[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I find Stewart McCoy's discussion fascinating. His distinction between > primary sources and the sometimes crucial value of secondary sources when they > preserve evidence of notations recently lost is important. As an art conservator > specializing paintings in the museum field I deal with these matters and > issues quite regularly. The challenge of understanding original artistic intent, > especially when compromised by damage or change, must be understood not only in > the original work of art, but also through critical and direct comparison > with early copies of works of art. Sometimes these copies provide important > clues on color intensities, compositional completeness, and context which are lost > in the autograph version of a painting. When involved in a restoration > treatment, I must consider all the surviving evidence to understand artistic > intent, aesthetic appearance, and interpretation of a work of art. > > With the lute, for example, think of where we would be without the sole > extant copies of the Chilesotti lutebook or the Straloch lutebook... >
Erm, I can live without the Straloch book :) Rainer
