Seems to be a matter of taste and anyway: Who are you to say what's worth surviving and what not?!
Thomas Rainer aus dem Spring schrieb am 02.09.2003: >[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 > > > > >
