In article <[log in to unmask]>, "Robert A. Baron"
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> How many "real" situations substitute surrogate objects for real ones?  The
> caryatids on the Erechtheon,  the Tres Riches Heures du duc de Berry at
> Chantilly, and perhaps countless other objects are shown to the public as
> simulacra.  Not quite the same as the cast room in the V&A, for there the
> objects are at least intended to be seen as reproductions.  If we so easily
> accept the facsimile for reality, how far away are we from accepting
> virtuality for reality?
> --

Ah, but this opens quite a can of worms.  Where to restored pieces fit?  If you
artificially rearticulate a dinosaur skeleton, paint the bones back to their
original "bone" color, use a couple of bones from another skeleton (to fill in
blanks), make a couple of artificial pieces (again, to fill in blanks)--is the
skeleton real or facsimile?  Which/how many of the above treatments are
allowable for it still to be real?  Which/how many make it artificial?

If an Egyptian statue is retouched, is it real?  How much "retouching" is
allowable?  Entirely repainted or resurfaced?  1% of the surface?  Is a  highly
weathered piece of architecture (e.g., degraded by acid rain) real, or would
restoring it to how it was originally made be more real?

Robin Panza     [log in to unmask]
Section of Birds
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Pittsburgh  PA  USA  15213