion with a pattern of symbols, painted triangle, altar rail, ambo on the right, niches for heating, painted pedestal and doors to connect the choir with the rooms of the parish behind (Photo: Julius Baum 1911) Fig. 4 The niche with the painted crucifixion as it looks today after a "renovation" done in 1969-71. The wall surfaces with the now walled door and niches for the heating as well as the triangle and the pedestal -both important parts of the original concept -were completely overpainted in the today's visible colouring of the backgrounds. The pattern-symbols as shown above were reconstructed on the blue painted background. The altar had been changed in his design and positioned more inside the room, the altar rail had been taken off and a sort of altar isle was created (Photo: Rose Hajdu, Stuttgart)

The beginning of a discussion
How do we handle a transformation that has so massively imposed on the artistic concept of architecture, equipment and design of the niche by Adolf Hölzel? What does it mean to put the clocks back and to "restore" to the state of 1910? This was the first idea of the priest and the parish at least concerning some important details of the painting (especially the triangle), because of its theological concept. The discussion started in 2015, eight years after the completion of extensive research on the paintingtechnique by the restorer-student Viola Lang (Fig. 6) and seven years after the conservation of the status quo, which was finished in 2008. At that time, we didn't even think about changing anything of the 1960s concept. Of course, we had done extensive investigations and analysis at that time, so we knew a lot about the technique -boiling wax with alkali -to use it cold as a painting medium and not hot, like encaustic. Furthermore, we studied the colour-theory and tried to detect the colours by multispectral photographs, taken by Roland Lenz (see Fig. 6) But -all this very interesting information is outside of today's topic, so I can only mention them in passing without going into further detail. So back to the triangle: Before the execution of the paintings on the wall, Hölzel experimented with different preliminary drawings and oil sketches. We perceived, that he changed and developed both: the grade of abstraction and colour, and the texture of the triangle (Fig. 7).
The congregation and the priest, of course, knew about the drawings and oil sketches, and about the conversion in the 1960s and made a request to the state office for preservation of monuments, us, in 2015, for permission to reconstruct some of the main missing parts of the Hölzel that had been overpainted in the 1960s. They especially wanted to get back "their triangle" which they considered to be indispensable for the theological meaning behind the Crucifixion. But comparing a schematic design with the photogrammetry of the present situation it shows the doors and the niches having been bricked up, plastered and overpainted (Fig. 8). It is important to indicate, beside the very individual brush marks of the artist, that the triangle and the painted pedestal were not monochrome at all, but chatoyant as visible on the black-and white photos (see Fig. 3). A restorer has done a test and removed a square centimetre of the latex-dispersion. The test anticipated: it will not work. Even if it were "possible", we' d never be able to take off the overpainting, because then -we would destroy a complete 1960s concept of architecture, equipment and design of the niche. So, what do we do with the request by the community to reconstruct something that we can't possibly envisage, without, that is, creating a situation that never existed? -as shown here in the digital montage ( Fig. 9) The question of how we deal with our cultural heritage is internationally, widely debated and theorized over, regarding the justification and form of additions in painting, sculpture and architecture.  (Janis, 2005, p. 7) -Conservation-restoration theories, principles, fundamentals for a methodical approach serve as a compass for restorers with regard to the question of how one should act and are thus, the basis for a normative ethic in conservationrestoration. The conservation-restoration theories claim a certain liability. The theoretical bases are reference systems; they serve as a support for justifications; they are instruments for the performance of our tasks -but they do not free us from self-responsible evaluation and action. The conservation-restoration ethics developed since the 1980s with the occupational image of the conservator-restorer and a simultaneously adopted "code of ethics". At the time, translations of this "code of honour" initialized by the Canadian Group of IIC were processed worldwide, Germany being included (Goetz & Weyer, 2002, p. 70  emphasizes the value of the historical in its "original", shaped by the artist himself and passed through time as the only historical and aesthetic truth, his successors refer even more clearly to the lifetime of the work of art in their reflections, with recognition of the historical stages as part of their testimony value. I can't go into all the conservation-restoration theories here, but one might mention Camillo Boito, Georg Dehio, Alois Riegl, and of course one of the most important representatives, Cesare Brandi (Brandi, 1963(Brandi, , 1977. 3 His "Teoria del restauro", published in 1963 considers the work of art and the cultural monument not only from the aspect of historicity, but also takes into account aesthetic aspects. And of course, everybody in Florence knows Umberto Baldini and his "Teoria del restauro e unità di metodologia" from 1978/1981 (Baldini, 1978;Baldini, 1981). Recent ideas like the "Contemporary Theory of Conservation" by Salvador Muñoz Viñaz focus more on the society, as experts are invited to discuss their knowledge with society (Muñoz Viñaz, 2005). Referring to the Crucifixion by Adolf Hölzel, this means, we cannot escape a hundred years of theoretical discussion. Conservation-restoration ethics is called upon, to provide this superstructure of the principles of action, and is necessarily incorporated into the process of decision making. Of course, each conservation-restoration always remains bound to its time and its place and the cultural and intellectual understanding of those responsible. And so, each conservator-restorer has, beside his or her individual responsibility, a duty to convey and employ an understanding of the importance of the theories.

