Post on 03-Apr-2023
School of Museum Studies
Assignment Submission FormOne of these sheets must be completed and attached to each piece of work submitted for assessment. This is in addition to your own covering first sheet.
Name: Charlotte Morgan
Number of words: 3,879
Essay question: Can replicas and models have equal value to accessioned objects in museum displays?
Question set by (if applicable):
Ross Parry
Your work MUST meet each of the following conditions:
Your file must be a Word document smaller than 5Mb Your full name must be used as the file name The essay question you have chosen must appear on the covering first
sheet. The pages must be numbered Work must be laid out for A4 paper, double spaced and 12 point. There should be a margin It is essential that you retain an electronic copy of the piece of
work.
Please refer to your Student Handbook and Blackboard for detailed guidance on the conventions to be observed in setting out your written work. If your piece of work does not meet all the Department’s requirements, it will not be accepted as examinable material.
Charlotte Morgan
Can replicas and models have equalvalue to accessioned objects in
museum displays?Charlotte Morgan
Word count: 3,879
~ Page 2 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Introduction: what are replicas, models and forgeries?
Replicas, models and forgeries are often seen in a
negative light compared to ‘authentic’ museum objects, despite
being present in museum collections since the inception of the
original museum in the 1800s.1 This paper aims to dispel this
negativity and provide evidence for the benefits of using them
actively in museum collections with a variety of case studies.
Replicas, models and forgeries play important roles in museum
education, developing historical understanding of academic
subjects, and conservation practices. This paper will focus on
the use of fakes and replicas, after redeveloping the
organisation of these types of objects. Digital objects will
be referenced but not discussed in detail due to the focus of
this paper on physical objects and mass of information
available on the use of digital replicas. Before moving onto
the analysis, it is important to clarify and define the key
terms: replica, model, forgery, fake, and authenticity.
Firstly, “replica” which is often a word used to describe
objects which have been mass-produced or created without any
creative originality,2 and which promote the decline of1 Müller (2010) 300.2 Ingold and Hallam (2007) 5.
~ Page 4 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
traditional manufacturing methods.3 However, what replicas do
encompass is an understanding of the original work, and an
extensive knowledge of how to replicate the appearance, a
creative process or art form itself.4 Often, the skill of
reproducing a piece is as old as the artistic process itself,
strongly linked to the industry.5 However, some counter this
view, stating that “reproduction detaches the reproduced
object from the domain of tradition6”, and that a replica
“loses its aura and authority7”. Ambiguity is also encountered
when replicas have been made using traditional methods, such
as the indigenous canoe produced as part of the Travelling
Traditions programme8 described later which, in contrast to
Ostrowitz’s definition, promotes the use of traditional
methods of production, not the decline of them.
Models are very similar to replicas as they too, are
often diminished in value compared to ‘authentic’ objects, but
also require large amounts of time and skills to create. In
contrast to replicas, however, there is more creativity
3 Ostrowitz (1999) 7. 4 Ingold and Hallam (2007) 5. 5 Müller (2010) 299. 6 Benjamin, quoted in Ostrowitz (1999) 12. 7 Rosenstein (2012) 35. 8 Haakanson (2015) 127.
~ Page 5 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
associated with models, they can be played with and moved,
used to demonstrate weaknesses in objects and have their own
stories away from the ‘authentic’ object they represent.9 They
also often alter the characteristics of a replica, such as
size, scale and colour to highlight specific aspects, whereas
replicas tend to be more true to the original.
Closely linked to these concepts are forgeries. A
forgery, in contrast to a replica, is created with the
intention to deceive,10 falsifying our understanding of the
past and of artists and artisans.11 It is solely this aspect
which makes forgeries undesirable.12 Aesthetically or in terms
of skill, we should revere fakes as much as we do ‘authentic’
objects, but the moral deceit means we often judge them as
inauthentic based on facts and provenance.13 It is difficult to
pin down what makes forgery wrong;14 if someone buys an object
knowing it is a forgery and removes the ‘intent to deceive’,
is it still a forgery? Should we differentiate between legal
9 Stephens (2013). 10 Sandis (2008) 2. 11 Jones, Craddock and Barker (1990) 15. 12 Matravers (2011) 67; Lessing (1965) 464. 13 Sandis (2008) 5; Lessing (1965) 23; Matravers (2011) 67. 14 Lessing (1965) 25.
~ Page 6 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
forgeries and moral forgeries?15 In this broader sense, without
the confines of ‘intent to deceive’, we could categorise all
replicas, models and forgeries as types of fakes, and use the
term ‘forgery’ to refer specifically to those objects which
have been created with intent to deceive (figures 1 and 2).
Using this categorisation, the terms ‘fake’ and ‘fake objects’
in this paper will refer to the broader context of replicas,
models and forgeries and differentiations will be made where
necessary.
