Philosophical Documentation question....
Jun. 23rd, 2009 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-23 09:22 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-23 11:44 pm (UTC)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.