CULTURE: Farewell Leicester Square monuments
How ‘conservation’ destroyed a London landmark
Is nothing safe any more? It comes as a shock to learn that at the very heart of London, in a square whose name is famous around the world and which is visited by millions of people each year, four important old statues have recently been defaced to such an extent that they will almost certainly have to be removed. But that’s exactly what’s happened to the busts of a quartet of famous Leicester Square residents. For more than 120 years, images of physicist Isaac Newton, artists William Hogarth and Joshua Reynolds and the pioneering surgeon John Hunter have presided over this busy London landmark. Yet today the famous faces are ravaged – almost unrecognisable as representations of human beings, let alone the individuals whom they commemorate.
Yes, it’s a disgrace – and yes, the malefactors responsible for this appalling act of vandalism should be brought to justice. Who are the guilty men? Step forward, Westminster City Council.
It all began innocently enough. In the early 1990s, as part of a general tarting-up of the Soho / Leicester Square area, the Grade II listed limestone busts, which like most things in central London tend to become a bit grimy with the passage of time, were taken away to be cleaned. According to a spokesman for Westminster Council,
The busts looked fine when they returned to the square, but we then noticed the features appeared to be eroding. It was a very unfortunate mistake.
This is, however, slightly disingenuous. The features, did not simply ‘appear’ to be eroding. They were rotting away into hideous, frankly nightmarish parodies of their former glory. A decade ago they were in perfect shape, if a bit dark; today they are unrecognisable. A cheap attempt at restoration – the provision of a substitute nose for Sir Joshua Reynolds – attracted negative comments, notably allusions were made to Michael Jackson. But the real problem is that the damage has not been halted, and the surface of the busts continues to be eaten away. What's been destroyed quite simply cannot be recovered.
What happened, then? According to Westminster Council, the ‘conservators’ cleaning the busts brushed them down with a highly corrosive, concentrated solution of hydroflouric acid. Unfortunately once this percolated into the limestone, it stayed there, and continues to react with the stone itself and with chemicals in the atmosphere. The result is a surface that crumbles away to nothing. One might ask why this technique was chosen, or how it was tested, or what has since happened to the council employees who did this. One might ask – but one might also have to wait quite a while for an answer, other than 'these things happen'.
So what is to be done about Leicester Square? Westminster Council has suggested that new works of art should be commissioned for the Square – a proposal that does not entirely make the heart soar, it must be said. Meanwhile English Heritage has dug its heels in and insists on retaining the fatally damaged original statues, even though keeping them outside, exposed to pollution, will only speed up their deterioration.
While this story is obviously tragic, it is by no means unusual. Indeed, this sort of vandalism is happening all the time – in our museums and galleries, churches and stately homes, as well as in our public squares – and if it does not receive the publicity it should, this is in part because it has become a bit of a 'dogs bites man' story – regrettable, but not particularly arresting.
For years now, the campaigning group Artwatch has made itself unpopular with the great and the good of the arts and heritage community by drawing attention to this dirty little secret – the extent and seriousness of the damage done by untested, sloppy or simply misguided ‘conservation’ and ‘restoration’ techniques. Professor James Beck, the group’s president, has called for copies of the Leicester Square busts to be substituted for the originals, and has suggested that the originals be placed in climate-controlled environment in order to slow down their deterioration. More importantly, however, he has called for a general policy of increased transparency about the methods, benefits and possible risks of cleaning works of art. ERO agrees. Indeed, one does not have to stray far from Leicester Square – about two hundred yards south, in fact – in order to find a national institution which regularly damages works in its care through over-zealous and under-tested conservation techniques. The National Gallery, though, is anything but forthcoming on this particular topic. If such institutions have nothing to hide, what do they have to fear from more transparency?
This isn’t simply some abstract, theoretical problem. If these statues had been destroyed by May Day protesters or drunken yobs or other, normal West End circumstances, there is little question that there would have been a public outcry, that legal sanctions would have been brought to bear, and that action would be taken to ensure that such things could not easily happen again. Why should this be any different? There was, after all, nothing much wrong with these busts before they were 'conserved'. They had lasted nearly 130 years, through changes in urban planning, the Blitz and much else. This is not a story about natural deterioration. It is a story about wholly unnecessary mutilation of works of art which, if not necessarily breathtakingly marvellous in themselves, were a familiar and much-loved feature of London life.
Yet the bitterest irony of all is that these statues were wrecked by the very people charged with protecting them, using our tax money to do so. These people are still in charge of their care, and the care of much else in Westminster. It is time that those responsible faced criminal charges for what they have done. At best, this will have the effect of making the art and heritage community sit up and take notice of the damage being done in its name. We need to recongise that once these things are lost, there is no way to get them back. If, alternatively, we respond with the usual blend of fatalism and indifference, allowing more and more of the physical remains of the past to be obliterated in this way, it is hard to imagine that future generations will look kindly upon us for it.
ERO, October 23, 2002 12:52 PM