In a message dated 01-08-28 13:01:19 EDT, John Martinson wrote:

<< A.  Do you feel the visitor wants to see "real" artifacts or "reproduction"
 artifacts?
 B.  Is it important for your organization to have "real" artifacts to
 exhibit?
 C.  Do you use the real "artifacts" or reproduction ("usifacts") items in
 your programs? >>

John, I didn't see any other reactions to the questions in your survey, so I
feel duty-bound to respond to just the above parts.  I don't want to belittle
your questions, but I have trouble imagining why any museum visitor would
prefer to see a "reproduction" artifact over a "real" one or why museum folks
would think their visitors would prefer the reproduction.  There are some
significant exceptions, of course, such as the Japanese museum of
reproductions of famous paintings, where the whole point seems to be the
skill through which the facsimiles are realized (relying upon one's memory of
what the originals look like, which is to say that the viewers depend upon
the originals being available somewhere else for comparison), or a wax
museum, where the impact of the wax figures depends entirely on their
lifelike appearance--meaning that the viewers must compare the exhibit with
their memories of having seen the actual person and/or photographs or other
images, so the "wow" factor of replicating nature is the essential point of
the exhibit.  But if visitors have a choice between seeing the original and a
reproduction, normally the original wins, hands down.

If viewers had a choice between seeing the real Elvis Presley, either
performing or just standing still, vs. his wax replica, which would the
majority select?  I think there would be no contest.  Similarly, in my
museum, where you can see Judy Garland's ruby slippers from "The Wizard of
Oz," would viewers be content with replicas, however perfect?  I don't think
so.  They want to see the actual shoes that were on her actual feet (or which
they saw being worn in the movie).  They would feel cheated if you showed
reproductions.  I'm often amused (and a bit troubled) that visitors will go
out of their way to see the perfectly ordinary chairs used by the Bunker
characters on "All in the Family" just because the stars' actual posteriors
warmed them and imbued them with star aura (or because these are presumably
the actual chairs shown on TV--in other words, people have already seen the
video surrogates, and now want to see the real things).  You could show
substitute chairs from the hundreds that probably rolled off the same
production line as the "originals" (which would probably be difficult to
locate because nobody keeps records of who buys such ordinary furniture), but
why bother?  Just to satisfy a preconceived script, which I think is the
museum equivalent of shooting first and asking questions later (but that's
just my bias)?  And the concept of deliberately going to the trouble to
re-create copies of ordinary, mundane objects--especially those not very far
removed historically from our own direct experience--is almost mind-boggling.
 The results of your survey might prove me wrong, but I'd be very surprised.
Who am I to argue with "real" statistics?  But as my logic and math teachers
always said, if you get answers that don't make sense, maybe you're doing
something wrong.  I would strongly suggest, moreover, that you follow up the
question about originality with a "why" if it's going to serve any purpose.
Why would they prefer the original (although this might be hard to
articulate) or why would they prefer a reproduction (assuming anyone
expresses such a pereference)?

So my responses are largely anecdotal and emprical.  Once someone came to my
door asking where to see Fonzie's leather jacket.  I informed them that the
jacket didn't happen to be on display currently, and offered, "But I've got
one just like it--want to see it?"  Of course, that was a jest (well, OK, a
lie), but the bewildered expressions on their faces as they backed away from
me, saying no, they weren't interested in substitutes, was priceless--and
informative.  They wanted to see the very same object of which they had
already seen its video surrogate, I surmise--not a three-dimensional
identical substitute.

Reproductions of original artifacts, created for educational use in hands-on
demonstrations, are something else entirely.  Many people may indeed be more
interested in such copies if they don't want their experience to be limited
to mere viewing, and such replicas certainly perform a service in a museum
setting.  But it's hard for me to imagine anyone preferring to "see" a
reproduction of anything over the original--with one exception.  An old
artifact, battered and deteriorating from the effects of age and use, can be
disconcerting and depressing to some, and a spiffy, new-looking copy may be
more aesthetically pleasing.  If it is created with care and sensitivity to
historical authenticity, it can serve an educational purpose, seeming to
transport the viewer into the past rather than demanding that he or she try
to mentally remove layers of grime and other accretions, or damage, which
make it difficult to conceptualize the object as it appeared in its original
state, time, and context.  But the real object is still the referent, and it
would be a disservice to the viewer not to make it clear that the "restored"
reproduction is just an approximation or educated guess as to the original
appearance of a real artifact.  I daresay, however, that where condition is
not an issue, visitors will always prefer the "real thing."  Would anyone
PREFER to see a copy of the Hope Diamond when they can see the original?  Any
who do should be asked why.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).