An exhibition project as base of a decision-making process
So being convinced that all conservation theories are still valid for the 21st century, there is no necessity to ignore them, but maybe from case to case to specify them with regard to the individual request. But beside our responsibility, and that of today's interdisciplinary team's, we have to grasp cultural heritage in the interdisciplinary discourse in all its aspects, and to communicate the principles and theories in a society, in order to make the decision-making process comprehensible.
That is exactly what we aimed to do with an exhibition that included a catalogue; instead of physically laying our hands on the niche or the Crucifixion: we decided to involve all actors and engage them in the organisation of two exhibitions; one about Adolf Hölzel in the Museum of Ulm, where we had the opportunity to show all original drawings and oil sketches (see Fig. 7); and, another exhibition in the church, with extensive documentation to communicate all aspects under consideration -under the motto of: "Before we understand what we are doing, we need to know how we think". So, we tried to communicate the basis of our understanding, but we also asked the priest and the parish to communicate their intentions and, for example, to expand upon the theological meaning of the triangle. The exhibition ( Fig. 10-11) started with the building-history and the conversion in the 1960s (also analysing the intention of the architect). We then discussed the history of monument care; beginning with the theories of John Ruskin and finishing with the Venice Charter (The Venice Charter, 1964). Another important part dealt with theories of conservation-restoration and the Ethics behind conservation-restoration -featuring: Boito, Brandi, Baldini, Muñoz Viñaz and others; comparing the special subject of the Crucifixion with existing theories and discussing solutions. Looking at both: the preliminary studies and the significance of the door; and the theological importance of the triangle. The multispectral photos to identify pigments were important for the research, too, regarding the colours used by Hölzel and the technique behind the wall painting. We ended the two exhibitions with a panel discussion with the parish, the priest and the public. It was very interesting to observe, that the older people of the parish, who had been praying in front of the Crucifixion before its transformation, remembered the triangle: each one recollecting the triangle however as having a different colour! The most important experience for us was to see an increased level of understanding by the parishioners for the arguments about restoration theories. And for the parishioners the very lively debate had brought to the fore, the importance of the crucifixion and the artist at the heart of the community. For us, of course, the whole project had shown the importance of an active exchange, that also respects the way a parish identifies with an art-work that they look at every day. To keep this raised awareness alive, we proposed supporting the church by working on a multimedia presentation. This, on the one hand, could present all the information via tablet, and on the other hand, create a multimedia reconstruction of the original in the form of film or photos, respectively. So at least the community had understood that conservator-restorers are duty bound, to an ongoing discussion (over one hundred years on) regarding conservation-restoration theories, and, therefore, cannot simply deny the past to create a present or future.   The Venice Charter. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (1964). In: MONUMENTA I, Internationale Grundsätze und Richtlinien der Denkmalpflege/ Principes et directives internationaux pour la conservation/International Principles and Guidelines of Conservation (pp. 47-52), herausgegeben von/édités par/edited by ICOMOS Deutschland, ICOMOS Luxemburg, ICOMOS Österreich, ICOMOS Schweiz (2012). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.