I have just learned that people are working on a reconstruction of the Parthenon in Greece. I have also seen reconstructions of Roman marble sculptures to be on display in museums. I know that reconstructions help people understand history by giving them a realistic image of what once existed, but I think this is wrong. I would much rather see the original sculpture no matter how ruined it has become. I think objects should remain in their original context, and that people themselves must go to them in order to view them. Why do we need to reconstruct things? I think it takes away a vital element of what the sculpture is...we can no longer see what it has become. Because of reconstruction, buildings and sculpture are always new, clean, and perfect. What if we wanted to know what they REALLY looked like? Why can`t we just have a computer simulated reconstruction instead of actually manipulating the artifact itself? I do not like the idea of changing the way things really are, because then they are no longer accurate. I think reconstruction is counter-intuitive. Do you agree with me?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reconstruction of buildings and sculpture?
- Thread starter Dia
- Start date
No. Among other problems, most of the Parthenon sculptures are not in Greece to be seen, they are in Britain. And most of the statues from Rome and Greece that we see in white marble and so admire were actually painted bright colors originally, so a reconstruction would show people what the original creations looked like to those who lived with them.
A major problem with a computer representation is that you can't walk and breathe in the space and in many cases it doesn't even adjust for your height. I learned how impressive this can be in two museum spaces. The first was the rooms in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (yes the one with Rocky on the steps) Inside are a collection of rooms that are connected where the inner surface of real rooms was purchased and installed inside spaces the same size and details were added as needed (such as surface treatment around the acquired mantles and door frames.) I am 6'3" and walking from a room in a colonial cabin through a doorway I barely fit under to an English dining room with an 8' door and 15' ceilings told me much more than a computer display, even 3D, about the living conditions and spaces.
The second was the sculpture addition to the Des Moines Art Museum. Unlike the rest of the museum and many other museums where all the display rooms are essentially blank boxes, the addition had tall narrow spaces, spaces around stairways, hallway type spaces, and a variety of others that worked when matched to the scale of the displayed items - from paperweights to mobiles to people sized statues to large doll sized figures.
A major problem with a computer representation is that you can't walk and breathe in the space and in many cases it doesn't even adjust for your height. I learned how impressive this can be in two museum spaces. The first was the rooms in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (yes the one with Rocky on the steps) Inside are a collection of rooms that are connected where the inner surface of real rooms was purchased and installed inside spaces the same size and details were added as needed (such as surface treatment around the acquired mantles and door frames.) I am 6'3" and walking from a room in a colonial cabin through a doorway I barely fit under to an English dining room with an 8' door and 15' ceilings told me much more than a computer display, even 3D, about the living conditions and spaces.
The second was the sculpture addition to the Des Moines Art Museum. Unlike the rest of the museum and many other museums where all the display rooms are essentially blank boxes, the addition had tall narrow spaces, spaces around stairways, hallway type spaces, and a variety of others that worked when matched to the scale of the displayed items - from paperweights to mobiles to people sized statues to large doll sized figures.
No. Among other problems, most of the Parthenon sculptures are not in Greece to be seen, they are in Britain. And most of the statues from Rome and Greece that we see in white marble and so admire were actually painted bright colors originally, so a reconstruction would show people what the original creations looked like to those who lived with them.
A major problem with a computer representation is that you can't walk and breathe in the space and in many cases it doesn't even adjust for your height. I learned how impressive this can be in two museum spaces. The first was the rooms in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (yes the one with Rocky on the steps) Inside are a collection of rooms that are connected where the inner surface of real rooms was purchased and installed inside spaces the same size and details were added as needed (such as surface treatment around the acquired mantles and door frames.) I am 6'3" and walking from a room in a colonial cabin through a doorway I barely fit under to an English dining room with an 8' door and 15' ceilings told me much more than a computer display, even 3D, about the living conditions and spaces.
The second was the sculpture addition to the Des Moines Art Museum. Unlike the rest of the museum and many other museums where all the display rooms are essentially blank boxes, the addition had tall narrow spaces, spaces around stairways, hallway type spaces, and a variety of others that worked when matched to the scale of the displayed items - from paperweights to mobiles to people sized statues to large doll sized figures.
A major problem with a computer representation is that you can't walk and breathe in the space and in many cases it doesn't even adjust for your height. I learned how impressive this can be in two museum spaces. The first was the rooms in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (yes the one with Rocky on the steps) Inside are a collection of rooms that are connected where the inner surface of real rooms was purchased and installed inside spaces the same size and details were added as needed (such as surface treatment around the acquired mantles and door frames.) I am 6'3" and walking from a room in a colonial cabin through a doorway I barely fit under to an English dining room with an 8' door and 15' ceilings told me much more than a computer display, even 3D, about the living conditions and spaces.
The second was the sculpture addition to the Des Moines Art Museum. Unlike the rest of the museum and many other museums where all the display rooms are essentially blank boxes, the addition had tall narrow spaces, spaces around stairways, hallway type spaces, and a variety of others that worked when matched to the scale of the displayed items - from paperweights to mobiles to people sized statues to large doll sized figures.
S
Stay Puft
Guest
It depends on the context of the reconstruction. If it's being used as a teaching tool then I don't see the problem. It's not as if they're going to destroy remaining ruins to put up reconstructions and it can be very useful to see these representations.
In terms of how wide spread it is. I've been in Museums all over the world and it's common practice. They're clearly identified as reconstructions and they're good supplements to genuine artifacts. It's just another teaching tool.
In terms of how wide spread it is. I've been in Museums all over the world and it's common practice. They're clearly identified as reconstructions and they're good supplements to genuine artifacts. It's just another teaching tool.