Diplom-Restauratorin
Maxi Schwarz-Bastami
Is there an English equivalent to this degree? The
client graduated with a degree "Diplom-Restauratorin";
she is able to restore paintings and sculptures. Right
now I have "Academic Degree in (Art) Restoration".
However, if there is an official title, I would
prefer to use that.
Thank you in advance,
maxi
Toby OCM
and "degree" or "diploma" into a search engine.
Regards,
Toby
Please reply to the NG, rather than my e-mail (since I visit my mailbox
infrequently).
-----------------------------------------------
Getting information from the Internet is like getting a glass of water from
Niagara Falls.
Maxi Schwarz-Bastami wrote in message <3919EC01...@sympatico.ca>...
Maxi Schwarz-Bastami
diffierence between 'conservation' and 'restoration' just yesterday; in
the former the emphasis is on preserving the painting (keeping it from
needing to be 'restored' in the first place), and in the latter it is on
restoring whatever has started to go wrong (paint flaking off, pieces
chipped off, colour fading, etc.). Apparently Queens University here in
Ontario teaches it. Your suggestion regarding the search engine is
a good one. Thanks.
maxi
Toby OCM
Maxi Schwarz-Bastami wrote in message <391AD997...@sympatico.ca>...
>Thanks for the suggestion, Toby. The client happened to mention the
>diffierence between 'conservation' and 'restoration' just yesterday; in
>the former the emphasis is on preserving the painting (keeping it from
>needing to be 'restored' in the first place), and in the latter it is on
>restoring whatever has started to go wrong (paint flaking off, pieces
>chipped off, colour fading, etc.). Apparently Queens University here in
>Ontario teaches it. Your suggestion regarding the search engine is
>a good one. Thanks.
You're welcome. The whole restoration vs. conservation debate is a very
live one. There is a school of thought which argues that if something is
deteriorated, it should be left like that, rather than having new bits
applied which artificially attempt to replicate the original; all that one
should do is conserve the piece (i.e. stabilise it to prevent further
deterioration). To some extent, I can see their point: no-one would think
of putting new, 'sympathetic' arms on the Venus de Milo, yet that is
effectively what restorers do all the time to other pieces.
John Woodgate
inimitably wrote:
>The whole restoration vs. conservation debate is a very
>live one. There is a school of thought which argues that if something is
>deteriorated, it should be left like that, rather than having new bits
>applied which artificially attempt to replicate the original; all that one
>should do is conserve the piece (i.e. stabilise it to prevent further
>deterioration). To some extent, I can see their point: no-one would think
>of putting new, 'sympathetic' arms on the Venus de Milo, yet that is
>effectively what restorers do all the time to other pieces.
The solutions are not mutually exclusive. Conserve the original and make
a copy with the damage eliminated. If it's too expensive to make a
physical copy, make a copy in software.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk I wanted to make a fully-
automated nuclear-powered trawler,but it went into spontaneous fishing.
PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me.
Maxi Schwarz-Bastami
Fascinating. I didn't realize that a debate was going on. It does seem
to tie in with an old National Geographic article I was reading last week.
A previous issue had been dedicated to the renovations to Michelangelo's
paintings in the Sistine Chapel. A reader complained that now the art
had been spoiled forever as far as he was concerned; no more of that
'lovely ancient look'. Of course, if you let it keep on looking ancient
long enough, the painting will probably eventually fade or flake away.
maxi
Toby OCM wrote:
> You're welcome. The whole restoration vs. conservation debate is a very
> live one. There is a school of thought which argues that if something is
> deteriorated, it should be left like that, rather than having new bits
> applied which artificially attempt to replicate the original; all that one
> should do is conserve the piece (i.e. stabilise it to prevent further
> deterioration). To some extent, I can see their point: no-one would think
> of putting new, 'sympathetic' arms on the Venus de Milo, yet that is
> effectively what restorers do all the time to other pieces.
>