This week’s readings raised some interesting issues. Admittedly, I had never given much thought to the level of engagement that museums offered. I have had the opportunity to visit a lot of museums in many different locations and I don’t know that I can pinpoint that one thing that made something a “good” museum versus what made another a “bad” museum. Some of my favorites have been the ones that encouraged a great deal of interactivity while others fall in line with the “don’t touch, just look” attitude. The “bad” museums don’t really share anything in common. I think the difficulty that most museums face falls in trying to incorporate too much into exhibits and overshadowing not only the significance of the artifact or event that they are trying to preserve, but also overwhelming the visitor with SO much information that they cannot possibly take it all in.
Where the arguments in the readings were largely against the status quo of current museum practices, I don’t know that throwing the old way out completely is the best course of action. In attempting to correct the dichotomy between the temple and the forum, there seems to be a tendency to swing too far to the other extreme. Silverman and O’Neill note that there has been a competition between museums as tools for learning and museums as a means of preservation. It would seem that somewhere between the two would be the best utilization of a museum, but that concept wouldn’t include Black’s argument for museums as a tool of civil engagement or elements of the social participation that Simon’s article covered. Attempting to be all things to all people will inevitably leave someone out.
Sorry I didn’t get this posted before class yesterday.