|
|
|
|
|
by aeturnum
1703 days ago
|
|
No, absolutely not. I think that one has to be careful with labeling - these works are highly researched guesses based on lots of sources but are not "the article itself." But I think this process, where they are trying to be a thorough as possible in guessing what colors Klimt might have used mechanistically, is much more respectful than other techniques. Consider the recent Vermeer restoration[1] (hn discussion at [2]): 'restoring' the painting in this way alters the actual article and could be altering the intent of the artist. I support the work, but I think there's a basic element of uncertainty to it. At the end of the day, if you don't want to accept the machine's guess at the colors Klimt used, you don't need to! You have access to the same archival documentation of what his lost paintings looked like as everyone else. [1] https://hyperallergic.com/672345/vermeer-restoration-finally... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28468802 |
|