Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:54:00 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
>
|
|
|