This is still an interesting debate: original vs reproductions in
various types of museums.  I'm just curious, Peter and the others who
sound like they feel a museum has a public obligation to show all
artifacts, do you now or have you ever worked in a museum, or have you
seen a museum's storage?  No museum I've ever seen displays the entire
collection.  Depending on the type of museum, many objects are saved for
research; and I've never seen a museum that had room to display the
entire collections.

Just trying to learn from where these arguments are coming.
Jerrie



Peter Rebernik 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 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
>
>> >