3 ms·
I've chatted about this idea with my wife, who worked in museums/curation for a time. Her view was that where we could make perfect or near-perfect replicas, t
by CalRobert 5y ago
I've chatted about this idea with my wife, who worked in museums/curation for a time.
Her view was that where we could make perfect or near-perfect replicas, there's no real reason we should risk having original artifacts on display. In my view, it would be kind of silly to go to a museum just to see a copy.
I think, for me at least, when I see an object in a museum there's one element of "oh, that's interesting design", but also an element of "this is the _actual rifle_ that was used to charge a WWI trench", or similar - something about seeing a real, physical artifact from a history that feels more like stories at times is grounding.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoI think at least part of that is a status game. Conspicuous expense is important and sought after, because by making that expense you show an un-fakeable signal that you are important and can afford the expense. People place the same value in identical replicas because they don't carry that signal. I suspect that most of the "oh, it has the real weight of history behind it" sentiment is post-hoc rationalization for the status game.
- CalRobert 5y agoTBH I suspect you're right. I visited Gyeonbokgung palace and loved it, blissfully unaware it's a fairly recent rebuild. Did I only care that it's not original because of implied reduced scarcity? I don't know.