Not "most" by a long shot. But it is true that many things have ended up in museums and before people were sensitive to cultural context. They were loot.
The museum of exact copies is not a new idea, of course. Lorado Taft had that same idea for the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition and there was a museum filled with plaster casts (decades later some of them adorned his studio on the Midway, by then a studio for the Univ. Chicago, and students like me copied from them). There are copies all over the place, especially in locations where the originals have been moved to safer places, away from vandals and pollution. But human nature being as goofy as it is, people want the Real McCoy even if they can't say what it is, and especially if they've travelled around the world to see it. Besides, it'd take just as much work and money to show a fake as to show an original. And even the most impressive plaster copy of an antique statue is plainly a copy (the surfaces are dull) despite today's better technology of fakery. There's no ultimate solution to this question but it is worthy to keep it alive. I'm for originals, even if they finally decay or are lost. We can't perfect human history. As my neighbor Marcus Aurelius said yesterday, "Ultimately, everything will vanish." WC --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Beautiful and Intriguing Knickknacks > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 10:02 AM > If every artifact that's been divorced from the context > of its excavation is > to called a "knickknack" -- then most of the > ancient objects found in art > museums today would qualify as such. > > While I consider Knickknacks to be the kind of things my > wife buys for a > dollar at Walgreen's to give as party favors. > > Are the great seated Bodhisattvas in the central hallway of > the A.I.C. to be > called "knickknacks" ? For shame! Those are the > best things in the entire > museum! (and the label indicates -- that we have no idea > where they came > from) > > ***** > > But I agree with the archeologists that looting should be > made as unprofitable > as possible -- by refusing to let any more of that stuff > enter art museums. > That keeps it from being validated (just as new art gets > validated) -- and > makes the purchase of it for a high price more risky. > > The community of Biblical scholars has taken that one step > further -- and they > forbid looted artifacts to be mentioned in any literature > recognized by their > profession. > > I suppose that will frustrate some scholars -- just as > keeping some pieces out > of art museums will frustrate some art lovers. > > But speaking as an art lover -- especially of selected > ancient artifacts -- I > don't really care -- because there already is way too > much stuff for me to see > in my lifetime -- and there already are tons of good stuff > in museum > basements. Instead of collecting second and third rate > authentic artifacts -- > art museums should be be showing perfect casts of > first-rate aesthetic > material. > > My dispute with both archaeologists and museum directors > -- is that neither > seems to have much interest in high aesthetic quality - and > how that is what > makes the artifacts they handle really valuable. > _____________________________________________________________ > Click to compare psych/counseling degrees in a free > directory of programs. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijnep4Q27yHb8gGpqtaYDw70A > OwVth6a6ItYD3GeLDoVMwlwQ/?count=1234567890
