Altamira Press Collections-Facsimiles-J Park

147 Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 6, Number 3,Summer 2010, pp. 147–170. Copyright © 2010 AltaMira Press. All rights reserved.

Museums, Do You Copy?Standards on the Care and Handling of Facsimiles Exhibited in Museums

Jocelyn Park

John F. Kennedy Alumna, independent scholar, [email protected]

Abstract This project aims to analyze the current practices of the care and handling of facsimiles in museums in the United States. Once exhibited in the museum, facsimiles become part of the history of the museum. However, my research reveals that facsimiles are often mistreated because they are categorized as facsimiles, unattributed, or are not part of the museum’s collection. With this project, I present guidelines to the museum collections management and registration field on proper care and handling methods for facsimiles exhibited in the United States so that museums may avoid mistreating what was once exhibited in their galleries, and give the attention that facsimiles deserve as they serve a didactic purpose, and represent the artists’ intention and integ-rity of the original.

!is manuscript is a study of facsimiles exhibited in museums in the United States. !e topic is prevalent in the majority of museums, calling into question the role of today’s museums as a repository of authentic, original objects of the world. Muse-ums create and exhibit facsimiles for reasons varying from the original’s fragility to political restraints limiting access to the original. When museums display facsimiles to the public, the facsimiles become part of the museums’ history, and sometimes, part of the museums’ collections. !is importance makes it necessary for museums to consider the care delivered to these facsimiles. For the purpose of this manu-script, I consider facsimiles to be replicas, modern reproductions, exhibition copies, and reconstructions of original art. For museums in the United States with any of the previously listed types of facsimiles, this topic has great relevance. I explored literature on America’s earliest museums and how they neglected their facsimiles only a few decades a"er the museums’ openings. Accompanying the literature review are the #ndings. I gathered and analyzed the current practices of today’s museums and researched topics on why facsimiles are created and what

148 STANDARDS ON THE CARE AND HANDLING OF FACSIMILES O

museums do with them a"er the exhibition period. O"en, these facsimiles are not provided with the proper care or formal procedures on how to handle them.

I present conclusions and recommendations that encourage museums to fol-low four guidelines to establish a professional protocol on how to handle facsimiles, and, at the same time, maintain the integrity of the original object. !ese guidelines discuss standards for acquisition, methods of disposing facsimiles, standardized numbering system to track facsimiles, and methods of storage. While some muse-ums already partake in innovative thinking and practice when handling facsimiles, policy-making is still necessary for the majority in order to prevent these facsimiles from neglect and disorganization, especially when in contact with original objects in the collection, and to preserve the artist’s intentions and the integrity of the original.

Literature Review

To better understand how prevalent this topic is in museums today, it is essential to analyze the literature pertaining to facsimiles in two periods. !e #rst looks at the plaster cast collections of the earliest museums in America, from the late nine-teenth-century to early twentieth-century. It examines how American museums acquired cast copies because of limited access to the original objects. !is section also includes the methodologies of how these plaster casts have been used since the 1970s until today. !e second section examines contemporary facsimiles created in museums. Museums of the international sector are included in this section to emphasize the prevalence of facsimiles displayed in exhibitions. !is section includes four cases in four di$erent museums. Each case addresses the issues of limited access to the origi-nal, fragility and inherent vice of the original object and controversies surrounding these issues.

America’s First Museums: The Plaster Casts

Venus de Milo is undergoing restoration at the conservation laboratory at the Queens Museum of Art in New York. Sculptures of Michelangelo and Praxiteles are contracted to a long-term loan to the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. To no surprise, these masterpieces of Greece and Italy are in the hands of these renowned museums and institutions. However, these objects are not the real things. Rather, they are facsimi-les created by di$erent hands and techniques from the artist of the marble originals. In the late nineteenth-century, Americans proudly stood their ground in Western Civilization as they looked to the great artistic achievements of Europe. However, as Americans realized their limitations in acquiring the great masterworks

O JOCELYN PARK 149

of Europe because they could not a$ord them, American scholars and educators felt the need to see the masterworks from Europe such as Greek and Renaissance sculp-ture. Samuel Parrish, founder of !e Parrish Art Museum in Southampton, New York in 1898, claimed that his ideal “collection is con#ned almost exclusively to such objects” that “illustrate or represent the history, biography, and art of Greece, Italy . . . to which we in America . . . owe all that is most valuable in our intellectual and political life (de Salvo 1993, 58). In order to increase their collections and to settle with the fact that “museum directors and curators are always looking to im-prove their collections” as “their fantasies revolve around how best that might be done,” Parrish and other wealthy Americans commissioned plaster casts of these masterworks for their American museums (McClellan 2008, 113). Americans had limited access to the objects they deemed symbols of the Western tradition, and found a substitute for these objects—sculptural copies. When it comes to a large cast collection, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) is exemplar. Beginning in 1886, the Met became a factory in the casting of marble sculptures when the museum “started sending out crews of cast-makers across Europe” (Kahn 2008). Moulding workshops in Paris, Florence, Rome, and Naples thrived as they supplied art museums with copies of European sculptures. Donna de Salvo and Winifred E. Howe describe this activity with the Met and the museum’s veneration for the masterpieces of Europe:

Henry G. Marquand gave the Metropolitan Museum $10,000 worth of casts and during the 1890s, while president of its board of trustees, he headed a committee on casts, which (de Salvo 1993, 59) . . . raised the substantial sum of $60,000 to obtain, in its words, “a complete collec-tion of casts, historically arranged, so as to illustrate the progress and development of plastic art in all epochs, and mainly in those that have in%uenced our civilization.’’ (Howe 1913, 252)

!e plaster cast collections were crowd-pleasers at the heart of the American museum. !e Met dedicated their plaster casts a gallery space called !e Great Hall of Casts that “functioned as the very center of the original museum building” (de Salvo 1993, 59). Also, when it #rst opened in 1888, the Slater Memorial Museum in Norwich, Connecticut had a large library, a large collection of Indian antiquities, and of course, plaster casts. !e museum prioritized its galleries for these three col-lections so that its “very remarkable series of plaster casts from the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance periods” were exhibited “in the largest hall of all” (!e Slater Art Museum 1888). Inexpensive compared to European originals and able to be copied, the casts served a role in American education. Casts had no stigma, and were considered a teaching tool allowing visitors, students, artists and scholars close-up analysis. Mar-jorie Schwarzer, Chair of the Department of Museum Studies at John F. Kennedy


