In article <[log in to unmask]>,
JESSICA B ZIRKEL  <[log in to unmask]> wrote, among other things:
 
>Which of the following clarifies as a "virtual" exhibit?
 
>C.  A digital representation... of an exhibit ...
 
>Are all of these "virtual" exhibits?  None of them?  What else could qualify
>as a virtual exhibit, or, further, a virtual museum?
 
Or...
 
Is a diorama of a stuffed bighorn sheep, standing on plaster and wire
rocks, amidst a sweeping panorama of the desert painted on a plywood
"canvas", skies blue (air conditioner blowing in my face), plants
blooming (no fragrant smells?), etc, a virtual exhibit (or a real
exhibit of a virtual desert, or a real exhibit of a real desert)?
 
Or, is the notion of "virtual" exhibits/museums getting to be no longer
interesting? Was it ever interesting, or was it just an artifact of some
moment of linguistic lapse in the race between the hands and the mind?
 
And, what about the term "surrogate" in lieu of "virtual" for (some of)
the categories described by Jessica? Then, of course, we can ask --when is
something a surrogate, and when is it the "real things".
 
And then, can we call the collection which is stored back in the
cabinets and drawers, or call the digital representations of those objects
stored in a computerized data base, latent exhibits?
 
I guess what I'm asking, like I think Jessica is, are we getting any utility
from applying the term "virtual" to virtually everything?
Peter