You don’t need to lacquer it, it petinas and protects the copper.

yes I know you don't need to, we just went over that, but we seem to be talking past each other.

The material is was made of was chosen for practicality.

Okay, so, we've been over the material choice already, we've established this. I know copper doesn't need lacquering, which we have again, already established. My question, which you seem to consistently be missing, is why did the designer, Bartholdi, decide it would look better with the green patina, than without it, which could have been achieved by first polishing the copper and then applying a clear lacquer?

And if it was for purely practical reasons and no artistic ones, do you have a source for that? Or was there an aesthetic reason that he preferred the look of a pale green over shiny metal (and, if there was, I'd also like a source for it, too)? I got why they chose the material. I understand the material does not strictly need lacquering. Please do not answer these non-questions a third time. The question I have, reading through the Wikipedia articles on Bartholdi and the Statue of Liberty, is not answered. It does say why the material was chosen, but not explicitly why they chose not to lacquer it. There is also reference that, after verdigris had covered the statue, that the Army Corps of Engineers investigated whether it was corrosion that was harming the statue, and they came to the conclusion it wasn't and that they liked the look, but that's the government talking, not the designer; and that they bothered to study it seems to point to them being caught off-guard by its appearance, as though they intended it to or believed it should remain shiny (prior to liking its new appearance).

That same sculptor has done many other sculptures in a variety of other materials, and material choice is just as much a question of aesthetics as it is practicality when it comes to works of art (even if practicality is a much bigger consideration when they're monument-sized). So, if the material was settled on for practical reasons, then there must have also been some discussion as to whether to let that material tarnish or to try to maintain the shiny appearance, and whether or not that discussion and the conclusion it came to was purely out of a desire for less maintenance (which, mind you, the Statue of Liberty has needed maintenance many times regardless), or because the look of verdigris was preferred to the look of shiny copper. That is what I'm curious about. It's alright not to know, hell, it may be that nobody knows (it is, after all, a discussion that would've been had about ~150+ years ago, if anything it's probably buried in some obscure book), but you don't need to keep providing answers to questions I'm not asking.

BUT WHY DIDN'T THEY LACQUER IT

I'm just laughing by today's standards.

Son of a bitch. I I knew I shouldn't have taken Ge'ez for my ancient language elective.