University, emphasizes the casts’ didactic e$ect at the turn of the twentieth-cen-tury. Plaster casts were “compared to their European prototypes,” and it was clear that “American museums lacked depth and quality in their collections. Instead they distinguished themselves by their educational programs” (Schwarzer 2006, 11). In fact, some believed the casts provided “an aesthetic experience equivalent or even superior to that a$orded by originals” (Wallach 1998, 46). Parrish argued the ben-e#ts of his plaster cast collection when compared to American original art of the time. He called these originals “modern pictures” and recognized that they were interesting and valuable, but did not compare “in educational worth with plaster reproductions of the antique and Renaissance sculpture.” (de Salvo 1993, 59). Although displaying these casts was of true fashion at the time, authenticity and the importance of the originals they represented were critiqued and controver-sial. One argument was that the aesthetics of bronze originals could never be truly replicated by plaster. Art philosopher Rudolf Arnheim describes this inadequate representation to which original sculptures

convey the immediacy of the artist’s presence by surface qualities that are absent from the cast. !e incisions of carving tools and the pres-sures and squeezes of an artist’s hand make for qualities that di$er

Figure 1. Cast of the original Pieta in St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City, Rome, late nineteenth-century, Slater Memorial Mu-seum, Norwich, Connecticut.

O JOCELYN PARK 151

in principle from the shapes one obtains by pouring liquid . . . into a mould. (1983, 237–238)

On the other hand, plaster casts were, in some respect, better than originals. Katherine Schwab, Associate Professor of Art History at Fair#eld University in Con-necticut considers the University’s plaster cast of the Parthenon frieze as “a 19th-century footprint long before air pollution and anything else that would change the surface” (Labarre 2008). Today, students in America are able to look at the casts of European sculpture and reliefs and see details that are no longer on the original ob-ject. !is is the same aesthetic quality that visitors in the nineteenth-century expe-rienced when using the casts as a substitute for the objects that were less accessible to them.

The Fate of the Casts

America’s plaster cast collections were de#nite crowd pleasers. But they only en-joyed a few decades worth of fame until they were removed from their stages in the museum galleries. At the turn of the century, the Met and other American museums were in the #nancial position to purchase original works of art. Commissioning casts stopped and so did the need for them. Museums faced the decision of either keeping and storing the casts, or deaccessioning and destroying them. Eventually, by the 1940s, “casts were put in storage or destroyed en masse until . . . virtually none were in view” (McGill 1987). !e Met is one example of a museum that recognized the casts’ decline in popularity, and decided to put them in storage. !is act is appreciated by scholars today such as Paul W. Gunther, President of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America. Although the Met provided storage that was “not optimal,” “the Met did not deaccession the casts” to which Gunther commends “them for spending money to keep them safe” (Kahn 2008). However, there were Americans who, like Samuel Parrish, believed the casts still deserved an exhibition. In 1904, Curator of Classical Antiquities of the Bos-ton Museum of Fine Arts (BMFA), Edward Robinson, engaged in the Battle of the Casts. Robinson considered the casts “as a model-educational resource that could be copied throughout the United States,” and opposed Assistant Director Matthew Prichard, who wanted the casts removed from the museum galleries (DiMaggio 2004, 465). Perhaps due to the casts’ inexpensive costs and ability to be reproduced without the e$orts from the artist, Prichard considered the casts “the Pianola of the Arts” and “sought to purge the museum of lesser originals” (DiMaggio 2004, 465). By 1927, all casts of BMFA, a museum that once housed the largest cast collection in America, fell second to the original objects millionaire collectors wanted, and were destroyed (DiMaggio 2004, 465).


The American Revival of the Casts

Despite the casts’ decline in popularity and display, a di$erent kind of American in-stitution had a change in taste in the 1970s and once again found beauty in the plas-ter casts. Among these institutions were university museums, schools and colleges. !ey salvaged the neglected and damaged casts with the goal to restore them, and, eventually, display them. Arnheim believes these inexpensive copies “retain some of the original’s powerful audacity, and the chalk plaster casts of Greek sculpture standing forlornly in the corner of art schools are quite capable of giving the shock of greatness” (Arnheim 1983, 237). Since the 1970s, the Met successfully gi"ed their plaster casts to such art schools and universities. !ese donations do not stand forlornly in the corners as Arnheim mentioned. Instead, they were cleaned and restored. In April of 1987, the Queens Museum of Art in New York “opened a permanent exhibition of twenty-two . . . restored plaster casts” a"er restoration took place in their conservation labo-ratory that was created exclusively for the plaster casts donated by the Met (McGill 1987). Another participant in restoration projects is Staten Island Academy. Cur-rently partaking in a “three-year, $100,000 conservation e$ort to restore the casts to their original glory,” the Academy will “display them in the airy atrium of the col-lege’s Center for the Arts” (Labarre 2008). Today, schools such as the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America (ICACA) are dedicated to teaching students to restore these casts with “accuracy, just as the cast-makers in the European workshops were obsessed in the 1880s and ’90s” (Kahn 2008). Spreading the didactic potential of these casts even more is the act of loaning them to other institutions for exhibition purposes. ICA-CA has made outgoing loans of their restored casts to Carnegie Mellon University, Vassar College, and Groton School (Kahn 2008). Considering the future use of such objects as educational tools is Pame-la Born, Slide Librarian of Tu"s University. At the Art Libraries Society of North American Conference in 2002, Born suggested that “rather than throwing out or destroying unused, obsolete teaching material,” institutions should “consider what their future value might be” (Born 2002). !is thought is not only directed to the plaster casts, but to all objects in museums. If not utilized today, a neglected object, with its didactic elements attached, may have a purpose in the future. Another recommendation to better utilize these casts is to create a study col-lection. “As the name suggests, study collections consist . . . of background material” that are o"en of the interest to students and researchers (Goodrich 1973). In many cases, facsimiles make up the majority of such collections. An example is the Walk-er Art Center in Minneapolis. In 1945, the sta$ discovered the museum housed several copies in the collection a"er patron, !omas Barlow Walker, fed his “un-quenchable passion for collecting” by spuriously acquiring paintings by Botticelli, Rembrandt and other European artists (Goodrich 1973, 89). !e idea of creating

O JOCELYN PARK 153

a study collection arose when the Center was to reorganize itself as an educational facility, to which “a collection designed for educational use,” such as copies of Botti-celli and Rembrandt paintings, would “have a place” (Goodrich 1973, 90). !eodore Low, former Educator at the Met, saw that “the duty” of museum as an educator has been partly ful#lled by “the erection of study collections” (2004, 33). Other study collections in the United States exist at Yale University, New York University, Smith College, Oberlin College, and the largest at Harvard University’s Fogg Art Museum (Goodrich 1973, 91). Aside from the Walker’s ad hoc study collection, in the conservation #eld, study copies are o"en created without the intention of becoming an exhibition copy. !ey are created because the process of preserving an object requires one to be made. During modern art conservation training programs, the working process can only be fully understood by actually remaking the original object (Beerkens 2007). !e remake, or, replica, of the original undergoing preservation may sometimes turn out identical to the original. It is in these cases that Lydia Beerkens, Conser-vator of Modern Art of the Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art in Amsterdam, Holland asks “could these study-copies serve as “exhibition copies’ or remakes?” (Beerkens 2007). As part of the training, conservators have the goal to make their remakes look real. However, as real as these reproductions may seem, Beerkens highlights good collections practice. She emphasizes that the remake “will never be mistaken” to be an original because it is “not catalogued and has no pedi-gree” (Beerkens 2007).

