Thanks for the characteristically rude HN assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I know all about Chipperfield, at least to the extent of having seen him lecture about his work in Berlin. He was inspired by Dollgast's work http://www.prewettbizley.com/graham-bizley-blog/dollgast and to be honest I don't see the contradiction with what I said. Not everything Chipperfield did in the Neues Museum falls into the category of "restoration" but the parts that do absolutely follow this principle of discreet but identifiable replacement.

Chipperfield on Dollgast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfizDUjvomA&t=36m56s

See especially the bit at 38:30 where he talks about not confusing the original with the new (in archaeological reconstruction).

Here also is a reference to a 2013 book that says almost exactly what I said: https://books.google.ie/books?id=ddTZAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT366&dq=br...

Please don't further pollute the already toxic environment on HN by assuming the person you are talking to is incompetent, acting in bad faith, or knows less than you do.

I appreciate your knowledge on this topic and your many knowledgeable, polymathic even, contributions to HN. All of that is fabulous. It's just what this site is for. I'm afraid, though, that you added more toxicity just now than anoncake did. I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question. At minimum, that would be the charitable interpretation à la the site guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

I think the phenomenon here is how all-too-easy it is to add to toxicity while trying to defend the environment (and oneself) from toxicity. A lot of us do this. I do it myself, and have constantly to learn not to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question.

The initial poster used a mocking phrase "Why didn't anyone tell David Chipperfield?" This is not "only a question"--it's an obviously sarcarstic question. Not claiming that OP's post is justified or my post is not off-topic, but IMO if you want to intervene from an understanding angle, you should see it from GP's perspective as well

Dang, you're good. Thank you.

Thank you. I wondered if my phrasing was that bad.