On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Robert Ehrenreich wrote:
 
> Paul Silberman's posting raises an important point about authenticity,
> exhibitions, and conservation.  When is the *real thing* no longer the
> *real thing*?  Quantities of the wooden structure and cloth were removed
> from the Wright Flyer during its conservation, which were sold at the Air &
> Space Museum in one-inch squares.  I do not know the actual amount removed
> and the intent of this posting is not to question the integrity of
> conservators but to introduce the question of how much conservation can be
> done before an artifact is no longer authentic.  Could I cut the Wright
> Flyer in half, reconstruct the other halves, and have two *real* Wright
> Flyers?  This question is of utmost importance for conservation and museum
> exhibitions.
>
 
Excuse me for splitting a hair or two [ ;-)], but in my lab what you're
describing would be considered restoration (Bad! Bad! Bad!) and not
conservation.  I would tend to discourage this kind of replacement, as a
rule, for any museum
artifact.  But attitudes toward artifacts haev changed over the years --
it was not so long ago that you could buy a pamphlet from the AASLH on
care of costume collections in historical associations that recommended a
costume parade -- having the volunteers dress up in the museum's
collection and march down main street.  As a consciousness-raising
tactic, probably excellent, but not great for the articles.  This is a
digression, I know:  the second point I'm trying to make is that our
interepretation of what constitutes authenticity is not static and
neither is our understanding of who gets to determine it.
 
Sarah
 
 
Sarah Lowengard
[log in to unmask] Com
New York City
10 june 1994