Aloha MoPo, David, I could not agree with you more!!!!!!!!
Best, Mark --- David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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.
