|Subject||:||Natural vrs. Artificial|
|Author||:||Richard Farber mailto:%email@example.com|
|Date||:||01-14-2001 on 11:53 p.m.|
|Dear Ms. Wolf.
Thank you for the salon.
One of my favorite places in the Museum of Applied Arts, M A K on the Ring in Vienna. There are astounding rugs and textiles.
The rugs are in a very high room which has a skylight. [I assume that glass is an affective UV filter.] The room is dark when the days are cloudy and somewhat brighter when the sun in shining but in every case the eye still seems to have enough light to appreciate the rugs. In the room with the medieval textiles I believe there are windows.
Is a light enviornment [day light through a skylight] intrinsically better for the objects than artificial light ?
|Subject||:||Re:Natural vrs. Artificial|
|Author||:||Filiberto Boncompagni mailto:%firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Date||:||01-15-2001 on 06:24 a.m.|
I think I can answer to you more quickly, considering we are in the same time-zone.
From the point of view of conservation, it does not matter if the source of light is natural or artificial. What does it matter is the quality and the quantity of it.
About quality: all the wave-lengths of light are dangerous, but the more dangerous are the ones we cannot see: ultraviolet (especially) and infrared - and these are present both in natural and artificial light, although in different proportions. So a good lighting system should use filters to filter out UV and IR.