4 ms·

I had a (now defunct) startup in this space some years ago. Maybe I can help shed some light on why things are the way they are. 1. Money. Most museums have no

by elric 1y ago

I had a (now defunct) startup in this space some years ago. Maybe I can help shed some light on why things are the way they are. 1. Money. Most museums have no money. They either run on donations, on subsidies, or at the whim of wealthy patrons. They are very costly to run, especially the big ones. They are often in prime real estate areas, many require tight climate control, many also require specialised lighting to protect art etc. 2. Curators often see "taking care" of the exhibits as more important than actually exhibiting them. Not to mention they're often art/history majors with very little clue about anything digital. 3. Because museums are often subsidised, many of them are required to go through public tender procedures to get anything done. Because this is a huge pain for everyone involved, the results are often shit, as it attracts a certain kind of company to do the work. One of the tenders my startup looked at involved not only supplying the hardware and software for an interactive exhibit, but also the lighting and reinforced glass casings for various items. This was not our cup of tea, and the tender would subtract points for using subcontractors... Personally I'm not interested in museums that are just glass cases with stuff without any explanation. Maybe a little paper legend is sufficient, but I actually prefer a screen which offers more info in the form of adio or video in multiple languages. Depending on the exhibit, 3D printed replicas can be great as well.

BryantD 1y ago
Good feedback. I wouldn't put "taking care" in quotes, however; my wife is a former museum worker and has graduate degrees in the field, and preservation is a key part of the role. Exhibits aren't just for the now, they're for the future. People would love to sit in the cockpit of the Bockscar bomber (little bit morbid, but true); allowing that would result in serious damage over time. This is less important for educational spaces like the one the OP describes -- strictly speaking, science museums often aren't museums in the classical sense. Preservation is less important there, although not unimportant.
- elric 1y ago
  Oh I didn't put it in quotes out of disdain or anything, more because I couldn't think of a better description. Preservation sounds better indeed.
  - BryantD 1y ago
    Ah! Fair enough and thanks again for a great comment from an informed position.
- xeonmc 1y ago
  So what you’re saying is, curators should be less conservators and more exhibitionists?
devmor 1y ago
> Personally I'm not interested in museums that are just glass cases with stuff without any explanation. I am not sure why you mentioned this, because it has nothing to do with the subject article. This was a very specific article about interactive, hands-on museums replacing their exhibits with touch screens. That being said, I have also been to countless museums of many kind and I have never once seen a museum that did not explain what the exhibits were. Have you actually seen this anywhere, or was this hyperbole?
- ghaff 1y ago
  Yes. Especially a lot of older and mustier museums have very little in the way of explanation related to the exhibits.
- tropdrop 1y ago
  I know of one that "doesn't explain" the exhibits (except through an app/website where you match things hanging on walls with diagrams) – the Isabella Gardner museum in Boston; this is specifically due to the wishes of Isabella Gardner herself, who was opposed to plaques. There is one room that breaks this rule – I'm guessing it got damaged and then at that point they didn't have to follow her will. Still worth a visit for the garden, the Titian, lots besides.
  - ghaff 1y ago
    I figured the Gardner was probably in this category but I haven't been there for a while and it wasn't obvious from online.
testaccount28 1y ago
i'm confused. in what way is this a response to the article? the article laments the sidelining of physical exhibits, in favor of software. you respond that the screens probably have an arduous and expensive procurement process. what's going on here?
- dylan604 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - octo888 1y ago
    Guidelines: > Don't be snarky. > Edit out swipes.
  - mepiethree 1y ago
    I don’t see the value in condescending here. I think the person you’re responding to highlighted an interesting question/point of confusion of whether digital exhibits are on average more or less expensive than physical exhibits in both the short and long term.
- watersb 1y ago
  I inferred that a museum exhibit setup might be a package put together by a contractor. And the contract selection process might put a relatively low priority on amount of screen tech in the package. Museum might get locked into a vendor tech support package after procuring a digital-display-heavy exhibit. Oh joy.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - stronglikedan 1y ago
    It's called a conversation, and yes, those happen here on HN.
jmkd 1y ago
> 2. Curators often see "taking care" of the exhibits as more important than actually exhibiting them. Not to mention they're often art/history majors with very little clue about anything digital. Museum curators used to be called keepers and this only changed in the mid-late twentieth century. The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the museum is closed to the public. Curators tend to make exhibits and displays that appeal to their own scholarly reference points. You need a different role - interpretation - to literally interpret this scholarship into what the public might be interested in. Few museums can afford to apply the lens of interpretation, so for the most part we are stuck with what curators think and its limited crossover with what the public want.
- bluGill 1y ago
  > The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the museum is closed to the public. Which gets back to the question - why does/should the public support a museum. If we can't see it why are we keeping it? Even with our best preservation things will be destroyed over/with time, some things quicker than others. So if people don't get to see it what is the point of preserving it. Museum backrooms are filled with things that they can't afford to preserve/restore, and so they are slowly being lost without anyone even able to see them in the mean time. Curators hate this reality, but they have to priorities the important things. I want things they can never preserve anyway sold the highest bidder, at least that way one person can enjoy it, we can use the proceeds to preserve something else. Plus part of the value to a rich person is showing off so there is a better chance someone will see it. (if there is no bigger that proves we don't value it. Even if future society would it won't make it to them anyway so may as well trash it now and stop pretending)
  - dylan604 1y ago
    > If we can't see it why are we keeping it? Does one get any better sense of something from seeing the original something vs a replica of the something? Does looking at the "original" copy of the constitution under all that glass do anything different than a replica under all of that glass? Would seeing the actual David statue impart any more anything than seeing a replica of it? If you say yes, why do you think any of that is the actual thing and not a replica? Just because they say so?
insane_dreamer 1y ago
> prefer a screen which offers more info yes, this is a good use of digital; it enhances the physical exhibit rather than replace it

