I never understood the benefit of public museums, especially in the internet age.
If you want to look at some artifacts without touching it, you could google it and see it.
Also in public museums a lot of artifacts get damaged due to visitors behaviors.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the old artifacts at storage facility and release a high quality pictures of it instead of putting it in a museum?
Is there is a benefit for public museums?
You must log in or register to comment.
No.
It doesn’t matter how hi-res photos are. Seeing the real thing is a different and essential experience.
For instance, I was in the Met in NYC last year, and just happened to walk into a room that contains one of Henry VIII’s suits of battle armor. This is as close as I can ever be to meeting that historical figure, and I get to see in real dimensions how big and tall he was, and appreciate the worksmanship of his smiths.
The met also has some rebuilt rooms from historical places, such as Roman temples, and a photo can’t replace those things. A photo cannot give you the experience of standing in a Roman temple.
Definitely agree. I had zero interest in sculpture until I walked into the Louvre and d’Orsay museums in Paris. I was transfixed by the sculptures there. Specifically the Winged Victory of Samothrace, the Rape of Persephone, and the Venus de Milo.
As in staring at each piece for nearly an hour, unable to imagine how the artist got that out of stone. It blew my mind, and the memory of it still does.
I don’t care how good your photos are, or whatever visualisation technology you’re using, nothing - absolutely nothing - compares to standing in the same room as the real thing.
Conversely, being in the same room as the Mona Lisa was unexpectedly disappointing. It’s so small and hard to see with 800 fellow tourists crammed into the viewing room. That probably is better examined online, though seeing it in person is an experience.
The Sistine Chapel is also something worth seeing in person. You can’t judge the scale from photos.
The same applies to pictures of hikes. Sure you can take a nice panorama but that doesn’t do justice to actually being there.
Absolutely. If you haven’t seen Washington Crossing the Deleware in person, you simply haven’t experienced it properly. You don’t get the sense of scale on the internet. Same with the Louvre, d’Orsay or any other world-class museum. Even local museums like the Columbia Maritime Museum in Astoria OR has exhibits and stories that really require that intimate exposure to be engrossed in the information. It transforms your reception to the exhibits and cannot be replicated virtually.
Absolutely. If you haven’t seen Washington Crossing the Deleware in person, you simply haven’t experienced it properly
100%
And that god-awful frame they constructed for it, haha.
The Met is awesome, you can’t even see everything in one day.
The Rijks Museum in Amsterdam was huge. Couldn’t get though it all ina visit.
Same goes for the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Oh! And Berlin’s Museum Island is a wonder of the world. Just so much to see.
How does it com0are to the Vatican Museum?
I don’t know enough about those to comment. I have not been there yet.
Given how much history and artifacts the Vatican can assemble, they’re likely on the same scale, if on differing topics.
If you’re looking for religious artifact collections, the Bode in Berlin has a huge collection. It’s very deep for Christian iconography, as well as later paintings and sculpture. They also have some Greek materials. If you want Roman sculpture the Altes Museum (especially the rotunda) is phenomenal.
Of course the British Museum is just frakkin amazing end to end. When I was trying to navigate there (I was a bit lost) and wondered what the cluster of people were looking at next to me, and it turned out to be THE Rosetta Stone, holy shit. Worth the trip.
True. An incredible experience.
Um, what’s the point of sex, when you have porn? What’s the point of concerts, when you have recorded music?
Ok, sorry that was snarky.
Recordings and pictures are important, but they are not the real thing. Public museums let people see, with their own eyes, art, in person. Is it essential? I don’t know. But it is a public good
Also in public museums a lot of artifacts get damaged due to visitors behaviors.
This isn’t a thing.
Oh my god, you sweet, Summer child…
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/antonio-canova-sculpture-damaged-italy-1202696024/
https://mauramcgurk.com/blog/365-days-art-january-22-museum-visitor-accidentally-damages-picasso/
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/07/arts/museum-visitor-damages-a-rembrandt.html
Now how many exhibits are there? Examples of damage would be 0.0001% at most, so not a thing.
You probably haven’t visited a good museum in a long time. You really should. The way they present some exhibitions is really informative and often also interactive. It’s very memorable and interesting. Wikipedia just isn’t the same and often doesn’t even have the right presentation or lacks information to get the points across.
If I could give you one advice: go look proactively for a reasonably large museum that aligns with your interests. You’ll be surprised how fun and informative it is.
Paintings are fascinating.
There is a luminescence in the paint and texture that cannot be duplicated on a screen or page.
I didn’t really understand this myself until I attended a showing at the local museum of some rennaissance era artwork. It’s stunning, and the photographs do not do it justice.
I love science museums. The ones I’ve been to let you do practical activities that a YouTube video wouldn’t do justice. They also usually have a diner and it’s just nice to go out with some friends to a science museum and chill out!
I am a huge fan of Salvador Dalí. While visiting Florida I went to the Dali museum. I saw paintings I never knew existed. Saw paintings I had seen in print and digitally multiple times, and they looked so different in person. Sometimes you cannot comprehend how large or how small a painting is unless you see it in person. Melting clocks & Gala’s bare breast/10 would visit again.
What’s the benefit of leaving your house?
I live just a few miles from Crystal Bridges, which is world class art museum founded by Alice Walton. They don’t charge any admission since they’re funded by a pretty hefty endowment. It’s a really cool place.
Seeing a photograph of a painting is a far cry from seeing the actual painting. If for no other reason than a photograph is two dimensional. It’s a little harder to appreciate art that someone made with their own hands two centuries ago when you can’t see the texture or the defects. Not even in a really high quality photo. It’s just not the same.
And you don’t touch the paintings because there are security guards everywhere who have no problem reminding you to not touch the paintings.
I wondered and have asked about this as well.
There are some things you have to be there to understand though.
Sense of scale
The Night Watch in Amsterdam is enormous. It’s awesome inspiring to stand before it.
A place for teenagers to go on dates.
Honestly, it is a great date place! I took my now wife to one many years ago. It was great as it gives you topics to talk about when you first start getting to know each other past “how was work/school/weekend?” Type of questions. Same with movies. Quality time where the surroundings will do a lot of the heavy lifting. 2h of not talking and then you discuss the movie. You spend an hour of having to use your social battery on a 3h of together time.
Have you ever been to Disney World, at Ripley’s Believe It Or Not, and had your photo taken next to a real shrunken human head at age 5?
I have. I still have the photo around somewhere too.
Creepy shit yo, and I’m almost 1000% certain it was the real deal. You better bet your ass nobody was about to touch that thing.
At Disney World no less…
