Markus Kruse asks why museums haven't welcomed computers and the internet
with open arms.
 
Some thoughts:
> I am just so disappointed by many attitudes about computers and the internet.
> many of the museums do not even want to offer their collections or imagery
> to the world wide community. many of them will fall behind again.
 
These things _cost_.  Costs include: staff time in preparing www pages.  Staff
time scanning images.  Telephone or leased line charges.  etc.  Perhaps
conserving objects, or running an outreach programme, or putting on a
temporary exhibition is deemed to be a better use of limited resources.
>
> Isn't there an opportunity for a heavy emphasis on globalization and art
> education world wide for these museums??? as well as public relations that
> do not cost much and have a much larger audience than the regular ways of pr.
 
My machine has cut the end of your paragraph; I hope that I have missed
nothing vital.  Which museums?  National Galleries?  The majority of museums
don't have a national/international remit.  They are paid for by local
communities.  So of course, a temporary exhibition often gets a higher priority
than the internet subscription, and a environmental control system for the
photographs store beats scanning them in.
 
> of course, one of the problems might be that the imagery is not the same as
> the original. as a new york times article this summer listed: pixelization
> of imagery can still be a problem. but then the national gallery in london
> has been working on a project like this for almost a decade?
 
Do you mean the Microgallery?   I've enjoyed using this.  And seeing the
real thing _always_ is better than an image.  That's why I'm in museums.
 
> images are too large for people to download. although the compression
> technology of 1-100 is already developped.
 
Yes, images are big, even when compressed.
 
>
> or is it the computer phobia of many of the heads of museums??? many of the
> heads are still the old school.
 
Sure, there are computer phobics throughout museums, as there are
throughout most of society.  They can be found at all levels.  They are
of all ages.  But I don't think that this is of great importance, compared
to the resources issues.
 
Other factors:
Copyright: perhaps no-one would ever pay real money for an image of a
decrepit reaper-binder, but that never stopped me hoping ... and surely
the art galleries have more to loose.
The non-image resources of the internet: I can make a better case for these -
such as a modem, the subscription to demon and the phone calls are about
the same as a couple of conferences.  The internet has struck me as having a
lot in common with conferences.  There are the lectures (ftp files), and there
are the conversations made over coffee (lists, news).
 
--
Pat Reynolds, sharing Trevor Reynolds subscriptions (and vice versa)