You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive concepts.
-Durova On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Durova <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Compare that creative effort to--for example--the creative intuition of > > reconstructing Admiral David Farragut's eyes. > > Some would say that any attempt to recreate the eyes and present it as > a "restored" photograph is misleading. It crosses the line into a a > new creation, rather than a restoration. Intuitive, maybe, creative, > yes, but accurate? Who can tell. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Sistine_Chapel_frescoes#Eyes > > If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you > truly restored it? Or have you created something new? > > Carcharoth > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
