In article <[log in to unmask]>, "Robert A. Baron" <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > How many "real" situations substitute surrogate objects for real ones? The > caryatids on the Erechtheon, the Tres Riches Heures du duc de Berry at > Chantilly, and perhaps countless other objects are shown to the public as > simulacra. Not quite the same as the cast room in the V&A, for there the > objects are at least intended to be seen as reproductions. If we so easily > accept the facsimile for reality, how far away are we from accepting > virtuality for reality? > -- Ah, but this opens quite a can of worms. Where to restored pieces fit? If you artificially rearticulate a dinosaur skeleton, paint the bones back to their original "bone" color, use a couple of bones from another skeleton (to fill in blanks), make a couple of artificial pieces (again, to fill in blanks)--is the skeleton real or facsimile? Which/how many of the above treatments are allowable for it still to be real? Which/how many make it artificial? If an Egyptian statue is retouched, is it real? How much "retouching" is allowable? Entirely repainted or resurfaced? 1% of the surface? Is a highly weathered piece of architecture (e.g., degraded by acid rain) real, or would restoring it to how it was originally made be more real? Robin Panza [log in to unmask] Section of Birds Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pittsburgh PA USA 15213