There have been many studies and experiments regarding exhibition lighting. Many experiments on photochemical damaging effect and visibility resulted in a practice limited to assigning light levels and adjusting annual exposure time. The three damaging factors to the artifacts are intrinsicsusceptibility to absorb radiant energy, spectral distribution of light source and intensity of illumination and time of exposure. Dividing all the artfacts into three categories to suggest a recommended illuminance level causes some problems. Blue wool, for example, used as the reference material for susceptibility, is not a standard material representing museum artifacts. In the most light sensitive category, ISO class I or anything below have been excluded. The exposure time of one soure can be three times more than another sourece. The spectral distribution of the light source and the relative spectral responsibility of the artifact are not considered in the practice. So in case of very light sensitive material, the recommended illuminance is only the referring value and it is indispensable to check the characteristic of susceptibility of each artifacts. Daylighting is prevailing method to solve the psychological need of the visitors. However, it sould transparent, and should not diffused, and the green-house effect must be considered. llluminance uniformity should based on the maximum illuminance to handle the limitation of exposure for the conservation of a large sensitive object such as a painting. Damage index is not absolute reference for selecting the lighting source because it is experimented from the paper of low grade then calculated. Visibility should be increased by reducing the visual noiseand by planning of appropriate luminance contrast. This paper reviews the problems with the previous studies and experiment sand the current exhibition lighting design practice. The plan for museum showcase lighting is to check the susceptibility and to raise the visibility simultaneously.