A museum object, in contrast can be judged as
‘authentic’, but how? Modern connotations of authenticity are
not straightforward, and neither are definitions of a museum
object.16 It is widely acknowledged that the definition of a
museum object should be broad and have multiple meanings and
identities,17 and that we should recognise that they are nearly
15 In his paper Social emulation, product imitation and technical innovation in Renaissance Italy, Guerzoni debates the nature of fakes between legal and moral. ‘Legal’ fakes being all those objects designed as a surrogate to another and sold transparently as such, and ‘moral’ fakes being those who have been created in this way but sold deceptively, as the original object. He goes onto say that, as many fakes are sold transparently, “not all fakes were really fakes in the legal sense of the word” (Guerzoni (2014) 1). 16 Some literature cannot decide on which terminology to use to describe an object part of a collection, in her chapter in Museum Objects, Susan Pearce debates the use of the words ‘thing’, ‘object’, and ‘artefact’ to describe something in a museum collection (Pearce (2012) 25). 17 Miller (2007) 168.
~ Page 7 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
always manufactured18 and synthetic,19 so why should fake
objects not be included in this definition? This paper hopes
to prove these objects’ worth in museum collections, even if
they are not considered ‘authentic’.
The term ‘authenticity’ has already been used numerous
times in this paper and underpins the definitions we have
already discussed. Like the definition of a museum object, no
one person can define authenticity, as it means different
things for different people.20 For Lynch, authenticity is
deeply rooted in the historical context of original documents
and artefacts,21 Trant defines in in terms of trust,22 and Knell
sees authenticity manifested in the materiality of an object.23
Like Lynch, others link authenticity to the historical nature
of an object and argue that an object is more authentic in its
‘natural state’; therefore conservation and restoration are
forms of fakery, either by slowing the natural process of
ageing or by adding or changing object to how it may have
18 Miller (2007) 177. 19 In contrast, some argue that the concept of authenticity is rooted in themanufacture of an object; handmade objects are often seen as more authenticthan mass-produced counterparts (Rovine (2012) 277).20 Demian and Wastell (2007) 121. 21 Lynch (2010) 314. 22 Trant (2010) 311. 23 Knell (2012) 325.
~ Page 8 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
appeared in previous years.24 Bearman and Trant also highlight
corroboration with other objects as an important feature in
historical authenticity.25 In contrast, others define
authenticity as the continuation of ancestral relationships
through traditions and knowledge,26 not always within the same
object, an issue discussed further below regarding the
differences between Western and indigenous connotations of
authenticity. Some have attempted to define authenticity, such
as Benjamin, who says authenticity is:
“…the essence of all that is transmissible from its
[an object’s] beginning, ranging from its substantive
duration to its testimony to its history which it has
experienced”27
The concept of authenticity is a modern phenomenon which
developed in the 19th century as a response to technological
advances.28 As we are more able to replicate objects digitally,
the ‘original’ objects are reaching talismanic status within
Western society.29 Pachter names this the ‘age of artifice’,
24 van de Wetering (2012) 107. 25 Bearman and Trant (1998). 26 Cory-Pearce (2007) 146. 27 Benjamin, quoted in Rosenstein (2012) 35. 28 Bearman (2011) 57.29 Matravers (2011) 74.
~ Page 9 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
where we can replicate anything instantly using digital
technology.30
This obsession with authenticity is a Western connotation
not reflected globally. The Western view states that a copy is
a devaluation of the original,31 and that anything other than
originality is deception. Museum statistics reflect this;
often exhibitions of replicas and fakes are unsuccessful and
visitor figures drop upon discovery of a fake.32 Increasingly,
the world is valued in terms of real and fake,33 original and
replica, thanks to the developing consumer world in the West34
and visitors have become more interested in the author or
maker of a piece than what it tells us, or its aesthetic
features, specifically visitors to art galleries.35 This
obsession borders on fetishistic,36 and does not reflect
historical opinions37 or those of other, often source
communities around the world.38 Throughout history replicas
30 Pachter (2010) 332. 31 Isaac (2011) 211. 32 Sandis (2008) 6; Bandelli (2010) 150; Ulph (2011). 33 Gilmore and Pine (2007) 9.34 Isaac (2015) 164. 35 Battro (2010) 137; Gilmore and Pine (2007) 10; Matravers (2011) 67; Lessing (1965) 461-465. 36 Sandis (2008) 1. 37 Müller (2010) 299. 38 Green (1979) 6; Bowden (1999) 333.
