Is restoration phase 3 a danger to the Altarpiece?
As the Ghent Altarpiece is World Heritage, we believe it to be our painful duty to bring the damage to the general attention of the wider public, primarily to prevent similar damage occurring in phase 3. After the revelation of the damage in the Adoration, the authorities have taken unsatisfactory measures: the same person in charge of supervising phase 2 will unfortunately continue to conduct phase 3. There will be more (H.V.: unrealistic!!) ‘supervision’, mainly by the committees. The same experts will continue to do the job they did not succeed to do well in phase 2. For now, it is said that they ‘are unanimous’, (this is after ‘dissenting’ voices are no longer welcome), and it is unclear in what they are unanimous. Probably in agreeing with the Authorities and respect the total confidentiality that is requested from them in the future.
Was a preliminary examination even carried out? No result of any such examination was ever shared with the national committee as far as we know. No diagrams with precisely mapping out of overpainted areas. No questions asked to the national committee: scraping off? Or not? Ill-fated initiatives were taken by the restorers, without consultation of the advisory committees (or without enough consultation of the international committee?). Inappropriate dating was made of paint layers, identified as “16th-century”, while no scientific method allows such precise dating. The restorers justify the scraping off with the scalpel by the late date of “16th-century”, which excludes the paternity to Van Eyck. In fact, the dating was merely done at sight (“a granular appearance”) that the restorers compared with the overpainting on the closed Altarpiece in phase 1.
After the restoration was completed, comes the explanation that “the 16th century overpaints had first to be removed before the study of the hands of Hubert and Jan respectively.”
The ‘discovery’ of the participation of Hubert came only after the completion of the restoration, although the details that led the restorers to identify the participation of Hubert had always been visible on the surface.
The lack of preliminary examination led to confusion, errors and catastrophic results. The report and the publication required an additional year of study by the restorers because the situation that was complex from the start, had evolved towards incomprehensible.
Since phase 3 of the restoration recently started under the same direction as phase 2, again without a thorough examination, we are asking to set a STOP to the restoration, until the outstanding questions are answered. Large parts of the upper register (phase 3), the wings and middle panels, are in good or excellent condition. It would be wise to restrict the restoration to a respectful conservation treatment rather than an invasive scalpel restoration.
Phase 3 started with un-varnishing the surfaces. That is OK. However, what followed was - as far as I know - a request for permission to scrape off ‘test windows’ (small surfaces). Thus ‘examination by scraping off’. The thorough examination with naked eye, microscope and with all available technical documents, the mapping out of ‘over paintings’, preliminary discussions with the Committees on the general decisions …. apparently will not occur. One of the questions to be discussed is what to do with the old repairs. There are probably old repairs in the large cloths. In particular when the Saint John’s panel was broken in the 20th-century, and had to be repaired, retouches were probably done by Albert Philippot. The latter was ‘Prix de Rome’ (Prize of Rome: rewarding excellence for painters, 1667-1968) and carried out careful retouching. Taking those off and having them replaced by our ‘phase 2’ restorers could worsen the situation.
The wax brocades of the cloths of honour
The cloths of honor, made of wax-brocades, behind the three high central figures, are in very poor condition. They were probably damaged in an earlier restoration by using heating lamps for consolidation. The heat in this case melted the wax. The restorer who did the damage was probably the same who did the repair. Here also, taking off the old repairs could lead to more damage. 
Fig.: detail of the cloth of honour, made out of waxbrocades. Heavily damaged in an earlier restauration.
The mantels of the high central Figures, the panels with the angels: overpainted in the 16th century?
Let us emphasize that Hélène Dubois, who supervised phase 2 and now will supervise phase 3, recently published: “…the full mantle of the Deity, a large part of the panels with the angels, and the background of all panels were overpainted in the 16th century…” (Een optische revolutie, 2020, p. 238). In other words: “we will have a lot to scrape off…”.
Fig.: detail of the singing angels in outstanding state of conservation.
The condition of the wings has been controversial in the past: « The laboratory analysis carried out in the 80s by Leopold Kockaert, Luc Maes and Jan Wouters (KIK-IRPA), mostly of existing samples taken in 1951, also disagreed with Paul Coreman’s and Jean Thissen’s conclusions regarding the presence of overpainting. In the view of Kockaert, Maes and Wouters the complex paint layer build-up is original and neither the angel’s nor the Enthroned Deity’s draperies are overpainted”. (Anne van Grevenstein-Kruse and Hélène Dubois, The Ghent Altarpiece Revisited: 2012-2017, in Christina Currie et al., Van Eyck Studies, Paris-Leuven-Bristol, 2017, p. 21).
This is a matter of great concern. Being convinced that the wings with the angels are in excellent condition, a prompt reaction is necessary.
