There were a couple of TV documentaries lately about restorations that were controversial.
One was the Sistine Chapel. The restorers removed some dark layers of wax and varnish and the result was much brighter colors and much flatter textures, with less feeling of roundness and muscularity, the painter/sculptor’s trademark.
The critics say Michaelangelo’s other work, and the work of contemporaries that tried to follow his style, would demonstrate that the wax/varnish was original and intentional.
A second documentary showed how a team of German archivists went to Tibet (or was it Nepal) to restore wall paintings of Buddha that had huge cracks in them. In that case, they simply tried to stabilize the paint, and where cracks were to fill them in with flat areas of removable paint that would indicate continuity of color but no detail at all. The monks were distressed. They had not wanted a museum relic, showing clearly what was original and what was missing. They had expected a mural that was whole, like it had been painted yesterday, that looked like it originally had.
What do you think should be done with art that has suffered damage, from war scars down to simple fading away?