What is your opinion on restoration opponents' stand that artworks should be left to age untouched by restoration? Elaborate on your answer.
2006-09-12 01:18:57 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
If the restoration can't be done without altering the art work, so be it. It is better to have , even if is a little bit different. And usually, the restoration is made because, otherwise, the piece will be completely lost.
2006-09-12 01:28:59 · answer #1 · answered by elgil 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree that artworks should be left untouched. We must take every opportunity to preserve our history for the benefit of future generations. It is scandalous that there are many superb examples of our heritage that are left to rot. I appreciate that it is often the case that the cost of restoration is astronomical but I think if the money can be found (often using public help) it is worth it to preserve the many artworks and properties that are crying out for attention. In this day and age it is either not cost effective or no skills exist for things to be done as they were sometimes centuries ago, so we should make the most of the remaining examples of such work. One of my joys is to immerse myself in history and I am in awe of the great works that can be found in such fine establishments as the Victoria and Albert museum in London where I recently visited. If it weren't for the active programmes of restoration that are supported in museums and galleries across the globe, the world would surely be a less beautiful place. It is important to know where we came from and how humanity progressed through the ages and art is one of the many forms of knowledge that is essential to this process.
2006-09-12 08:41:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I consider films of the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s as 'artwoiks'. The 'colorization' of b&w film is, in my opinion, defiling the medium. Outright destruction of the original woik. However, preservation of any of these orginal woix to allow the viewing by subsequent generations is a necessary action. It can be argued in both affirmative & negative to restore oil canvasses by some of the 'Masters'. The 'restored' Monalisa, for an example, is better than no Monalisa. The forgeries & copies of notable woix are proof that the originals hold some entrinsic value. Unless I'm a curator of an art museum, a shareholder of Christie's, or more closely involved than Yahoo!Answers, my opinion is worth barely +2 points.
2006-09-12 08:40:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate that some artwork is having to be restored BUT with the restoration it will be around for several more generations to enjoy. In today's advances in the art field they can do a restoration that looks like the original now.
2006-09-12 08:26:22 · answer #4 · answered by Marenight 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree....I think that the future wont be able to appreciate the art if it just sits and rots.....I would think the artists would want to be remembered....the only way to do this is to preserve their works
2006-09-12 08:21:39 · answer #5 · answered by Ricknows 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that they should not be mess with
2006-09-12 08:22:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are an idiot to thinking of questions.
2006-09-12 08:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by beat_this_program 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