Sorry, but I still want to see the real thing. By all means, add a mockup of
what the rusty metal thingamajig originally looked like, but place it beside
or near the real one, in your realistic dioramas. An institution filled with
exhibits of fakes is not a proper museum, but an interpretation centre.



At 09:26 PM 22/01/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Mr. Rebernik and Ms. Thomson should further define what type of museum is
>best for showing "the real thing" to the public.  Living history museums and
>many historic sites are not Art Museums.  They are, if you will, Artifact
>Museums.  While I would not want to visit the Museum of Modern Art and see a
>"fake" (not my word) de Kooning, I have little interest in visiting Colonial
>Williamsburg to see "real" Wedgewood.  Frankly, the original textiles,
>ceramics and metalware from 18th century Virginia are often threadbare,
>chipped or rusted.  When a museum attempts to create a time and place for
>visitors, the old or worn original objects look out of place.  Think about
>it, 200 year old objects would be new 200 years ago.  Reproductions have
>their place in the museum world when the museum in question is designed to
>educate through demonstration.
>--
>Michael A. Lord
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
Jane Sproull Thomson