Naïvennovation

Recently in Spain, there has been some kind of agitation about not economy but a "restoration" of an ecce homo fresco painting in a small town church, by an 80year-old woman who declared to do it "for good". The result looks somewhat grotesque, only if we compare with the original. But, is this really the result of the action?
The result is that everybody is talking about it, the town has so many visitors, merchandising of all kind is being manufactured,...so the result is a profit. A profit that came through an action of changing the established way, without permission, with good intention and naïvety, but without really any intention of profit. I think it qualifies as innovation. What do you think?
The fact does not imply that every masterpiece of Art could be ruined. This innovation (or atrocity) came from a fact and its circumstances.
But please, do not focus on this exact example that I chose to illustrate a concept, the concept of naïvennovation.
Whether one works hard an idea and showed it as a naïve invention or it really came out of the blue without meaning to produce some profit, the result is the same: a profit out of an innovative action without purpose or intention (naïvennovation).

We all see the 3M post-it TM as one of the recurrent examples to show innovative products that came laterally aside from the goal of the project. Does it qualifies to be naïvennovation? Maybe not.

I can't help but be interested in the implications of the actions, on purpose or not, only to call the attention on the consequences achieved through an action (dimming a little bit the intention which drove it).

Before judging (by his face), think about the potential benefits and profits that an innovation may yield.

[By the way, I am sure great Diego Rivera would have preferred the new fresco to the old one]

Cheers.