by HughM388 Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:26 am
I'm afraid the principle being applied by the correct answer here does little to justify the conclusion, and to assuage our concerns about the survival of the frescoes for future generations.
Even if the frescoes cannot currently be viewed as they were originally in Michelangelo's day (if that's even possible, which I doubt), what will likely happen is that once the dirt and grime are removed there will be a period of about six months during which visibility of the frescoes will be improved, but after which the acidity in the air will begin irreparably damaging the frescoes, after which no one will be able to see them at all, ever again.
If the principle were, rather, that the edification and viewing pleasure of the limited number of people who will see the frescoes during that brief window of time between the removal of protective grime and the frescoes' irreparable destruction in fact justifies the aforementioned irreparable destruction, then, by all means, let the frescoes rot away!
Otherwise, there needs to be much more here for justification, for example that there's a type of air-filtration system that can and will effectively remove the harmful agents from the air, so that the frescoes can survive intact once they're denuded of the grime that's been serving to protect and preserve them these many years.
Lacking those elements, the conclusion and principle, as they are, remain woefully short-sighted and reckless, and would amount to misfeasance—and I daresay the charges brought against the person responsible for the destruction of such a priceless work of art would be rather grave. The Italians, like the French, take their artistic patrimony very seriously indeed.
Who are these LSAC test-writers? Haters of art? Anti-michelangelists (in other words da Vincians)? Or just typically ahistorical American tourists who believe that, once they've been to to see a work of art, it's no longer important?