Οι θεατές βλέπουν ολόκληρες συλλογές μέσω ανοιχτών δωματίων, έργα αναστήλωσης σε ανοιχτή θέα (ή όχι, καθώς συχνά καλύπτονται με λευκό καμβά απομονώνοντάς την όποια αποκατάσταση), μεταφορά συλλογών και ανοιχτή θέα στους διοικητικούς χώρους αποσυνθέτουν την προκαθορισμένη εικόνα του μουσείου. Εκτοπισμένα αντικείμενα σε αποικιοκρατικά ιδρύματα αντιθέτως επικοινωνούν με την υποτιθέμενη μέθοδο του Διαφωτισμού, με εκούσια επιμονή για τη νοσταλγία. Σε αντίθεση με τις βιτρίνες η λειτουργία τον οποίων είναι η προσωρινή τοποθέτηση θραυσμάτων αναμένοντας να επιστραφούν. Η οπτική εμπειρία ορίζει ότι πράγματι λείπει κάτι. Η συγκεκριμένη μετατόπιση μπορεί να γίνει κατανοητή από τον κορεσμό του τεμαχισμένου σώματος. Κάποιος πρέπει απλώς να σκεφτεί ένα *λευκό* άγαλμα χωρίς άκρα και πώς ο τεμαχισμός υπαγόρευσε την οπτική του- με αποτέλεσμα την παγκόσμια φήμη. Αυτό που διακυβεύεται είναι η ενότητα του. Η ενότητα του θραύσματος, υποκείμενο σε εσφαλμένες αποκαταστάσεις και *ξύσιμο και επάλειψη* των επιφανειών. Γεωγραφική επιστροφή από 51° 31' 9.8868 " Ν, 0° 7' 37.0446" Ε έ ως 37 ° 58’ 6.4194" Β, 23 ° 43' 42.6822" και τη σημερινή τάση της πολιτικής της επανόρθωσης. 

ΑΚΙΝΗΤΟΠΟΙΗΜΕΝΑ  ΑΓΑΛΜΑΤΑ  

STATUES STAY PUT

“Just as myths already realise enlightenment, so enlightenment with every step becomes more deeply engulfed in mythology. It receives all its matter from the myths, in order to destroy them, and even as a judge it comes under the mythic curse. It wishes to extricate itself from the process of fate and retribution, while exercising retribution on that process. In the myths everything that happens must atone for having happened. And so it is in enlightenment.” -Theodore Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment 

Methods of transparency and modularity have dictated current museum discourse. Encompassed by diff(e)rence from prior enlightenment based methods of presentation; in response to the styles of the salon. Those of which supposedly contain the ideals of empiricism, humanism, and modernity. Amorphous and fleeting visuality, collections of works notably those of *blank* antiquity have been subject to engage with a rejection of the fixed origins they had. Previously existing as architectural features, votives, dedications, and symbols of the west. Notably heightened by the Venice Charter dictating strict methodologies for restoration and conservation. Methodologies leave the site entering into the museum in an attempt to emphasis the rejection of the canon.

******************************************************************************

Metope wakes up in room 18- further supposed information is available in prior rooms 18a and 18b. Centaur Fragment between Neck and Body:  …Ah my head in Athens, I love to hear stories about slapstick metopes. Don’t be so surface I hear from museum directors, museum sponsors and other archetypes of collection highlights. I reply that my surface is now transparent. I enjoy pamphlets of controversies… 

Viewers see totalities of collections through open rooms, restoration works on view (or not as they are often covered with white canvas isolating given restoration), transportation of collections and view into the administrative spaces which break up the fantasies of museums. Displaced objects from colonial based institutions instead communicate through the method of supposed enlightenment; in a wilful perseverance of nostalgia. Contrary to the purpose of displays whose function is to temporarily hold placement for fragments waiting to be returned. Visual experience acknowledges that something is indeed missing. This shift can be greatly understood through the saturation of the fragmented body. One only needs to think of the *blank* statue type without arms and how fragmentation has dictated its visuality- resulting in universal fame. Oneness is what's at stake. Oneness in the fragment, subject to false restorations and the *sand on, sand off* of surfaces. Geographical return from 51° 31’ 9.8868” N, 0° 7’ 37.0446” E to 37° 58’ 6.4194” N, 23° 43’ 42.6822” and current vogue of restitution politics. 

A slippery slope that contests the motives of museums. Actuality of actions that can be categorised with the methods of enlightenment that are subject to the attempt at institutional or national prestige. Yet, retain dialogues between myth and empirical modes. There is certainly a characterising of the institutions and statues absent from display by noting the location of the missing fragments *fragment a in x institution*. This narrative which is present in the displays could be seen to falsify itself. A flaw in the development of enlightenments empiricism. 

******************************************************************************

Metope falls asleep on floor 3- further supposed information is available at the entrance of floor 3.Centaur Fragment between Neck and Body:  …Ah my body in London, I hate to see texts about serious metopes. Do be so surface I see from museum custodians, museum baristas and other archetypes of collection highlights. I reply that my surface is now opaque. I enjoy videos of controversies…

Mythic competition and rational solution apparent in narratives of artefacts in museum discourse is curious through the creation and assertion of ‘correctness’. How displays would change if the desires of museums were successful? Would museums return to the conventions of display in standardised modes? How would a fixed presence be established? Are these materials truly temporary? The return of fragments is unlikely.Temporary modes are actually permanence? Ideal remains for that of longing. As it always has. The museums galleries that mimics the form of the original site long to be that original monument. The arguments of restitution explicitly express that if Pentelic material is returned, isolated fragments will systematically be loaned back to given institutions. Systematic loans detract from the ideal *−1 = Σ* which notably include the refusal to accept temporary loans of fragments from the institutions that hold them *+1 ≠ Σ*. Falsifying the empiricism of oneness is exhaustive, the arguments being made remain an ideal. These sorts of dialogues underpin the hypocrisies present in enlightenment versus myth. Through a desire to reject the given legacies new prospective ones are made, establishing the myth of enlightenment even in what appear to be avant-garde rational institutions. The distinction between myth and enlightenment appears to oppose, yet fuses together the more enlightenment rejects the processes of myths. Exclusively done in museums through social narrative and its link to cultures of display. Through the destructing of the ideal a new subjection is created *longing = unification (Σ)*.