Fallacy # 1
“There are numerous examples of botched painting restorations that have occurred across millennia, though only in about the last century, with the advent of easier means of technological communication, has the debate begun to pick up.”
This is an example of biased language, as I used the unnecessarily harsh word “botched” to describe some painting restorations. I can correct this by using a much blander choice of words, such as:
“There are numerous examples of painting restorations that have been widely criticized as poorly executed, though only in about the last century, with the advent of easier means of technological communication, has the debate begun to pick up.”
Fallacy # 2
“It is reasonable to believe that most anyone would want to help preserve such an integral aspect of humanity’s culture; however, if this preservation is being done in a manner that detracts from the artist’s original perception of the piece, then all that meaning and worth is lost.”
This is an example of an either/or fallacy. Not all meaning and worth of a painting would be lost if its preservation were being performed in an inappropriate manner. By adding in “could” to the sentence, it displays the potential gravity of the situation, while refraining from making it a clear cut “either/or” position.
“… however, if this preservation is being done in a manner that detracts from the artist’s original perception of the piece, then that aspect of the painting’s worth could be lost in the process.”
For my poster, I intend to display pictures of the Sistine Chapel before its restoration and afterward. Accompanying that, I’m going to make short descriptions of the two sides of the debate over painting restoration and how the Sistine Chapel is applied to that (on two panels of the poster) as well as my conclusion concerning this debate (on the third panel).