Facsimiles in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

!e history of American plaster cast collections explains the issue of museum visi-tors and their limited access to original objects. Now, in the twenty-#rst-century, this issue transpires in the global museum sector. Unlike the plaster casts of the American museums, these facsimiles bring arguments into the #eld as to whether or not museums should create a facsimile, not just the issue of whether or not mu-seums should display a facsimile. A case resulting in a museum creating plaster replicas due to the inability to obtain and acquire the original is the New Acropolis Museum in Athens, Greece. !e battle of the Elgin Marbles between Greece and the British Museum has been a long-running debate over cultural property. In 1801, British Ambassador !omas Bruce, seventh Earl of Elgin, removed 274 feet of the marble frieze from the main inner chamber of the Parthenon. Lord Elgin secured the marbles for Britain and they have been the property and the “biggest-crowd pullers” of the British Museum ever since (Hodson 2008). Since 1982, Greece requested numerous times the return of the marbles to its home country. To this day, the British Museum trustees refuse the requests, even


a"er the Greek government “announced plans to build a new museum to house the marbles . . . in time for the 2004 Olympic Games” (Gibbon 2005, 114). !e new museum provides housing and environmental protection to its multi-century old marble ruins of antiquity except for the Elgin marbles. Instead, it displays the sec-tions of the marbles owned by Greece—alongside plaster copies of the “missing’ sections that reside in the British Museum” (Hodson 2008). Other museums that house portions of the original Parthenon marbles include: Musée du Louvre, Paris; Vatican Museums, Rome; National Museum, Copenhagen; Kunsthistorisches Mu-seum, Vienne; and the University Museum, Würzburg Glyptothek, Munich. !e issue of access to the original object correlates with the idea of visitors viewing plaster cast replicas instead of the original marbles. Kate Fitz Gibbon, for-mer member of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee and current member of the American Council for Cultural Policy, asks whether it is “more important for a smaller number of people, the majority of them Greeks, to have access to the marbles, as they would if they were stored in Athens, or for a larger number of people to see them in the British Museum?” (2005, 118). !e idea of “the replica as a replacement” is also raised by Heide Skowranek, Conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts Stuttgart in Germany. Skowranek suggested limitations to when an object should be replicated. One of her reasons allowing replication is if the original object is “lost” . . . “within an installation” (Skowranek 2007). In this case, the Acropolis Museum follows this suggestion. !ey believed creating facsimiles of the marbles was essential for exhibition. Installed in the main gallery are the Greek marble origi-nals le" behind by Lord Elgin in their natural brown patina “standing alongside white-plaster copies of the sections removed by Elgin” (Hodson 2008). A more recent issue of limited access to objects that forced a museum to cre-ate a facsimile of a contemporary piece for exhibition occurred at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York. !e Seattle Art Museum (SAM) has a large installation by Cai Guo-Qiang of an explosive tumble of nine white cars among blinking light rods that hang from the ceiling. !e New York Guggenheim held the same exhibition in May of 2008. !e only di$erence was that the text label in the Guggenheim read “exhibition copy,’ and the piece was displayed horizontally, not vertically like it is at SAM. !is piece, Inopportune: Stage One, 2004, is owned by the Seattle Art Museum, and the copy displayed in the Guggenheim was created by the artist because SAM “didn’t want to loan the %ashy artwork” (Graves 2008). !e exhibition copy le" New York City in May of 2008, traveled to Beijing, China for the Summer 2008 Olympic Games, and was exhibited in the Museo Gug-genheim in Bilbao, Spain until September 2009 before returning to SAM. It is un-known whether it will be destroyed or stored for future loan purposes and it is “generally accepted in the art world that exhibition copies have no market value and should not be sold to collectors or museums” (Hodson 2008). However, if SAM acquires the copy into its collections, SAM would be acknowledging that the copy does have value. !e concept of acquiring an object depending on the object’s value

O JOCELYN PARK 155

is highlighted in Rebecca A. Buck’s !e New Museum Registration Methods. Buck suggests to consider whether or not a copy will be useful for exhibition and educa-tional purposes “prior to acquiring the object” (1998, 161). !e decision of Guo-Qiang to create a copy of his artwork follows the strict notion of Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, who feels that museums have become factories of facsimiles. Mancusi-Ungaro, Founding Director of the Center for the Techni-cal Study of Modern Art at the Harvard University Museums, and the Director of Conservation at the Whitney Museum of American Art, expresses that the “moti-vation to replicate is . . . for the purpose of . . . installation in museum exhibitions,” and a copy is “archivally made for exhibition/education purposes only, i.e., for the public” (Mancusi-Ungaro 2007). If SAM were to keep the exhibition copy, it could be loaned and maximize the accessibility and education of the public. An example of a reconstruction that was created due to the fragility of the original is László Moholy-Nagy’s Light Prop for an Electric Stage, 1930. !is piece has been in the permanent collection at the Busch-Reisinger Museum of Harvard University Art Museums since 1956. Today, the artist’s daughter, Hattula Moholy-Nagy, is the copyright holder and approved that a replica be made for the Tate Mod-ern’s exhibition From the Bauhaus to the New World in 2006. !e Tate felt a replica

Figure 2. Guo-Qiang, Cai, Inopportune: Stage One, 2004, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, Washington.


