Hi Kevin,
You make some good points, but if I may clarify some of your comments and questions.
Firstly, most WIX members speak for themselves - sometimes alone, sometimes in agreement, where stated usually, with others. To assume one post is 'the voice of WIX' is wrong.
old iron wrote:
Am I reading this right? WIXers are advocating that other WIXers send flammable messages to congressmen that might potentially reduce funding of a national aviation museum???? Does this serve any constructive purpose other than to make the whole community of aviation history people look like whinners with too much time on their hands? Such conduct serves noone except those who would rather not see any honor given to past military history, and I assure you that these same congressmen get those kind of letters as well. Why give those people credibility by sniping at our own?
The NASM is a publicly owned and publicly funded museum and as such, complaints should be directed to the staff in the first instance, and if the complainant, in their view is not satisfied, they are entitled to complain to their congressman. The NASM is entitled to defend their decisions or actions, and the congressman or congress to act or decide upon it if they decide it important enough. In this case that's unlikely, but it is the due process.
For the record, I don't agree that we should be grateful and silent because someone 'honors ... past military history'. If they are not doing it properly, then reasonable, documented concerns should be aired, not shut up.
Secondly the NASM is not a museum to honour military achievement, but has a much wider social mandate than that. It is an important distinction.
Quote:
Yes, the Flak Bait display has been positioned so that a portion of the nose can be touched, and the original paint at that location has been worn to the metal as a consequence. But "vandalism" is not the right word, it is more an act of unthinking love - people touch it because they want to touch a object that moves them.
The NASM, as a museum, is in dereliction of its responsibility to protect the artefact for the future. That is a simple, basic fact of one of the primary mandates of any top museum. It is not arguable, and in this case, some simple precautions would stop the problem dead.
If an artefact has paint worn away in the period of display, that is a rate of degradation that is not acceptable.
The issue is not the people touching it (as they can, and others have, they will - it is an accelerated wear process) but that NASM is failing to protect it.
Quote:
I am sure that the touches are generally very light touches but they accumulate, much as the feet of a madonna statue at the Vatican is now worn from the touch of pilgrims.
The analogy is wrong, if understandable. This is not an object of pilgrimage in a religious institution where physical contact is part of the religious ritual, but an artefact in a scientific institution used to document and illustrate human achievement and technology.
I'm sure some would like to propose that Flack Bait is an object of pilgrimage - certainly I'd travel halfway around the world to see it,
but it's a metaphor that, if perused, implies an irrational faith based worship of a false idol. Don't go there, it looks silly in a secular environment.
You might be surprised to learn how many objects of faith that are touched and worn by the faithful have been replaced with replicas or protected. It is one of the challenges that museums and churches face together - but their jobs, and the access they provide are different.
Quote:
The plexiglass shield should be extended (and I think this already has been done), but this is not something to get so upset about. The damage will ultimately be covered by paint carefully blended to match the original paint that covers the rest of the aircraft. There is much worse destruction out there to lament!
There are more important things to worry about I agree. However losing any original material part of an artefact after it has entered the museum's care when it is easily preventable is not acceptable. Replacing original material - particularly in a machine which is as original as this - should be minimised as far as possible. Modern replacement material, one area where NASM scores highly in its work, by acknowledging that, is a degradation of the originality of the artefact, and, as I've said, in this case shouldn't even be necessary.
Quote:
In my opinion, WIXers that advocate noxious letters to those who have the ability to reduce appropriations, are little different than genuine hoodlums who scratch obsenities into display aircraft. They are being consciously destructive of the aircraft that most WIXers are trying to preserve.
You seem to have lost the sense of proportion you were displaying so well in the paragraph above. Public institutions answer to the public, and if they fail in their mandate, should be corrected, through due process.
Quote:
I think the real background issue here is an animosity by a variety of people against the Smithsonian.
I'd only point out this issue, as a contrast to the other high standards attained by the Smithsonian that I pointed out elsewhere, here, yesterday. I'm not an
unthinking fan or critic.
Quote:
This is from a variety of reasons - that their restoration schedule is slow, the Enola Gay, etc. - but I suspect that by and large those who vent their complaints on this issue do so because that is the kind of people they are.
Sort of the kind of person I am. It's my
job as an aviation journalist to comment on the performance of institutions. Prase where due, accurate, quantified and hopefully constructive criticism where not. Sometimes it has resulted (with many others' work) in rectifying problems. My conscience is clear.
Quote:
You can be sure that they are not just complaining about the Smithsonian, but about many other things as well. Complaining is an occupation that must pay very well for there are so many people doing it.
And you are doing what, here, right now? And where's the benefit? Just a little fun, but...
old iron wrote:
Rather than send nuclear posts to congressmen, do something useful and send some money for the NASM Phase II construction.
No one should be sending 'nuclear' posts to their congressmen, I'm sure they get filed in the round file. However it would be perfectly appropriate to expect the NASM to act on concerns over wear to an artefact. It would be nice if more people put their money where their mouths are, I agree, but discussion highlights the more deserving and less deserving institutions for that cash.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