~ Page 10 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
have been valued; many Roman statues we have today are
replicas of older, Greek works and without them we would be
uninformed about Greek sculpture.39 The Greeks were considered
masters of sculpture and by reproducing their work the Romans
learnt more about the craft, a method continued in the art
schools of the 18th and 19th centuries when professors often
surrounded their students with casts of classical pieces.40 As
scientific knowledge progressed in the 19th century, models and
replicas were used extensively to showcase developments and
test new experiments.41 However, as this continued, mass–
production became easier and the authenticity of objects
became a concern.42 Up to this point, casts and replicas were
common in museums,43 allowing visitors to view objects they may
be unable to travel to in normal circumstances. Thanks to
technological developments such as digital archiving and 3D
printing, it is now even easier to replicate, or if one
wished, fake an object.44 The value of fake objects has changed
39 Müller (2010) 299. 40 Ávila (2014) 45; Ingold (2007) 50. 41 Isaac (2011) 213; Ávila (2014) 45; Arnold (2002) 450. 42 Patcher (2010) 332; Müller (2010) 300. 43 Bearman (2011) 57. 44 Bearman and Trant (1998); Stephens (2013).
~ Page 11 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
considerably through history,45 and continues to vary today in
modern museums and around the world.
In contrast, indigenous communities, such as the Kwoma46
and Zuni,47 see the objects we would consider to be precious as
disposable.48 For these people, it is the embodiment of the
knowledge and traditions that go into producing an object
which are authentic, not the object itself.49 In these
indigenous communities, reproducing an object is proof of the
knowledge and understanding of the genealogical, ancestral and
mythical knowledge of their peoples,50 and copies are linked to
concepts of synchronicity, not fragmentation.51 All works of
art are seen to be reproductions of something in history;52
there is no concept of true originality. This view is
reflected by David Stein, who was arrested for forgeries of
Matisse, Chagall and many others in the 1960s. Stein believes
reproductions and fakes are an art form themselves,53 and that
45 Ávila (2014) 71. 46 The Kwoma are peoples living in the northeast of New Guinea (Bowden (1999) 332). 47 The Zuni people are a Native American tribe of the Pueblo peoples (Green (1979) 6). 48 Bowden (1999) 333. 49 Ingold and Hallam (2007) 5; Glass (2015) 30. 50 Glass (2015 30; Isaac (2011) 212.51 Isaac (2011) 216. 52 Bowden (1999) 335. 53 Esternow (2013).
~ Page 12 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
in order to truly falsify a work of art, “an imitator must
intimately know the artist they are copying54”.
Fake objects in museum education
Müller claims that as long as we love art, we “fuel the
market for fakes and replicas55”; their production is out of
our control so we should utilise them in collections. One of
the most common ways of doing this is by incorporating them
into educational activities, workshops, or as a part of
handling collections.56 By allowing visitors to handle fakes,
you grant them access to revered objects that in normal
circumstances they would not be able to see or hold.57 With
exact replicas and models or perfect forgeries, this
experience is enhanced and in essence, the original object can
be exposed, whilst still being in the safety of an
environmentally controlled case or storage container.58 This
hands-on approach allows visitors to have a physical
connection with the object and opens up opportunities for
communication between the museum, the visitor and the
54 Stein, quoted in Esternow (2013). 55 Müller (2010) 300. 56 Ávila (2014) 45-46.57 Ávila (2014) 46. 58 Ávila (2014) 46
~ Page 13 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
collection.59 Fake objects can help visitors to learn about the
‘authentic’ object, across many different ages and abilities.60
Especially at a young age, the comprehension of ‘replica’ is
not fully understood and makes no difference to learning or
development of skills when in contact with objects.61 The
importance is the connection with objects, the physicality of
handling, not their provenance.62
Some museums have gone further and encouraged the
production of fake objects in active learning programmes63 in
order to understand the processes used in their manufacture.
One museum where this was particularly successful was the
Alutiiq Museum, Alaska where the Travelling Traditions program was
set up in 2001, aiming to “unite indigenous people, objects
and knowledge64”. Haakanson describes one of the major projects
in his chapter ‘Translating knowledge’ in Museums as Process, to
create replicas of an indigenous canoe with local students and
an artist from the indigenous community. The team successfully
built the replica canoes for the museum (figure 3), and the
59 Davidson, Heald and Hein (1999) 237. 60 Durbin, Morris and Wilkinson (1996) 28.61 Arterberry and Bornstein (2012) 611. 62 Falk and Dierking (2000) 11; de Chadarevian (2003) 78. 63 Haakanson (2015) 127. 64 Haakanson (2015) 126.
~ Page 14 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
students were able to transfer the traditional knowledge back
to community as well as develop a sense of understanding and
appreciation of their ancestry and traditions. This method of
manufacture and decoration was not one they would have learnt
in schools or in their community as the knowledge of the
skills was limited to only a few. This project invigorated
those pupils involved,65 revived traditional methods in the
community, and gave them a deeper understanding of their
ancestry and the museum collection.66
Increasingly reproductions can be digitally produced and
therefore allow another dimension of analytical interaction
between collection and visitor. 3D printing in particular has
influenced a number of changes in how museums use their
collections in educational programmes.67 For example, the
Natural History Museum, Oxford has developed 3D printed
puzzles from their fossils to demonstrate the links between
the fossils and dinosaur skeletons children see on display.68
But these 3D printed replicas do not have to be limited to
children’s education; adult markets are also being targeted.65 One pupil, at the end of the project, said “Wow, I built this!” (Haakanson (2015) 127). 66 Sandis (2008) 1. 67 Stephens (2013).68 Stephens (2013).
