5 ms·

I’m confused who this is for. It’s not the same experience seeing art online. Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and

I’m confused who this is for. It’s not the same experience seeing art online. Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space. It puts you in a different mindset where you can wander, ponder, and appreciate. I’m no Luddite but a digital experience simply can’t recreate that, at least not today.

itisit 6y ago
Short of booking a ticket to Paris and taxiing to the museum, this is a fine way to explore the collection.
arvinsim 6y ago
I guess that's why they did it? Because people who want the real experience will still go in person. As such, they aren't really losing any customers.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  The Louvre is a state owned museum. It’s purpose is not to sell tickets, but to disseminate culture. The purpose of the tickets is limiting the visitors to a number that can fit in the building. If many people opt to look at the works online and not in person, the Louvre can reduce the ticket prices without increasing the number of visitors and this would be considered a _success_.
  - dmje 6y ago
    Hmm, sorta. Depending on the country, museums are usually financially supported by both private individuals and the state. Many museums rely on physical visitors to pay ticket prices either for entry or for temporary exhibitions. Also visitor numbers are quite often the metric of success by which funding can then be sought. So yeh, there's some limiting because of space / damage to artworks etc but on the whole museums want more visitors both physical and online.
- dmje 6y ago
  Yeh. I've spent years working with museums online and encouraging them to be more open about what they do - digital experiences enhance their standing in many ways. Partly it's access, partly marketing, partly education. And yes, the more people know about thing X online, the more likely that will "convert" to real physical visits to the organisation, which is normally the primary metric by which they guage success.
kgeist 6y ago
I don't plan to go to Paris in the near future due to lack of time but being able to view it online allows me to "wander, ponder, and appreciate" at least to some extent
- sn_master 6y ago
  I don't plan to go to Paris because I don't want to become another victim of the Paris Syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    I think Stendhal syndrome is more likely. If you appreciate art and architecture, anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
    - sn_master 6y ago
      I do, but I don't appreciate people snickering at me because I don't know their language, or illegal sketchy figures trying to scam me because I am a tourist.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    I was having a good laugh at your link and then I was like.. Uh this is Wikipedia, they don't do jokes. So this is an actual thing. Lol. And yeah Paris has its nice areas but like most cities in the world it's also overcrowded (try the RER A at rush hour - pre corona), dirty, has its dark sides, and is suffering greatly from mass-tourism. Most Parisians I know are not very happy. I go there a lot. Really I think there's much better places to visit, like Barcelona. Which is suffering from the same flaws but I find it a bit more accessible. But visiting Paris for the first time was not a culture shock for me at all. However I grew up 800km from Paris. I suppose someone from a totally different culture on the other side of the world might have an idealised view. Especially if they paid a relative fortune to visit it. Still... It sounds a bit overblown :P There's many movies that show Paris quite realistically, I don't think anyone truly interested would not pick up on that.
julienreszka 6y ago
That's exactly their point. Even a digital collection doesn't replace the experience of visiting the museum.
irrational 6y ago
I will never go to Paris, so this is the only way I could ever experience it.
misterkrabs 6y ago
I think I kind of understand the Truth that you're getting at - from a similar point of view, aren't artists usually particular about the medium that their art is presented in? because the medium can cause the work of art to have a different effect on the audience. [1] In any case, it's certainly no substitute for the real thing (but I'm sure everyone kind of understands that). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-mediums-of-art https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-mediu...
ramraj07 6y ago
You literally satisfy the definition of a Luddite to a T, perhaps not in the most negative way, but some way nonetheless.
- dang 6y ago
  You can't do this here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.
cambalache 6y ago
> Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space. This is true in theory, in practice you will meet arrogant and unhelpful museum guides, tons upon tons of people not respecting all the basic rules (no flash, be relatively quite, etc) and a labyrinthine place which can give you anxiety if you are just visiting one day and want to see as much as possible. I went there like 8 years ago in very low season I cannot imagine how it would be today in a post-covid summer with all the instagramers and tik-tokers. So in the meantime I would enjoy all those marvels a my leisure pace in my computer. There are million of things we cannot experience directly and they are still worthwhile to see in original or imagined illustrations, from celestial bodies to ancient civilizations.
- ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
  Well said; awesome username!
  - cambalache 6y ago
    "Que el mundo fue y sera una porqueria..."
sn_master 6y ago
I know what you're saying. I used to think digital was everything until my first museum visit (Dublin museum), and it changed my mind when I could lean in and look at each individual brush stroke, and the related paintings next to one another, and even the chatter of people around me. The chatter and humming of people around, by itself was worth going to the museum, seeing how fathers describe the items to their children, and how sophisticated-looking folks talk and such. It was a magnificent experience that nothing compares to it in the digital world (yet).
dmje 6y ago
There are multiple audiences for museum collections in the flesh, and multiple audiences for online collections, too. It's not and never has been "real" Vs "virtual". Well, to be fair this was a concern in the very early days when museums thought a virtual visit would jeopardise a real one - but not for years now... So yes, nothing makes up for the visceral experience of seeing real art and heritage face to face but if you can't get there or are a researcher or school teacher or artist looking at historical techniques or...[insert many other use cases here], online collections play a hugely valuable role. Plus of course, art like this is often paid for by the state and so the public "owns" it and should get the widest possible access to it.
chevill 6y ago
Its an amazing resource for people studying art or people teaching art. Its a different experience than seeing it in person. However, there are benefits to both. I've seen gigapixel scans of some of the greatest paintings in history that let you zoom in on the tiniest details and see the brush strokes, the texture of the dried paint, the cracks and aging, etc. For some of the same pictures if I saw it in person I'd be a dozen feet or so away from it because its too valuable to let people get close. Entire objects are virtually invisible viewing some paintings in person. One of the ways that budding artists rapidly improve is by copying the works of master artists as a study. It should be pretty clear how this tool might be useful to them. >Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space. Architecture is great, but what makes the Louvre special is the caliber of their art collection. Some people will never be able to afford to see it in person. Why not let those people appreciate the art from afar? Even if a person can afford to go on an expensive vacation, there's a million breathtaking places to visit in the world. One can't visit them all.
- specialist 6y ago
  Exactly. Putting these collections is a boon. My partner does fine art painting (portraits, still life), and has created many a master copy. Many times actually working in a museum every day with all the gear for weeks. (Patrons love this novelty.) We've ordered many a high quality print selected from online collections for further study.

