[Boerseun]

Dave made an interesting remark in another thread, and instead of hijacking, I'll just continue it here:

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Ah - how about this though - Let's say that I have a wooden box handed down through generations of my family. As the wood begins to rot, or break, we replace any planks that need replacing. Over the course of time, all the planks are replaced - is it the same box as when it was first created?

Our world is full of ancient ruins and oddities, and it irks me whenever they renovate the things.

For instance, the Colusseum in Rome have been undergoing extensive renovations for the last couple of years, to the point where they *GASP* remove the original blocks, clean them up and put them back.

Where does the value in these old structures lie? In their design only? I like to walk around these ruins and look at the actual blocks, being still in the same places where they have been put with the original builders' hands. If they eventually fall to pieces, well, that's sad. But they are ruins. Is the Colusseum stil the Colusseum if broken pieces have been replace with new ones? Does it still have any historical significance? If they keep adding new pieces to replace the broken pieces, would there be any value in saying "Look at this, this was built by the Romans 2,000 years ago"? It might have been designed by the Romans, but what you see now have been manufactured by the Italians 10 years ago... Nah. There's no magic in that.

They're apparently doing the same thing to Stonehenge.

Can you imagine the outcry if anybody gets it in his head that the Mona Lisa's starting to crack of old age, they need to repaint her?

Of course the Mona Lisa will crack! Of course the ruins will deteriorate! They're old, dammit! But at least they're original! The last guy to touch it in construction was the original builders/painters with their original tools.

Is it only me, or have these guys lost the plot completely?

I'd love it if these relics of ages gone by could be around forever. But I don't like the idea of fixing them. If they're gone, they're gone - it's no use replacing them with artificial placeholders. Have I got it wrong somewhere?

[pgrmdave]

Actually...almost all paintings are restored, including, probably, the mona lisa.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Actually...almost all paintings are restored, including, probably, the mona lisa.

What you're referring to, is normally 'cleaning', under special conditions. But I have never heard of any painting being repainted because the colours are fading or the egg-coat gloss is cracking.

I have nothing against cleaning the ruins. But removing a slab, taking it away from the place where it was laid down thousands of years ago, to clean it up and put it back is historical sacriledge, in my mind. And taking out a broken block and replacing it with a new one, is sacriledge to the nth power, surely!

Dust and clean it in situ, without displacing anything, or don't bother - anything else will destroy it for me.

[pgrmdave]

That's simply not true - look up painting restoration and you'll find that throughout history, and especially with modern technology, they repaint old paintings to try to restore them to look like the artist originally intended. And I disagree that it is a bad thing to rebuild old buildings - what is a better tribute to the architect - helping the building stand by replacing the building materials with new ones, or allowing the building to crumble into ruins?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But I have never heard of any painting being repainted because the colours are fading or the egg-coat gloss is cracking

Unfortunate, but true... Solvents are generally used, but so is fresh paint from time to time. While more common in previous few centuries, and now much chagrined by any restoration artist who has a sense of integrity, it does sometimes happen. One excerpt I found is below:

http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/artrestoration.htm

paintings have sometimes been "restored" by means of having a lesser-talented artist repaint portions of it--and sometimes, elements of the original have been painted over completely to hide an offending element. (In the Sistine Chapel, for example, 16th century Vatican artists painted in strips of cloth to hide the nudity of Michelangelo's original figures. In another case, a coat of arms that originally appeared in Tintoretto's Paradiso was painted over with a cloud.)

[Turtle]

You have posed a poser Boerseun...again. I think in general each restoration needs justifying on its own merits. For example the use of a building, its appearence aside, may require restoration to understand that what seems just a pile of rock is actually an advanced plumbing system or such a matter.

I remember watching a program on the restoration of some Budhist paintings in crumbling temples and the process was carried out with extreme prejudice to the monks' dictates. They allowed some restoration and repainting, but disallowed some as well, but all in accord with their beliefs.

Yep, it's a poser. All in all I'm in favor of doing whatever brings the most knowledge to the fore.

[cwes99_03]

The question boils down, with each object being renovated considered on its own merrits, to whether or not the object would be best served from a restoration or from being left as is.

I think a block of marble is a beautiful thing, but I would never think of restoring a marble statue back to its original form.

A painting however can be digitally remanufactured to "look" just like the original, down to the paint strokes. Thus a digital copy can be used in its place if one wanted just to view the original, and no retouching of the painting need occur.
However, the owner will always say, but I own the original and what good is the original if it doesn't look good anymore. It isn't about stylistic value anymore, it is about monetary value to those people. Ask an appraiser and they will tell you that the market changes its mind on what benefit there would be from restoring pieces all the time, from furniture to folk art.

Personally, I think there is something to be said for both arguments when it comes to an architectural piece. Its beauty is in the original design of it, but if it has already been allowed to deteriorate before it became considered beautiful or valueable, then let it be as long as it doesn't pose a public danger. If it does pose a public danger, then perhaps let it be but make the public sign a waver.

How would you feel if the parthenon was painted on by vandals, if a hole was carved in the Mona Lisa?

[pgrmdave]

There is a difference, though, between changing the artist's original intent (vandalism) and keeping the art true to the artist's intent (restoration). Vandalism by inaction (allowing it to decay) is still vandalism.

[cwes99_03]

According to whom?

Is allowing a fine 4 year old Scotch to age to 12 years ruining the Scotch?

To each his own, eh?

[InfiniteNow]

What an interesting analagy cwes, but I don't follow at all for the following reasons:

1) Where have you seen 4 year scotch?
2) How is aged scotch ruining it?
3) Why not a nice 18 year?



A good restoration expert will do what they can to maintain the integrity and original intent of the piece. After that, it's in the eye of the beholder indeed.