“We might say that works of art pose questions and encountering a work of art meaningfully requires understanding the relevant questions and getting why they matter, or maybe even, why they don’t matter, or don’t matter any more, or why they would matter in one context but not another.”

This is exactly the work that museums try to facilitate, especially for a public who often have not had the opportunity to hone those conversational skills. Museum educators, curators, interpreters, docents, strive to build a space or an exhibit with background knowledge and focused attention to help visitors understand and communicate with art. By not teaching art in schools and not encouraging each other and ourselves to look closer/deeper, we are ill-prepared to speak with art, just like an individual without friends. And that lack of understanding (ability to understand context, patience to take turns and listen) can become a feed-back loop of feeling inadequate and overwhelmed for visitors. These are the obstacles museum professionals are trying to overcome, to develop those moments of conversation in the galleries, and encourage visitors to take that conversation home with them.

Check out this interview with the founder of CFM, Elizabeth Merritt, on my own hometown radio program, Craig Fahle Show. Big questions about whether museums can stay relevant and what changes might be on the horizon.

So then we try to save houses where famous people lived - but what happens when people stop visiting?

We don’t open scrapbooks filled with memories from past lives because they’re falling apart.

How sad that these objects are no longer part of life, but are preserved behind polyethylene and archival cardboard. And how do we make these objects relevant to visitors to make their preservation worth the time and effort, because there’s never enough time. Will digitized collections really change the way the average visitors uses museum resources?

Visitors are always asking to see more stuff and hear more stories instead of reading about it. And I’m in support of this. Just trying to think of more ways to reach that authentic experience while at the same time ensuring that another visitor, 10 years from now, can also have the life changing experience. I’m not sure if putting everything in a catalog online is the answer- maybe we should be creating something totally different and visitor-driven that doesn’t look like shopping for shoes.

Salon had a short piece on Monticello and features Jefferson as the first “foodie” (I hate this term). I really like the mention of Jefferson’s table as a combination of high and low- he was eating new, strange vegetables but combining them with the techniques and presentation of a French chef. It’s a nice suggestion that the US has always combined many cultural aspects to create something new, including food. However, I think it’s somehow sad that we romanticize that food (grown, prepared and served by slaves) which obviously took so much effort to produce, as something that would be impossible today (shucks).

And just a couple weeks ago was a lovely article about growing forgotten herbs and vegetables at the Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth, Mass.  Some vegetables fall out of fashion for a reason, but these days I feel so bored with cucumbers and carrots that maybe I need a colonial root vegetable to wake me up in this heat wave.

If you have been living off the grid, like me, perhaps you didn’t see this touching flickr photostream of letters from authors and “important people” to the Troy, MI, Public Library upon it’s opening in 1971. Notable names in the lineup: Pearl S. Buck, Neil Armstrong, Isaac Asimov and Dr. Seuss. These letters remind me that people do learn a lot through informal media, and that type of learning is profound.

Also enjoying a brief spotlight is the Library of Congress National Jukebox, featuring incredible historic recordings from all genres and eras, and providing hours of audio entertainment. This is Pandora for the ages…what America sounds like. This is one of my favorite kinds of interactive digital exhibits; the experience is completely visitor driven, very low barriers to participation, and it can be experienced solo or in a group.

Next on the ketchup list: food.

Currently, there are some data-based projects that visitors can participate in. Visitors can be a part of the content/research at the National Building Museum (I had never heard of this place before, maybe that makes me a bad museologist…maybe not). The NBM is looking for information from the public about their living spaces- homes in particular- to analyze data through time about our culture of living. This study has the potential to gather a substantial amount of data, although getting participants will probably be a challenging endeavor.

Personally, this kind of information is fascinating to me. And somewhat related to data presentation/infographics/learning is a recent article in the NYTimes that a colleague sent to me. Some folks are proposing that we are in a new era of thinking where we use data to think about the humanities.

Networks! Maps! More metadata!

I believe arts and humanities developments/theories could only become more solid when paired with statistical evidence. But maybe that’s the evaluator in me talking.

Here is a list of my favorite museum-related twitter members- staff members, museum enthusiasts, professionals not associated with an institution, museum mascots and artifacts, and the Museum of Animal Perspectives, now known as NewNHM.  The New Museum of Natural History does not yet have a physical space but provides visitors with video and photographs of animals in the wild. The content never disappoints.

• EMPSFM
• museumnerd
• TylerGreenDC
• Amhistorymuseum
• newcurator
• NatHistoryWhale
• msikate
• hirshorn
• museosunite
• SuetheTRex
• kpteasdale
• NancyProctor
• futureofmuseums
• publichistorian
• ninaksimon
• COSICols
• artinstitutechi
• Tweetsfromhistory
• NewNHM

Also, if you want to contact or follow me: emilbeckwilcox

The first thing that got me thinking more about online collections (besides searchable databases connected to museums) was a website from the BBC called A History of the World in 100 Objects.  While I was browsing posts from The Attic I came across a link to this site, which I would have never found otherwise, seeing as I unfortunately don’t have daily exposure to the BBC (however, I do watch a decent amount of CBC living in Detroit, especially when it’s hockey season or Olympic season).  I basically just wanted to share this because I thought it was beautiful. There is a culturally diverse variety of objects, which is much appreciated, and each day a different object is featured to help first-time visitors become familiar with the site. Visitors are also invited to submit their own meaningful objects and stories to the site; those personal stories are available to the public to view, and some of the objects are featured in mini-stories on a partnership radio program.

