There is cutting out, conservation and restoration. Stabilisation and consolidation...cutting might fit here under those terms at times...I have on rare occasion cut something out of an environment that would harm it. Generally speaking, I don't like cut or restored items.
Re restoration - permanence of materials and stability are key.
I've seen that in the art world, restoring paintings back to the way the original artist had painted.
The question is what is in need of restoration?
That is not proper - any restoration on valuable artwork, inpainting especially, should be obvious and remain reversible. Something like a Rembrandt portrait C. 1650-1660, with its severe darkening, ready-made often low-quality materials and so on can never be restored to its original appearance. We only know what was there because of neutron activation radiographs etc. which allow you to see previous layers based on absorption (and subsequent release) of radioactivity by the different pigments onto sheets of film.
Hi Paul, ,
Was the photo the b/w vertical SP? I recall the Pepper. Those were well done. But they are not works by Vermeer or Rembrandt. I still think restoration should remain obvious up close even with graphs, and should always be disclosed of course. Sometimes though, the last bit is...forgotten, so keeping any restoration visible is a good idea IMHO.
Yes, that was very well done and still "visible" as I recall so certainly a big thumbs up from me. That is the kind of thing where restoration is called for and the result is very acceptable. I also echo Adam's words regarding the appearance of age.