I agree with originals, if they can be protected or they are not one of a
kind.  I loved seeing the original artifacts from the Titanic.  But, if
you have a one-of-a kind and cannot provided adequate protection for it,
I would consider providing a reproduction.  On the whole, we do not do
this because we are able to provide the security needed.  But, I can see
there might be a situation that might require it.  The question then is
that you should inform the public that it is not original and explain
why.

Delecia Huitt

 -----Original Message-----
From: Heather Stein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 11:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: show reproductions instead of origin

Show reproductions instead of originals!  I can hardly believe my ears!
I feel that people go to museums to see the originals.  I can see repro-
ductions on the web and in books.  Why would I want to go to a museum
to see reproductions?  You're right though, I do believe it would cut
the traffic flow considerbly!


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Heather Stein
Research Specialist
ARL Division of Neurobiology
Univeristy of Arizona
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, David Haberstich wrote:

>  I fully agree with Delecia Huitt that too many artifacts in an exhibit
> interfere with traffic flow. You should see all the people lined up
> outside the National Gallery of Art to view the Van Gogh show. If they
> had had the common sense to show reproductions instead of original
> paintings, the lines undoubtedly would speed up considerably. This is
> yet another reason for museums to avoid the use of original artifacts
in
> exhibits. By the way, what Titanic artifacts are being shown anyway? I
> thought J. Peterman had sold everything by now. Having seen the movie,
I
> certainly wouldn't devote any more of my valuable time to this subject,
> but I am curious from a museological standpoint.
>
> --David Haberstich
>