I agree with originals, if they can be protected or they are not one of a kind. I loved seeing the original artifacts from the Titanic. But, if you have a one-of-a kind and cannot provided adequate protection for it, I would consider providing a reproduction. On the whole, we do not do this because we are able to provide the security needed. But, I can see there might be a situation that might require it. The question then is that you should inform the public that it is not original and explain why. Delecia Huitt -----Original Message----- From: Heather Stein Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 11:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: show reproductions instead of origin Show reproductions instead of originals! I can hardly believe my ears! I feel that people go to museums to see the originals. I can see repro- ductions on the web and in books. Why would I want to go to a museum to see reproductions? You're right though, I do believe it would cut the traffic flow considerbly! *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Heather Stein Research Specialist ARL Division of Neurobiology Univeristy of Arizona *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, David Haberstich wrote: > I fully agree with Delecia Huitt that too many artifacts in an exhibit > interfere with traffic flow. You should see all the people lined up > outside the National Gallery of Art to view the Van Gogh show. If they > had had the common sense to show reproductions instead of original > paintings, the lines undoubtedly would speed up considerably. This is > yet another reason for museums to avoid the use of original artifacts in > exhibits. By the way, what Titanic artifacts are being shown anyway? I > thought J. Peterman had sold everything by now. Having seen the movie, I > certainly wouldn't devote any more of my valuable time to this subject, > but I am curious from a museological standpoint. > > --David Haberstich >