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.
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?
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.
By "this" I mean tangent, distraction, defensive dismissal, etc.
But we cannot jump to conclusions
Assuming it is not intentional, this behaviour suggests a high level of myopia (used here metaphorically to represent an apparent inability or perhaps unwillingness to contemplate life without computers)
HN submitters routinely submit stories that challenge this myopia. These stories routinely reach the HN front page
We can enjoy the entertainment of continual efforts by HN commenters to "change the subject"
> Don't be snarky.
> Edit out swipes.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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 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?
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.
yes, this is a good use of digital; it enhances the physical exhibit rather than replace it