was needed because the “work su$ered damage, alteration, inappropriate restora-tion, and mechanical instability” leaving it far from its “pristine state: materials are misleading and the movement is so much compromised that it can only be operated for a few minutes every week” (Lie 2007). German Engineer and Fabricator, Juergen Steger, studied Moholy-Nagy’s photographs of the original’s creation from 1930 in order to create the replica so that it resembled the piece in its pristine, original form of 1930, not its marred con-dition of today. Also, there have been several other replicas created in the past due to the inability to properly function for exhibition. In 1970, two replicas were created by an engineering instructor, Woodie Flowers of Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, one for the Bauhaus Archive in Berlin, the other for the Van Abbemuseum in the Netherlands (Lie 2007). Before that, malfunctioning parts of the piece were restored in 1966 (Lie 2007). !e Tate’s is the third request. !e goal of creating a replica was to show visitors how the object functions. However, it was inevitable that the repetitive replications of the Light Prop would raise “questions of authenticity and replication” and the role of the museum as the “custodian of unique objects” (Gale 2007). !ere are arguments highlighting how facsimiles and reconstructions cannot hold true to the original and what the origi-nal encompasses in terms of the intentions of the artist. Elaine Sturtevant, a British artist whose works consist of copies of other artists’ works such as Marcel Duchamp, Felix-Gonzalez-Torres, and Andy Warhol, argues that “replicas possess veracity but unfortunately eliminate the artist” (Mundy 2007). In order to maintain the object’s uniqueness, not all three facsimiles were conditioned to exist simultaneously. Un-der the stipulations of Hattula Moholy-Nagy and the Busch-Reisinger Museum, the signed agreement states “that there should be no more than two replicas” (Berndes 2007). !e replica exhibited by the Tate was to be destroyed a"er its tour. However, agreeing with the notion of using replicas and exhibition copies for future loan use, education, and a tool to increase the object’s accessibility to the public, the Busch-Reisinger Museum ultimately decided to keep the replica. In this situation, acquiring the replica into the museum’s collection abides by the guidelines set forth by Marie C. Malaro, author of A Legal Primer on Manag-ing Museum Collections. Before acquiring an object, Malaro suggests that museums consider whether “the object will be used in the foreseeable future” and whether or not there is “a good-faith intention to keep it in the museum’s collection for the foreseeable future” (1998, 52). Upon acquiring the replica, the Busch-Reisinger Mu-seum agreed “that the replica be lent, when possible, to major exhibition; that it not be considered a work of art; that Tate has the right to display the replica for one years in every four” (Lie 2007). Another reason why museums created facsimiles is due to the inherent vice and material deterioration of the object. For objects made of ephemeral material, restoring or replicating the material for exhibition is o"en considered. !us, there is a constant debate on whether museums have the right to be “morally defensible to

O JOCELYN PARK 157

make replicas,” or, allow the originals to die gracefully (Gale 2007). !ese questions are brought forth by the following cases of Eva Hesse and the mock-up created for her Sans II, 1968. Made of polyurethane, #berglass, and polyester, Sans II comprises of #ve sec-tions, each made of twelve boxes. Six boxes are lined next to each other with another six lined underneath. !ese ephemeral boxes show their age with yellowing resin and collecting dust. Owning one of the #ve sections, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art organized an exhibition of Hesse’s works, Eva Hesse, in 2002. A rep-lica, or in this case, a mock-up of these boxes were created for the exhibition by the Hesse’s assistant, Doug Johns. !e mock-up was created with a didactic purpose. !ey were hung next to the original boxes in order “to learn more about the process from the original” (Barger 2007). !is experiment was successful as Johns presented the contrast of his reproduction and the original at an educational symposium at SFMOMA that generated a “collective gasp from the moved audience” as the “learn-ing about process was certainly achieved” (Barger 2007). !e modern reproduction of Sans II as a mock-up for exhibition purpose is not the #rst for Hesse’s works. At the Getty Center in 2008, her Expanded Expansion, 1969, “emerged as the main crucible for concern over artistic intention,” and a material mock-up was displayed alongside the original to give “visitors a vivid sense of how the work itself might have looked when new in 1969” (Larkin 2008). Despite the didactic intentions of mock-ups, like that of Moholy-Nagy’s Light Prop and Eva Hesse’s Sans II, museums, as “educational institutions” (Hirzy 1992, 2), become a questionable place where reproductions are made, and thus participate in the creation of #ction. Ann Temkin, Chief Curator of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, states that museums “are dedicated to preserving the #ction that works of art are #xed and immortal” (Mundy 2007). Hesse’s ephemeral objects, and what Temkin may consider “immortal,’ were created with Hesse’s realization that they are “not going to last” (Larkin 2008). Also, Hesse’s objects cannot be truly reproduced because “her working style invited a level of variability and randomness in her sculptural work, yet ‘it had to be her random’” (Barger 2007). Whether created by the artist’s assistants or people who carefully studied the artist’s notes and preliminary drawings, the replicas of Moholy-Nagy and Hesse, and even the plaster casts of the Elgin Marbles do not appear equivalent to the origi-nals, nor do they hold the “magic of the original(s)” (Beerkens 2007). Even when artist Cai Guo-Qiang creates the replica of his own extravagant car piece, it is not displayed in the same way as the original. Clearly, the practice of replicating art for public exhibition purposes is prevalent among museums all over the world. Mu-seums provide the public with “good copies that keep artists’ work alive” (Beer-kens 2007). !ey replicate because they want to exhibit images of the rare objects of the world that may not be as geographically accessible as they hoped, or, because the original is too fragile for exhibition. Museums face multi-faceted decisions on


whether or not they should create facsimiles for exhibition, and, consequently, they face decisions on what to do with the facsimiles a"er exhibition. In the following chapters, the results of the surveys and interviews conducted toward registrars, col-lection managers, and conservators in museums throughout the United States will reveal similar situations and dilemmas.

Findings

Findings are based on two methods of research. First, I emailed surveys to 400 reg-istrars and collections managers of museums in the United States, 50 of who com-pleted and returned them. !e survey allowed me to con#rm my hypothesis of the prevalent display of facsimiles in museums in the United States. Surveys revealed speci#c methods of how museums care for and handle facsimiles. I also made com-parisons of the museums’ treatment of facsimiles with treatment of original objects. Second, I conducted a number of interviews with registrars and collections manag-ers of museums in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. !e interviews revealed speci#c examples of facsimiles exhibited in museums. I was able to investigate each museum’s speci#c methods of handling and caring for facsimiles and sought their opinions on controversial issues of displaying facsimiles.

