News about the TOS 11-Footer

[Christopher]

Not sure why preserving the misguided previous renovations is important to keep a record of.

Because history is not about embracing one point of view and destroying all evidence of other points of view. As I said, there is nothing that everyone is going to agree on. What one person considers misguided, others will consider justified. Historians and archivists have a responsibility to strive for objectivity. Instead of taking one side in a debate, the goal is to preserve as much knowledge as possible so that people have full information on which to base their opinions. Trying to destroy the evidence of things you don't like is totally corrupt, a crime against history. Nobody has the right to do that.

Preserving errors is not important to me.

Errors are by far the most important thing to preserve a record of. How can we learn from the mistakes of the past if our historians lie to us by pretending they never happened?

Restoring a Sphinx or a Sistine Chapel fresco to its original form is dicey because the artifacts are centuries to thousands of years old. Restoring a studio miniature to near its original condition should be somewhat easier given the item is only fifty years old and we have extensive documentation and photographic evidence attesting to its original condition.

True, it should be more feasible to come close to the original. But again, what if the only way to recreate that look fully is with aggressive restoration, adding new paints and components and materials? Isn't that what people objected to in the prior restoration, that it was too invasive and artificial? You're very big on authenticity to the original, so I would think you'd prefer preserving the original physical materials of the model, even if they show signs of aging or wear, over replacing them with modern substitutes that happen to look like the original.

 

[Warped9]

^^ No, what people objected to was changing the artifact such that it did not resemble its original form. The 11 footer never looked the way it does now. It also shouldn't have included little "jokes" that Merecki (however it's spelled) decided to put on the model. What he did is tantamount to vandalism in my book. So the model should be returned to what people expect to see: the miniature as it appeared when Star Trek was in production.

I will say that carries issues with it. If you restore the original lighting system to be authentic then you have something that can only be lighted for short periods of time because of the heat build up. However, if you have it documented (and shown) how it was originally wired but have the model lighting with modern lighting systems then you can have it lighted all day for display.


Another interesting analogy might be classic cars. There are people who buy an old car and proceed to fix the vehicle so that while it looks largely original it might have a modern engine, modern tires and even a modern electrical system simply to make the car easier to use, even if on a limited basis. Others will restore a car trying to use as many authentic parts as possible to get as close to original condition as possible. Sometimes those authentic parts have to be fabricated anew and as such they are really new parts even if they look old. But in most every case both approaches strive to make the car look like it just drove off the showroom floor as opposed to allowing for the ravages of time to remain apparent.

As I said before when one goes to see the restored shuttlecraft Galileo they are seeing the prop near exactly as it appeared when it was originally filmed. If one had gone the route of the Sphinx then all folks would see would have been a somewhat recognizable pile of scrap. And as far as I know the prop was documented step-by-step during its restoration. There's no question that a lot if not most of the parts are actually new and not the original parts because it was impossible to repair/restore those damaged parts--too much time and neglect had passed. But people are thrilled because they are seeing the prop as it was intended to be seen.

And so it should be with the Enterprise, in my opinion. Put her back they way she was intended along with documentation of what was done to her over the years.

 

[Christopher]

^^ No, what people objected to was changing the artifact such that it did not resemble its original form. The 11 footer never looked the way it does now.

It's never honest to say that "people" as a collective held a single monolithic opinion, because of course different people hold different opinions. Fans objected to the change in its appearance, but historians and scholars wouldn't necessarily have the same priorities.

Another interesting analogy might be classic cars. There are people who buy an old car and proceed to fix the vehicle so that while it looks largely original it might have a modern engine, modern tires and even a modern electrical system simply to make the car easier to use, even if on a limited basis. Others will restore a car trying to use as many authentic parts as possible to get as close to original condition as possible. Sometimes those authentic parts have to be fabricated anew and as such they are really new parts even if they look old. But in most every case both approaches strive to make the car look like it just drove off the showroom floor as opposed to allowing for the ravages of time to remain apparent.