itisit 6y ago

Short of booking a ticket to Paris and taxiing to the museum, this is a fine way to explore the collection.

arvinsim 6y ago

I guess that's why they did it? Because people who want the real experience will still go in person. As such, they aren't really losing any customers.

occamrazor 6y ago
The Louvre is a state owned museum. It’s purpose is not to sell tickets, but to disseminate culture. The purpose of the tickets is limiting the visitors to a number that can fit in the building. If many people opt to look at the works online and not in person, the Louvre can reduce the ticket prices without increasing the number of visitors and this would be considered a _success_.
- dmje 6y ago
  Hmm, sorta. Depending on the country, museums are usually financially supported by both private individuals and the state. Many museums rely on physical visitors to pay ticket prices either for entry or for temporary exhibitions. Also visitor numbers are quite often the metric of success by which funding can then be sought. So yeh, there's some limiting because of space / damage to artworks etc but on the whole museums want more visitors both physical and online.
dmje 6y ago
Yeh. I've spent years working with museums online and encouraging them to be more open about what they do - digital experiences enhance their standing in many ways. Partly it's access, partly marketing, partly education. And yes, the more people know about thing X online, the more likely that will "convert" to real physical visits to the organisation, which is normally the primary metric by which they guage success.

kgeist 6y ago

I don't plan to go to Paris in the near future due to lack of time but being able to view it online allows me to "wander, ponder, and appreciate" at least to some extent

sn_master 6y ago
I don't plan to go to Paris because I don't want to become another victim of the Paris Syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome
- yesenadam 6y ago
  I think Stendhal syndrome is more likely. If you appreciate art and architecture, anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
  - sn_master 6y ago
    I do, but I don't appreciate people snickering at me because I don't know their language, or illegal sketchy figures trying to scam me because I am a tourist.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  I was having a good laugh at your link and then I was like.. Uh this is Wikipedia, they don't do jokes. So this is an actual thing. Lol. And yeah Paris has its nice areas but like most cities in the world it's also overcrowded (try the RER A at rush hour - pre corona), dirty, has its dark sides, and is suffering greatly from mass-tourism. Most Parisians I know are not very happy. I go there a lot. Really I think there's much better places to visit, like Barcelona. Which is suffering from the same flaws but I find it a bit more accessible. But visiting Paris for the first time was not a culture shock for me at all. However I grew up 800km from Paris. I suppose someone from a totally different culture on the other side of the world might have an idealised view. Especially if they paid a relative fortune to visit it. Still... It sounds a bit overblown :P There's many movies that show Paris quite realistically, I don't think anyone truly interested would not pick up on that.