~ Page 15 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
The Science Museum, London held a temporary exhibition in 2013
called “3D printing: the future” and explained how museums
could start to use 3D printing.69 This reflects a move within
the broader sector to discuss more ‘behind the scenes’ issues,
such as conservation and technology, more directly with
visitors.70 This exhibition was so successful it has been
continued by the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester
until April 2015.71 3D representations have been used for much
longer than 3D printing to recreate scenes, such as the
digitisation of Michelangelo’s David72 or the digital
reconstruction of the Parthenon.73 These representations can be
projected into gallery spaces to allow visitors to experience
full immersion in a site or collection of objects.
Using fake objects to understand the history of disciplines
69 Science Museum (2013).70 An example of this is at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, where two galleries on the lower ground floor have been dedicated to the display and understanding of forgeries and conservation. Visitors can use UV light amongst other technologies to see how experts discover fakes, as well as other interactives which track and explain the processes used in conservation at the museum (visited in 2014). 71 Science Museum (2013).72 Levoy et al. (2000). 73 Niccolucci (2010) 2.
~ Page 16 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
In addition to what fake objects can tell us about
themselves and their genuine counterparts, they can also tell
us a lot about the wider context of when they were made, by
investigating why, how and by whom they were created. This
value is often underestimated by visitors but mostly admired
by curators.74 Mark Jones, when discussing the 1990 exhibition
Fake? the Art of Deception at the British Museum highlights the
importance of fakes as historical documents which can reveal
information about the reception of objects through history,
and allow us to view objects through the lens of different
societal norms and values.75 Furthermore, some objects now only
exist as their fake counterparts, causing access to be limited
solely to these ‘false’ objects.76 As Müller highlights, it is
important to also remember that with the production of fake
objects, although the singularity of an object fades, the
information and context surrounding it does not.77 Often fake
objects can reveal things that their genuine counterparts
cannot due to their fragile or precious nature.
74 Burroughs (2006) 30. 75 Jones, quoted in Burroughs (2006) 29; Ávila (2014) 48. 76 Nakamura (2007) 85; Arnold (2002) 450. 77 Müller (2010) 300.
~ Page 17 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
The Tutankhamun Exhibition in Dorchester does exactly
this; it has completely replicated the tomb and contents of
Tutankhamun and displays them to the public in the south of
England, who are normally thousands of miles away from the
‘real thing’ in Cairo. Uniquely, the replicas are made
entirely from the same materials as the originals, meaning
they are theoretically equal in value. The exhibition was set
up in response to the popularity of the 1972 Treasures of
Tutankhamun exhibition at the British Museum and the decision
of the Egyptian government to strictly limit the movement of
their antiquities. In addition to individually famous objects
such as the death mask (figure 4), the exhibition also
replicates the antechamber as Carter found it (figure 5) and
the burial chamber as the sarcophagus was being removed.78
The same building in Dorchester also houses the Amarna
Centre, a gallery of replica unwrapped royal mummies from
ancient Egypt including Ramesses the Great, Seti I and
Princess Nesitanebasher. Using a technique developed by World
Heritage the mummies are replicated using animal skins and
medical skeletons so the recreated mummies are the exact
78 The Tutankhamun Exhibition (2012).
~ Page 18 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
proportions of the original mummies. Again, this makes
otherwise inaccessible objects available to the visiting
public in the UK and also helps this museum to overcome the
ethical issues surrounding the display of human remains,79 as
the objects on display are not physically linked to the
historical individuals being discussed.80
The Tutankhamun Exhibition and Amarna Centre are both
completely transparent about the nature of their objects,
which for some visitors can remove their authority to discuss
the issues. However, both also demonstrate how fake objects
can still provide an allure for visitors,81 and allow us to
learn more about certain objects or histories.82 Certainly a
high proportion of the people visiting the Tutankhamun
Exhibition and Amarna Centre will not have the opportunity to
see Tutankhamun’s tomb goods or the royal mummies in their
‘original’ capacities. Some even make the argument that
museums, by excavating and redisplaying objects have already
79 As a visitor who often feels uncomfortable with the cold display of humanremains, I felt I was able to gaze at these objects without feeling guilt which I normally experience in these types of galleries, allowing me to learn more from the objects as historical objects, not people (visited in 2014). 80 Amarna Centre (2014). 81 Burroughs (2006) 30. 82 Zinn (2015).