But those are private collectors, not museum conservationists.

As I said before when one goes to see the restored shuttlecraft Galileo they are seeing the prop near exactly as it appeared when it was originally filmed. If one had gone the route of the Sphinx then all folks would see would have been a somewhat recognizable pile of scrap. And as far as I know the prop was documented step-by-step during its restoration. There's no question that a lot if not most of the parts are actually new and not the original parts because it was impossible to repair/restore those damaged parts--too much time and neglect had passed. But people are thrilled because they are seeing the prop as it was intended to be seen.

And that's also a case where it's in private hands -- and where the original was so badly decayed that a preservationist approach would basically have been useless. Fortunately the Enterprise is in better condition -- and that's because it's been in the care of a museum for decades, kept largely protected from the elements. So it's not an exactly analogous situation. A museum serves the public as a whole, not a single owner's preferences, and so it has to be able to weigh different opinions and considerations.

And so it should be with the Enterprise, in my opinion.

Yes, that's your opinion. But there are other opinions out there that deserve just as much consideration before the decision is made.

 

[mach7]

I'm in the Warped9 camp for what its worth. After all this isn't a demopcracy.

The previous example of the Galileo is an excellent argument.

A few other examples:

The USS Constitution in Boston is the oldest commissioned ship in the US Navy.
She has undergone many restorations in the last 200 years. At last estimate she is 13%
original but she IS the USS Constitution. Sure the navy could display a pile of rotting wood and fittings, this would be more historically accurate but it would be completely un interesting to 99% of the thousands of people who visit her every year.

The Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio has many aircraft on display. I am very familiar with one. The B-17 Shoo Shoo Baby was restored at Dover AFB and flown to the Air Force museum. The Air Force restored her to when she was in her prime, a warbird fighting in WW2. They did not try to preserve the stage of her life when she was converted to an airliner. That part of her life is mentioned in her history, but NONE of the modifications made to convert her to an airliner were preserved in the restoration of her.

The NASM has never really known what to do with the Enterprise. She is not an actual aerospace artifact. She is a model from a TV show. As such they have never really considered her "worthy" of a proper conservation. She was for most her life in the museum just a curiosity and treated as such.
It seems now that they realize that Star Trek was a huge influence to many who went into aerospace. I know it was with me. As such it seems that they are finally coming to realize the importance of what they have. As such my hope is that they try to bring her back to as close as she was during the production of the show.

 

[Warped9]

I'm in the Warped9 camp for what its worth. After all this isn't a demopcracy.

The previous example of the Galileo is an excellent argument.

A few other examples:

The USS Constitution in Boston is the oldest commissioned ship in the US Navy.
She has undergone many restorations in the last 200 years. At last estimate she is 13%
original but she IS the USS Constitution. Sure the navy could display a pile of rotting wood and fittings, this would be more historically accurate but it would be completely un interesting to 99% of the thousands of people who visit her every year.

The Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio has many aircraft on display. I am very familiar with one. The B-17 Shoo Shoo Baby was restored at Dover AFB and flown to the Air Force museum. The Air Force restored her to when she was in her prime, a warbird fighting in WW2. They did not try to preserve the stage of her life when she was converted to an airliner. That part of her life is mentioned in her history, but NONE of the modifications made to convert her to an airliner were preserved in the restoration of her.

The NASM has never really known what to do with the Enterprise. She is not an actual aerospace artifact. She is a model from a TV show. As such they have never really considered her "worthy" of a proper conservation. She was for most her life in the museum just a curiosity and treated as such.
It seems now that they realize that Star Trek was a huge influence to many who went into aerospace. I know it was with me. As such it seems that they are finally coming to realize the importance of what they have. As such my hope is that they try to bring her back to as close as she was during the production of the show.

Nicely said.

