Respect for the authenticity of the work of art, recognizability and reversibility of an intervention are benchmarks on the basis of which different solutions and restoration technologies have been developed over time. But there is no solution / method that can be used systematically. Each work of art is unique and requires particular decisions. Only through a critical and philological approach to the restoration project and a proper implementation of all execution phases can an adequate and consistent representation of the image be obtained.
Mural paintings are an integral part of the structure of the building, but the first and main function of the paintings is to convey ideas and symbols, which they represent through images.
In the process of restoration of the mural paintings one of the most important stages is the aesthetic integration. This stage allows the restoration of the visual reading of the painting and the reconstruction of the potential oneness of the work of art. Contemporary chromatic integration methods and techniques solve many problems regarding the treatment of gaps in the restoration process of mural painting, but in some cases, they can be inefficient.
This article discusses the importance and ethical limits of aesthetic integrations in the process of restoration of mural painting. The values and the symbolic functions, which play an important role in decisions on the aesthetic treatment of the mural paintings. The importance of restoring the narrative content of the mural painting with the aim of improving the perception of the image represented on the picture by the spectators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright for articles in this journal is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution in educational and other non-commercial sectors.
How to Cite
 ICOM-CC, “Terminology to characterize the conservation of tangible cultural heritage,” [Online]. Available: http://www.icom-cc.org/242/. [Accessed: Apr. 10, 2020].
 A. Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin,” Oppositions (translated by K. W. Forster and D. Ghirardo), no. 25, pp.21-51, 1982.
 M. R. Valluzzi. Class Lecture, Topic: “Restoration and laboratory”, University of Padova, 2019.
 I. Brajer, “Dilemmas in the Restoration of Wall Paintings: Conflicts between Ethics, Aesthetics, Functions and Values Illustrated by Examples from Denmark,” in Die Kunst der Restaurierung – Entwicklungen und Tendenzen der Restaurierungsästhetik in Europa, Ursula Schädler-Saub, Ed., 2005, pp. 122-140.
 C. Brandi, “Il trattamento delle lacune e la Gestalt psychologie”, in Problems of the 19th and 20th Centuries, 1961.
 C. B Brandi, Teoria del restauro. Giulio Einaudi, Ed., 1977.
 National Institute of Heritage, Romania, “Methodological Norms for conservation-restauration of Fresco and Secco Mural Paintings – In tempera technique and decorative plasts, integrating parts of Historical Monuments,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://patrimoniu.ro/images/norme/Proiect-Norme-metodologice-de-conservare-restaurare-a-picturii-murale-a-fresco.pdf. . [Accessed: Apr. 10, 2020].
 ICOMOS, “EwaGlos – European Illustrated Glossary of Conservation Terms for Wall Paintings and Architectural Surfaces”, Petersberg, Germany: Michael Imhof Verlag, pp. 329-343, 2015.
 Ş. Angelescu and E. Murariu, “Restoration of mural paintings from The Church “Birth of the Virgin Mary” from the Monastery from One Wood”, in Arhitectură. Restaurare. Arheologie. Symposiun (A.R.A. 5), 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.simpara.ro/ara5/a5_02_11.htm [Accessed: Apr. 10, 2020].
 Museo D’Arte Sacra Di Camaiore, “Il Politico di Francesco di Andrea Anguilla, 2009-2010: l’ultimo intervento”. [Online]. Available: http://museoartesacracamaiore.cfs.unipi.it/politticoanguilla/2009-2010-lultimo-intervento/. [Accessed: Apr. 10, 2020].
 I. Brajer, “Values and opinions of the general public on wall paintings and their restoration: a preliminary study,” in: Conservation and Access, David Saunders, Joyce H. Townsend and Sally Woodcock, Eds., 2008, pp. 33-38.
 S. Fundel, R. Drewello, S. Hoyer, and B. Kugel. “How do fragmentary images affect us?,” 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/sic.2008.53.Supplement-1.27. [Accessed: Apr. 10, 2020].
 S. Grobovici, I. Pop, V. Marcovici, M. Babin, “Report of observation,” 1989. Class Lecture, Polytechnic University of Timisoara, 2018.
 I. Andreescu and M. Bâldea. Class Lecture, Topic: Restoration project “Bezdin Monastery”. Polytechnic University of Timisoara, 2018.