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


+--------------------------------------------------------------------
 | 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: 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 is
>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, Artifact
>Museums.  While I would not want to visit the Museum of Modern Art and see
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 for
>visitors, the old or worn original objects look out of place.  Think about
>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]
>