 

[John Cooley]

The Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio has many aircraft on display. I am very familiar with one. The B-17 Shoo Shoo Baby was restored at Dover AFB and flown to the Air Force museum. The Air Force restored her to when she was in her prime, a warbird fighting in WW2. They did not try to preserve the stage of her life when she was converted to an airliner. That part of her life is mentioned in her history, but NONE of the modifications made to convert her to an airliner were preserved in the restoration of her.

My Dad; Ray Cooley, was stationed at Dover during Shoo Shoo Baby's restoration and was part of the team who worked on her. I have fond memories of being around and inside the plane and even an old picture or two of small me sitting in her belly turret.

 

[Christopher]

I'm in the Warped9 camp for what its worth. After all this isn't a demopcracy.

Umm... the miniature is in the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. The Smithsonian legally functions as an arm of the United States government and is federally funded and administered. Its Board of Regents includes the Vice President of the US, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and three members each of the House and Senate, plus nine citizen members approved by Congress. So yeah, it basically is a democracy.

Anyway, this isn't about what "camp" any of us are in, because we're not the ones making the decisions. The people involved with the preservation will make the decisions based on their perspective as preservationists, and we can't assume their point of view will be identical to that of a fan. That's what I've been trying to get across here: That whatever you or I or anyone else may prefer is not going to dictate what actually happens. That's why I've been trying to look past subjective opinions and offer a more objective tally of the issues that would come into consideration in a case like this.

 

[Warped9]

We get what might be their viewpoint. We are just arguing we don't agree with it. We're saying it's wrong to preserve something like this in what is essentially a vandalized condition.

 

[mach7]

I'm in the Warped9 camp for what its worth. After all this isn't a demopcracy.

Anyway, this isn't about what "camp" any of us are in, because we're not the ones making the decisions. The people involved with the preservation will make the decisions based on their perspective as preservationists, and we can't assume their point of view will be identical to that of a fan. That's what I've been trying to get across here: That whatever you or I or anyone else may prefer is not going to dictate what actually happens. That's why I've been trying to look past subjective opinions and offer a more objective tally of the issues that would come into consideration in a case like this.

That is exactly what I was saying when I said "...this isn't a democracy" Spelling excepted.

The NASM is not asking us. I'm just trying to convey my opinion. But you know that, I feel your just trying trying to
cause a ruckus. And thank you for the civics lesson.

 

[Christopher]

We get what might be their viewpoint. We are just arguing we don't agree with it. We're saying it's wrong to preserve something like this in what is essentially a vandalized condition.

And I'm not saying that's what will happen. Let's not reduce this to some black-and-white caricature. I'm just saying there are a variety of factors that are likely to be considered. In the case of the Sistine Chapel, an attempt was made to balance the various concerns, and we ended up with something that, in the best estimate of the preservationists, was as close as feasible to the original work, while still preserving a historical record of past restorations. So casual observers can look at the frescoes and be reasonably confident that they're seeing them as Michelangelo intended, but scholars and critics can take a closer look and be aware of the history and controversies. So it's not about satisfying just one preference or viewpoint, it's about satisfying multiple viewpoints. Maybe something similar will be done here. Or maybe not; it remains to be seen.


And mach7, raising a ruckus is the opposite of what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to take a side here, I'm trying to provide objective information about the issues and considerations that go into an art preservation project like this. I'm not offering a personal opinion, because I'm not sure what my preference would be. As I said, the fan in me would like it to be restored as closely to original specs as possible, but the history student in me recognizes the value of preserving history truthfully, warts and all. I'm not sure yet what the best approach would be in this case, because there hasn't yet been a detailed analysis of the state of the model and what the prospects are for its preservation or restoration. So I'm just trying to be open to all sides of the question. It's worthwhile to think about a question without rushing to a conclusion one way or the other.

 

[1001001]

Christopher are you in here causing a ruckus??

You know I don't abide ruckuses, nor ruckus-makers.

