[CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?


From: "Charles Andrews" <chasds@mindspring.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:55:54 -0700
Subject: [CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?

Jerry wrote:

So are these originals or restorations? If the same hands finish it a second time, is it then again "original"?

&&&&&&&

This is easy. The answer is *no.*

And I can cite no greater authority on this matter than Chuang Tsu, who disposed of this philosophical question quite nicely in the 4th century BCE when he said "one cannot step in the same river twice."

It's not original for the simple reason that something can be original *only* once. Original is unique. Anything else is something else.

When those "same hands" finished the frame the first time, it was a different time. They were different people, their work would have been different, in very subtle or very obvious ways. But all that is just static. The basic philosophical question is easily disposed of, it seems to me.
>From a technical point-of-view, the paints and clears were very different. Prep and application were somewhat different, and the end result was different too, mainly because paints were much thinner and went on accordingly. At least, in my experience.

Charles *original rules, period* Andrews Los Angeles