How About This As A Definition For Restoration Pertaining To Comic Books?

[FFB]

but I'm still waiting for someone to give me one reason why we should not simply accept the definitional sets given to us by the AIC. I can't see anything wrong with them.

What are you, on retainer for the AIC?

 

I have no idea what the AIC definitions are. Maybe they're fine.

 

I posted them on page 5 of this thread.

You mean these?

 

Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material.

 

Treatment: The deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration.

 

Cultural Property: Objects, collections, specimens, structures, or sites identified as having artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance.

 

I have lots of problems with this package of definitions.

 

First, the definition of "restoration" is too broad. Using your finger to smooth out a slight, non-permanent and non-physically altered bend in the paper to its "known or assumed state" could constitute restoration under this definition.

 

Now, if "treatment" contained in the definition of "restoration" was defined properly, then perhaps the definition of "restoration" would work. But the definition of "treatment" starts off okay, getting at the chemical and/or physical aspects which is analogous to the physical alteration part of POV's definition, but then goes down the wrong path with "aimed primarily at prolonging its existence". Pressing has nothing to do with prolonging anything's existence, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of treatment, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of "restoration".

 

Finally, I don't understand why there needs to be a qualification relating to "cultural property". I could easily argue that some mass produced illustrated pamphlet produced for entertainment of kids has no "artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance". Why even have that additional definitional element? It adds nothing and just provides another element to dispute. If I've prevailed on the other more fundamental elements of the definition of "restoration", I should get my case thrown out of court because I couldn't prove it was "cultural property"?

 

Interesting. The thing you don't like about the definitional set is precisely what I do like about it. I believe that the removal of any otherwise-permanent defect is restoration. I think you and Pov are making convenient, but unsupportable, distinctions between slight bends and slighter bends. It is much simpler to state that if it's a defect and you remove it, you're restoring the book to its pre-defect condition. This simple concept doesn't require a long, existential discussion about the molecular qualities of paper (and maybe a few bong tokes) to follow along with.

 

Whether the most minor types of restoration (such as removing a tiny bend with your finger) necessitate disclosure is another issue.

 

I'm not sure how you'd argue that a comic book has no artistic, historic, or social significance, but I am 100% sure you'd lose on that. And it isn't really the point anyway. Anything that didn't have such significance probably wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense of restoring.

[tth2]

You mean these?

 

Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material.

 

Treatment: The deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration.

 

Cultural Property: Objects, collections, specimens, structures, or sites identified as having artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance.

 

I have lots of problems with this package of definitions.

 

First, the definition of "restoration" is too broad. Using your finger to smooth out a slight, non-permanent and non-physically altered bend in the paper to its "known or assumed state" could constitute restoration under this definition.

 

Now, if "treatment" contained in the definition of "restoration" was defined properly, then perhaps the definition of "restoration" would work. But the definition of "treatment" starts off okay, getting at the chemical and/or physical aspects which is analogous to the physical alteration part of POV's definition, but then goes down the wrong path with "aimed primarily at prolonging its existence". Pressing has nothing to do with prolonging anything's existence, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of treatment, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of "restoration".

 

Finally, I don't understand why there needs to be a qualification relating to "cultural property". I could easily argue that some mass produced illustrated pamphlet produced for entertainment of kids has no "artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance". Why even have that additional definitional element? It adds nothing and just provides another element to dispute. If I've prevailed on the other more fundamental elements of the definition of "restoration", I should get my case thrown out of court because I couldn't prove it was "cultural property"?

 

Interesting. The thing you don't like about the definitional set is precisely what I do like about it. I believe that the removal of any otherwise-permanent defect is restoration. I think you and Pov are making convenient, but unsupportable, distinctions between slight bends and slighter bends. It is much simpler to state that if it's a defect and you remove it, you're restoring the book to its pre-defect condition. This simple concept doesn't require a long, existential discussion about the molecular qualities of paper (and maybe a few bong tokes) to follow along with.

 

Whether the most minor types of restoration (such as removing a tiny bend with your finger) necessitate disclosure is another issue.

Either way, ultimately you're going to have to make a distinction based upon the degree of the bend. POV and I choose to do so in the context of the definition of restoration, because it seems nonsensical to us for smoothing a slight bend with a finger, and all the other silly examples of closing a book or brushing off dust, to fall into the definition of restoration. It renders the definition of restoration to be so broad as to be useless. The fact is in real life no one is really talking about those types of actions when they think of restoration, so why should the definition not reflect the common usage of the term?

 

I'm not sure how you'd argue that a comic book has no artistic, historic, or social significance, but I am 100% sure you'd lose on that.

I guess I have no illusions as to the cultural significance of these funny books we love so much. While the concept of a comic book, and the art and story of certain comics may have cultural significance, I don't think any specific comic book unto itself (i.e., the physical item) is culturally significant, except in the loosest sense of the word. Anyways, I see no point in including it as an element of the definition, and as you say, if it was something that clearly had no cultural value, then it probably wouldn't be worth restoring in the first place.

[Aman619]

my komiks got kulcha ta spare dudes!