 

[Nebusj]

We get what might be their viewpoint. We are just arguing we don't agree with it. We're saying it's wrong to preserve something like this in what is essentially a vandalized condition.

I should be interested to know your opinions regarding the conservation and restoration treatments given the Fort McHenry Flag.

 

[Warped9]

We get what might be their viewpoint. We are just arguing we don't agree with it. We're saying it's wrong to preserve something like this in what is essentially a vandalized condition.

I should be interested to know your opinions regarding the conservation and restoration treatments given the Fort McHenry Flag.

I'm not familiar with it. What's the story?

 

[bbailey861]

Christopher are you in here causing a ruckus??

You know I don't abide ruckuses, nor ruckus-makers.

I never ever pictured Christopher as the ruckus makin' type, although I have always dreamed up of meeting up with him, getting him stinkin' drunk, and seeing what happens from there.

 

[1001001]

Christopher are you in here causing a ruckus??

You know I don't abide ruckuses, nor ruckus-makers.

I never ever pictured Christopher as the ruckus makin' type, although I have always dreamed up of meeting up with him, getting him stinkin' drunk, and seeing what happens from there.

I just like saying "ruckus". It's a great word.

Ruckus!!

 

[bbailey861]

Christopher are you in here causing a ruckus??

You know I don't abide ruckuses, nor ruckus-makers.

I never ever pictured Christopher as the ruckus makin' type, although I have always dreamed up of meeting up with him, getting him stinkin' drunk, and seeing what happens from there.

I just like saying "ruckus". It's a great word.

Ruckus!!

It is a great word....and I do use it.

 

[Christopher]

I never ever pictured Christopher as the ruckus makin' type, although I have always dreamed up of meeting up with him, getting him stinkin' drunk, and seeing what happens from there.

I never touch alcohol, sorry. Can't stand the stuff, not even in alcohol-based fragrances or air fresheners.

 

[mach7]

My Dad; Ray Cooley, was stationed at Dover during Shoo Shoo Baby's restoration and was part of the team who worked on her. I have fond memories of being around and inside the plane and even an old picture or two of small me sitting in her belly turret.

John, what squadron was you Father in? I was there in the summer of 1981 and from 88-91. I got to crawl all over Shoo Shoo Baby. What a superb restoration. I was there when she left to fly to Wright-Pat.

Christopher,

If I misunderstood you I apologize, but I thought I was very clear in stating that we have no say in what the NASM does with the Enterprise. Also I thought your civics lesson a bit condescending. Lastly I just love using the word ruckus.

 

[plynch]

If I use QUOTE, I'll have to erase a bunch of nested things, so I'm goin by memory:

"Errors are most important to preserve." I see your point. But we're talking about a movie prop, not glosses in a monk's manuscript. I just don't see the historical value in physically preserving Ed's work. Take a photo of it if need be.

"Preserving the Galileo woulda been impossible." Well, no. Many highly degraded things are preserved. I'm thinking of papyrus fragments or Stonehenge. Those are preserved. But you're right, the G was in private hands who don't have a guiding ethos of preservation like the Smithson. BUT - I saw a LOT of craft there that I know didn't look that good when the NASM got ahold of 'em. So they do do restoration as well as preservation. For a TV prop, I vote RESTORATION. Oops - no voting - forgot, not a democracy. E plebneesta, baby. Cloud William? "MMrph." He agree.

And just FYI, when I did my awesome White House petition (now removed since it garnered like 17 sigs) I found out the SI is actually under jurisdiction of the legislative branch though it sure seems executive-y. So I was barking up the wrong interweb anyway. LLAP, all.

 

[OpenMaw]

"historical" preservation in my view would be to get it looking as close to the way it did when it was filmed back in the 60s, not what previous restoration jobs did. Seeing some of those high res shots of the E at the studio where it was shot, and then seeing it at the smithsonian, it's really a tragedy.