Well put. It's noticeable that museums and archives tend to adopt
preservation techniques (stabilisation and prevention of further
deterioration)
rather than restoration (creation of an 'as new' appearance) on historical
documents and early art posters such as those of Lautrec and Mucha. I've never
really understood the desire to make an old movie poster appear completely
new, as it makes it look more like a reproduction than the genuine
article, and therein lies the problem with these fakes so it appears. It can
even
lead to some howling errors, such as the 'In Demand A Mate' tagline error
on a Bride Of Frankenstein jumbo window card some years ago.
On more than one occasion I've actually had to convince non-collectors
looking at a restored poster, that they were looking at an original old poster
for the movie, which sort of defeats the object really.
Paul
_www.movieposterstudio.com_ (http://www.movieposterstudio.com)
In a message dated 02/09/2009 21:09:18 GMT Daylight Time, ac...@oscars.org
writes:
I have been reading the discussion surrounding the recent revelations
about forgeries have been discussed and there is one point I would like to
make
before this topic is sidelined as old news. The over-restoration of movie
posters has contributed greatly to forgers’ ability to fake old paper.
Too much paint makes it difficult to determine not only how much (if any)
original paper actually exists but it also plays into the hands of those with
nefarious plans. As I understand it, the forgers not only distressed the
paper that they used but they also applied over-painting because this is a
common practice within the field of collectible movie paper. I would
advocate for movie paper collectibles to instead be evaluated based on their
original condition not some ideal that can be created via the application of
over-painting.
If anything good comes out of this, it would be (in my opinion) that
collectors would look at posters with fold creases and paper losses and learn
to
love them just the way they are without paint to brighten the colors and
obscure the signs of use. If the practice of over-painting could magically
disappear, it would be much easier to determine what is and is not real.
Visible fold creases should be viewed as a clue that the paper is truly what
it claims to be while a lack of fold creases should be a cause of concern
for collectors. If the fold creases, background and borders have been
over-painted, how can you be certain that what you are buying is more paper
than paint? And I haven’t even touched on the problems of what happens to
paint and paper when they age. It’s not pretty, especially if the piece was
exhibited under less than ideal light conditions in a frame on a wall in
your house for a long period of time.
That said I completely understand that paper losses particularly in the
image area can detract greatly from the enjoyment of a poster. In these
cases, those in the field of paper conservation would tell you that whatever
you do should be completely reversible serving only to trick the eye at a
distance but completely revealing itself upon close inspection.
Whether you collect for personal enjoyment, as an investment or as part of
a larger institutional mandate, the posters we all hold are part of our
larger cultural heritage as well as assets to be protected. Please take my
comments as an attempt to ask the field to re-evaluate current practices and
think about the long-term implications of over-restoration. The benefit
will be increased transparency which will make it more difficult for forgers
to ply their trade and collections that will continue to awe for
generations to come.
Anne Coco
Graphic Arts Librarian
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
