Question

Passage A
The physical trajectory of an artwork through time is not merely incidental to its overall identity; it is deeply and fundamentally constitutive of it. When a Renaissance canvas accrues intricate craquelure or a monumental bronze sculpture develops a complex verdigris patina, these material transformations act as a tangible historical ledger. Modern restoration philosophies that champion a dramatic return to the 'original state'—often executed via aggressive chemical cleaning or the systematic removal of historical varnishes—operate on a fundamental fallacy of temporal reversal. They proceed from the dangerous assumption that the true, essential artwork exists only in the fleeting, hypothetical moment it first left the artist’s easel. However, this rigidly purist approach effectively amputates the object's lived history, producing a sanitized, ahistorical artifact that never actually existed in the past and does not authentically belong to the present. The central ethical imperative of the conservator is not to act as a metaphysical time traveler, erasing centuries of natural aging to satisfy contemporary aesthetic preferences that are merely disguised as historical accuracy. Rather, direct intervention should be strictly restricted to structural stabilization and the careful arrest of active decay. By embracing the visible, accumulated markers of an object’s endurance, we respect its continuous existence as an active participant in history, rather than violently reducing it to a theoretical, static construct of original intent.

Passage B
To indiscriminately revere the accumulated grime, deeply discolored varnishes, and inevitable structural degradation of a masterwork simply because these elements are 'historical' is to fetishize the random passage of time at the direct expense of meaningful aesthetic communication. Fundamentally, an artwork is conceived as a dynamic vehicle for the artist’s intended visual and emotional impact, an impact that relies entirely on precise chromatic balances, deliberate tonal relationships, and specific textural nuances. When centuries of environmental exposure and chemical breakdown inevitably obscure these vital relationships, the artwork effectively goes mute. The paramount responsibility of the modern restorer is to carefully decipher, excavate, and recover this submerged original intent. This rigorous process undoubtedly requires significant interpretative courage, as returning a piece to its intended visual brilliance often necessitates the decisive removal of later accretions—layers that romanticists routinely and mistakenly mischaracterize as 'authentic patina.' Yet, choosing a policy of non-intervention or minimal interference is itself a profound, active alteration, one that passively allows the random entropy of nature to permanently overwrite human genius. True authenticity resides not in the physical matter's unbroken chronological timeline, but in the faithful, legible transmission of the aesthetic experience the creator meticulously designed. Consequently, overly conservative interventions that merely stabilize a decaying, severely darkened canvas ultimately betray the artist by permanently preserving the veil that hides the art, tragically mistaking the mere physical endurance of the object for the true survival of the artwork itself.

Which of the following statements articulate a shared philosophical premise or joint central principle endorsed by the authors of BOTH passages? (Select all that apply)