There is no arguing that both originals and reproductions are valuable
study tools, especially when used in conjunction with each other. Whether
art, print, incunabula, or objects, the way that both are employed in study
depends on what one wants to learn from them. The cognitive value of an
object is in the learner, regardless of what meaning we as museum
professionals assign to it.
 
     In my own case, I am more interested in the use of objects in time and
space than in their form. It is important to know that the reproductions
used in simulation expermiments are close approximations to their original
counterparts and that the way that they are used can be documented in print,
documentary, and/or art sources.
 
     And so, once I know that information, seeing a roomful of objects
arrayed and in use as they would have been in a particular time and place--
as they do at Plimoth Plantation, for instance--is going to have much more
meaning to me than looking at an original kettle or spoon set by itself
behind a glass case, or even a "period room" where all of the objects
simulate an environment. Without the fire, the cooking smells, the dust, the
live interpreters, and the casual disarray that indicates real use, the
objects don't speak to me about the information that is of interest to me.
 
     Additionally, in my opinion, comparing the feasibility of originals vs.
reproductions at Art Museums, History Museums, Natural History Museums,
Living History Museums, etc. is to compare apples to oranges to plastic
bananas to fabric artichokes. Our purposes are far too different.
 
Stacy Roth
 [log in to unmask]
 
P.O. Box 383
 Langhorne, PA 19047
 Voice 215 943-1232