>> These definitions are great. But they are predicated on several ideas that seem subjective.
>> What's wrong with destroying "anything that might be there," if the object is maintaining the whole item?
This is a question that I think has to be answered on a case-by-case basis. If your objective is "maintaining the whole item," replacing the paint is certainly destructive to part of that whole. But this is not an absolute... I would certainly consider repainting destructive if the object is, say, one of Coppi's race bikes that is in a museum, but I would consider repainting to be restorative if it's a done on a bike that you want to ride regularly (and therefore would be in need of effective protection against the elements).
>> Why should painting be considered "extraordinary means."
Because in some cases it is. Look at some of the horrific art "restorations" that involved repainting. In the case of a bike you are riding every day, repainting when needed is a necessary part of keeping a bike on the road... on the other hand, most of us have seen or heard about old and rare bikes with distinctive paint and irreplaceable decals that were needlessly destroyed by an owner who just wanted the bike to look showroom new.
>> What's wrong with "something new" if it helps to "give new life?"
Again, I think this is a tricky subject, one which is probably better off addressed on a case-by-case basis because there are so many variables. Consider the world of choices between the extremes of "conservation" and "restoration" when the subject is an ancient work of art (which would not only be of some historical importance but is also probably a unique creation as opposed to a mass-produced item of which there may be dozens or hundreds of examples). Granted, the choices may be fewer (and some might argue less important) in bicycle preservation than in art preservation, but I think that most would agree there are still choices to be made... and these are often best considered individually rather than abstractly.
Bob Hovey
Columbus, GA USA
http://bhovey.com/
From: George Hollenberg Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:11 PM To: Bob Hovey Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR] Ciclo Locomotiva - "sympathetic restoration"?
Bob: These definitions are great. But they are predicated on several ideas that seem subjective. What's wrong with destroying "anything that might be there," if the object is maintaining the whole item? Why should painting be considered "extraordinary means." What's wrong with "something new" if it helps to "give new life?" George George Hollenberg MD CT, USA
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Bob Hovey <bobhoveyga@aol.com> wrote:
> I'd like to take a poll. Who thinks that the term "restored" means > the bike has been repainted?
ATMO*, "restoration" means "bringing back" an object to any former state (up to and including new), so I suppose this might include repainting... tho I personally prefer to see the term used more conservatively. I think the term "renovation" might be more appropriate for a repaint, since this is the term whose literal meaning is "to make new."
I usually like to reserve the terms "conservation" or "preservation" for a item that has been given new life using no extraordinary means... in other words, using what's there (and not destroying anything that's there in order to replace it with something newer... which would include paint).
Bob Hovey
Columbus, GA USA
http://bhovey.com/
* Copyright R. Sachs, 2006. All rights reserved.
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/
-- George
George Hollenberg MD
CT, USA