Kemp’s authenticity model: A convergence point for conservation-restoration practice
Clicks: 4
ID: 287034
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.9
/100
4 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #2,340 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Art conservation-restoration approaches have been discussed by philosophers in the field of aesthetics. Debates aim to address the need for a process that protects art from damage and decay. Purism is a restoration process that prohibits intervention in artworks other than the artist itself, for doing so will compromise the integrity of the art object and its aesthetic value. A purist restoration merely aims to clean an artwork or reattach original pieces had a work been damaged. Integral restoration, on the other hand, allows the integration of new materials and aims to restore an object to its pre-damaged state. Purism views authenticity as a necessary condition of aesthetic value and renders the original materials of the art irreplaceable. Because purists regard integral repair as a provision of unoriginal parts to a work, it cannot produce appropriate objects of aesthetic value. Integralists would say that restoration aims to revive the lost aesthetic value from damage and value the completeness of appearance whether authenticity is jeopardized. In this paper, I claimed that a dynamic view on authenticity resolves the disparity between purism and integral restoration. Here, I used Kemp’s authenticity model as a framework to demonstrate how changing variables in an object’s authenticity determine its aesthetic value. I offered two arguments to address the contention between both conservation-restoration approaches. The first one stated that the authenticity of art objects that have undergone conservation-restoration changes. The second argument stated that the aesthetic value is contingent on changes in authenticity. I aimed to provide a synthesis to both theories by addressing the purist’s contention against integral restoration, and legitimize both methods by understanding considerations on their authenticity and their effects on the aesthetic value.
| Reference Key |
persistent_1760660389_68f18ba55bbfe
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Calderon, Ryan Miguel R. |
| Journal | Malay Journal |
| Year | 2024 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.