The physical and material quality of things is one that is sometimes viewed as unnecessary in today’s digital world, especially in the context of museums and humanities research. The Smithsonian’s X 3D project is an example of this. They have created a database of 3D digital models of various pieces of art, architecture, fossils, and even aircraft. The convenience of this is incredibly helpful for anyone doing research in these fields because it gives a good idea of what an object is like. This is much more convenient than having to travel to see it in person in a museum and more comprehensive than seeing a photograph. In some ways, a 3D digital model may even be better than seeing the actual object because the model is interactive and easily manipulated; you can zoom in and out to see different details and flip the model around, which would be impossible with a WW2 plane at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, for example.
That being said, there is definitely a disparity between digital and material objects that the convenience of digital objects cannot make up for. There is a memorable emotional impact that comes with seeing a famous historical or art piece that you would never get from seeing it online. Perhaps the fact that it isn’t easily accessible is part of what makes going to a museum and seeing the physical object more special. Being in the presence of the physical object also emphasizes the events and people associated with it. I had this experience while handling boxes from George P. Johnson’s collection, it was a powerful experience to hold his personal things from over 50 years ago. After reading so much about his life, the physical remnants had more meaning attached to them in a way that I don’t think digital representations of his collection would have.
The article “Do Museums Still Need Physical Objects?” reflected the opposite belief that materiality may not be as important and interestingly noted that museums have already shifted from being “crowded with stuff” to a more modernist approach(Conn 22). Museums today seek to display a carefully curated collection which is often associated with some narrative rather than to showcase as many things as possible. I also found this related to my experience of sifting through Johnson’s collection. It was overwhelming to make sense of all the newspaper clippings and financial reports, and while they are all valuable in some capacity to preserving the untold history of race film, it was difficult to figure out what was most important to display. Additionally, if I had just found these boxes in an attic somewhere and hadn’t known who or where it had come from, I likely wouldn’t think they were very significant. Therefore, in some ways, the physical object also relies on historical context in order to make its material quality important and interesting, as is especially evident in a well-curated museum.
Wow, what an interesting take on the physical and digital experiences we had with last week’s readings and UCLA Special Collections visit. I agree that there are certain aspects that the digital cannot capture and that only the physicality and materiality allow for a more emotional experience as well as greater connection and understanding. Having context is very important in deeming the significance of something and we are so fortunate to have interview transcriptions and notes by the collector himself with the items that were collected.
I like how you included the positive aspect of digitizing museums, such as for research and accessibility means. I agree though that physical materiality can hold a more special meaning because we get to hold the remnants of someone’s hard work. Your comment about how the lack of accessibility to museums may make the experience even more special stuck with me as I believe that that is why museums are so popular and important. It is important to be selective with what we decide to display as you said because the George P Johnson collection has so many materials to work with.