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]