Philosophical Documentation question....

[femkes_follies]

So, how good a source would you consider a painting (or rather, a series of them) that are house in multiple museums that are, in fact, copies of the originals - which were destroyed in 1944?

And I mean than in terms of a judging A&S sense, rather than a reliability sense. I'm not sure how the copies were made, or when, or from what documentary source.

Comments

[landverhuizer.livejournal.com]

That would depend on the item being judged...
Good copies of original art might be fine to document a style of foot warmer but not so great in using as evidence of a type of stitching or something of equally fine detail. Even an original painting is not the best and so on.
Certainly, I'd like to see some other evidence out there but again, depending on what they are entering, it might not be too terrible used as one source...

[ablackram.livejournal.com]

depends on who painted the copy and how they were deemed at the time of being a copy or a close replication. I agree that even the original painting may be missing things that we in the photo age take for granted. I think general style and colourations would be good but whether the item in the painting had x style of pleats etc, weelllll that would be harder. Due to the fact that the originals were destroyed during the war, there is no chance to take the copy to the original and say....welll that's off etc. Who is saying that the original was actually better. Would take it as secondary documentation for sure as there is plenty out there that you can take as 1st. So utilize for supporting docs. Like I do of the Vatican wall painting. have no clue when it was painted, but darn, looks close to what I am studying. So supporting documentation. And thas my 2 dutch pennies as regional luv

[mistressarafina.livejournal.com]

The original paintings were contemporary sources at best and primary only for painting techniques. Copies, no matter how exact, are just that - copies and would be tertiary at best for costuming and secondary for painting. Since we can't download brains at the moment, that's how I'd judge it from an A&S perspective.

I've been in the discussions where people try to turn things that aren't primary sources into them just because we have precious few. Approach them as comtemporary sources. That's my $0.02.

[femkederoas.livejournal.com]

As they're another set of regional dress paintings, they're more corroboration of the original set, anyway. Just that styles depicted were consistent. And that more than one set of these paintings DID exist, by different artists.

I have not yet found anything remotely resembling an extant garment, so no primary sources. I have a few tidbits from wills and bequests, and the original paintings for secondary sources.