I'll take a shot at this as one who does not work in a museum but has a passion about them and who volunteered when the National Archives sent documents to the Los Angeles Public Library for a major exhibit a few years ago (just one of the times I've volunteered time for museums).  Consider me "the public's perspective," though, by no means, do I represent the whole of the public:

 

1) whether an audience to a traveling exhibition want/expects the original
object vs a high quality reproduction (and why);

 

I don't want to see a repro.  If I take the time to get enmeshed in the history of it all and to use that document or artifact as a learning lesson for my grandchildren (the 11-year old is a major history buff and has read at the high school level for the last couple of years), I want the real deal.  Unless you have some heavy duty support info for a carbon copy, don't send it.  I can read about that on the internet and see all the artificiality I want in that respect.  If you're affording me the opportunity to come close to history, I want the real thing, and not an artificial substitute.

 

 

2) whether an institution should, or should not, share its originals via traveling exhibitions, or whether the historical and intellectual purpose of the exhibit is more important and can
be served using facsimiles;

 

Make no mistake, the historical purpose is important and, for some folks, the intellectual purpose can be satiated, I suppose.  However, having volunteered "in the public's face," having interacted directly with the public and communicated with them about the information being conveyed (another major experience was with the Smithsonian's traveling exhibition in 96-97), some people are never going to come close to the intellectual purpose.  Some are there just to be close to something of historical import.  You can dress up the documents all you want, but some are just going to gloss over the intellectual aspects just to get to the history and be able to say they saw it. 

 

Would an artifical document "fool" some; sure, even if you told them it was a copy.  Most won't understand the potential damage that can occur by exposing the real deal to light and additional handling.  But, as I recall, there was a document that was advertised as going to be available at the Library, and the diet version was brought instead.  I remember "feeling cheated" at the time.  Had I known it was going to be just a copy, I'm not sure I would have made the effort to go.  That can have an impact on revenue for the exhibit.

 

 

3)would visitors might be drawn to a traveling exhibition "just" because of where it originated (ie something from a "big name" museum/institution) and not because of the content?

 

I saw the latter when I volunteered in a couple of cities for the Smithsonian.  I was the greeter for the folks who came through in Kansas City for a couple of days and can tell you there were so many people who had NO clue what they were coming to see or what to expect, they were just coming because it was the Smithsonian in there town.  They were very pleasant but clueless and, after having seen much of it thought it was real nice but didn't seem to be as impressed with the artifacts/exhibits as they did with the fact that the major institution had been to there town.

 

Not all institutions have the luxury of the name draw, and NARA and Library of Congress may not have the same luxury that the Smithsonian does.  It's a risk. 

 

Hope this helps.