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

261–270 of 404 posts

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

#261

Post by bluGill »

watwut wrote: post #232
bluGill wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic. Those are in the eye of the beholder though. In many cases they are things I still don't care about after learning about them. An ugly painting doesn't become any more interesting to me when I learn about the struggles the artist went through - a lot of people do find it more interesting - good for them, but…

> when I learn about the struggles the artist went through The comment you responded to was about "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art". Which is something entirely different. This really reads like someone knee jerk dismissing something they never bothered took at, but just assume it's stupid.

I have looked just enough to know that my dissmissal is correct for me. I do not find those parts of interest.

you can enjoy them that is okay. Just don't think I'm wrong for not.

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

#262

Post by ideasman42 »

This has also been going in in Libraries in Australia. Go to the library - toddlers Rush to play on the computer.

I wouldn't mind so much if it was available for those who wanted it but in my experience it tends to be central and noisy - difficult to avoid if that's not what you're after.

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

#263

Post by gorfian_robot »

cm2187 wrote: post #241

You can say the same thing of the long text that are often next to the exhibit in museums. I don't get the point of trying to read some essay while standing in the middle of a crowd pushing. You might as well read the wiki page in the comfort of your home and focus on the actual exhibit in the museum.

I usually want some interpretive signage, but there is a sweet spot on length.

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

#264

Post by gorfian_robot »

CM30 wrote: post #231

Feels like you could write the same article about theme parks nowadays too. Okay, there are still a fair few physical attractions there, but the likes of Universal Studios were infamous for having 'rollercoaster' like rides which were just simulators on a screen rather than relying on physical scenery, animatronics, etc. Feels like there's a lot of attempts to integrate smartphones into the parks too, like through ac…

yeah those rides for the most part suck.

I worked at disney when they were developing what became "Avatar Flight of Passage" where you ride a dragon wearing 3d headset. The ride vehicle moved in sync so it was pretty immersive.

On the other side "Toy Story Midway Mania" totally sucks

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

#265

Post by gorfian_robot »

tropdrop wrote: post #225
adzm wrote: post #192

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…

Seconding Meowwolf! The one I went to in Santa Fe was very hands on and physical, requiring lots of object manipulation as well as crawling through very tight spaces. Absolute delight. Less so for the one in Colorado, which had more of an interactive back story done through an app; but I understand the Colorado one was also meant to be more ADA-friendly, and it was still pretty good.

the Vegas one is very ... vegas.

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

#266

Post by josephg »

mopenstein wrote: post #246
bluGill wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all things we can see. I'm asking about the many things that are forever locked in a backroom and you won't be allowed to see it.

I agree. If it only exists so that a select few can actually experience, it might as well not exist at all. And don't kid yourself, those keepers and creators get full access as well as anyone they deem worthy enough. The rest of us will never be granted that access. If it's privately funded, good. It affects me nil. But if they take public funds and lock up history or nature just so it can remain pristine for the we…

I don’t know about museums near you, but most museums I’ve been to internationally are free to enter and to see most of their exhibits. They’ll often have much more in their collections than what’s on display, but they’re absolutely still a public good.

We also have a responsibility to preserve stuff from the past for future generations. As our ancestors have done for us.

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

#267

Post by tern »

dcminter wrote: post #33
parpfish wrote: post #4

One of my longstanding peeves is that art museums are treated as serious places for grown-ups but science museums and zoos are treated as places for kids.

It drives me absolutely bananas that the "interpretation" (fancy museum word for "signs") at science museums is so parsimonious. Some fascinating device vital to the history of an important branch of science will have a brief paragraph about the person who invented it, nothing about what it's for, and then just a date and the device name. Often there's little or nothing further even in the museum shop. It's a crying…

Part of the reason for this is that the world has become deeply multi-cultural and self-aware and, as such, people in the art field—the people who educated the people who are now in power—realized it has become incredibly difficult to write about artwork without smuggling in an agenda that contradicts other perspectives in problematic ways. In the 60s and 70s, artists realized this and initiated a new program for art that privileged the viewer's direct experience in the moment, and totally de-emphasized any outside interpretation. We're still, more or less, living in the wake of those events, since that's basically the last thing that happened in the art historical narrative, and art museums are run by art historians.

To illustrate: when I studied art in the 2010s, the absolute worst thing you could say about an artwork or exhibition was that it was "didactic."

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

#268

Post by dylan604 »

josephg wrote: post #266
mopenstein wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. If it only exists so that a select few can actually experience, it might as well not exist at all. And don't kid yourself, those keepers and creators get full access as well as anyone they deem worthy enough. The rest of us will never be granted that access. If it's privately funded, good. It affects me nil. But if they take public funds and lock up history or nature just so it can remain pristine for the we…

I don’t know about museums near you, but most museums I’ve been to internationally are free to enter and to see most of their exhibits. They’ll often have much more in their collections than what’s on display, but they’re absolutely still a public good. We also have a responsibility to preserve stuff from the past for future generations. As our ancestors have done for us.

Interesting idea of free museums. I can't think of one museum I've ever been to that did not require purchasing a ticket. Granted, in my limited travels abroad, it has been for work with no time for that kind of thing, so my experience is solely with museums in the US.

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

#270

Post by Nifty3929 »

bluGill wrote: post #196
jmkd wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

I'm reminded of the very final scene in Raider of the Lost Ark where the Ark is deposited into a giant government warehouse full of who knows what-all historical artifacts and such, everything in various sized crates, and the whole thing just gets closed up and forgotten about.

At least, that's how I remember it, but it's been a while.... I'll really have to go re-watch that actually.

Post reply on HN