~ Page 19 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
removed most of the authenticity of an object, its
relationship with surroundings.83 Therefore, viewing a replica
is no more extreme. As Frost highlights, and heritage site84
visitors attest to, “there is undoubtedly no replacement for
the experience of viewing an object in its original form and
setting85”, but the museum allows for visitors to see these
objects in a different way but still within their
Egyptological context.
Egyptology is a subject which has been influenced over
time by various different societies and the values of those
societies; fake objects have enormous value in teaching us
about past Egyptologists. From the production of fakes in
particular, we can see what was considered important or the
most desirable at the time. Often societal norms are reflected
in the production of forgeries, and this can be seen perfectly
with a collection of statues from Cyfartha Castle in Merthyr
Tydfil, Wales (figure 6). The plinth shows a divine triad of
Osiris, Isis and their child, Horus. However, according to the
Egyptian artistic canon and religious traditions, Osiris83 Frost (2010) 244. 84 The aura of a heritage site is often attested to in visitor reports. Being at the place where history occurred adds to an experience for many visitors. 85 Frost (2010) 244.
~ Page 20 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
should stand between Isis and Horus. In this object, Horus is
clearly in the middle, reflecting a modern, Victorian
preference to have the child in between parents in portraits.86
It would cause too much damage to the objects to remove them
from their wooden plinth but by displaying them in this manner
the museum can not only discuss Egyptology, but talk about the
Victorians and their perception of ancient Egypt. This object
also links us back to our perceptions of ‘fake’, as this was
sold in Egypt to a collector by a reputable trader, and to the
buyer, and all Victorian collectors, the object was not a
fake, only a reorganisation of three genuine objects.87 The
nature of this object has revealed more to us than if it were
presented as three individual statues, reminding us of
objects’ abilities to tell numerous stories about the people
who used them and about the people who collected them.88
The conservation benefits of using fake objects
The final point regarding the use of fake objects in
museums is with regard to the conservation benefits of using
86 Zinn (2015). 87 Zinn (2015). 88 Moser (2010) 26; de Chadarevian (2003) 78; Zinn (2015).
~ Page 21 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
them. A replica object, or a model of a different scale, can
enable conservators and researchers to overcome issues of
fragility, size, incompatibility with equipment, and
handling.89 Additionally, the use of replicas in the activities
outlined above, such as education and handling, can help to
preserve the real objects, within the confines of
environmentally controlled cases.90 Perhaps most importantly,
is the use of replicas for recording objects. Photography was
first used in a museum environment to produce visual
representations of objects,91 and is still used commonly to
record objects over time.92 However, the adoption of 3D
printing could allow museums to physically track the objects’
over the same period, rather than relying on the subjectivity
of staff opinions, or poorly produced photographs. Producing
replicas allows us to record the state of an object before the
process of conservation or restoration,93 so that both
‘versions’ of the object are available for study. Replicas may
also help us by preserving the state of an object before
89 Bello et al. (2011) 323. 90 Ávila (2014) 2. 91 Witcombe (1995) . 92 Isaac (2005) 415; Battro (2010) 143. 93 Ávila (2014) 48.
~ Page 22 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
attempting to date an object,94 as some dating processes are
destructive and could cause removal of part of an object. By
producing an exact replica beforehand we can preserve the
experience of seeing the complete object.
Conclusion: an emphasis on transparency when using fake
objects
The aspect all of these benefits have in common is
broadening the audience of objects through representation by
replicas, models and fakes. Firstly, through making objects
available for educational purposes and handling sessions,
something that is not common practice with ‘authentic’
objects. The academic audience of objects can also be
broadened by using exact replicas, which can travel more
readily than their genuine counterparts, much academics in the
past who used casts to disseminate knowledge and share
opinions on the latest developments.95 This now can
particularly apply to the use of 3D scanning and digital
replicas which can be sent around in the world in just
seconds.96 Fakes can also broaden the understanding we have of
94 Ávila (2014) 47. 95 Bearman (2011) 57.96 Roussou (2010) 253.
~ Page 23 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
subjects, particularly those which have a longstanding
collecting history, such as Egyptology. We can also broaden
the access audiences have through the benefits that fakes
provide to conservation processes, the longer we are able to
ensure an object, or its ‘fake’ counterpart is around, the
more people can view it.
However, we must be careful with our use of these types
of objects in museum collections. In an increasingly modern
and technological world, the museum is still considered an
authentic institution, particularly in the West.97 Despite
this, museums are not the neutral, knowledge-giving
institutions they are often thought of by the wider public.
Exhibitions and displays are the product of ideas led by small
groups of experts, they do not provide every ounce of
information; naturally some aspects are left out.98 With these
developments, originality is becoming increasingly expected by
the visiting public; museums must be careful not to alienate
their visitors through reliance on objects perceived as
deceitful.
