Stephen Alsford has offered some thoughts on what we mean when we talk
about a "virtual museum." At the risk of showing my poor grasp of the
essentials of our profession, I offer my comments.
 
In essence, a museum consists of three things-
 
        Public displays, with some form of interpretation of the artifacts.
        Public information. ("What is this?" or "Whats it worth?" <sigh>)
        A collection or collections of artifacts or specimens maintained
for research or information purposes.
 
In order, I would expect a virtual museum to present displays planned as
thoroughly as real, solid, actual displays would be, with the same amount
of attention paid to presentation, labelling and captioning, theme,
message, etc. In addition the graphic images must take pains to give at
least as much impression of the object as could be obtained by looking at
the real object in a showcase. To mention only one very obvious thing, a
virtual display must give a true sense of scale of the objects, either
overtly with a scale bar or covertly with illustrations of the objects
contrasted with familiar items.
 
I don't see any real possibility of a virtual museum offering a public
information service, although it is possible that some software might
direct the questioner to a real world museum for advice. Indeed, if a
virtual museum was created as a cooperative venture between several
institutions, the software might be so designed as to send queries on
certain subjects to the institution strongest in that field.
 
I don't see any way a virtual museum could have a collection. The essence
of a museum is *objects*, not images or pictures. I can concieve of a
virtual library collection, but not a virtual museum collection.
 
What *isn't* a virtual museum? For a start, making your registers
available on the net doesn't. It just makes you a museum with net access.
This is, I believe, a highly desirable goal in itself, but it's not what
I'm discussing. Putting graphics of your items on the net doesn't make it
either. That is a virtual catalogue - a possibly worthy thing in itself,
but it's not a virtual museum.
 
I can concieve of virtual museum *displays* easily. Presenting a user
with a path of choices through a display, allowing them to stop and read
labels and gaze at objects in detail, providing additional information in
greater depth for those that are interested - this is standard multimedia
stuff. I believe that such things are already available on CD-ROM from
some institutions. There is no reason in theory why this can't be put on
the net as well.
 
My apologies for rabbiting on so much. If you got this far, you're either
interested in what I've said, or interested in burning me alive :-) In
either case, thank you for your time.
 
Peter Volk
Social History
Queensland Museum
Australia
e-mail [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, Stephen Alsford wrote:
 
> 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]
>