| . |
Authenticity is an expected standard of museums and their collections of objects, the reputation of the museum is built upon the learned authority or its specialists, but can we realistically expect this authenticity to extend to it's exhibition displays? Clearly this is desirable, but is it achievable?
Recently in the British Museum three major, previously fragmented but restored pieces have been taken apart and reassembled: the Portland vase, the Sophiles vase, and the helmet from the Sutton Hoo Viking burial. In three of these quite unrelated cases, edges of fragments had apparently been filed down in the course of earlier treatments, to get them to fit during the extremely tricky process or reassembly. In the case of the helmet, the earlier reassembly for whose benefit filing was done is considered quite fanciful... The conclusion must be that filing down was an accepted procedure in the extremely tricky final manoeuvring required in reassembling objects from fragments. [source]
In this example it can be seen that in some instances during the history of even the most reputable institution it has been necessary to compromise the authenticity of an object for the purpose of reassembly, possibly for the purpose of display. To a greater or lesser extent it may be necessary to manipulate any museum object in order to display it. Preservation, labelling, reassembly, mounting and showcasing all contribute to some degree in the alteration of the perception of an object. But there are examples of objects on display where there is more interpretation than authenticity. Fossil dinosaurs reconstructions for example represent the best understanding of the subject at the time of reconstruction. This understanding will change over time as more information is discovered and theories develop. This explains why model dinosaurs at Crystal Palace look more like giant lizards than the dinosaur skeletons we see in museums today. These palaeontological theories are constantly under review, yet the displays are not always up to date. Anyone who hasn't visited The Natural History Museum in London may be surprised to see the tail of the Diplodocus in the main hall raised high into the air, unlike its representation with its tail dragging on the ground since its presentation it to the NHM in 1905.
Whatever interpretative work the museum does to give the object or knowledge meaning, if it is recognised at all, is of a different sort than that involved in its production. Public representation relies on technical research only for factual authority; the actual process of creating public exhibitions bears no resemblance to the process of generating the knowledge they portray.
Take for example, natural history museums: even though a considerable amount of research is still conducted in natural history museums, technical research is almost entirely divided from public exhibition at many institutions. But there was a time when the private spaces of natural history museums housed scientists whose work combined research and public exhibition. [source]
Museum objects are no more than objects with out the significance found in them by their collectors, it is this significance that commands the authority rather than the object in isolation. The application of authority is also the responsibility of the those who are devising exhibitions and displaying objects.
Authenticity is not about factuality or reality. It is about authority. Objects have no authority; people do. It is people on the exhibition team who must make a judgement about how to tell about the past. Authenticity - authority - enforces the social contract between the audience and the museum, a socially agreed-upon reality that exists only as long as confidence in the voice of the exhibition holds. [source]
In an instance where a museum object is placed in a 'scene' or 'reconstruction' of an appropriate environment, where does authenticity and interpretation start and end?
The intention may be simply to use the historic house as an appropriate display background to the objects placed in it, but when we visit we are likely to understand the whole interior as 'authentic'. When such interiors, as is often the case, are enlivened by costume events, in which case the whole frame is interactive theatre, they may by have some integrity. Opened to the public as expressions of a period, they are forgeries. [source]
In my experience the most common question asked in The Natural History Museum [after 'where are the toilets?'] is 'is it real?' In the case of a fossil dinosaur skeleton, the correct answer might be, '[the animal probably experienced a violent death, it has then been in buried in the ground for 60 million years, subjected to the movements and distortions of the earth, during this time all the original bone has been replaced by mineral deposits and all soft tissues lost, the fossil bones may have been exposed to weathering and water erosion, it has then been dug up, shipped here, then we spent some time looking at the jigsaw of pieces, tried to work out what the animal looked like when it was alive, then all the bits we have have been put together to look like this, any bits we did not have we made up] ... of course it's real'
|
. |
