Is it just me that thinks the two images are not of the same object?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45455125
The original non painted version doesn't look like it is quite the same. Could be me, the paint or whatever but there are physical differences I can see.
I hope that they haven't ruined a work like that.
For me they look a bit different but that could be down to dark/shadows that are no longer dark. If you know what I mean. The base is also a different shape.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 8 Sep 18 at 00:06
|
>> but there are physical differences I can see.
>>
I agree. jesus' fingers are splayed in the original - there is light showing through the gaps.
The folds of the cloak slung over the arm are different where it droops.
I suppose it could just be the slightly different angle, different emphasis of light and dark, and what looks like a rather thick paint.
Perhaps it took a lot of coats to reach such perfection :)
It really is an outrage that people are allowed to get away with such vandalism - why aren't they prosecuted and made to pay for restoration?
On the other hand much of our own expert art restoration is overdone. And of course now we have started destroying valuable antique artefacts containing small bits of ivory.
|
Reckon its a copy.
Although taken from a slightly different angle there are numerous minor differences.
|
|
So where do they think the real one is :-)
|
It's probably a copy for tourism, as "Meanwhile an earlier botched restoration of the Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) fresco in 2012 has since become an attraction in its own right, drawing thousands of visitors to the town of Borja, also in northern Spain."
What we however do forget is that the mediaeval period was very brightly coloured. They would very probably originally have been brightly painted. Of course, the colours would have been different as doubtless these are not authentic colours, but we would be astonished to visit the mediaeval period to see how bright it was.
|
Botched Restoration - Fake News - Cliff Pope
