| _______________________ |
To revive or not to restore? One would be hard-pressed to gawk on the fanciful easy Tintoretto at Kingston Lacy and interpretation that it would have been improved left as the grubby board that William Bankes brought to Britain 160 years ago.
But the actuality is that not all inventive replacement jobs are so unambiguously beneficial. When Leonardo Da Vincis Last Supper in Milan was easy there were a little areas of the fresco that were over repair. The restorers motionless to re-paint these tools in resigned watercolours to prove they were not strange work. The outcome was not what Leonardo intended.
And if replacement is desirable, because stop at paintings? Why not reconstruct the Parthenon? Or the Colloseum? The answer is that we see nobleness and pathos in hull and we recognize that a buildings infirmity tells us something about the history. But is there not nobleness and pathos in a used old master too? And doesnt a paintings repairs additionally discuss it us something critical about the history? After all, Vasari spoken the Last Supper already "ruined" when he was essay his Lives. And that was in the 1550s. We benefit something when we restore. But we need to be aware of what we infrequently lose too.
| _______________________ |
