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

351–360 of 404 posts

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

#351

Post by mystraline »

graemep wrote: post #341
ghaff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

School groups vary. Some kids are interested, some are not. I have had some bad experiences with school groups who did not know how to behave in a theatre - mostly Shakespeare plays because of where I lived. Some were enjoying them but were not used to keeping quiet. Some just did not want to be there.

You do realize that the original Shakespeare and similar time period plays were MUCH more like how the kids did it, right? Plays in that century were bawdy, vicious, and just nuts. And to be fair, Shakespeare's own material talks about stuff, if modernized, would be considered rated 'R'.

Sitting quietly to watch a show is pretty recent. Even classical performances were louder with praise and en-core requests shouted out loud.

I'm not exactly sure when the 'sit down, shut up, and listen' happened, but yeah.

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

#352

Post by coffeefirst »

ryandrake wrote: post #216
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…

I feel like half the products the tech industry comes out with aren't really useful, but they exist because of this performative trend-following. Competitor has a mobile app, we have to have a mobile app. Harvard business review says blockchain is big, we need to have blockchain. Our CEO's investor buddy said AI is the next big thing, we need to jam AI in or product.

And it seems to be accelerating. We made a lot of stupid shit in the 2010s, but at least it had a user in mind. There seems to be this new, pure disdain coming from the top: we will invest a fortune in this thing, and anyone who doesn’t embrace our vision is a Luddite.

It will not end well.

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

#353

Post by bluGill »

rerdavies wrote: post #280
bluGill wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has a tech convention every year. Last time I went I played spot the tech person - most people there failed the test (they were former engineers now in management trying to pretend they were still technical). I'm a staff engineer and I was the lowest position person I saw there - not even senior engineers much less the low or mid level engineers that would benefit from talking to the seniors at a tech conf…

You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of a tech convention. The sport you need to play is "spot the customer".

You could be right, though I didn't spot very many I couldn't identify, it could be just what I was looking for. The company is selling to tech people in the company as a tech conference, but that doesn't mean that is really the point. (though I would expect the majority of our customers are not technical people, and thus I don't see how there is value in bringing customers in)

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

#354

Post by bluGill »

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.

Most museums in the US charge admission, but have free days once in a while. Often every Tuesday or some such. I've also seen free days that go with local community events.

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

#355

Post by bluGill »

watwut wrote: post #313
bluGill wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My argument was not about those things being interesting or not. My point was that you are wrong about what the content it. "Artist struggles" is not what art museums writeups are about. They are not even caricature, they are just something people who do not go to art museums imagine to be there. Mostly because the only thing they know about art is that some artists struggled. Also "historical, thematic and philosoph…

I see the misunderstanding - you are placing too much emphasis on "artist struggles".

I have seen "about the artist" writeups and museums, and I've been to about the artists talks - both talking about struggles. The idea that they don't exist is false in my experience. However generally writeups by the art itself is "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art".

The "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" do not move me at all. I've seen plenty of writeups on them next to art I enjoy - I've learned to not bother reading those place cards (and I love reading!) because they are a waste of time. I know what I like, and those writeups are uninteresting to me.

If you like them fine, but they harm my enjoyment. For that matter if art exhibts were about something else than "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" I would likely enjoy art more. (and I supposed artists would scream about the museums selling out)

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

#356

Post by proprietario »

wojciii wrote: post #331

I try to limit my kids exposure to electronic devices while they are small. I can't avoid it, but I try. I consider blacklisting YouTube at our house. The withdrawal symptoms look like people having tried drugs. This is scary. I noticed that playing with phones for shorter amounts of time is ok and the kids get creative as soon as they don't have access to electronic entertainment. Currently I play chess with them an…

>I'm sounding like a lunatic lol that was basically my childhood and I am grateful for that, keep on doing it!

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

#357

Post by mr_toad »

mattkrause wrote: post #170
dcminter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Art museums are even worse. "Portrait of Duke von Duke (London, 1841). Oils." Who is this guy in the painting?! How did he merit a painting? What's unique about the style/composition/whatever? Conversely, I went to an exhibit of Napoleonic Art and they had a whole breakdown of the symbolism. For example, Napolean liked bees as a symbol of hard work and order, apparently, and they were snuck into most depictions of hi…

Unfortunately portraits are what used to put dinner on the table for an artist, which is why you see so many portraits of random rich person. The camera changed all that though.

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

#358

Post by monkeyelite »

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…

In my high school there as a mediocre science teacher who made an effort to do all kinds of technology gimmicks: computer presentations, recording audio, getting special equipment. It felt like a massive distraction and waste of time.

This teacher won all kinds of teaching awards from district, state, etc. The administration loved him.

even teaching favors the promoters over substance.

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

#359

Post by monkeyelite »

kleiba wrote: post #312
accrual wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there would be a market for schools or daycares offering "pre-digital" style classrooms with emphasis on books, blocks, puzzles, art, outdoor time, and policies to limit phones/screens. On the other hand, these kids will eventually end up in a world saturated with displays and maybe even AR, so there's some argument for getting them involved with digital stuff at some point.

> so there's some argument for getting them involved with digital stuff at some point And that's how the argument usually goes, but I don't buy it: every one of us who attended schools without devices learned to pick up that skill some other way. And usually without any problems. In my opinion, the trade-off swings hard into the wrong direction: there's much more downsides to using devices in the classroom than upsid…

And what really is the upside - it’s all administration and tracking - not teaching.

What’s easier and cheaper than opening a book, writing with pen and paper?

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

#360

Post by ghaff »

jansper39 wrote: post #335
ghaff wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find that less annoying than what some museums around Europe charge to let you through the door.

At least they're honest about it. (Though the suggested donations at "free" museums are usually pretty reasonable.) I'm not sure big city museums in the US are especially cheap either.
Post reply on HN