In Do Museums Still Need Objects, Steven Conn argues that as objects in museums gradually lost their visual and epistemological power, the professional aspects of museums themselves are also eclipsed by the expanding social roles. Although the niches for art objects in museums are vastly restricted during the modern times, according to Conn, he insists that the thrill of “being in the presence of real things” and seeing remains the most attractive attribute of art objects.
As much as I am inspired by the evolution of museums depicted by Conn, I found his last statement less convincing. By stressing the emotional satisfaction, namely the sense of involvement, in the museum-visiting experience, he simultaneously ignored the drawbacks of a physical trip, such as being swarmed by a huge crowd, forced to leave before viewing all the accessible objects, or simply tired to walk through five more floors of galleries.
Indeed these are not part of the major concern, as Conn’s topic is the importance of objects in a modern museum; yet after exploring Smithsonian’s X3D objects, some of the strengths of a digital museum become apparent. For example, the interactiveness of online objects offers a more impressive and convenient experience for visitors. It achieves a next level of physical accessibility, which used to be the main feature of real museum objects.
Relating to the debate over the concept of material, I feel more comfortable skipping the tricky definitions, and focusing on what the museum objects -virtual or real – deliver to the viewers. In this way, it is obvious that although the Smithsonian objects do not acquire physicality, they possess potential from its association with non-physical matter. Thus in this case the virtual objects are largely material: as ridiculous as it sounds, the online museum is capable of offering most of the functions of a real museum with a lot of additional capabilities. Of course, one of the shortcomings of a online museum is the lack of spatial expression: the visitors have difficulty understanding the relative scale of objects, and consequently have an incomplete viewing experience. However, with the development of VR technologies it can hopefully be resolved.
I appreciate that you mention some of the “drawbacks” to the experience of visiting a museum–such as crowds and the amount of time it takes to view all the objects–because I think it speaks to the primary advantage of the digital collection: accessibility. There are physical, financial, and social boundaries that can prevent people from visiting museums and, in many ways, the online exhibition of objects in the Smithsonian Collection allows a portion of the population, in the United States and abroad, to be able to experience the objects.
Thinking about Augmented Reality or Virtual Museums is a good point and definitely the logical extension of things like the 3D viewer. I was in the LA Natural History Museum last fall and they used 3D scanning to reproduce interactive displays of Peruvian burial sacks. It was interesting to watch people who were physically inside a museum interact with the digital component of a burial sack that was also in front of them. A lot of the time, because they were so busy looking at all of the other things around them, they spent minimal time interacting with the display. This is quite different than what you’re describing; it seems like by offering singular views of each item, you can keep and hold a prolonged engagement.
This was an insightful point of view. Thus far I have focused on the negatives of digital collections and their lack of authenticity. However, your blog post helps me to realize the many positives that also come with viewing a collection digitally. Crowds are definitely a huge drawback that can take away from your connection to the art.