The readings for today raised a lot of questions, and also illustrated the diverse ways in which museums are publishing on the internet. I find it interesting how the internet allows for radically new forms of engagement, while also providing a place for museums to perpetuate the same sorts of engagement that they do within a museum setting. E-publishing platforms are simultaneously democratizing and controlling.
For example, the Met’s attempt to make their collection freely available to global publics, which may not be able to access the collection otherwise, is a noble goal. At the same time in doing this the Met is perpetuating traditional art historical narratives (i.e. the art history timeline). Additionally, publishing platforms like the Walker’s are amazing examples of how museums can situate their exhibitions and objects in a broader network of intersecting values and theoretical concerns. Yet at the same time, the museum is responsible for selecting and publishing materials that align with their own ideologies without providing a space for dialogue or external voices with opinions that challenge the museum. However, do the downsides of these digital publishing practices mean that museums should not create these digital platforms?? Do the pros out weigh the cons?
However, my analysis of these digital platforms is very binary. I think the Walker’s site provides a good starting place of what an institution’s online presence can be: a place where ideas can be exchanged and connected between art scholars and public audiences, and where audiences can be exposed to perspectives beyond the museum. I do agree with the author Orit Gat, that museum’s should invest in creating more digital platforms which aim to foster public engagement and dialogue. Perhaps one way to create meaningful dialogue, would be to post a series of related articles/essays/materials then host some sort of online event, in which people could engage in real-time?
I haven’t really thought about this, but now that you mention it, the museum’s stance and role in the blogosphere is quite concerning. Not only are they allowing access to a more diverse and varied global audience, they are also publishing and disseminating narratives with authority. Their ideologies may not be in sync with the many cultures and can often clash. And there’s also the issue with comments. Not many museum blogs have an open dialogue in the comments section making it hard to measure whether the articles are being read or not and how they are received. Museums really do need to take the task of fostering an environment where open dialogue is welcome and encouraged.
Your post really brought to light the issues with museums entering the digital space. With them holding a type of authority in portraying history, I can see how it would be very easy for them to be perpetuating their own interpretation of the past, rather than to have guests be able to form their own opinions. Perhaps, like you said, a real-time approach can be developed for guests visiting the website in order to encourage public discourse.
I love the idea of having a space for articles to be posted about particular objects. Opening a forum like this will be able to extend the educational role of museums. This idea will also aid researchers in their work by creating a single platform that has access to multiple perspectives.