A recent NOVA special on the restoration of ancient monastery paintings in Tibet was fresh in my mind when I read an article about the distaste incurred by artificial siding materials. The monastery restoration was achieved with methods and materials true to the origins of the structure. Sections of paintings which had been completely lost to water damage were not initially replaced, but outlined to achieve the wholeness desired by the worshippers of the depicted deities. But the outlines weren’t enough; they wanted the entire paintings back, and, the foreign restorers implied, the locals didn’t care as much if original materials were used towards those goals. Accustomed to restoring, not recreating, the restoration specialists seemed reluctant, and the discussion was still ongoing at the end of the program. Back in the U.S., where we have much less exhalted, and not ancient, but nonetheless beloved architecture to restore, preservation societies ban the use of “unauthentic building surfaces.” Vinyl siding is especially reviled, as it is, after all, plastic, and the worst plastic of all (environmentally unsound PVC). Authenticity isn’t as much about looks as it is about materials to the purists of restoration. They happily live with any drawbacks the older materials may have. The Tibetan monks have different, perhaps more relaxed, aspirations in their road to enlightment.