Surveys

!e literature review notes reasons why a museum would agree to create and ex-hibit a facsimile, but the reasons why a facsimile is kept, housed, and stored into museums’ collections are not. My online survey posed questions in order to obtain this vital information. For this manuscript, I only included a summary of my survey results from my masters thesis. My survey reveals that the majority of museums, 41 of the 50 respondents, does exhibit facsimiles and store them for future use. Reasons varied from the fragil-ity of the original object, adhering with the aesthetics of the exhibit, and borrowing the facsimiles as a substitute of the original due to #nancial constraints. !irty-one of the 50 museums store facsimiles for possible loans and future exhibition use, edu-cational or research use, and because facsimiles are already housed in the permanent exhibition. However, only 8 out of these 31 museums have them catalogued, num-bered, and have established ways of tracking the facsimiles within their collections. Also, only 16 percent out of the 50 museums destroy facsimiles a"er they are exhibited. !ree of the 50 respondents mentioned that facsimiles are returned to the lender. None of these three museums speci#ed if the reasons are due to abiding by the lender’s request for return. !is does not mean that the remaining 84 per-cent that do not destroy facsimiles store them for future use because in the previous

O JOCELYN PARK 159

question only one third said that they store and keep these facsimiles for future use. Instead, what this indicates is that there are many museums that do have facsimiles that are neither stored nor disposed. Two concerns develop from these results. First, for the museums that do not store facsimiles, where are these facsimiles kept in the museum? Second, how are they distinguished from the rest of the objects in the col-lection? !e museums that do destroy facsimiles avoid these questions. Less than half of the museums surveyed, 42 percent, house facsimiles in their permanent collection, and only eight have catalogued their facsimiles and speci-#ed their numbering system. !ree museums do not have them catalogued. !is is problematic because cataloguing the facsimiles is one method that can eliminate confusion within the institution and its sta$ as to whether or not the facsimile is an original object. If facsimiles are not catalogued, no formal tracking or numbering method exists. Also, twenty-eight percent claim they house facsimiles in an educa-tion, research, teaching, or study collection. Eight percent of respondents stated that they store facsimiles with exhibition records or in the exhibition archives.

Figure 3. Results of Question #2 from survey, “Does your museum store these facsimiles for future use after they are exhibited?”

Figure 4. Results of Question #5 from survey, “Does your museum house fac-similes in other col-lections besides the permanent collec-tion?”


Finally, only 16 percent of museums dedicate a section in their collections management policy (CMP) and procedures to facsimiles. It is problematic that the majority of museums does handle and decide to store facsimiles while very few consider them in their CMP. !e high number of facsimiles in collections suggests a certain urgency that methods of how to deliver proper care for these facsimiles should be included in CMPs. To discover how to make the care and handling of facsimiles more secure and more properly managed, I spoke with registrars and col-lections managers to learn about their own professional experiences with facsimiles exhibited in their museums.

Interviews

For the larger project from which this paper derives, I interviewed fourteen mu-seum collections professionals in a total of nine museums. I limited the institutions to those that do exhibit and/or house facsimiles. All interviewees o$ered di$erent perspectives on their experiences with speci#c facsimiles, original objects, and ex-hibitions. !is manuscript includes three of the nine museums.

Walt Disney Family Museum, San Francisco, California, January 26, 2009.

An advocate for the existence of policies regarding the care of facsimiles is Anel Muller, Registrar at the Walt Disney Family Museum (WDFM). !e permanent gal-lery will display more than 300 objects that will either be rotated with a facsimile, or displayed permanently as a facsimile. Some facsimiles are used due to the original objects’ fragility. Some are used because the WDFM is not the copyright holder for the objects and is borrowing the objects, mostly scanned images of original photo-graphs, from the Disney Company. Muller explained that the facsimiles that are rotated would not be destroyed due to possible limited budgets in the future. !ey will be kept for future use. How-ever, she emphasized that the facsimiles “will never go through the doors of the per-manent collections storage” because they are not museum objects (personal conver-sation, January 26, 2009). Whether the same facsimile is rotated with the original, Muller believes the facsimiles could be of good use in a study collection or could even be donated to the Education Department for didactic use. Also, Muller discussed a situation where she accessioned facsimiles into the permanent collection. Observing good practices, Muller performed an inventory of the collection when she #rst began working as Registrar at WDFM. Muller ran across facsimiles that were exhibited in the Walt Disney: !e Man and His Magic exhibition in the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California in 2001. !ese images were not original photographs because they were scanned and mounted on foamcore. !e likelihood is that these were returned from the Reagan

O JOCELYN PARK 161

Library a"er the exhibition period. Muller still accessioned the facsimiles in order to eliminate the chances, although very slim, of disposing actual objects from the collection. A"er discussing the facsimiles from the Reagan Library and the vast number of facsimiles displayed in the permanent exhibition, I asked about the possibility of creating a way to organize, track, and inventory the facsimiles of the original objects from WDFM’s permanent collection. Muller supports the idea but highlighted that using an additional database or numbering system is not ideal for WDFM because having more than one type of system could increase confusion among the sta$. Instead, she advocates that the facsimiles should be entered into WDFM’s current and only collections management database, EmbARK. !e facsimile would have the same accession number as its original, except the number would begin with the letter “S.” !e “S” stands for study collection. !ese facsimiles would be kept for study purposes and accessible for researchers. Muller emphasized that the facsimi-les “would not be accessioned, but inventoried” (personal conversation, January 26, 2009). Facsimiles would not become objects of the permanent collection however; because of their constant rotation in the permanent exhibition, they would be kept and tracked. Also, because some of the facsimiles in the permanent exhibition will be rotated with originals, Muller considered a way to organize the facsimiles. In order to better track how many facsimiles exist for an original object, each time a facsimile is created, sta$ will enter the date of when it was created in the accession #le of the original object.

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, California, February 11, 2009

At SFMOMA no guidelines or instructions on how to care for or handle facsimiles exist even though SFMOMA has a method to track and organize facsimiles with-in the collections. One example is with Eva Hesse’s Sans II mock-up discussed in the previous chapter. Michelle Barger, Deputy Head of Conservation, who assisted Hesse’s studio assistant, Doug Johns, in creating the mock-up for the exhibition Eva Hesse (February 2 to May 19, 2002) discussed the mock-up’s current storage situation. When the exhibition came to a close, Sans II was stored in a room next to the conservation lab in SFMOMA. !is room is called the Artist Material Ar-chive Room (AMAR). !e polyurethane, #berglass, and polyester boxes hang next to other copies of original pieces that were either exhibited at one point or created solely for conservation study and experimental purposes. Accompanying this particular storage method is documentation. A binder holds documents pertaining to any of the pieces in the AMAR. Each object is as-signed a number (1, 2, 3, etc.) on that document. !e document is numerically #led into the binder. !e document is a piece of paper that provides a #eld for the acces-sion number, artist, title, creation date, medium, date of entry, type of material, and description. !is information is similar to the data in the institution’s collections


database, EmbARK. !e sta$ also writes similar information onto the paper to de-scribe the facsimile as if cataloguing an object into EmbARK. Every piece that is included in this binder is not accessioned or entered into EmbARK. !is eliminates the chances of mistaking facsimiles for original objects in the permanent collection. Barger mentioned that an inventory will be performed in the AMAR using this binder during Summer 2009, possibly by an intern.

Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley, California, February 6, 2009

Another university museum that houses sculptural casts is the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, a museum of the University of California, Berkeley. Em-phasized in the literature review are the plaster cast replicas housed and displayed in America’s earliest museums. Although known today as an anthropology muse-um, the Hearst is no exception. I met with Natasha Johnson, Collections Manager of the North American collection. !e plaster replicas were cast from masterpiece sculptures of both Italy and Greece. !e casts were commissioned by the museum’s founding patron, Phoebe Hearst, in the late nineteenth-century and are now stored in a speci#c spot in the o$-site storage facility in Berkeley, California. Although these are part of the permanent collection, Johnson informed me that the casts are catalogued and numbered in a di$erent way from the rest of the col-lections. !e Hearst uses !e Museum System as its collections management data-base, but the casts are separated into their own database, Filemaker Pro. !e original catalogue cards were scanned and put into Filemaker Pro. Each card includes the title of the original sculpture, the location of the original, the caster or moulder, and the commissioner who is almost always Phoebe A. Hearst. Johnson noted that because there are numerous departments within the Hearst, ten in all, there are ten di$erent numbering systems and each collections manager has his or her own. Integrating the system so that all collections could share one numbering system is a long-anticipated project. However, having a distinct system for the casts, as they are a collection of their own, is useful in order to distinguish them as replicas and not original sculptures. Johnson emphasized the Hearst as a research and educational institution. Ev-ery week there is at least one new researcher studying the collection. Johnson in-formed me that the Classics Department at the University of California, Berkeley o$ers courses on how to preserve the dusty, dismembered plaster casts, much like the Queens Museum and Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America noted in the literature review.

Summary

My surveys and interviews reveal that museums exhibit facsimiles frequently. Most importantly, they reveal the reasons why facsimiles are created. Pragmatic reasons

O JOCELYN PARK 163

include the una$ordable shipping costs of the original, fragility of the original, or the legal and political restraints of the original leaving its permanent home. By ex-amining the strengths and weaknesses of the ways today’s museums document and care for facsimiles, I learned that registrars and collection managers do not abide by speci#c methods to care for and handle facsimiles because there is no established professional protocol. Also, there are no speci#c guidelines that help the #eld decide if keeping them for didactic purposes or future loan and exhibition use is more ap-propriate than disposing the facsimiles.

Conclusions

!is manuscript aims to analyze the current practices of the care and handling of facsimiles in museums in the United States. !e literature review reveals how fac-similes held a place in the collections of American museums since they #rst opened so that masterworks could be accessible to their communities. !is concept of ac-cessibility, or the lack of, is evident in today’s museums as well. !e literature re-view also highlighted the topic of inaccessibility due to the fragility of originals. Facsimiles of works by László Moholy-Nagy is an example. Interviews revealed that museums today also exhibit facsimiles in their galleries. Roughly 300 of the 1,400 objects displayed in !e Walt Disney Family Museum’s permanent exhibition are facsimiles. !e literature reviewed also conveys the damage the casts received due to the museums’ change of taste in what should be displayed. Although their methods of storing these facsimiles were not ideal as the casts collected dust and the limbs be-came detached, their poor condition became ideal for the didactic sector of institu-tions almost a century later. !e Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology is one example as the University of California, Berkeley’s Classics Department uses the neglected casts by teaching students methods of preservation. !e literature review further conveys the on-going debate on whether museums are becoming factories of reproductions, or if these facsimiles are ideal for exhibition as to the original be-cause the original would not be seen. !ese controversies revolve around the fact that a facsimile may not fully represent the artist’s original intentions as well as the integrity of the original object. !is notion is present in arguments in the literature; a facsimile can only re-present the original. !e literature failed to acknowledge the proper methods of storing these fac-similes in order to separate them away from the original objects in the collection. Two notable books by Rebecca Buck and Marie C. Malaro are exemplar in the mu-seum registration #eld, providing standards for collections management policies. However, they do not include a section on facsimiles. Conservators in the #eld have also developed their own deciding factors as to why facsimiles should be created, but the literature did not deliver deciding factors on whether or not a facsimile is due for disposal or storage. !ere is no written policy or guideline for something


that 80 percent of museums in the United States practice. Based on the literature reviewed, surveys, and interviews, the need for the following four aspects in col-lections management are obvious: standards for acquisition; methods of disposing facsimiles; standardized numbering system to track facsimiles; methods of storage. !ese aspects are discussed as practical recommendations. If incorporated into mu-seum practice, they will improve the state of care delivered to facsimiles. !e museum has a duty to “provide reasonable care for the objects entrusted to it” (Malaro 1998, 406). !ese entrusted objects include those that are exhibited and displayed on the museum’s walls and galleries. !e museum is a repository of rare artifacts, delivering the highest standards of collections care. Facsimiles created for public display for these repositories are no exception.

Recommendations

!e overall recommendation is to create a policy or formal protocol on the care for and handling of facsimiles exhibited in museums. !e following standards are guidelines on what to include in such a policy or formal protocol. All guidelines are suggested assuming that the owner of the facsimile and the owner of the original, whether the owner for both are the same or di$erent, approves that the facsimile be acquired, stored, loaned, deaccessioned, and/or disposed. !e following guidelines are not tailored to the activities of lending or borrowing facsimiles between muse-ums. Instead, loan agreement forms and contracts should be written according to each museum’s policies and standards on the care and handling of facsimiles, a"er the museum considers my guidelines.

Standards for Acquisition: Museums that House the Original Object

!e following guidelines are geared toward museums that house the original object of the facsimile. !ese guidelines should be considered if the museum holds copy-rights to the original and facsimile, abides by stipulations in the deed of gi" for the facsimile and/or original object, and/or houses a collection to which the facsimile #ts within the scope of that collection and the museum’s mission. Once a facsimile of an original object from the museum’s own collection is created for exhibition use, the museum should consider the value of its use for the foreseeable future. It should consider the most common reasons why museums store facsimiles. Future loan use, exhibition reuse, and tools for educational use are the top three reasons found in my survey results. Interviews revealed that museums were not comfortable destroying facsimiles because they do not want to waste costly material. Also, the majority of interviewees believe that a facsimile, a"er it is exhib-ited, could be put to good use for future exhibitions.

