Can replicas and models have equal value to accessioned objects in museum displays?

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

~ of 38 ~

Charlotte Morgan

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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).

~ 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).

~ 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

~ 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.

~ 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).

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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).

~ 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).

~ 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.

~ 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).

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ of 38 ~

Charlotte Morgan

~ 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).

~ 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

~ 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)).

~ of 38 ~

Charlotte Morgan

Figure 6

Object from Cyfartha Castle in Merthyr Tydfil, reflecting Victorian values of family (Zinn (2015)).

Bibliography

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ 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.

~ of 38 ~

Can replicas and models have equal value to accessioned objects in museum displays?

Documents

Transcript of Can replicas and models have equal value to accessioned objects in museum displays?