Jennifer wrote:

<<What exactly do museum people mean by an authenticity?
What distortions do we invite or grapple with in not only preserving the
object but the more complex issue of preserving its `authenticity'?
Whose version of `authenticity' matters and for what ultimate end does it
matter?>>

Last year, we did a mini, informal, unscientific survey on this topic and wrote
a short article about it in our newsletter, "Heritage COMMUNIQE:  Care and
Management of Historic Sites."  We asked people if they are interested in
knowing what is original and what is not, and they unanimously agreed that it is
important information to them.  When asked about the extremes--all original yet
showing age, or all reproductions yet fresh and new looking--they were in the
middle.  They felt that a blending of the two was appropriate.

Comments inlcuded, "Do what you can to make me feel I'm back to the time the
house is decorated, and "I want to feel like I've stepped back in time to that
period."  One visitor, however, declared that in her mind there was a line that
should not be crossed.  She said, " I hate the way [nearby historic house
museum] is done!  The plexiglass, the self-guided tour. . . you can't hear
anything but the tape and it's like looking in windows."  Perhaps her comments
were more in addressing the issues of interpretation and tour format, but
certainly the issues of real/reproduction and tour format, combine to create the
final visitor experience.

Susan Ward
Heritage Communications
[log in to unmask]
615-661-6336