Dear Jerrie,
nice, nice the question: "have you ever worked in a museum, or have you
seen a museum's storage?" and the statement: "sound like they feel a museum
has a public obligation to show all artefacts" ....
One: I was the director of a museum with about 30.000 objects and 200.000
square yards (technology) and of a small museum (200 objects and 20.000
squ.yards - art museum) and work for many different museums.
Second: Museums should not show ALL their artefacts, but they should not
REPLACE them with copies.

regards, my dear,

Peter

+--------------------------------------------------------------------
 | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
 | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
 | Anton Baumgartner-Str. 44/C2/3/2
 | A - 1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
 | Tel. & Fax: (+43 1) 667 2984
 | Mobiltel.: (+43 664) 230 2767
 | Email: [log in to unmask] / Web: www.rebernik.at
+--------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail is a natural product.  The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: JERRIE CLARKE <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Datum: Sonntag, 24. Januar 1999 20:32
Betreff: Re: Introduction and Inquiry


>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
>>
>>> >
>