Just my two cents worth....nothing can replace the expereince...from
beginning to end...(meaning, the trip to the museum, the exploration once
you're there, etc.) of seeing the "real thing."   Comparing the "false"
image with the "real" item can be interesting, a learning experiecne for
many, possibly.  That's just my opinion...

by the way, forgive me for my ignorance, but *why* is the Harrison Ford
character "Indianna JOnes" considered a "bad" scientists?  Just
curious...I'm a folklorist, so maybe that explains it...

thanks...
R.Lee

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Robin Panza wrote:

> In article <[log in to unmask]>
,
> Brian M Decker <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > common item, and people may no longer desire to view the original.  Why go
> > to a museum to see it when you can look at a representation of the same thin
g
> > hanging on your wall?  The impression that the work may have had on people
> >
> > Brian Decker
>
> This is something that needs a proper study.  I've seen thousands of images of
> "Mona Lisa", and there must be hundreds of thousands of images around, yet
> people still go to considerable effort to see the real thing.  Once one has
> seen an original of any of the great masters, one realizes how poor a
> representation they've been looking at in reproductions.
>
> Robin Panza             [log in to unmask]
> Section of Birds
> Carnegie Museum of Natural History
> Pittsburgh  PA  USA  15213
>