Jerrie - regarding your question about who is putting forward the pro-originals arguments; first, I think you've put a word in our mouths that was never there; namely "ALL". No one, as far as I've seen, has ever suggested a museum has an obligation to show ALL its artifacts, that's plainly ridiculous. We're talking original versus reproduction, not percentages or numbers. Secondly, I'm a former chief curator of a provincial museum system with about 25 years in the business. Yes, I've seen museum storage facilities...quite a few of them. We spend a fair amount of money on them, don't we? Is this money spent so that we can keep them away from the public? At 10:29 AM 24/01/99 +0000, you wrote: >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 >> >>> > > > Jane Sproull Thomson