Posted by Steve Price on April 11, 1999 at 11:04:53:
In Reply to: Rugs as Fine Art posted by Patrick Weiler on April 11, 1999 at 10:15:42:
To me, at least, this rug lacks appeal mostly because the restoration is unsightly. I've seen restorations that were virtually undetectable (probably many more than I know about!), with positive aesthetic results. These were certainly more valuable than when unrestored. But when the village shoemaker does the restoration the result can be loss of aesthetic appeal, and I think that is the case for the Ushak (at least, it is in my eyes).
As for what kinds of collectors prefer originals to restorations, I suspect that all collectors do. The Sistine Chapel is probably not a very good example, as it is not a collector piece and there is no alternative to seeing it in restored condition. In fact, I don't know that there would be anything to see in the absence of the restorations. The issue of acceptability of restoration in rugs get very close to questions raised with regard to fragments and, I suspect, to issues that will arise with regard to very good fakes.
Post a Followup