Following on - and agreeing with this. I am a freelancer who makes replicas. I always stress that the original object is far superior to any copy, no matter how accurately made. The only advantage replicas have is in handling collections when they have no value beyond the cost of replacing them and so they become ideal for activities which wouldn't be possible with "real" objects, or as a comparison when the "real" object is so fragmentary that a reconstruction is needed so that visitors can see what it looked like when new/alive.
Personally my greatest "wow" factor experiences have been with ephemeral things - 13th cent stable sweepings excavated on a Bristol river bank that still smelt like - well - horse poo and Jurassic sea urchin spines picked up on the river bank at Frampton on Severn. Touching or smelling the past - wow!
Julie Douglass
www.artefacts.uk.com
-----Original Message-----
From: List for discussion of issues in museum education in the UK.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Fothergill, Helen (COMMUNITY
SERVICES)
Sent: 02 November 2006 15:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: display of real bones vs. casts
Dear Gina
surely the whole point of a display being associated with a museum is that it uses (where ever possible) real objects. Otherwise we may as well have plastic flat irons, polyester Georgian dresses, and photocopied Rembrandts on the walls!
I fully appreciate the conservation requirements of bones etc, but if we start assuming that replicas are automatically valid substitutes for 'real' items, we may as well display images of the objects online and do without the veracity of a museum display.
all the best - Helen (speaking with a curatorial, exhibition & member of the 'audience' hat on ... yes.... all at the same time!)
Helen Fothergill
Keeper of Natural History
Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery
Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AJ
T: 01752 304774 F: 01752 304775
W: www.plymouthmuseum.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: List for discussion of issues in museum education in the UK.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Georgia-Gina Koutsika
Sent: 02 November 2006 00:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: display of real bones vs. casts
Dear All,
Apologies for cross posting
My colleagues that plan the redevelopment of the Natural History Museum's Life Galleries were debating over the display of real bones vs. casts.
What does it actually achieve to display the real specimen - in terms of draw card status, emotional impact in visit, effect of recollection post-visit and so on?
And, on the other hand, what is lost for the visitor when you display casts instead?
Are you aware of any research that has been contacted on that topic?
If so, please e-mail both Michael Harvey& Gina Koutsika [log in to unmask] & [log in to unmask]
Thanking you in advance for your help,
Gina
G-Gina Koutsika
Audience Advocate
on behalf of Michael Harvey,
Michael Harvey
Interpretation Manager - Gallery Development
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington SW75BD
Ph: 020 7942 5941
Fax: 020 7942 5175
|