Though many of the museums have artifacts, their is a difference in having a museum, and a Living History Park as a museum.  In the Living History Park..the artifacts are often used as part of the demonstration.  Why?  Because reproduction items are expensive.  If a Park (that was first operated by the state) was assumed by a non-profit organization, and the collection is the buildings and artifacts (over 19,000) how can any organization replace all the artifacts with reproductions, e.g., rare and old furniture that cost over $5,000 to have a repro made or a piano that would cost $20,000 to even have restored.  Most often, present management assumes the artifacts (what is there) when they come on board that was collected years and years ago.  Though under good intentions, many present day curators inherit a padora's box of cost, junk, and policy that is totally agains curator standards.  

How can any museum or park that does "living history" afford to replace a 19,000 collection of artifacts with replacements so they can demonstrate and preform their mission statement, i.e., to provide living history?  For myself, I have to do it one-step-at-a-time and hope the original artifact does not get destroyed in the long run. 

-----Original Message-----
From:   Tanya Washburn [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 27, 1999 9:19 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Introduction and Inquiry

Many museums have multiple functions-- they have collections to study, as
well as living history exhibits. The Norlands Living History Center in
Maine has a house museum, and a working living history farm. They have
artifacts,  some on display, and some undoubtedly in storage, as well as
reproductions for use in the working portion of the farm. The artifacts
are for exhibition and study. Many other centers combine ehibits of the
originals with working reproductions. Others may have a collection in
storage for study. There are even museums whose primary focus is not to
serve as a display for the public- but as a place for research on the
collections. The bulk of their collections are not on display, but in
storage, available for examination, study and research.

Tanya Washburn

In article <[log in to unmask]>, Peter
Rebernik <[log in to unmask]> 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 w=
> hy
> 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 deca=
> y,
> 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 origin=
> als
> (only borrow them for making better copies). In any case the public has t=
> o
> 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 t=
> hat
> 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 muse=
> um?
>
> Thanks for the discussion
>
> 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.
>
> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael A. Lord <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
> An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: Samstag, 23. Januar 1999 14:40
> Betreff: Re: Introduction and Inquiry
>
>
> >Mr. Rebernik and Ms. Thomson should further define what type of museum i=
> s
> >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, Artifac=
> t
> >Museums.  While I would not want to visit the Museum of Modern Art and s=
> ee
> 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 fo=
> r
> >visitors, the old or worn original objects look out of place.  Think abo=
> ut
> >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]
> >