Jerrie - regarding your question about who is putting forward the
pro-originals arguments; first, I think you've put a word in our mouths that
was never there; namely "ALL". No one, as far as I've seen, has ever
suggested a museum has an obligation to show ALL its artifacts, that's
plainly ridiculous. We're talking original versus reproduction, not
percentages or numbers. Secondly, I'm a former chief curator of a provincial
museum system with about 25 years in the business. Yes, I've seen museum
storage facilities...quite a few of them. We spend a fair amount of money on
them, don't we? Is this money spent so that we can keep them away from the
public?



At 10:29 AM 24/01/99 +0000, you wrote:
>This is still an interesting debate: original vs reproductions in
>various types of museums.  I'm just curious, Peter and the others who
>sound like they feel a museum has a public obligation to show all
>artifacts, do you now or have you ever worked in a museum, or have you
>seen a museum's storage?  No museum I've ever seen displays the entire
>collection.  Depending on the type of museum, many objects are saved for
>research; and I've never seen a museum that had room to display the
>entire collections.
>
>Just trying to learn from where these arguments are coming.
>Jerrie
>
>
>
>Peter Rebernik wrote:
>>
>> Dear Michael A. Lord,
>>
>> If a "museum" wants to "attempts to create a time and place for visitors" to
>> show  the old times: of course, they will not use original objects. But why
>> did they collect them? Just to hide away? Why not show that these objects
>> are rusted and old? We do not want to remind the (US) citizens about decay,
>> death and rust? We want to show them only the fresh look?
>> Back to the root of the discussion: If a museum collects originals, it
>> should show it - in a way that they are not destroyed. If a museum does
>> focus on simulating the old times then it does not need to possess originals
>> (only borrow them for making better copies). In any case the public has to
>> be informed: is it a copy or is it a real thing.
>> As you said: an art museum could also say that there is always a danger that
>> the priceless painting are stolen or destroyed and put only copies on
>> display.
>> I would call an institution a museum, if it has a collection and shows it.
>> Williamsburg and Jamestown are historical show centres, but are they museum?
>>
>> Thanks for the discussion
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> >
>
>
Jane Sproull Thomson