julienreszka 6y ago

That's exactly their point. Even a digital collection doesn't replace the experience of visiting the museum.

irrational 6y ago

I will never go to Paris, so this is the only way I could ever experience it.

misterkrabs 6y ago

I think I kind of understand the Truth that you're getting at - from a similar point of view, aren't artists usually particular about the medium that their art is presented in? because the medium can cause the work of art to have a different effect on the audience. [1] In any case, it's certainly no substitute for the real thing (but I'm sure everyone kind of understands that). [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-mediums-of-art https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-mediu...

ramraj07 6y ago

You literally satisfy the definition of a Luddite to a T, perhaps not in the most negative way, but some way nonetheless.

dang 6y ago
You can't do this here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.

cambalache 6y ago

> Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space. This is true in theory, in practice you will meet arrogant and unhelpful museum guides, tons upon tons of people not respecting all the basic rules (no flash, be relatively quite, etc) and a labyrinthine place which can give you anxiety if you are just visiting one day and want to see as much as possible. I went there like 8 years ago in very low season I cannot imagine how it would be today in a post-covid summer with all the instagramers and tik-tokers. So in the meantime I would enjoy all those marvels a my leisure pace in my computer. There are million of things we cannot experience directly and they are still worthwhile to see in original or imagined illustrations, from celestial bodies to ancient civilizations.

ezequiel-garzon 6y ago
Well said; awesome username!
- cambalache 6y ago
  "Que el mundo fue y sera una porqueria..."

sn_master 6y ago

I know what you're saying. I used to think digital was everything until my first museum visit (Dublin museum), and it changed my mind when I could lean in and look at each individual brush stroke, and the related paintings next to one another, and even the chatter of people around me. The chatter and humming of people around, by itself was worth going to the museum, seeing how fathers describe the items to their children, and how sophisticated-looking folks talk and such. It was a magnificent experience that nothing compares to it in the digital world (yet).

dmje 6y ago

There are multiple audiences for museum collections in the flesh, and multiple audiences for online collections, too. It's not and never has been "real" Vs "virtual". Well, to be fair this was a concern in the very early days when museums thought a virtual visit would jeopardise a real one - but not for years now... So yes, nothing makes up for the visceral experience of seeing real art and heritage face to face but if you can't get there or are a researcher or school teacher or artist looking at historical techniques or...[insert many other use cases here], online collections play a hugely valuable role. Plus of course, art like this is often paid for by the state and so the public "owns" it and should get the widest possible access to it.

chevill 6y ago

Its an amazing resource for people studying art or people teaching art. Its a different experience than seeing it in person. However, there are benefits to both. I've seen gigapixel scans of some of the greatest paintings in history that let you zoom in on the tiniest details and see the brush strokes, the texture of the dried paint, the cracks and aging, etc. For some of the same pictures if I saw it in person I'd be a dozen feet or so away from it because its too valuable to let people get close. Entire objects are virtually invisible viewing some paintings in person. One of the ways that budding artists rapidly improve is by copying the works of master artists as a study. It should be pretty clear how this tool might be useful to them. >Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space. Architecture is great, but what makes the Louvre special is the caliber of their art collection. Some people will never be able to afford to see it in person. Why not let those people appreciate the art from afar? Even if a person can afford to go on an expensive vacation, there's a million breathtaking places to visit in the world. One can't visit them all.

specialist 6y ago
Exactly. Putting these collections is a boon. My partner does fine art painting (portraits, still life), and has created many a master copy. Many times actually working in a museum every day with all the gear for weeks. (Patrons love this novelty.) We've ordered many a high quality print selected from online collections for further study.