Exact Copy vs Fake vs Reproduction


It seems our friends in the historic instrument making field have similar q: re:
the question of when a fake becomes a reproduction. I include a paper on the subject without comment for those who may find it interesting. Word document file titled "The" but the text is titled "The Exact Copy as a Legitimate Goal"
Very interesting.  I find it refreshing that someone associated with the museum curator culture would regard copies as essential and that, regardless of the ownership of the original, the design belongs to the world.  That's not true of all curators, some of which I've talked to, and mistakenly believe that their museum owns the rights of reproduction of objects that are several hundred years old, rather than just owning the object itself and the rights of association with the museum.

One interesting item in the article, which I question, is the assertion that the original 17th century French harpsichord makers all derived their designs from first principles.  I simply don't know enough about antique musical instruments to support/deny this claim, but it would seem rather obvious that this was not the case with most American colonial period cabinetmakers.  That's not to say that certain ones did not contribute a great deal to a particular form with their own ideas, but it would seem that the basic framework, proportions, and ornamentation were copied fairly freely between colonial craftsmen.

One other thought about this article - I feel for Mr. (Dr.?) Koster - the complexities of evaluating a reproduction of an object that has a mechanical function (producing a series of tones that can be constructed into music) is far and away more difficult than ensuring that my drawers slide freely in a reproduction 18th century lowboy. ;-)