Yeah, CITIZEN KANE has certainly lost its meaning down through the years because Ted Turner wasn't able to colorize it.
Art just IS. Interpretation of art is what changes over time. If you change the art to suit the interpretter, it isn't art anymore, it is masturbation. And I'm through listening to you lovelies jerk off over this.
That isn't a logical stance. Art is, by it's very nature, subjective.
If I look at a blue painting and say "this must represent the guise of the mind," and you look at that same blue painting and say "those nacelles are hideous," neither of us is incorrect in our interpretations of that work. What the artist conveys is not always what the viewer will receive, and even if they receive that specific message, it may not be one that suits their own ideas of what the work represents, and they will reinterpret it thusly.
You can post here all day until you're blue in the face saying that I can't change a work of art, but will continue to be wrong. I can change a work of art. I can perceive it differently, I can find a new message in it, or I can modify the existing message to mean something else. It is art; it is pliable; it is something that can and will always be subjective to change, and no amount of frenzies protestation will change that. That is the nature of art, and it's the nature of humanity to see what we wish to see, to say what we wish to say, and to hear it how we wish to hear it.
Citizen Kane, in color, may be a travesty to you, but if it touches someone else and they find something meaningful in it, then all you have is your sturm and drang, and feelings of hue and whinge. It doesn't change the fact that someone derived meaning from something you dislike, and that makes your bone of contention completely irrelevant to that person.
Which is as it should be.