16 May
2014
16 May
'14
8:03 p.m.
On 16/05/14 12:01 PM, Mouse wrote:
Ask that question of
any institution that has preserved 500+ year old
artefacts that you've enjoyed. :)
Actually, I think every institution I've personally visited that has
500+-year-old artifacts is a much more recent institution that obtained
the artifacts from elsewhere (such as archaeological digs).
At least part of this could be that I'm North American ("What's the
difference between a European and a North American? The European
thinks 100 miles is a long distance; the North American thinks 100
years is a long time."). Can someone from somewhere with a somewhat
older civilization (Europe, India, China, etc) offer any comments here?
More than a few Europeans live in 500 year old _houses_, and 1000 year
old cities. So yes, that's probably the difference in perception.
--Toby
That is not
entirely fair. The best museums will preserve their
pieces for 500, 1000 years hence (and hopefully longer).
But if their attitude
towards those who want to see them is the same
in 500 years as it is now - and I see no reason to think it won't be
- then how much point is, really, there in that preservation? The aspiration is worthwhile, isn't it?
Possibly, depending on just what it is they're aspiring to. Just
preserving artifacts is of questionable value if preservation takes
absolute priority over access.
I don't think all museums act in line with
it, though (as I posted
about).
I'm inclined to doubt there's _anything_ "all museums" agree on, much
less act in accordance with.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B