97 Müller (2010) 296. 98 Müller (2010) 296; Ávila (2014) 71.
~ Page 24 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
When using replicas, models and fakes in museum
collections we must remember the context of the specific
museum; there can be no blanket rules for or against using
them. Each museum audience has a different understanding of
authenticity,99 and each museum has different objects in their
collections; some might find they have hundreds of fake
objects, others only a handful. Lessing says that the nature
of the authenticity of an object is peripheral in relation to
the interpretation of the object.100 However, this is dependent
upon the nature of the audience and their own opinions of
‘authenticity’. Some visitors may be appalled to discover 40%
of the objects they saw in a gallery were fake; others may
wish they had known at the time to discover more about them.
Burroughs says, contrary to Lessing’s statement, it is more
appropriate to be completely transparent about the presence of
fakes and replicas in a collection.101 It is important to inform
your audience based on their prior knowledge, interpretation
of key concepts and reasons for visiting,102 and to understand
the relationships they have with the rest of the collection.
99 Ostrowitz (1999) 10. 100 Lessing (1965) 464. 101 Burroughs (2006) 29. 102 Falk and Dierking (2000) 188.
~ Page 25 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Some objects rely heavily on others for interpretation; if one
of these objects were not original it would not only change
the interpretation of the first object, but also its dependent
partner.103
This paper has also touched upon technological
developments influencing the world of fake objects. As
highlighted by Müller, the changes our post-modern world is
experiencing are heavily influencing the museum world:104 we are
increasingly aware of our ability to reproduce, or re-present
objects in the digital world.105 Pachter claims this will draw
more people towards the physicality and authenticity of
museums, and using fake objects in displays may then undermine
this traditional respect many of the visiting public have for
museums.106 As museums develop their digital resources,
representations of objects can be instantly available
worldwide;107 again making them accessible to new groups of
people,108 but it becomes increasingly simple to deceive using
103 Nakamura (2007) 81. 104 Müller (2010) 295.105 Huhtamo (2010) 130. 106 Pachter (2010) 334. 107 Jackson (2010) 154. 108 Bandelli (2010) 149; Frost (2010) 239; Pachter (2010) 332; Niccolucci (2010) 2.
~ Page 26 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
these reproductions.109 These technological developments have
made it increasingly easier to make perfect copies, but as
Matravers explains, something is still missing, the intent of
the original maker or artist. However, as he counters himself,
these copies would not exist if it were for the original
intent of the first maker.110
This paper hopes to have proven that there is no doubt
that fake objects: replicas, models and forgeries can and
should play an integral role in museum collections. However,
when using them, it is important to remember how visitors
perceive museums, as representatives of originality,
authenticity and historical truth.111 Therefore, we can say that
these types of objects, classified broadly as ‘fake objects’
(figure 2), can be used and although may be considered within
the sector as just as valuable and useful as accessioned
objects, will never have the same resonance with the visiting
public; for many people there is nothing quite the same as
viewing the ‘real thing’.112 This however, should not stop
museums from utilising them whenever and however they can.
109 Frost (2010) 244. 110 Matravers (2011) 73-75. 111 Pachter (2010) 334. 112 Frost (2010) 244; Müller (2010) 297; Trant (2010) 307.
~ Page 27 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Table of figures
Figure 1
Diagram showing the traditional view of fakes, replicas and models as similar objects which often share characteristics (author’s own).
Figure 2
Diagram showing the relationship suggested in this paper, of replicas, models and forgeries as types of fake objects, each with distinct characteristics (author’s own).
~ Page 29 of 38 ~
Fakes
Models
Replicas
Charlotte Morgan
Figure 3
Photograph showing the artist and students working on the replica canoe as part of the Travelling Traditions programme (Haakanson (2015) 127).
Figure 4
~ Page 30 of 38 ~
Fake objects
Replicas
Fake objects produced to
exactly represent an
original object.
ModelsFake objects which often alter the
characteristics of the
original, such as size, scale and colour.
Forgeries
Fake objects created with the intent to
decieve.
Charlotte Morgan
Replica of the death mask of Tutankhamun on display at the Tutankhamun Exhibition in Dorchester (Trip Advisor (2013)).
Figure 5
Reconstruction of the antechamber of the tomb of Tutankhamun, as it was found by Howard Carter at the Tutankhamun Exhibition(The Tutankhamun Exhibition (2012)).
~ Page 31 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Figure 6
Object from Cyfartha Castle in Merthyr Tydfil, reflecting Victorian values of family (Zinn (2015)).
Bibliography
~ Page 32 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Amarna Centre (2014) available at:www.mummiesexhibition.co.uk/main Accessed 05/03/2015.
Arnold, D. (2002) “Facts or fragments? Visual histories in theage of mechanical reproduction” Art History 25(4): 450-468.
Arterberry, M. E. and M. H. Bornstein (2012) “Categorizationof real and replica objects by 14- and 18-month-old infants”Infant Behaviour and Development 35: 606-612.
