Dear Jay,
        thanks for replying. I hope you don't mind me posting this to the list b
ecause it fits in
with conversations I had with others.
        I work on a historic site where we have the ideal context(?) in which to
 place our
collection. What I struggle with is the line we straddle. The present policy is
no signage so
that the visitor gets a `slice' of reality.
        I have gone to other places with a similar policy and left feeling it ha
d a nice
atmosphere but learnt nothing because I was not given any means of finding info
about what was in
front of me (and predictably completely understood by the 1860s gold miner or wh
atever). (We have
interpretive guides to answer questions at our museum).
        Still other times the public goes home deceived because they pick up som
ething but do not
ask a question about it. Eg. Drawing room: Many don't realise that they had veni
tian blinds in
the 1880s and go home thinking it was our mistake.
        I think this site is ideal and would not wish the collection to be house
d elsewhere but I
agree that sometimes objects have to be removed from their settings, to be taken
 out of context,
so as to draw specific attention to them otherwise they would not be noticed.
        Sometimes I consider our context to be equally deceptive as a glass case
 is often accused
of being. Afterall we have to choose a timeframe which makes the site at least c
o-hesive in its
physical interpretation. Thus our period is the 1870-1880s. It was the best ten
years to pick for
a pastoral property (in Victoria, Australia) which means everything was looking
good for the
visitor and they are lucky to even get an indication of the hard times immediate
ly following the
wool crash of the 1890s. Interpretation has a big responsibility to deal with th
ese issues.

Jennifer.