Things to consider are; 1. why are you using repros and not the real thing? - is it an interactive activity, enabling people to experience the object more fully? is the 'real" thing to fragile or don't you have one. Know why you are making this decision and there might be other ways of solving it. 2. Should reproductions always be labelled as such and the reason's for using them given? One of the advantages museum's have over other purveyors and packagers of history is that we have the "real thing". And the public percieve this as one of our reason's for being. If we start diluting and confusing this what will be the consequences? They trust us that the doorknob they see is authentic. The labels we attach, the building we put in, the way we display it all add extra meanings but the object stripped of these is still physically what it was. It is not an advirtiser's, movie producer's, tv exec's idea of what a doorknob once was. By holding "real" objects as they were along with their layers of use we retain their integrity and leave them available for a variety of interpretations. Real things are our "competitive advantage", to use business jargon. This is one view anyway. Cheers Leah Breninger Collection Manager (Social History) Museum of Victoria [log in to unmask] ---------- From: owner-museum-l To: Multiple recipients of list MUSEUM-L Subject: museums and reproductions- query Date: Tuesday, 28 May, 1996 12:09AM I am searching for information regarding the view of the museum profession regarding the use of reproductions in exhibits, historic homes etc. Can anyone recommend a work that covers this matter and presents the theory which either supports or condemns this practice? I thank you in advance for your help! Maria Lizzi School of Information Science and Policy University at Albany Responses can be made off-list to [log in to unmask]