I agree with Joshua in his opposition to Doering's comments.  Just
this past weekend I was talking to two teenagers about the CD-ROM
School Yearbook they created.  Naturally, we we discussed museums'
creation of CD-ROMS, web sites and virtual spaces, and of course they were famil
iar with on-line museums
through web sites.  At the time I did not ask if the Web sites
encouraged their attendence at museums.  However what did excite them was the
possibility of them WORKING WITH a museum/gallery and creating a
CD-ROM or virtual space.  Because of computer and on-line technology, two things
 were happening:
1) a TEENAGER was enthralled with the idea of a museum/gallery
2) a TEENAGER was excited about the possibility of his PARTICIPATION
in the creation of a cultural product.
Those of us who have worked with young adults know what a difficult audience
they are to capture.

Computer technology interests me because of its educational potential.
Specifically, its potential for museums to capture new audiences
through on-line dialogues that respect, recognize and include a
variety of knowledges, experiences, opinions, needs and interests in an on-line
cultural forum.

With regards to audience development, perhaps we are too cautious in
looking for "surethings" & "garauntees".  Other organizations have
already begun to explore on-line museum-public dialogues regarding
cultural identity, etc (see Glasgow museums message on museum-L for
example).  The possibilities are as limited as our imaginations, but
if we never explore these possibilities surely they can never succeed.

Although it is extremely important to identify our goals and
objectives, and our audiences' needs before re-distributing museum
budgets, as well as the need to critically consider the benefits of computer
initiatives, there is the seed of a possibility at our doorstep which
must be explored.  Has Doering any other strategies?

S. Pointe
[log in to unmask]


>
> On Sep 10, 10:49am, Zahava D. Doering wrote:
> > There is no evidence that putting images on the WWW has any impact
> > on attendance.  Not surprising, as the users of WWW are museum-goers
> > who probably know of the museum/exhibit/program from other sources
> > as well.  The notion that the WWW would increase attendance is very
> > far-fetched.  I see many benefits of the WWW in the museum context,
> > but audience expansion is definitely not one of them.
> >-- End of excerpt from Zahava D. Doering
>
> I feel that these results do not fairly represent the average WWW user.  With
> the ease of switching back and forth from one homepage to the next, I believe
> it is possible that non-"museum types" do look, out of curiousity, at some
> art/museum homepages.  Of course, I could be way off base, but I know my
> brother, the "anti-artist" if there ever was one, has looked occasionally at
> museum home pages to see the graphic quality, the structure, to gauge the
> complexity of the interactive elements, etc.  Computer users should not
> automatically be assumed to have anti-cultural characteristics based on their
> technological proficiency.  Just because a viewer does not physically attend
> a showing/exhibition does not mean the WWW has no expanded interest, in
> general, in museums or galleries.
>
>
> --
> Joshua Heuman
> [log in to unmask]
> Art History Undergraduate
>