Deb Fuller's news regarding plans for the Montpelier restoration is sad. I
was hoping that the "fundamentalist" approach to historic preservation has
long ceased to be a significant approach in the field. To me, the deliberate
destruction of an historic addition in the vain attempt to re-create a
purportedly pure "original" is sad and silly-reminiscent of the loopy
movement of "secondary" virginity among some young folk.

The romantic notion that something can be "pure" was one of the driving
forces behind this country's sad record of racism, and to perpetuate this
silliness in our historical approaches is a serious blemish on the
intellectual integrity of our historiography. In Europe we still have houses
from the 14th and 15th centuries that are in use-the old is combined with
the new-thereby  giving true depth to reality and history. One of my
favorite photographs in my collection is a shot taken from the walls of
Dubrovnik in which a woman in black is hanging her laundry between two
upright pieces of Greek columns. Now, that is history and not
"Disneyfication." Pretty soon we will be banning folks with wrinkles because
they do not represent the "true" individual-pretty sad, indeed.
nburlakoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Deb Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Montpelier Restorations

Hi all,

I'm a little disturbed by the recent announcement of the restorations going
on
at Montpelier. They plan to tear down the duPont additions that were added
in
the early 1900s to return the mansion back to its original state when the
Madisons owned it. Now I can understand tearing down a more modern addition
but
if something's been around for 100 and added on by a prominent family to
boot,
I would think that it would warrant preserving. Afterall, it's not that much
older than the original house. I doubt they'll rip out the "modern" indoor
plumbing, heating and electricity; why destroy other house additions?

The full story is here: http://www.montpelier.org/restoration.htm

I can understand wanting to take off the stucco and get down to the original
brick as well as keeping the house interpretation to the time period of the
Madisons. But it seems to me that there's room to interpret the later
addition
as well. Afterall, houses were built to be lived in and have been lived in
over
many decades. They weren't meant to be frozen in time.

So anyway, I was wondering if this was bothering anyone else out there in
the
museum community. It certainly puts into question what is of historic value
and
what is not.

Deb



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

=========================================================
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).

=========================================================
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).