Pretty sure I'm just feeling contrarian, but the derisive responses to the restoration of the St George sculpture seem a li'l unfair. There are important patrimony laws in Spain, but at least according to El Mundo it *seems* like the parish ordered it. + 
This points to a problem with works held by living institutions and pastoral care of those works. Here, e.g., is a fifteenth-century churchwardens account from St Margaret's Southwark (LMA LMA P92/SAV/001) in which you can see payment for the re-painting of a St George sculpture.
Sculptures were repainted all the time, and in some cases, it was considered a good work. The rules now have changed because we've established categories like "cultural patrimony" that seal off objects in a particular past (which past should that be?).
And what I find interesting in the mayor's response is the religious language to characterize the affront ("desgraciada" and "profanar"):
There's a lot more to be said, particularly by locals and by specialists in the art of the region, but for now I'll leave it with a link to Flood's article on the Bamiyan Buddhas and Euro-American sacralization of the exhibition value of art nyu.edu/gsas/dept/fine…