O JOCELYN PARK 165

With this in mind, museums may want to consider acquiring facsimiles if the original object is considered too fragile for exhibitions, and if there is no other sub-stitute for the original even a"er conservation e$orts are made. If there is no loan or exhibition scheduled in the foreseeable future, the museum may not want to acquire the facsimile because its existence will not bene#t the public sector, nor will it serve a didactic purpose. If the condition of the original object is suitable for travel, loan, and exhibi-tion, the only reason a facsimile should be acquired is for the bene#t of small or for-eign institutions that may not be able to a$ord the crating and shipping costs of the original. !is factor should be considered if the museum deems the original object is frequently requested by small or foreign museums. A speci#c case to which creating and acquiring a facsimile may be highly ben-e#cial for the original object is if the facsimile is rotated with the original for a per-manent exhibition. !is guideline could also apply to exhibitions that are installed for long periods of time, or for a length of time that is deemed unsafe for the condi-tion of the original object. Rotating the original with a facsimile should be consid-ered a"er conservation e$orts are made to improve the condition of the original so that it can be displayed throughout the entire exhibition period. If conservation sta$ deems the condition of the original to be in jeopardy when exhibited without rotation, a facsimile rotated with the original may be a solution. Accessioning the facsimile into the museum’s collection for this reason is unnecessary because the original is still able to be exhibited although it is rotated with the facsimile. !is way, the integrity of the original object is not disrupted by a facsimile within the collec-tion. However, the methods of numbering and storing the facsimile are compulsory to distinguish the facsimile from the original. Other standards for acquisition that apply to original objects must also be considered for facsimiles. !ese standards include: relevance to the mission of the museum; the museum is able to preserve the facsimile in a responsible manner; and the museums is able to store the facsimile properly.

Standards for Acquisition: Museums that do Not House the Original Object

!e following guidelines are geared toward facsimiles of original objects that are not part of the museum’s collection. Acquiring a facsimile may bene#t the museum if acquiring the original is deemed impossible. Some situations may include legal and political restraints similar to the situations of the Elgin marbles. !e following fac-tors should be considered in order to secure the idea that there is no substitute for the facsimile: no other original object that is acquirable or already in the permanent collection can represent the facsimile’s subject, time period, culture, style, and artist; the museum deems that the facsimile falls into the scope of the collections in such a speci#c way that no other original object can substitute its place. If the museum


later acquires an original object that is deemed appropriate to substitute the fac-simile, then the museum should consider disposing the facsimile.

Methods of Disposing Facsimiles

If the museum does not deem it necessary to keep the facsimile or accession it into the collection, then methods of disposing the facsimile should be carefully consid-ered. To eliminate the chance that the facsimile falls into the public sector without any indication that it is a facsimile, the museum should properly and ethically dis-pose of it. !e museum should consider destroying it in a manner that makes the facsimile aesthetically unappealing and unrecognizable. Doing so will assure that the facsimile is not illegally or unethically used by sta$ or the public sector who might sell or treat the facsimile as an original, infringing copyright. !is unethical practice may lead to a stream of legal consequences from the owner, whether it is the artist, artist’s estate, or a museum. Shredding a two-dimensional facsimile is the best method and a common one suggested by respondents to my survey. For larger two-dimensional or three-dimensional facsimile, the museum should mark an “X” on it with ink that is not the same hue or material as the facsimile. !e “X” should be on the center covering the majority of the facsimile. To decrease the possibility of reconstruction of the facsimile by another party, the museum should break the facsimile into multiple pieces, and then disseminate the broken pieces into separate trash bags.

Standardized Numbering System to Track Facsimiles

A numbering system for acquired and accessioned facsimiles is essential because just as accession numbers link accessioned objects in a collection to their documen-tation, the numbering system links the facsimile with its documentation. Using or purchasing another database or collections management system so"ware for fac-similes is unnecessary. !e facsimile should be assigned a number by the registrar or collections manager. !is number is assigned as soon as the facsimile enters the doors of the museum if created o$-site, or, if created on-site, the number should be assigned on the date it is created.

Numbering System: Museums that House the Original Object

!e following guidelines are geared toward museums that house the original ob-ject of the facsimile that is to be accessioned. An example of this situation is László Moholy-Nagy’s original Light Prop and its facsimile; both are housed at the Busch-Reisinger Museum.

O JOCELYN PARK 167

!e facsimile should be numbered with the same accession number as the original. !e appropriate letter, e.g. “F” for facsimile, will precede the number. For example, if the accession number of an original painting in the Example Museum is 2009.10.1, the facsimile of that painting that is accessioned into the collection of Example Museum should be F2009.10.1. Another method of numbering does not require adding an additional acces-sion number into the database. Instead, information should be added into the ac-cession #le of the original object. Mandatory data includes, but is not limited to, the date the facsimile was created, the medium, the size, the person(s) commissioning or requesting the facsimile to be made, and, if disposed, the date the facsimile was disposed and why. !is redundant information is essential to track the facsimiles created and housed in the museum. Each time a facsimile is created, whether it being the #rst or hundredth facsimile, a new entry should be entered into the accession #le of the original object in the museum’s collections management database. !is informa-tion should be entered into a #eld that the museum deems most appropriate, such as a surrogate, history, or notes #eld. !e ideal method of numbering the facsimile is with the accession number of the original, but with a clear note stating that it is a facsimile. For example: “Facsimile #1 of 2009.100.1” and the second facsimile created would be “Facsimile #2 of 2009.100.1.” !is method of numbering is ideal for facsimiles that are rotated with the original object for exhibition because the amount of facsimiles created may be more than one. However, in order to main-tain the integrity of the original object, museums should consider having only one facsimile exhibited at any given time, and having only one facsimile existing at any given time. !us, the museum should consider that once a facsimile is created, the older facsimile should be disposed. Both numbering systems allow feasibility to perform an inventory on the fac-similes. To many museums, an inventory is a timely project. Museums may lack time to perform an inventory on the permanent collections, so an inventory on facsimi-les may be a lesser priority. However, performing an inventory with facsimiles may bring up other related issues such as disposing facsimiles that have not been used in a long time and may no longer need to be kept for future loan or exhibition use.

Numbering System: Museums that do Not House the Original Object

!e formatting of the number is to be consistent with the rest of the collections’ accession numbers. For example, if using the trinomial system, which comprises of the year the facsimile is accessioned, the group or source number the facsimile belongs to, then the speci#c facsimile within that group or source (2009.100.1), then this format should be used with the acquired facsimile to maintain consistency in the entirety of the collections. However, the unique part of the number that di$er-entiates facsimiles from the original is the letter preceding the accession number.


!is letter should stand for a word best describing the type of facsimile. For ex-ample: “XC” for “Exhibition Copy,” or “R” for “Replica.” Also, in order to simplify the system, the letter “F” for “Facsimile” may be used to represent all the types of facsimiles de#ned in the glossary in Appendix A. With this number, the facsimile should be catalogued like all other objects. If the facsimile is acquired into a didac-tic collection, numbering is still essential because it is still within a collection of the museum. !e letter should be entered before the accession number in order to di$erentiate from the permanent collection. For example: “S” for study collection would be S2009.100.1.

