> The Cupid is so far about half-exposed—it is estimated that the work will require at least another year

But luckily:

> The same Cupid painting also features in A Lady Standing at a Virginal in the National Gallery in London.

So we could "mostly" know how the Cupid should look like in one year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Standing_at_a_Virginal

"Mostly" because I don't know if this other painting was also later modified since it was painted.

The same elements appear repeatedly in Vermeer's paintings, so it's almost certainly the exact same cupid, hanging on the same wall next to the same window :)

Take a look at the stain on the picture in Wikipedia in the area of Cupid's crotch, I don't think it's accidental being where it is.

It seems that it happened more than once, that once painted, the pictures were later censored to make them more "decent", which is probably what happened to the "completely hidden Cupid" as well. Even the later "uncovering" intervention could have involved modification of the original form.

There are only 35 known originals from Vermeer and as far as I know the Cupid was up to now reasonably visible only on the painting I've linked to. In "Girl Interrupted in her Music" it's there but dark.

Is this the allusion made in the article—that the modification was done as censorship?

Doesn't need to be censorship, maybe just personal preference of the owner who didn't like the comparibly explicit allegoric theme of Vermeers earlier work, compared to the "open" interpretation of the letter without the cupid. Full statements are here by the museum

https://www.skd.museum/en/besucherservice/press/2019/a-new-v...

There are even some overpaintings done by Vermeer himself, like the tilt of the head and a wine goblet, which wont be restored.

https://youtu.be/sFH8vhOI1Ck?t=536

Now I suppose we'll all need to get used to this "new" original version; not sure which one is best.

Since most see the picture as well documented reproduction I don't think anything is inherently lost, only gains into the "final" intent of the work as by the artist. So we have a very well documentent historic state and restored state. Also the colors will be closer to the original intent, since the non-original muting varnish will be removed too. Still there is an ongoing aging process on the organic original pigments used, so it's always not the exact state in appearance as when the painting was completed.

I agree that nothing is inherently loss. This is more like a rediscovery. Still, the covering of that painting, which had artistic merit on its own, is now a thing of the past. I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it.

> I am curious what Vermeer would have thought of it.

I can tell you I'd hate that somebody overpaints with nothing a part of the picture that I've spent so much energy to paint exactly with what I wanted.

I see no excuse for that.

Thank you for your opinion, it might be different from the painter's though. But ultimately, we don't know.

From the article:

“recent laboratory tests established beyond doubt that the figure was overpainted decades after Vermeer completed it. “There was even a layer of dirt above the original varnish on the Cupid, showing the painting had been in its original state for decades””

They mostly avoid the topic “why”, as far as I see.

Slightly unrelated but I feel worth mentioning Is the documentary “Tim’s Vermeer”. The subject attempts to reverse engineer Vermeer’s painting techniques and it’s a fascinating and entertaining ride!