The New-York Historical Society recently faced criticism over the use of reproductions and removals of original artworks in its newly opened wing, sparking debate about authenticity in museum exhibitions.

The museum, led by director Louise Mirrer, initially lowered blackout shades on large upper windows to protect light-sensitive works. However, Mirrer later reversed this decision, raising the shades to preserve the architectural integrity of the space, designed by renowned architect Rafael Viñoly. The choice to prioritize natural light meant the museum had to replace 17 original pieces with reproductions and remove three others from the exhibition. Among the substituted works was a three-dimensional assemblage by artist Betye Saar, titled “Extreme Times Call for Extreme Heroines,” which was replaced with a digital photograph that the museum eventually removed, acknowledging it did not adequately represent the original piece.

Several current and former staff members expressed disappointment with these changes. Gerhard Schlanzky, a longtime museum veteran and former creative director who worked on the exhibition, said the decision detracted from the visitor experience. "You come to see real things. Otherwise, people might just view them on their devices at home,” Schlanzky said. He specifically lamented the removal of Saar’s piece, noting the artist’s recent passing on July 26 added to the emotional weight. Saar’s daughter, Alison Saar, expressed some disappointment but indicated understanding, saying she hoped the replacements were made with the artwork’s preservation in mind.

Other notable removals included the Equal Rights Amendment dress worn by Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney and a crocheted pink camouflage mannequin by artist Olek, commemorating the 2017 Women’s March. Olek, informed of the removal from Poland, commented that while the art was safe in storage, it ran contrary to the purpose of artistic expression.

The debate touches on broader questions about visitor expectations and the role of authenticity in museums amid evolving digital experiences. Devon Akman, chairman of the American Alliance of Museums, noted the shifting landscape where digital reproductions and artificial intelligence challenge traditional notions of “the authentic piece,” prompting institutions and scholars to reconsider these definitions.

From a historical perspective, historian David Nasaw argued that authenticity, while important, is not always essential for education. He analogized historical sites and artifacts to the inevitable passage of time and decay, suggesting that well-executed reproductions that capture the essence of originals can still serve a meaningful role in public understanding.

Visitors and critics have voiced mixed reactions to the museum’s choices. Holland Cotter, reviewing the exhibition, praised the new wing’s architecture but highlighted the Saar assemblage, underscoring the impact of its absence. According to Schlanzky, the exhibition’s vitality diminished by the removal of key original artworks.

The museum’s curator, Wendy Nalani E. Ikemoto, who departed last month, stated she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the decision to raise the window shades and replace sensitive objects, which occurred after her tenure. Mirrer acknowledged that while her focus on fundraising and realizing the architectural vision was paramount, she regretted not addressing the light exposure challenges earlier.

The New-York Historical Society’s struggle to balance architectural ambition with conservation concerns highlights ongoing tensions in museum practice, raising critical questions about the relationship between physical artifacts, visitor experience, and the role of reproductions in cultural institutions.