10-22-2012, 03:21 AM
So today there was a news article on how some restoration work is being carried out on some stained glass windows in a church in central London, and that it'll take 7 years with fine care to preserve the artwork that it portrays. They're taking out some old restoration techniques of using a black fibre and instead replacing it with a newly developed clear resin.
This comes months after the article about a woman who tried to restore that painting of Jesus from a church somewhere, who botched it up excessively bad. Like, beyond words bad.
What is your opinion on restoration of art?
My opinion is that the restoration of art is utterly wrong - but preservation is vital. I find that restoring, as in painting inbetween the lines where time has decayed a painting or any other art piece, alters what that painting now is, and what it was. I cannot paint the Mona Lisa millimetre to millimetre and say that it is the same painting - it just isn't. But if the Mona Lisa over 100 years started to chip away in gaps, and I then fill those in, it is still called to be the original painting.
And I disagree - I find it appauling that we accept that it is flogged to us as the original, when it's only a percentage of the original, and a percentage of some unnamed restoration worker.
However, with preservation, we can keep the remains of the original art for as long as possible, and I believe that THAT is important. We should be allowed to appreciate the art that we have remaining and not question what of it is original and what isn't.
![[Image: PjZpQ.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/PjZpQ.gif)
This comes months after the article about a woman who tried to restore that painting of Jesus from a church somewhere, who botched it up excessively bad. Like, beyond words bad.
What is your opinion on restoration of art?
My opinion is that the restoration of art is utterly wrong - but preservation is vital. I find that restoring, as in painting inbetween the lines where time has decayed a painting or any other art piece, alters what that painting now is, and what it was. I cannot paint the Mona Lisa millimetre to millimetre and say that it is the same painting - it just isn't. But if the Mona Lisa over 100 years started to chip away in gaps, and I then fill those in, it is still called to be the original painting.
And I disagree - I find it appauling that we accept that it is flogged to us as the original, when it's only a percentage of the original, and a percentage of some unnamed restoration worker.
However, with preservation, we can keep the remains of the original art for as long as possible, and I believe that THAT is important. We should be allowed to appreciate the art that we have remaining and not question what of it is original and what isn't.