Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

Ah! Fair enough and thanks again for a great comment from an informed position.

So what you’re saying is, curators should be less conservators and more exhibitionists?

> 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.

> 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)

> 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?

Those are all things we can see. I'm asking about the many things that are forever locked in a backroom and you won't be allowed to see it.

I agree. If it only exists so that a select few can actually experience, it might as well not exist at all.

And don't kid yourself, those keepers and creators get full access as well as anyone they deem worthy enough. The rest of us will never be granted that access.

If it's privately funded, good. It affects me nil. But if they take public funds and lock up history or nature just so it can remain pristine for the wealthy or elite to enjoy, then I don't want to have to pay for it. Not that I have a choice in the matter either way.

I don’t know about museums near you, but most museums I’ve been to internationally are free to enter and to see most of their exhibits. They’ll often have much more in their collections than what’s on display, but they’re absolutely still a public good.

We also have a responsibility to preserve stuff from the past for future generations. As our ancestors have done for us.

Interesting idea of free museums. I can't think of one museum I've ever been to that did not require purchasing a ticket. Granted, in my limited travels abroad, it has been for work with no time for that kind of thing, so my experience is solely with museums in the US.

Many museums in the UK are nominally free (although they encourage a donation) and they charge for special exhibitions. A few in France are free. Can't speak to more broadly. (And, yes, free museums are pretty uncommon in the US although they exist--especially at universities, most of the Smithsonian Museums, and so forth.) Fairly broad experience even if it's often been in conjunction with work travel.

Have you never been to the Smithsonian in DC?

Most museums in the US charge admission, but have free days once in a while. Often every Tuesday or some such. I've also seen free days that go with local community events.

> So if people don't get to see it what is the point of preserving it.

That's assuming that the only point of museums is to exhibit the collection to the public. Certain museums—especially in archeology and the natural sciences—also exist to support researchers.

I'm reminded of the very final scene in Raider of the Lost Ark where the Ark is deposited into a giant government warehouse full of who knows what-all historical artifacts and such, everything in various sized crates, and the whole thing just gets closed up and forgotten about.

At least, that's how I remember it, but it's been a while.... I'll really have to go re-watch that actually.

> 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?

Yes. Especially a lot of older and mustier museums have very little in the way of explanation related to the exhibits.

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.

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.

> prefer a screen which offers more info

yes, this is a good use of digital; it enhances the physical exhibit rather than replace it

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?

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.