>However: a personnal experience regarding display of artifacts vs.
>reproduction: As I showed an interested researcher around our off-site
>storage area, he continually asked "You mean that's the REAL one?" He
>stared in awe at the (real) Enola Gay and was amazed when I answered his
>question that the Wright Flyer in the Mall museum was (you guessed) the
>REAL Wright Flyer.
 
Paul Silberman's posting raises an important point about authenticity,
exhibitions, and conservation.  When is the *real thing* no longer the
*real thing*?  Quantities of the wooden structure and cloth were removed
from the Wright Flyer during its conservation, which were sold at the Air &
Space Museum in one-inch squares.  I do not know the actual amount removed
and the intent of this posting is not to question the integrity of
conservators but to introduce the question of how much conservation can be
done before an artifact is no longer authentic.  Could I cut the Wright
Flyer in half, reconstruct the other halves, and have two *real* Wright
Flyers?  This question is of utmost importance for conservation and museum
exhibitions.  The point is being repeatedly made in Egypt concerning the
Sphinx.  There is an enormous amount of work being done on the monument.
The north side is a cement/cubist nightmare and there was even the
suggestion at the First International Conference on the Conservation of the
Sphinx of attaching a new nose.  If work continues in this vein, would the
Sphinx remain the Sphinx?  Sure, the bedrock is still authentic but could
you really tell tourists that they are seeing *the* Sphinx or should you
tell them that they are seeing our interpretation of how the Sphinx looked?
The situation gets even thornier because the Sphinx was repeatedly restored
in ancient times, so to which period should it be restored?  Thus, the
question of authenticity in exhibits can be more complex than just
wondering whether people care if it is authentic or not.
 
Robert M. Ehrenreich
National Academy of Science
<[log in to unmask]>