by elric 1y ago

BryantD 1y ago

Good feedback. I wouldn't put "taking care" in quotes, however; my wife is a former museum worker and has graduate degrees in the field, and preservation is a key part of the role. Exhibits aren't just for the now, they're for the future. People would love to sit in the cockpit of the Bockscar bomber (little bit morbid, but true); allowing that would result in serious damage over time. This is less important for educational spaces like the one the OP describes -- strictly speaking, science museums often aren't museums in the classical sense. Preservation is less important there, although not unimportant.

elric 1y ago
Oh I didn't put it in quotes out of disdain or anything, more because I couldn't think of a better description. Preservation sounds better indeed.
- BryantD 1y ago
  Ah! Fair enough and thanks again for a great comment from an informed position.
xeonmc 1y ago
So what you’re saying is, curators should be less conservators and more exhibitionists?

devmor 1y ago

> Personally I'm not interested in museums that are just glass cases with stuff without any explanation. I am not sure why you mentioned this, because it has nothing to do with the subject article. This was a very specific article about interactive, hands-on museums replacing their exhibits with touch screens. That being said, I have also been to countless museums of many kind and I have never once seen a museum that did not explain what the exhibits were. Have you actually seen this anywhere, or was this hyperbole?

ghaff 1y ago
Yes. Especially a lot of older and mustier museums have very little in the way of explanation related to the exhibits.
tropdrop 1y ago
I know of one that "doesn't explain" the exhibits (except through an app/website where you match things hanging on walls with diagrams) – the Isabella Gardner museum in Boston; this is specifically due to the wishes of Isabella Gardner herself, who was opposed to plaques. There is one room that breaks this rule – I'm guessing it got damaged and then at that point they didn't have to follow her will. Still worth a visit for the garden, the Titian, lots besides.
- ghaff 1y ago
  I figured the Gardner was probably in this category but I haven't been there for a while and it wasn't obvious from online.

testaccount28 1y ago

i'm confused. in what way is this a response to the article? the article laments the sidelining of physical exhibits, in favor of software. you respond that the screens probably have an arduous and expensive procurement process. what's going on here?

dylan604 1y ago
[flagged]
- octo888 1y ago
  Guidelines: > Don't be snarky. > Edit out swipes.
- mepiethree 1y ago
  I don’t see the value in condescending here. I think the person you’re responding to highlighted an interesting question/point of confusion of whether digital exhibits are on average more or less expensive than physical exhibits in both the short and long term.
watersb 1y ago
I inferred that a museum exhibit setup might be a package put together by a contractor. And the contract selection process might put a relatively low priority on amount of screen tech in the package. Museum might get locked into a vendor tech support package after procuring a digital-display-heavy exhibit. Oh joy.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
[flagged]
- stronglikedan 1y ago
  It's called a conversation, and yes, those happen here on HN.

jmkd 1y ago

> 2. Curators often see "taking care" of the exhibits as more important than actually exhibiting them. Not to mention they're often art/history majors with very little clue about anything digital. Museum curators used to be called keepers and this only changed in the mid-late twentieth century. The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the museum is closed to the public. Curators tend to make exhibits and displays that appeal to their own scholarly reference points. You need a different role - interpretation - to literally interpret this scholarship into what the public might be interested in. Few museums can afford to apply the lens of interpretation, so for the most part we are stuck with what curators think and its limited crossover with what the public want.

bluGill 1y ago
> The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the museum is closed to the public. Which gets back to the question - why does/should the public support a museum. If we can't see it why are we keeping it? Even with our best preservation things will be destroyed over/with time, some things quicker than others. So if people don't get to see it what is the point of preserving it. Museum backrooms are filled with things that they can't afford to preserve/restore, and so they are slowly being lost without anyone even able to see them in the mean time. Curators hate this reality, but they have to priorities the important things. I want things they can never preserve anyway sold the highest bidder, at least that way one person can enjoy it, we can use the proceeds to preserve something else. Plus part of the value to a rich person is showing off so there is a better chance someone will see it. (if there is no bigger that proves we don't value it. Even if future society would it won't make it to them anyway so may as well trash it now and stop pretending)
- dylan604 1y ago
  > If we can't see it why are we keeping it? Does one get any better sense of something from seeing the original something vs a replica of the something? Does looking at the "original" copy of the constitution under all that glass do anything different than a replica under all of that glass? Would seeing the actual David statue impart any more anything than seeing a replica of it? If you say yes, why do you think any of that is the actual thing and not a replica? Just because they say so?

insane_dreamer 1y ago

> prefer a screen which offers more info yes, this is a good use of digital; it enhances the physical exhibit rather than replace it