Ávila, R. (2014) “Magdalenian portable art: analysis of acollection from Dordogne and reflections over its replicas”available at: https://www.academia.edu/10466370/AVILA_Roberto._Magdalenian_portable_art_analysis_of_a_collection_from_Dordogne_and_reflections_over_its_replicas_Accessed 09/03/2015.
Bandelli, A. (2010) ‘Virtual spaces and museums’ in Museums in aDigital Age Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 1458-152.
Battro, A. M. (2010) ‘From Malraux’s Imaginary Museum to theVirtual Museum’ in Museums in a Digital Age Parry, R. (ed.)Routledge: 136-147.
Bearman, D. (2011) “3D representations in museums” The MuseumJournal 54(1): 55-61.
Bearman, D. and J. Trant (1998) “Authenticity of digitalresources: towards a statement of requirements in theresearch process” available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06/bearman.html Accessed05/03/2015.
Bello, S., E. Verveniotou, L. Cornish and S. Parfitt (2011)“3-dimensional microscope analysis of bone and tooth surfacemodifications: comparisons of fossil specimens and replicas”Scanning Vol. 33: 316-324.
~ Page 33 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Bowden, R. (1999) “What is wrong with a forgery?: Ananthropological perspective” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism57(3): 333-343.
Burroughs, K. (2006) “Faking it” Museums Journal 106(10): 28-31.
de Chadarevian, S. (2003) “Relics, replicas andcommemorations” Endeavour 27(2): 75-79.
Cory-Pearce, E. (2007) ‘Locating authorship: creativity andborrowing in the writing in the writing of ethnography andthe production of anthropological knowledge’ in Creativity andCultural Improvisation Hallam, E. and T. Ingold (eds.) Berg: 127-149.
Davidson, B., C. L. Heald and G. E. Hein (1999) ‘Increasedexhibit accessibility through increased multi-sensoryinteraction’ in The Educational Role of the Museum Hooper-Greenhill,E. (ed.) Routledge: 223-240.
Demian, M. and S. Wastell (2007) ‘Introduction to Part III:Creative appropriations and institutional contexts’ inCreativity and Cultural Improvisation Hallam, E. and T. Ingold (eds.)Berg: 119-126.
Durbin, G., S. Morris and S. Wilkinson (1996) Learning from objectsEnglish Heritage.
Esternow, M. (2013) “Fakers, fakes, and fake fakers” availableat: www.artnews.com/2013/11/20/fakers-fakes-fake-fakers/Accessed 05/03/2015.
Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking (2000) Learning from museums: visitorexperiences and the making of meaning Alta Mira Press.
Frost, O. C. (2010) ‘When the object is digital: properties ofdigital surrogate objects and implications for learning’ inMuseums in a Digital Age Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 237-246.
Gilmore, J. H. and B. J. Pine (2007) Authenticity: what consumersreally want Harvard Business School Press.
~ Page 34 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Glass, A. (2015) ‘Indigenous ontologies, digital futures:plural provenances and the Kwakwaka’wakw collection inBerlin and beyond’ in Museums as Process: translating local and globalknowledges Silverman, R. A. (ed.) Routledge: 19-44.
Green, J. (1979) Zuni: Selected writings of Frank Hamilton CushingUniversity of Nebraska Press.
Guerzoni, G. (2014) “Social emulation, product imitation andtechnical innovation in Renaissance Italy” available at:https://www.academia.edu/7833070/Product_Imitation_Process_Innovation_and_Social_Emulation_in_Renaissance_Italy_ Accessed 05/03/2015.
Haakanson, Jr., S. (2015) ‘Translating knowledge: unitingAlutiiq people with heritage information’ in Museums as Process:translating local and global knowledges Silverman, R. A. (ed.)Routledge: 123-129.
Huhtamo, E. (2010) ‘On the origins of the Virtual Museum’ inMuseums in a Digital Age Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 121-135.
Ingold, T. (2007) ‘Introduction to Part I: modes of creativityin life and art’ in Creativity and Cultural Improvisation Hallam, E.and T. Ingold (eds.) Berg: 45-54.
Ingold, T. and E. Hallam (2007) ‘Creativity and culturalimprovisation: an introduction’ in Creativity and CulturalImprovisation Hallam, E. and T. Ingold (eds.) Berg: 1-24.
Isaac, G. (2015) ‘Prices of knowledge and economies ofheritage in Zuni, New Mexico’ in Museums as Process: translatinglocal and global knowledges Silverman, R. A. (ed.) Routledge: 152-168.
Isaac, G. (2011) “Whose idea was this?” Current Anthropology52(2): 211-233. ]
Isaac, G. (2005) “Re-observation and the recognition ofchange: the photographs of Matilda Coxe Stevenson” Journal ofthe Southwest 47(3): 411-455.
