Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
> It seems to me that reproducing a work just as it is, complete
> with " the rough edges, frays, dirt and smears" keeps the
> reproduction truer to the original and provides opportunities
> for meaningful discussions about the differences between the
> orginal and the reproduction.
I like this. But, I suppose that it becomes a tricky thing in time
determining the state in which a piece was left by the artist and what has
accreted through the years or been inflicted through mishandling.
On the other side of the coin, to be considered as well, is the belief
that in some contexts a work is "supposed" to disintegrate or accumulate
the marking of the passage of time. Such notions are found in several
"artworlds". Interesting... In one way, the "cleaning up" of works is just
another cultural foible; all-in-all as valid as any other cultural foible
perhaps. I prefer "wabi", whatever it's called. But I have to admit that
it can be just as 'artificial' at times.
> Another idea: In our teacher institutes and seminars, we often take
> a reproduction of a work of art to the museum along to display
> and discuss right in front of the original. I know this strategy is not
> always possible for everyone, but we find it very helpful in generating
> discussion when it can be arranged.