A colleague of mine just wrote her thesis paper on this issue of
reproductions vs. real artifacts.  As part of her paper she did a study
at the CMC which Alex had mentioned.  Her data showed that people were
aware of the fact that many of the pieces shown at the CMC were
reproductions but they spent as much time studying them and reading all
about them as they would real artifacts.

So, with regards to David's suggestion that reproductions would speed up
the lines- according to this study, I don't know if they would???

>Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:52:31 -0400
>Reply-To:     Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
>From:         Alex Avdichuk <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: use of original artifacts in exhibits
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>At the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the History Hall is filled with
>reproductions of artifacts which are in the museum's collection but
remain
>in storage.  These reproductions are treated like real artifacts, i.e.
the
>only way to tell that they're not original is if you read the fine
print on
>the artifact label and notice the tiny word "(reproduction)" at the
bottom.
>When I tried to count the number of real vs. reproduction artifacts, I
>discovered that the vast majority (over 90%) were reproductions.
>
>While I'm all for artifact preservation, as a museum professional, I
had a
>fundamental problem with the use of so many reproductions when original
>artifacts were available.  I agree with Jennifer that museums have an
>obligation to preserve and exhibit their collections for the public
>benefit, but on the other hand, none of the other visitors to the
exhibit
>seemed to notice, or for that matter, care.  Can we justify the
eventual
>destruction of an artifact when a reproduction does the same job?
>
>I don't have the answers.  What do others think?
>
>Alex Avdichuk
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>>  From: David Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>, on 10/15/98 10:43 AM:
>>   I fully agree with Delecia Huitt that too many artifacts in an
exhibit
>>  interfere with traffic flow. You should see all the people lined up
>>  outside the National Gallery of Art to view the Van Gogh show. If
they
>>  had had the common sense to show reproductions instead of original
>>  paintings, the lines undoubtedly would speed up considerably. This
is
>>  yet another reason for museums to avoid the use of original
artifacts in
>>  exhibits.
>I'm curious to hear other opinions on this topic.  David Haberstich's
>statement
>that museums should avoid using original objects in exhibits, in this
case
>to
>speed things up, does not sit well with me.  I realize that display is
not
>the
>best things for sensitive objects, but isn't the point of a museum that
it
>preserves and displays for public benefit the objects in its care?  In
my
>opinion, if we remove original objects from exhibits, we are defeating
one
>of
>the basic purposes of a museum.  Any thoughts?
>Jennifer
>MA Museum Studies
>University of Newcastle upon Tyne
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com