Comment We ought to have a VI debate about the merits of a doctored image like this against a natural in situ image. Of course this doctored image shows the object very well and is very attractive. An image of the sculpture on its plinth with natural background is also good and reflects reality. For instance, the dome of the Accademia is now synonymous with images of Michelangelo’s David. An artificial background would not be right. I think the same applies to animals. this image should not be VI if there is a good in situ image. Happy to open debate on the talk page. Charles (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea would be good if one could define what is the natural environment of a work of art. In the case of this statue the building for which it was designed was destroyed by fire. She was stored in various buildings and arrived at the Museum where she continued to change rooms. In the present room a site had been built for her. But she has been chased away and continues wandering on a temporary tubular pedestal that has been going on for several years. The clipping is a thankless job but it allows to refocus on the subject. But maybe I did not do it right here, because you did not tell me anything about the comparison of the images of the statues. Missing a good piece of the statue! The last change of place is done in pain. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am happy to support her as she is clearly very restless, but perhaps you shouldn't overdo the editing for permanent artistic installations. Charles (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
