Jerri - I too find it exciting to discuss and dispute among other museum
folks. It's a great list and the participants bring so much experience and
so many ideas that I find myself "tuning in" probably more often than I
should, given that I'm supposed to be making a living at this!

My last word (I promise) on the originals vs. repros question: visits behind
the scenes to storage and work areas are a terrific idea for lots of reasons
and I think visitors really benefit, as does the institution. But any such
tours that I've conducted or participated in did not offer much opportunity
to examine the real artifacts, especially in the context you would normally
find with an exhibit. I still think you need to haul them out and put them
on display whenever possible; (and I do agree that it's not always
possible). I just think that people have the right, and the need, to see the
beat-up genuine old article as well as the shiny reproduction. Living
history museums are no exception to this; they can roll out the original
article for display beside the working reproduction as easily as a dead
history museum. (Can you imagine a zoo showing one of Steven Spielberg's
robo-animals instead of a live kangaroo? Ok, it's not the same thing, but
real is REAL!)



At 06:55 PM 25/01/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Peter and Jane:
>
>Thank you for your responses and for clarifying what I thought I was
>reading.  I'm liking this ability to have the kind of exhange this list
>provides where we can share opinions and experiences.
>
>To clarify one more thing.  Living history sites, at least the ones I've
>seen, don't "hide" their original artifacts from the public any more
>than a static museum does with their storage areas.  Reproductions are
>used (I do mean used) rather than originals for obvious reasons.  The
>originals in storage are available to researchers, and if he/she asks, a
>member of the public can probably see the storage; as is the case in a
>static museum.  In fact where I worked we had an advertised Behind the
>Scenes day where the public was given tours of the storage.
>
>And yes living history sites are under the general heading of museum as
>are zoos, aquariums, etc.
>
>Thank you for your input.
>
>Jerrie
>
>Peter Rebernik wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>Jane Thomson wrote:
>>
>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?
>
>
Jane Sproull Thomson