Methods of Storage

!us far, the previous recommendations o$er ideas of various methods that can prevent museums from mistaking facsimiles for original objects. Maintaining a dis-tinction between a facsimile and the original is necessary in order to maintain the artists’ intentions and the integrity of the original. Storage of facsimiles is an impor-tant aspect to any collection because it is an additional way to maintain the distinc-tion. !e recommended standards are tailored speci#cally for facsimiles; however, facsimiles should also be subject to the same storage standards required for the per-manent collection. If the facsimile is acquired into a didactic collection other than the perma-nent collection, it should be stored with the didactic collection. If it is a research or study collection, the facsimile should be provided the same care as the objects in the research or study collection. If the original object of the facsimile resides in the per-manent collection, and the facsimile is kept because it may be used for future loans and exhibitions, the facsimile should be stored in a separate area from the original. However, it should be stored with the same standard of security and in the same environmentally controlled storage facility as the rest of the permanent collection to preserve the facsimile, as it is now an object of the collection. An area within the storage facility designated for facsimiles is ideal and would allow spot-inventory to be more feasible. Facsimiles should stay in this area that is clearly %agged as the storage area for facsimiles. !is method is strongly suggested for facsimiles that are rotated with the original for exhibition. By delivering the proper care and handling of facsimiles in a collection, from deciding if the facsimile is suitable to be acquired into the collection to how they are numbered, and from the proper disposal method to deciding where they are placed in storage, museums are implementing preventative measures into their practice so that the prevalent number of facsimiles exhibited in museums will not be mistaken as original objects. By maintaining this distinction, the notion of the artist’s inten-tion will be preserved within the original. Also, the facsimile will exist to remain accessible for present and future generations as long as the previous acquisition standards are met. !ese recommendations are meant to guide the museum so that

O JOCELYN PARK 169

proper care is delivered and practiced when facsimiles not only become a part of a collection, but part of an exhibition as well.

Acknowledgments

!ere are a number of people that have supported me throughout this project. I would like to acknowledge the following individuals: !e department of Museum Studies at John F. Kennedy University, especially Paloma Anoveros and Leslie Mad-sen-Brooks. I would like to express sincere gratitude to Marjorie Schwarzer. She has guided me on this project from day one. Without her, this project could not have begun, and I will forever think of her as my mentor and inspiration in the museum world. !ank you to the following professionals and institutions. !is project would not have been possible without the following professionals and their institutions: Jill Sterrett and the SFMOMA Registration and Conservation Sta$; Anel Muller, Rachael Zink and the Walt Disney Family Museum; Steve Correll and the de Young Museum; Trinity Parker, Leslie Calmes and Center for Creative Photography; Linda Water#eld and the Judah L. Magnes Museum; Joy Tahan and the Oakland Museum of California; Natasha Johnson and the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropol-ogy; Mimi Manning and the Museum of Performance and Design of San Fran-cisco; and Dolores Kincaid and the Cantor Arts Center. Note: !is manuscript is an abridged version of my masters thesis from John F. Kennedy University. Please contact me if you would like a full version of this manuscript.

Literature Cited

Arnheim, R. (1983). On Duplication. In D. Dutton, ed.&!e Forger’s Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art&(pp. 232–245). Berkeley, CA: University of California press, Ltd.&

Barger, M. (Autumn 2007). !oughts on Replication and the Work of Eva Hesse.&Tate Papers, (8). Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.tate.org.uk

Beerkens, L. (Autumn 2007).& Nothing but the Real !ing:& Considerations on Copies, Remakes and Replicas in Modern Art.&Tate Papers, (8).&Retrieved January 27, 2009, from http://www.tate.org.uk

Berndes, C. (Autumn 2007). Replicas and Reconstructions in Twentieth-Century Art. Tate Papers (8).&Born, P. (2002, Mar, 20). “Session 5.”&Art Libraries Society of North America 30th Joint Conference by

Maryly Snow. St. Louis, Missouri: Art Libraries Society of North America.Buck, ed. !e New Museum Registration Methods (pp. 289–300). Washington D.C. American Associa-

tion of Museums.De Salvo, D.&(1993). Past Imperfect: A Museum Looks at Itself. New York:&!e New Press.DiMaggio, P. (2004). Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston, Part II: !e Classi#-

cation and Framing of American Art. In B. M. Carbonell, ed. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts&(pp. 461–482). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gale, M. (Autumn 2007). Amazement and Uneasiness: Early !oughts. Tate Papers.&Gibbon, K. F.&(2005).&!e Elgin Marbles: A Summary. In K. F. Gibbon, ed.&Who Owns the Past? Cul-

tural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law (pp. 109–121) from the Series “!e Public Life of the Arts.” Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.&


Goodrich, D. L. (1973). Art Fakes in America. New York: !e Viking Press, Inc. &Graves, J. (2008, June 5). Better than the Real !ing? Newsweek. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from

http://www.newsweek.com Hirzy, E. C. (ed.). (1992).&Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums.&Bal-

timore: Collins Lithographing, Inc.Hodson, M. (2008, July 6). !e New Greek Acropolis Museum. !e Sunday Times. Retrieved October

19, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com Howe, W. E. (1913).&A History of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.&New York: !e Metropolitan Mu-

seum of Art. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://books.google.comKahn, E. M.&(2008, August). Casting Calls.&Traditional Building, 21, 4.&Retrieved January 4, 2009, from

http://www.traditionalbuilding.comLabarre, S. (2008, January 6). Beneath the Grime, the Glories of Ancient Greece.&!e New York Times.

Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.comLarkin, G. (April 2008). !ings Fall Apart. Artforum, 46(8), 153–154.Lie, H. (Autumn 2007). Replicas of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s Light Prop: Busch-Reisinger Museum and

Harvard University Art Museums. Tate’s Online Research Journals.Low, T. (2004). What Is a Museum? In A. Gale, ed.&Reinventing the Museum (pp. 30–43). Lanham,

MD: Rowman and Little#eld Publishers, Inc.&Malaro, M. C. (1998).&A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections&(2nd ed.). Washington D.C.

Smithsonian Books.Mancusi-Ungaro, C. (Autumn 2007). Authority and Ethics.&Tate Papers, (8).&Retrieved January 4,

2009, from http://www.tate.org McClellan, A. (2008). !e Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.&McGill, D. C.&(1987, January 1).&Plaster Casts of Statues:&From Storage into Vogue.&!e New York

Times. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://query.nytimes.comMundy, J. (Autumn 2007). Why/Why not Replicate?&Tate Papers, (8).&Retrieved January 4, 2009, from

http://www.tate.org.uk !e Slater Memorial Museum. (1888, November 23). New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2009,

from http://www.tate.org.uk Wallach, A. (1998). !e American Cast Museum:&An Episode in the History of the Institutional

De#nition of Art.&In A. Wallach, ed.&Exhibiting Contradictions:"Essays on the Art Museum in the United States (pp. 38–56).&Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Altamira Press Collections-Facsimiles-J Park

Documents