You wrote:
>
> 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]
>
I think that Eric's general point is certainly true: ain't nothing like
the real thing. The issue that museums should be addressing with the
new technologies, it seems to me, is how to reach people who cannot or
do not have access to the real thing and who do not need it at least in
the short term. A prosaic example from another technology: for years
before I actually saw the Mona Lisa in person, I had seen the painting
in a art history books and other printed reproductions. Did these
experiences compare to seeing the painting in real life? Of course not,
but they were better than never seeing it at all. I think it verges on
the arrogant for museums to insist that people MUST see the real stuff
or not at all. Why is access on the Net to reproductions any different
than access in my library, bookstore, or poster shop?
I feel this especially strongly because I lead a history museum. Why
should children in poor neighborhoods without easy access to my
institution be denied access to our collections and exhibitions through
computers in schools and public libraries. As I know Eric realizes, the
position he lines out is a luxury that can be afforded only by certain
members of society.
In the best of all possible worlds, WWW and other technologies that I
hope to use in our museum will do two things: they will provide initial
access to our collections to people who would be denied such access
altogether without the technology and they will serve as a sort of "loss
leader" to show people what we have and encourage them to see the real
stuff. My college art history text had that effect on me; why should
reproduction via new technologies be any different?
Doug
--
Douglas Greenberg Phone:312 642 5035
President and Director Fax:312 266 2077 or 312 642 1199
Chicago Historical Society e-mAIL: [log in to unmask]
1601 North Clark St. [log in to unmask]
Chicago Il 60614 [log in to unmask]
|
