4 ms·

IMO museum curators should embrace that blurriness rather than fight it; it provides for interesting stories like the ones told in the article (I just love the

IMO museum curators should embrace that blurriness rather than fight it; it provides for interesting stories like the ones told in the article (I just love the party aftermath being cleaned up as rubbish); and that kind of misshappenstances at museums has become a trope all by itself. Science museums have certainly followed that route, and I think they're better for it; becoming interactive makes for better learning. For those really valuable objects that could be damaged by willing interaction, there should be some kind of physical protection anyway.

Freak_NL 10y ago
I'm not sure that the insurance companies would agree with that sentiment. :) Certainly, in such museums focussed on interactivity and a child-friendly experience, this is the (commendable) modus operandi, and it works exceptionally well. Contemporary artists and curators at modern art museums, however, seem to have been pushing for less physical demarcation around their exhibits. Ground covering installations are sometimes placed right in the path of visitors (who are often caught up in their imagination admiring some other piece of art), with no barrier or warning in place. With art installations that actually are intended to be interactive, I never feel comfortable interacting with them because of this air of ambiguity. Doesn't help that this may have very well been the artist's intent in the first place…