I am totally with David on this..
as an art dealer of many years, restoration for "a work of art" is
imperative to it's survival
a movie poster of which there may be very few ( lik ethe Mummy) may
have restoration necessitated by the ravages of time
Personally I prefer to get unbacked posters, so if I want it, I
probably want a nice copy. But 3 sheets. 6 sheets.. absolutely need
backing to exhibit them even if they are mint copies.
There is a difference between restoration and recreation (as Andrea K
pointed out many moons ago when we debated the same issue)
But in the case of the Mummy 1 sheet that was majorly damaged, would
you advocate leaving it as it was when it was pulled from the
sandwich display board that it had been pasted to along with the
posters that were pasted over it? I find it hard to believe anyone
would say "yes"
as long as restoration is done with the same care that you would like
to have your antique car restored, it is a very worthwhile endeavor.
When it is done by some hack -of which there are too many- then it is a crime.
Rich===============
At 04:25 PM 4/15/2007, David Kusumoto wrote:
** I grow tired of pupils from the "no linen-backing, no
restoration" school applying their "rules" to larger "art" items
like movie paper filled with acid. This is a zero-tolerance
attitude that feels TOO absolute. If you collect antiquarian
hardbacks, comic books or magazines, you can't restore without
hurting value. But what good is owning larger movie paper that will
crack or crumble to dust even if handled with latex gloves?
** We're not talking about furniture or a Tiffany lamp whose value
plunges after its "patina" is cleaned off or "restored." Parchment
lasts longer, but it isn't paper. The life span of paper decorated
with colored inks is near zero by comparison. As I've said before,
for some people, presentation is everything. To me, there's nothing
wrong about linen- or paper-backing items that will extend its life
and make 'em look better with a few minor touch-ups. Slabbing would
drive me out of the hobby because you can't display slabbed posters
and it opens up a can of worms about UV and fading and other
crap. Besides, Rich is correct. Poster collectors are a tiny bunch
that wouldn't fill a nice-sized yacht. It'd take an ocean liner to
accommodate the number of comic and coin collectors who live in the USA alone.
** Look at how museum curators in NY or SFO treat their paintings
and drawings and even movie paper. In some cases, they're looking
at preservation AND restoration. Without restoration, Vermeer's
"Girl with a Pearl Earring," Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" or Rembrandt's
"Night Watch" would be non-existent today or display with many
flakes of pigment missing. There's controversy about restoring
frescoes like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, but less debate about
restoring framed art. So when I hear people declare that movie
paper restoration is "illogical" -- I respond with this: IF
restoring art on canvas, a material MORE more durable than an
acid-filled poster -- is embraced by museum curators, than WHY NOT
framed paper as well, so long as it's NOT over done? For ex., at
the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, there are several three-sheets on
display. They're linen-backed and not over painted. At the Academy
Awards' corporate offices on Wilshire Blvd., there are a mix of
linen-backed/restored and unrestored posters also on display. Some
I've seen even look dry mounted on foam core.
** I prefer unrestored paper, but I've got NO problems buying
vintage posters backed and "touched up" so long I know what was
done, as now practiced by Bruce and Heritage. Yet some declare
sacrilegious -- the practice of de-acidifying, cleaning, backing and
conservatively restoring old movie paper. They insist flaws ADD
"character." ADD what? Flaws can underline how old a poster is,
and in some cases, they may add "charm," whatever that subjective
word means. But the type of flaws on a poster -- and how many --
will determine whether anything can be ADDED and PUSHED into the
"plus" side of the column while judging the sum total of a poster's
sentimental or $$$ value.
** Yet I know people who will "die on the hill" -- declaring tears,
folds, stains, creases aren't "really" defects -- IF a poster is at
least (fill in the blank) years old. Well, I won't display an
unrestored insert on paper or linen that's crinkled and looks like
it was sprayed with rust water.
"Rust" and about 30 tape stains and crinkle "chunks" may ADD
"character" -- but at what point do they transform a poster into a
large and brittle newspaper with colored inks -- held together by
linen with zero touch-ups?
The reason I think collecting newspapers and pulp magazines is
mostly inexpensive is because the acid has turned 'em into yellowed
crap and few exist, defect-free, despite being printed by the
thousands. I collect 'em for historical reasons, but I won't display 'em.
** I agree bad restoration of an old poster is more horrific than
leaving that same poster untouched. But in my view, there will
ALWAYS be a need for great poster restorers. So any effort to start
a tidal wave against restoration of movie posters -- will always be
a non-starter for me.
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
