It took 'em a while to finally clock it

The Guardian reports that a recent renovation of Prague's landmark Orloj clock did not turn out as expected.  The mechanisms were updated and some other invisible changes made, but it's part of the visible aspect that has led to the controversy.

The 15th-century astronomical clock includes a 19th-century painting by Joseph Manes depicting the months of the year as zodiac signs.

The new painting has many changes: the ages, physical features, even gender of the figures.  The changes are so significant there can be no question they're intentional.  Some even think the figures represent friends of the artist.

If this were a renovation, it would be understandably an outrage.  But as a replacement, I don't see any big deal.  I suppose the artist signed a contract, so in that case it is a waste of time and money.  But a little "artistic license" doesn't really do any harm.

Why not update things?  The spirit is the same, the poses, the colors.  Does a new face change much?  

After Notre-Dame burned, there was immediately talk about how to renovate it.  Recreate the original or make something modern?  I'm in the latter camp.  Hell, the original spire was a 19th-century addition, not from the same era as the basilica itself (13th century).

Why not let it reflect the times in which it was destroyed and rebuilt?  We don't have to be so thoroughly beholden to the past.  They weren't when they added the spire to Notre-Dame in the 19th century.  These churches took centuries to build, anyway.  Normal that their architecture reflects that.  

The French, btw, have decided to go with the 1859 design.  When the Louvre added I.M. Pei's glass pyramid, critics were apoplectic.  Now it's iconic, an immediately recognizable representation of the museum.  And the Vietnam War memorial was thoroughly derided.  Now it's revered for it's stark beauty and power.  

With Notre-Dame, the opportunity to make something daring and potentially as iconic as its massive facade presented itself.  But much like a lot of things in French governance, they're sticking with what they know instead of daring to innovate.

The clock isn't exactly the same thing, but why not allow a slight modification? Why pretend it's the original, when it isn't?  Maybe the artist should have discussed it.  But then again, it went unnoticed for a while.  It was unveiled in 2018.  I don't know when it was discovered, but the news is only breaking now.  It can't be that dissimilar.

The artist, Stanislav Jirčík, is an academic painter and restorer, but some critics of his joke (?) have called his work amateurish.  But the artist, for now, isn't talking.

But it's a good thing people are discussing it.  Public art matters.

This comes on the heels of a recent incident in which a Russian security guard defaced a painting with ballpoint-pen created googly eyes.

And who can forget the well-meaning Spanish woman who turned a Renaissance-era portrait of Jesus into a kind of monkey?