In an athletic bit of back-pedalling, I also agree with Bob
that virtual visits and physical visits are apples and
oranges, so to speak. However, a little true to life
parable:
I am a musician in my other life, and studied composition in
college. I worked for years as a jazz musician, and as soon
as MIDI (musical instrument digital interface) became
available, I began using synthesizers. All my real
instrument friends decried synthesizers, they are lousy
substitutes for "real" instruments. I agreed then, and agree
now, and argued that they should not be compared with "real"
instruments, that they are instruments in and of
themselves with their own qualities. They should not be
compared to real instruments (I'll drop the quotation marks
now), and certainly should not replace the experience, for
the musician or the audience, of real instruments.
Several years later, I found myself with a major recording
setup with a dozen or so synthesizers and the whole regalia,
doing commercial music for television. The producers of
these major network spots (you've heard them, but never
noticed them) *always* said: I want more trumpet here, or
more drums there, or a violin in the other place. *Never*
did anyone recognize that these synthesizers are instruments
in themselves, and are terrible imitators. And, believe me,
a good chunk of what you think of as drums, trumpets, and
violins in music you hear today is synthesized.
At the same time, "real" musicians are starving, and most
people have dumbed down their ears so that synthesized
instruments stand for real instruments. An important element
of real hearing is rapidly being lost due to this process.
As an entirely separate argument, once we remove the actual
stuff that the museum has to present, and the actual
physical space, then we are competing with the entertainment
industry, on their own turf. I can't imagine exactly how
that competition will turn out, but it certainly tends to
blur the line between Disney and the museum.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
