Art History

Is Restoration Worth the Risk?

For centuries now, controversy regarding restoration of artworks has been widely debated. This argument, constantly lead many to question whether or not art should or shouldn’t be restored from its original state. The conflict occurs as individuals dispute on different views. The advocates in favor of revitalizing the art to achieve the original’s depiction, support mediums of application such as: new layers of paint to retouch and add subtle detail to the surface of a piece, or even the process of molding and affixing the pieces of art that broke and deteriorated throughout time. While those who advocate a more formal and traditional approach, repudiating the idea of any modification made in the attempt to restore the art, arguing that it diminishes the authenticity and value as a whole.

The following paper will highlight two different points of views in regards to the restoration of art, analyzing both views’ principles and logistics, arguing if possible damage is worth the risk. Both parts exemplify a strong claim, however, archeology examines and presents the fundamental explanation for restoration of artworks. Once a piece of art is found, questions are established in order to provide the specific care needed. The question that arises is as follow: Should care be limited to conservation or is it essential for restoration to play a role (specifying the amount of care that is required)? These questions will be taken into consideration throughout the discussion of this essay, providing emphasizes on the overall purpose and use for restoration through various examples of artworks.

As time continues to pass and new generations come along, art like humans evolve, changing physically and metaphorically. The overall appeal, design, and structure deform as time progresses, leaving behind some of its historical value. A work of art, while distinctive just by presence, depicts the period in time in which it was created. The...