It’s true that there is nothing like being in the presence of a real object, but the high res images on this site are impressive. For example, every vein on the Arabian Bronze Hand (#45) is visible, and you can really understand what the interpretive paragraph is saying just by looking at the photo.  Speaking of interpretation, the BBC did a nice job consulting not only curators but other professionals who might have a different take on certain objects.  For example, both a curator and an orthopedic and hand surgeon wrote interpretation about the Arabian Bronze Hand; the surgeon was able to describe the structure of the hand as more of an anthropological study, rather than through an art history lens.

A little bit more on the meta/conceptual side of internet archives is this article about an encyclopedia of all the changes to the Wikipedia “Iraq War” entry. There are 12 volumes of changes, not just content. Some great archival qualities of the internet/Wikipedia-

• The internet can keep track of all changes better than most provenance records of the past (the history doesn’t go back too far for us to document, and all of this data is basically stored automatically)

• These tomes document not only “facts” (subjective depending on which writer or editor is making changes) but personal stories of people contributing information- that means a lot of metadata which, however, is probably not very well organized or interpreted.

I had never thought of recording all these changes, but obviously it’s important to know the source from where your information is coming, and it would be fascinating to see when changes were made based on events in real time. Another question I had was

• What does it mean that these are published on paper? Does it make them more accessible? Does it make the changes more “credible” or “official”?

A mixture of the last two sites is The Search for the Obvious. I’m part of an institution where “innovation” is almost a sacred word. I like that this site allows users to find objects that have changed their world, and maybe learn a little more about them. I didn’t know when Purell was invented, although I would disagree about its “life changing” qualities. I think I would like the site even more with some additions:

1. instead of/in addition to the “Life without this” explanation, there was also a “Life before this” section that made the historical context of the innovation more perceptible.
2. a section not only to talk about the benefits of the innovation, but also the downsides, i.e. pollution, war, other resulting problems, etc.

I can dig it.

I’m often surprised by how many people say things like, “It’s always been a dream of mine to sleepover/explore at night/party at the museum.” (And this could really be said about any museum you’ve ever been to) But when the DIA was open for 36 hours straight you bet I was there at 2 am looking at art and dancing to hip hop beats. There is an allure for people about going “behind the scenes” at the museum and seeing all the cool/amazing/secret/old stuff that very few people are allowed to see. I think this project is an opportunity for visitors to live vicariously through one “normal” person who will have this once-in-a-lifetime experience.

I’m excited to see how this will turn out. It’s not often that a museum will take such a big risk, which probably requires a decent amount of funding, on an individual not associated with (i.e. on the payroll at) the institution. Kate will be an ambassador for the museum to the world, but she also has to be funny, thoughtful and exciting, maybe even daring. (Check out Slover Linett’s recent post about taking risks)

And not only will Kate be representing the MSI to the public, she will be a representative for women in science, and more generally everyone in science. Educators/institutions/government groups have been pushing to increase the number of women in the STEM fields for decades. Kate is a young woman who enjoys science and will take part in helping bring an interest in science and technology to others. She could be a positive face for helping girls get excited about learning and doing science.
But, Kate does not have a science background (she has worked mostly in theater) which makes her a good candidate to reach out to the millions of individuals who think they don’t work with science. In fact, we all encounter science everyday, and science museums want to help visitors realize this in a fun and exciting way.

She moves in on October 20th! It’s still unclear as to what she will be doing exactly (interacting with curators, educators and visitors? exploring the collections? making video blog posts?) but here’s to hoping she will be sleeping behind a plexi case like a Duane Hanson piece on display.

The post from the Walker is about contemporary art, but it reminded me a lot about a conversation JTW and I had at the DIA the other week- why is it so difficult to make decorative arts interesting and exciting to visitors? We were up in the European galleries, looking at the super cool interactive dining table, talking about how difficult it is to help visitors understand why plates and bowls are works of art, and why they should care. We threw around ideas about

• Social status of the user
• The skill of artists
• The time it took to produce those objects (not like a commercial Ikea plate)
• The material of the objects- porcelain, glass, silver, gold leaf, colorful glaze
• The time spent by the user looking at the object (4 hour meals)

How could we use the context of those ideas to help visitors realize the importance of these objects, more than just their beauty or craftsmanship? How can you explain that bowls and cups can be objects of passion and emotion, like a painting? Can they be?

Another place where viewers were empowered to voice their own opinions was at the second annual ArtPrize in Grand Rapids, just a couple weeks ago (yeah Michigan!).  Nina Simon was there and made a post on her blog about the unusual and sometimes confusing atmosphere that broke down the hierarchy of art understanding and interpretation, and just let the public see things, and then talk about it.

I’m going to try my darndest to be there next year.

Lastly, I’ve been returning daily to the Values Study, especially some of the graphs, to think about how to present data and the ubiquitous idea of the public value of museums (what are museums worth to the public? What are they contributing to our socity? Do I now have a better understanding of French decorative arts?). I’m not sure the study really answers a lot of questions, but it helps me frame some of the ideas that have been floating around my head for a few years.