~ Page 35 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Jackson, R. (2010) ‘The virtual visit: towards a new conceptfor the electronic science centre’ in Museums in a Digital AgeParry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 153-158.
Jones, M., P. T. Craddock and N. Barker (1990) Fake? The Art ofDeception University of California Press.
Knell, S. J. (2012) ‘The intangibility of things’ in MuseumObjects: experiencing the properties of things Dudley, S. H. (ed.)Routledge: 324-335.
Lessing, A. (1965) “What is wrong with a forgery?” The Journal ofAesthetics and Art Criticism 23(4): 461-471.
Levoy, M., J. Ginsberg, J. Shade, D. Fulk, K. Pulli, B.Curless, S. Rusinkiewicz, D. Koller, L. Pereira, M. Ginzton,S. Anderson and J. Davis (2000) “The digital Michelangeloproject: 3D scanning of large statues” Proceedings of the 27th
SIGGRAPH: 131-144.
Lynch, C. (2010) ‘Authenticity and integrity in the digitalenvironment: an exploratory analysis of the central role oftrust’ in Museums in a Digital Age Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge:314-331.
Matravers, D. (2012) Introducing Philosophy of Art Acumen Publishing.
Miller, D. (2007) ‘Artefacts and the meaning of things’ inMuseums in the Material World Knell, S. (ed.) Routledge: 166-186.
Moser, S. (2010) “The devil is in the detail: museum displaysand the creation of knowledge” Museum Anthropology 33(1): 22-32.
Müller, K. (2010) ‘Museums and virtuality’ in Museums in a DigitalAge Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 395-305.
Nakamura, F. (2007) ‘Creating or performing words?Observations on contemporary Japanese calligraphy’ inCreativity and Cultural Improvisation Hallam, E. and T. Ingold (eds.)Berg: 79-98.
~ Page 36 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Niccolucci, F. (2010) “Technologies, standards and businessmodels for the formation of virtual collections of 3Dreplicas of museum objects: the 3D-COFORM project” IST-Africa2010 Conference Proceedings: 1-8.
Ostrowitz, J. (1999) Privileging the Past: reconstructing history in NorthwestCoast Art University of Washington Press.
Pachter, M. (2010) ‘Why museums matter’ in Museums in a Digital AgeParry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 332-335.
Pearce, S. (2012) ‘Museum objects’ in Museum Objects: experiencingthe properties of things Dudley, S. H. (ed.) Routledge: 23-25.
Rosenstein, L. (2012) ‘The aesthetic of the antique’ in MuseumObjects: experiencing the properties of things Dudley, S. H. (ed.)Routledge: 26-35.
Roussou, M. (2010) ‘Learning by doing and learning throughplay: an exploration of interactivity in virtualenvironments for children’ in Museums in a Digital Age Parry, R.(ed.) Routledge: 247-265.
Rovine, V. L. (2012) ‘Handmade textiles: global markets andauthenticity’ in Museum Objects: experiencing the properties of thingsDudley, S. H. (ed.) Routledge: 269-279.
Sandis, C. (2008) “An Honest Display of Fakery: replicas andthe role of museums” available online at:
https://www.academia.edu/6504654/An_Honest_Display_of_Fakery_Replicas_and_the_Role_of_Museums Accessed 16th Feb 2015.
Science Museum (2013) “Science Museum explores the future of3D printing” available at:www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_media/press_releases/2013/07/3D%20Printing%Exhibition.aspx Accessed05/03/2015.
~ Page 37 of 38 ~
Charlotte Morgan
Stephens, S. (2013) “The rise of 3D printing” available at:www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/3d-technology/15082013the-rise-of-3d-printing Accessed 05/03/2015.
Trant, J. (2010) ‘When all you’ve got is the ‘real thing’:museums and authenticity in the networked world’ in Museumsin a Digital Age Parry, R. (ed.) Routledge: 306-313.
The Tutankhamun Exhibition (2012) available at:www.tutankhamun-exhibition.co.uk/index Accessed 04/03/2015.
Trip Advisor (2013) “review of the Tutankhamun Exhibition,Dorchester” available at:www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186263-d1539403-Reviews-Tutankhamun_Exhibition-Dorchester_Dorset_England.html Accessed 25/03/2015.
Ulph, J. (2011) “Registering forgeries” available at: www.museumsassociation.org/comment/14122011-janet-ulph-ethics Accessed 02/03/2015.
van de Wetering, E. (2012) ‘The surface of objects and museumstyle’ in Museum Objects: experiencing the properties of things Dudley,S. H. (ed.) Routledge: 101-108.
Witcombe, C. L. C. E. (1995) “Art History and Technology: abrief history” available at: arthistoryresources.net.arth-technology/arth0technology6.html Accessed 05/03/2015.
Zinn, K. (2015) Personal conversations regarding “What onEarth is Horus doing there?” 18/02/2015.
~ Page 38 of 38 ~