On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Jonathan Williams wrote:
 
>  I was displeased to see reproductions of drawings, along with a (nearly?)
> full scale reproduction of Picasso's "Guernica" in the recent Picasso
> exhibition at the Los Angeles County Museum.  The issue for me is not the
> mystique of the authentic object.
>
> I'm a painter, and value the chance to view paintings and drawings.  In
> museum exhibitions, I would prefer to view authentic work.
>
> No doubt this opinion, which is obvious, has been expressed before here, but
> it merits restatement.  For me, art's entire value is carried  by original
> materials.
>
> Thanks for the soap box.
>
     While the point is well taken, and I think everyone would *prefer*
to see the real thing, the question is, in certain applications, is it
"dishonest" somehow to display reproductions. . .there is certainly a
cachet in the original item, but there is a distinction to be drawn
between something that is "art"--by definition a unique entity, and
something that is a specimin or artifact. Displaying *anything* shortens
its lifespan. In some cases a good copy or facsimilie can inform or
enlighten as well as the original; often better, if you allow the visitor
the opportunity to touch the thing.
     Particularly where children are concerned, I think reproductions
have an entirely valid place in the museum setting. . .