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

[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.