On Dec 13, 1995 23:09:44, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>I'm surprised (to put it mildly)
>that there is any sort of discussion among museum professionals about
whether
>or not a Web site can substitute for a real-life museum

I promised myself not to get sucked into this discussion of webs vs.
museums.  How many times has the topic come up on museum-l within the last
year?  Those who have read my previous posts on this issue might remember
that I always argued against the notion that the "real thing" (as we used
to call it) can ever be properly replaced by the kinds of surrogates such
are beginning to appear on the web.

Yet, surrogates are useful, and people can do many things with surrogate
images that they never would be able to do with the "real thing."  David is
correct, of course, when he says that a museum's web presence is just one
among many "publications."  But each new "surrogate" seems to spawn its own
world of consequences.  In the 19th century, photography -- the ability to
conquer the limitations of time and place in which "real things" must dwell
-- was the single most important force that brought about the development
of so-called "art history."  Photography was responsible, too, for the
democratization of access to art so that individuals from all classes and
economic strata could have access to images.  One might even argue that
photography helped bring art out of the salons and into the hands of the
people -- that it democratized the idea that fine art could be made by the
working-class who would be free to reject the values of high culture.

David speaks of what I call "expectation escalation."  The availability of
photographs of art helped increase museum attendance as exhibits helped
increase the desire for travel.

What effect will the web have in the long run?  No one can tell, but to
judge from the life cycle of other forms of new media, web development is
right on course.  When the printed book was introduced designers wanted it
to do much of the same thing the manuscript already did.  They designed
books to be "surrogate" manuscripts.  Only later did books turn out to be
something quite different than manuscripts, and only later did it find its
audience and revolutionize the intellectual climate of Europe.

Today the web is imitating forms of communication that have been developed
in other media: brochures, of course; newsletters, exhibits, excursions
into collection databases (more rarely).  These are all, in one way or
another, mimetic of pre web "surrogates."  We expect such web products to
offer enhancements over their paper counterparts: exhibits that link into
the collection catalogue, that offer student, public, adult and expert
tracks; collection catalogues that can be queried to create custom
self-guiding tours, that offer opportunity to order photographs and
merchandise, that will turn scholarly content into a popular form, etc.
Recently in this forum (or was it ARLIS-L) someone posted notice of an OPAC
that linked to web pages when appropriate.  But, withal, these are just
elaborations of what  already exists, made more convenient and more
accessible than ever before.

Am I am correct in my assertion that if the web is to succeed as its own
media type in the arts, it will have to something entirely new?  Museum-l
readers may wish to address the following questions: What will the web have
to do to achieve its place in the communication history of our culture?
What affect will it have that propels us beyond what we already know?  Who
wants to speculate on what the "killer app" will be?
--

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont N.Y. 10538
[log in to unmask]