I agree with your description of the museum experience, Eric.  "The real thing"
is just so much more exciting and awe-inspiring than pictures.  I agree that
books of pictures (or CD-ROMs of pictures) cannot begin to compare with seeing
art or artifacts myself.  However, I disagree with your conclusion.  I think
you and I are in something of the minority (after all, people who subscribe to
a museum list have more-than-average interest in museums).
 
I believe that the convenience of firing up the 486 will outweigh the real but
intangible aura of the museum experience.  Look at food--McDonald's et al., TV
dinners, microwave dinners, etc. can't compare with real cooking, but they are
flourishing nonetheless.  I've recently been working with old (1860-1940)
clothing and drooling over the quality of work and attention to detail that
even good department stores (much less K-Mart) don't even try to imitate.  Our
lives are filled with examples of convenience triumphing over quality of
experience.  I think virtual museums will, too.  Most people, I think, are
perfectly willing to substitute pictures of art for the real thing.  Until you
see some of the real thing, you don't realize how pitiful the reproduction
really was (I remember the first time I saw a genuine "old master" that I'd
seen in books many times--quite an eye-opener).  Yeah, I'm a terrible skeptic
and a profound pessimist, but I suspect there are plenty of people who are
satisfied with pictures of dinosaurs!
 
Robin
 
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Eric Siegel
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>           The thing that I find missing from this discussion of
>           virtual museums is a sense of "place." A principal
>           experience, for me,  in going to a museum is the pleasure I
>           get in *being* somewhere. I know that this same sensation is
>           a major impediment for many museum-goers, they find the
>           museum atmosphere daunting or otherwise off-putting (for
>           reasons of class, culture, etc.) But in any case, it is a
>           major component of the museum experience, with all of its
>           social, emotional, and cultural resonances. Those who
>           describe this experience as solely visual are simply not
>           paying attention to everything that goes on during a museum
>           visit.
>
>           And then there is the indescribable and complex aura that
>           surrounds an actual artifact, as distinct from a
>           representation. Everyone is familiar with the difference
>           between a book of pictures and a gallery of pictures. To me,
>           there is simply no comparison between the richness of the
>           experience in encountering an actual thing, and encountering
>           a representation of the thing.
>
>           I am pretty dubious about the value and future of "virtual
>           museums." I have visited many of these on the Web.  For the
>           most part, they are interesting and occasionally well done.
>           But the experience is more like watching a frustratingly
>           slow, ill-produced, and lo-rez documentary about the Louvre
>           than visiting the Louvre. (By the way, the Louvre web site
>           has a disclaimer saying that it is not connected to the
>           museum itself.)
>
>           The farther we move away from the primacy of the object and
>           the pleasure of the actual physical contact, the more we
>           enter into competition with other media such as movies,
>           edutainment CD-ROMS, etc, a competition in which I'm afraid
>           museums will come out the losers.
>
>           But, people seem in love with this conception, and alot of
>           good creative thinking is going into it, so maybe I'll be
>           pleasantly surprised.
>
>           Eric, who is sounding older every day.
>           [log in to unmask]
>
>