Stephen Nowlin wrote:

> {chop} While an artist might have authorized the
>re-creation of his work, and theoretically there should be no difference
>between the experience of these and earlier versions, I think that in
>reality people visiting a museum want to connect with the root sources of
>human endeavor.  When they see "1995" on an Eames chair that was designed
>in 1955, or view a reproduction of an El Lissitzky "Proun" room, they will
>be less fulfilled than if given the opportunity to see an original.

Exactly - this goes back to those issues raised about "virtual" museum
visits versus original object experiences and their impact on the visitor.
In our attempt to address the commercial production (or reproduction) of
certain objects, it often appears as if we create a lesser standard for
acquisitions of contemporary design and ignore what we often trumpet about
the fine arts - namely, that sense of historical authenticity that
contributes to the object's validity within collections which are usually
intended as sources for the interpretation of art HISTORY.

>{chop}  Sometimes museums have no choice but to re-create portions of
>the past (Lissitzky), but since they are museums and not amusement parks
>they should respond to as rigorous a standard of authenticity as possible.
>

As you noted, this is particularly true of period rooms which are often
fragmentary, and even when completely re-installed in a new setting, are
usually not furnished with original materials, but merely those which
present an approximation of what may have been considered typical for the
period.  Unfortunately, many museum visitors that I have talked to assume
that the furnishings in period rooms are directly associated with their
environment.  This brings up other issues beyond the scope of this thread,
but does raised the interesting issue of what reproductions may be necessary
to complete (restore?) a museum "object" in the manner intended by the
designer.  For example, would Frank Lloyd Wright's Little House living room
at the Metropolitan be anywhere near the "object" Wright intended without
his furnishings - even though many are not from that commission, but are
original Wright-designed pieces?  As with all displaced period environments,
the room without the rest of the house and its original site is certainly a
fragmentary "object"!  The lack of authentic supporting elements does not
mean that this object is valueless in a museum setting, it only cautions us
to review what we present as original to a particular artist and
representative of an era in which it was created.