she is one of the actual artists!! she is creating the artistic heritage!! go and ask her!!
7 Likes
does it light up at night 
4 Likes
I very much doubt she was around in the XV century when the thing was made.
1 Like
I agree with the idea that the restoration techniques should be professional and take into account not damaging the piece.
But most of the outrage and ridicule about it in this post and others is about the final “look” of the piece, as if adding bright colors is the problem – when they were likely bright and tacky looking to begin with.
5 Likes
A month ago or so they unveiled part of the new restoration of the Portico da Gloria in the Santiago de Compostela cathedral.
That thing is a masterpiece of medieval art… and people were shocked to find it painted, as it has been just bare rock for more or less the last 3 generations. But, in that case, the restoration was done by professionals, and they actually tried to do as little as possible and try to give it the “original” look - and finding out via analysis a whole history of restoration projects during the centuries.
Of course, the Cathedral there is a big historical monument that is very much in the spotlight of the local government…
11 Likes
And the original artists aren’t around now, nor do we speak Latin these days. Like everything else, art evolves…
3 Likes
Art evolves. History doesnt.
That thing is an historical artifact. They want to evolve “art”, they can very well make a new sculpture and put it there.
3 Likes
The Terracotta Warriors were too, which blew my mind.
(That’s a reproduction based on paint samples they found on the originals)
19 Likes
While we may disagree in general, I believe that may actually be what happened in this case. If you look closely, virtually every physical line and angle is different in the colored version.
2 Likes
Yea, I’m not surprised the media latched onto the misleading photo of the version without paint.
They are cultural artifacts, but we need to remember that volunteers within the church are also a continuation of that culture.
I guess if parishioners have a problem with how their priest has exercised his authority in the matter, then they’re probably in the wrong religion. The operation of a church isn’t a democracy, especially a Catholic church. Certainly people are free to provide input, and they should be rightfully upset if not given the opportunity . But the authority in decision making is a hierarchical system, the same system that produced those artifacts in the 15th century.
7 Likes
5 Likes
I suspect a bright paint job like this is designed for its impression at a distance most of the time, something before/after photos like these never seem to account for.
In Mexico and South America there is a broad genre of folk art and craft known as “artesanía,” which tends to feature bright, bold colors like these. I don’t know if that tradition can be traced back to (or made a migration to) Spain, but the “restored” statue would fit right in with that aesthetic.
Edit: I am honestly really startled at the disdainful, jingoistic BBC headline. I’m not surprised that someone is expressing that sentiment and framing, but I’m really surprised that it’s the BBC doing it.
6 Likes
You know, I have actually acquired clothing specifically because of its resemblance to ancient Greek color patterns. 
3 Likes
Christ, what an “artist.”
7 Likes
Artisanal fuckery?
2 Likes
Needs more bright pink, green and blue.
Maybe some glitter.
4 Likes
Yeah, that hits the nail on the head. The problem is that some people view items created for religious worship as historical artefacts, and some people view them as items for religious worship. For the former, these uninformed “restorations” are travesties. For the latter, it’s a question of aesthetic tastes…
In North America there is a relative dearth of items as old as this, so it seems more natural to preserve them. In Europe, there are really rather a lot… and the assumption that just because something was made hundreds of years ago it ought to be treated in a reverential way (and not used for whatever it was made for) is not obvious. People live in residences that were built hundreds of years ago, and yet there is little compunction in installing plumbing, electricity, renovating etc…
The aesthetic argument, at least for these garish paint jobs, is especially problematic because (as several folks have already noted) when many of these items were made they were indeed garishly painted. And repainted over time by other people. Medieval (and antique) art was full of bright colours.
So really the question is whether people have the right to continue to use items even if they are very old, and even if using them might detract from their historical value. Personally, I’d have to argue that people do have that right. Of course, we also have the right to ridicule their aesthetic choices.
7 Likes
So by your, some other’s logic, painting over the Mona Lisa by some amateur would be ok because art needs to evolve. Right.
3 Likes
I’m guessing she has a collection of Precious Moments figurines.
2 Likes
They have the right to use them and the duty to preserve them, I think.
