Subject:  Re: Confused about Virtually Everything
 
I have found interesting the recent discussion (under Why Are
Museums So Far Behind?) of the desirable character of museum
content on the Web, leading into the question of definition of
"virtual".  I believe it is worthwhile to hash out a common sense
(if possible) of what constitutes a "virtual museum" and that
this is a good forum in which to do so.  An example of what will
happen if we fail to do so is seen in the term "interactivity"
which, in being elevated to a buzzword, has become so diluted in
meaning as to be almost disempowered - something the concept of
different "levels" of interactivity has only partially moderated.
(And I don't exclude myself from the guilty in the overuse of the
term).
 
So, my threepennyworth ...
 
My own understanding of "virtual", in the IT sense, as applied to
exhibit, museum, performance etc., is that it relates to an
entity/activity which exists (using THAT term broadly) in virtual
space, by creating digitally an information environment that does
NOT represent or reflect an actual entity/activity existing at
any given time in the physical world.  I almost said "real
world", but we may today be in the process of expanding the
definition "reality", which is perhaps as much perception as
actuality.
 
In this sense, my preference would be not to use the concept of
"virtual museum" for a digitized information environment that
represents an actual, physical-world institution (or, rather, a
selection of its information resources).  I support Peter Rauch
in seeking a more closely defined use of "virtual", and agree with
him that "surrogate" might be a better term to apply to a digital
representation of an existing physical institution.  Although
"electronic surrogate museum" risks being wordy and pretentious
(let me hasten to add that Peter didn't suggest that combination).
 
I think it would be more _useful_ to restrict the application of
"virtual museum" to the bringing together, in virtual space, of
digitized information resources whose physical storage/server
sites are geographically dispersed, for the purpose of simulating
a museum-like environment.  This assumes that the museum metaphor
remains at this point in time a useful paradigm for organizing
information and presenting it in ways that inform and educate,
and also potentially offers a yardstick for judging to what
degree any so-called virtual museum warrants that description (as
opposed to a Web site where information is presented, for
instance, more in the form of archive or book paradigms).  In
time these conventional metaphors may go by the boards and we
will see entirely new metaphors emerge in virtual space.
 
Stemming from what I have already said, let me add that it is not
my impression that any true virtual museums exist as yet.  Some
virtual exhibition centres perhaps.  But I don't know of any
(realized) effort to address how a virtual MUSEUM would be fully
expressed on the Web (or its postulated successor), given the
range of functions of a museum in terms of collecting,
preserving, researching, communicating/educating.  To capture the
paradigm, a site should represent the component elements, albeit
that they might assume a somewhat different character in a
digital environment.
 
It is on this last point that I would like to encourage further
discussion.  It is clear enough how the Web offers the potential
to communicate museum information.  Certainly it is valid for a
physical-world institution to use the Web basically as a
marketing tool.  However, I - like Robert Guralnick - hope that a
growing number of museums will proceed beyond that stage to offer
more substantial content that can make them a real learning
resource.  At the same time, can we yet envisage how the mandates
of collecting, preserving and researching will express themselves
in the context of a virtual museum?
 
Stephen Alsford
Special Projects Officer
Canadian Museum of Civilization
[log in to unmask]