Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

sethpurcell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 404 posts

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#191

Post by alistairSH »

CrazyStat wrote: post #157
kleiba wrote: post #94

There is an incredible pressure on a lot of public facing endeavors to include digital , no matter whether it makes any sense at all or not. Take education, for instance - if it weren't such an important topic, it would be almost comical to observe how our schools are trying to jump through hoops to cram more IT into the classroom. (I wish the people responsible would take a look at Scandinavia though, where they are…

My wife and I toured our neighborhood public elementary school a couple years ago. Almost every classroom we passed the kids were staring at their chromebooks, even in the art room—digital art, I guess [1]. In the music room the kids were sitting at rows of desks with electronic keyboards and headphones while the teacher sat at the front of the class and gave them instructions through a microphone (to be heard throug…

Silly aside: "digital art" is the means by which you legally "buy" weed in DC. You pay for the "art" and they "gift" you a box of special brownies or a joint.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#192

Post by adzm »

I'll take this opportunity to suggest some great places I've found.

The Corning Glass Museum is free (!!) and has both great art and great science, several interactive exhibits, and lots of information about glass and its history and application.

Interactive art exhibits like Otherworld! (and Meowwolf maybe? I have not been to it, but I hear it is a similar idea) It has a whole storyline, various rooms with different 'exhibits'. Classic physical art, puppets, electronics, a space invaders arcade game that is broken but then you realize you can climb under the arcade game and through a tunnel into a room where you can play _for real_ while space invaders drop from the ceiling, etc.

There are a lot of these neat things around.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#193

Post by ghaff »

incone123 wrote: post #182
card_zero wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken if you got the impression that the museum once had guides. This isn't a recent trend, so far as I know it's been delightfully free from tour guides since 1881. You had to buy tickets prior to 2001, so that's changed. (Was entry free in its early history too? Not sure.) That used to be your greeting, the ticket desk. They had an earthquake machine in 1985, it must be the same one.

The NHM is free to enter, some special exhibitions charge for entry and I think some require free booking to manage crowds. There is a very strong encouragement to make a donation though.

As a tangent, I find it a bit annoying that so many UK museums advertise free pretty aggressively and then provide such "very strong encouragement" as you put it to attend. Mind you, there's less direct pressure than there is in some places. The Met in NYC used to have an optional but not really optional policy for museum admission as you got your pin though it now not optional at all for non-NYC residents.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#194

Post by card_zero »

incone123 wrote: post #182
card_zero wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken if you got the impression that the museum once had guides. This isn't a recent trend, so far as I know it's been delightfully free from tour guides since 1881. You had to buy tickets prior to 2001, so that's changed. (Was entry free in its early history too? Not sure.) That used to be your greeting, the ticket desk. They had an earthquake machine in 1985, it must be the same one.

The NHM is free to enter, some special exhibitions charge for entry and I think some require free booking to manage crowds. There is a very strong encouragement to make a donation though.

Free to enter since 2001. Which means now they have (more) donation boxes.

My local museum started charging for entry a few years ago, along with a refurbishment, new exhibits, a bigger gift shop and a push to attract more tourists. So now it's horrible. I'm not sure what the unifying mistake is in both models, free entry and ticketed. I think the error might be in trying to serve the public.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#195

Post by ghaff »

graemep wrote: post #101
GuB-42 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that science museums being places for kids is a good thing. The are the ones who benefit the most. If you want science for grownups, you have conferences. Also, that it is for kids doesn't make it impossible to enjoy as an adult, especially if it is about things you are unfamiliar with. Now, if you go to a science museum and think "only a kid can enjoy that". Then the problem is not that it is a place for kid…

> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences. Adults outside a field do not go to conferences. > As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid. Some kids are interested in art. It can be well presented. You can have guided tours aimed at kids.

Go to a big city art museum and they're swarming with school groups.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#196

Post by bluGill »

jmkd wrote: post #181
elric wrote: post #86

I had a (now defunct) startup in this space some years ago. Maybe I can help shed some light on why things are the way they are. 1. Money. Most museums have no money. They either run on donations, on subsidies, or at the whim of wealthy patrons. They are very costly to run, especially the big ones. They are often in prime real estate areas, many require tight climate control, many also require specialised lighting to…

> 2. Curators often see "taking care" of the exhibits as more important than actually exhibiting them. Not to mention they're often art/history majors with very little clue about anything digital. Museum curators used to be called keepers and this only changed in the mid-late twentieth century. The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the…

> The philosophy of preservation runs deep and you won't struggle to find curators whose favourite day of the week is when the museum is closed to the public.

Which gets back to the question - why does/should the public support a museum. If we can't see it why are we keeping it? Even with our best preservation things will be destroyed over/with time, some things quicker than others. So if people don't get to see it what is the point of preserving it.

Museum backrooms are filled with things that they can't afford to preserve/restore, and so they are slowly being lost without anyone even able to see them in the mean time. Curators hate this reality, but they have to priorities the important things. I want things they can never preserve anyway sold the highest bidder, at least that way one person can enjoy it, we can use the proceeds to preserve something else. Plus part of the value to a rich person is showing off so there is a better chance someone will see it. (if there is no bigger that proves we don't value it. Even if future society would it won't make it to them anyway so may as well trash it now and stop pretending)

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#197

Post by insane_dreamer »

As a parent, I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed by the author.

But even judging digital exhibits on their own merits, I have yet to see one in a museum (or similar location) that was actually "wow" or that really captured my kids' attention or sparked any discussion (like other "real" stuff we saw). Most were, as my 9 year old would say, "mid" (==crappy in genAlpha speak). Very blah. Very low effort, and sometimes didn't even work properly. Think of your typical crappy software experience that just barely works.

The places that do have physical hands-on exhibits do catch my kids' attention, and we return multiple times. For example, one has a lab where you can do chemistry experiments (which they rotate) -- 100x better than doing some digital simulation (which 1) is very quickly boring, and 2) I'll just do it at home and we can close the museum (sad).

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#198

Post by insane_dreamer »

elric wrote: post #86

I had a (now defunct) startup in this space some years ago. Maybe I can help shed some light on why things are the way they are. 1. Money. Most museums have no money. They either run on donations, on subsidies, or at the whim of wealthy patrons. They are very costly to run, especially the big ones. They are often in prime real estate areas, many require tight climate control, many also require specialised lighting to…

> prefer a screen which offers more info

yes, this is a good use of digital; it enhances the physical exhibit rather than replace it

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#200

Post by ghaff »

Apocryphon wrote: post #136
dooglius wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people not in tech go to tech conventions?

I think tech aficionados and media types do. Tech conventions are more consumer-friendly than the scientific equivalent.

I'd categorize both those groups as being "in tech." Even if they're not active developers, they're certainly tech-adjacent especially in the software space.

There are probably counter-examples, but I'm not sure where I'd go if I were, say, an enthusiastic amateur physics or chemistry enthusiast of some sort that would be especially accessible.

Post reply on HN