Having read the proposal a number of times, I think there is a missinterpretation of whats being suggested here.
Within a museum context an ‘artifact’ is any item in the collection which is ‘inert’ or otherwise static. As such there are guidelines and proceedures as to how the object is handled and treated from a conservation and preservation perspective, ie originality, making any repairs ‘noticable’ so that they can be distinguished as a change to the object etc. These apply regardless of it being an aircraft, an flint arrow head or a piece of medieval armour ( as examples)
Clearly some of these are incompatable with the safe operation of a working aircraft and if its flying then the relevant maintenance and flight safety rules overide these. By classifying the aircraft as not an artifact, but governed by maintenance proceedures etc, it sets them out a seperate from but still included within a museum enviroment.
Whilst not wishing to provoke a seperate often trailed debate, from a ‘museum artifact’ perspective many flying spitfires fail from an originality or worth as a referance source since so much of it is ‘new build’ and hence cannot be used by researchers looking for authentic reference material. They do however obviuosly still have a significance and worth from a public access perspective and are still worthwhile exhibits in their own right, falling into the second category of the proposed policy.
Sign In
