In the process, the context of these works of art changes dramatically. To answer this question, I consider an imaginary painting The Travels and Tribulations of Piero's Baptism of Christ, depicting the history of display of Piero della Francesca's The Baptism of Christ. This example suggests that how Piero's painting is seen does depend upon its setting. According to the Intentionalist, such changes in context have no real influence upon the meaning of Piero's painting. According to the Skeptic, if such changes are drastic enough, we can no longer identify the picture's original meaning.
Museums fail to preserve works of art.
I develop the debate between the Intentionalist and the Skeptic. Ultimately skepticism is indefensible, I argue, because it fails to take account of the continuities in the history of art's display. In presenting the history of Piero's painting, The Travels and Tribulations of Piero's Baptism of Christ shows that we can re-identify the original significance of Piero's work. It makes sense to claim that at least in certain circumstances art museums can preserve works of art. My aim in this article is to analyze the topic of making history versus talking about history in order to understand most historians' evident decision to ignore talking about history.