>One thing I've not seen mentioned so far is that, in addition to the cost to
>the museum, there is the fear (how justified could be a separate discussion)
>that we may be harming ourselves in the long run.  Many museums rely fairly
>heavily on admissions income, and anything that jeopardizes visitation is to be
 ...
>Robin
 
A very good point, but surely a lot can be done by the WAY the museum is
mounted on the Web?  If all they provide is the pretty pictures ready for
downloading and making into Windows Wallpaper, well, that's one thing.  But
if they provide, say, the quivalent of an exhibition brochure, enough to
give a general overview and serve as an aide memoire afterwards, and then
use that as a teaser to come see the real thing, the WHOLE thing ... In
short, deliberately make their Net exhibitions teasers, adverts.
 
Not so much so that it becomes annoying.  More like appetizers.
 
I've wandered around the Exploratorium site on the Web, and that place has
DEFINITELY become one of the musea I will go out of my way to visit should
ever I be so fortunate as to be on the right coast (left coast, looking at
a north is up map).
 
On the other hand, the Smithsonian site -- now, don't get me wrong, I am
very fond of the Smithsonian and visit their musea as frequently as time
allows; and I know that the Smithsonian has only just started being
connected and does not (yet) have a Web page -- but, electronically
speaking, it's just a very nice collection of pictures ... Nothing that
says to me, Come Visit And See The Rest.  No sense of place.
 
I don't say that's the whole answer, but it IS one museum visitor's
reaction.  Perhaps skewed by the fact that I AM a museum visitor.  On the
other hand, would those who are satisfied with .gifs of the works of art be
heavy museum goers in the first place?  I'm not entirely certain.
 
Mario Rups
[log in to unmask]