Critique on the Article the Future of Museums


This article was very interesting on raising questions that we have been discussing over the semester when having to do with the future of how museums are going to operate. Constantly in class we have discussed what should museums do to help people participate, interact, and learn from museums. Time after time again we keep circling over the same answer we said make museums interactive. People learn more when they are able to be feel and touch.


The article mainly points out the easiest way to do this is through the digital world. It shows examples of art galleries and other museums that have been so proactive in the media and have maintained to be so relevant. The article brings up that it is a struggle to fully attain the identity of a museum when it has been publicly opened to the change that medias come with, “at the same time retain their expertise and authority as guardians of our culture and heritage.”


However I do not agree with the way that article says the museums are and should change. Instead I think that we as a class came up with a pretty good rubric of how museums should change if they are going to change due to the digital age. We also talked about the disconnect between the public and museums and we came up with a list of how to regain that connection:


1) Relate to the visitor explain


2) Information is not interpretation, interpretation is revelation through information. We need to able to discuss the information in a way that anyone can understand it


3) Interpretation is an art it is hard but can be accomplished by skilled individuals


4) The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but provocation. Learning is best learned when provoked to learn there has to be an excitement there for it.


5) A whole rather than a part and address a whole person rather than a phase. Remind people of the bigger picture that is taking place and relate it to whatever is being addressed.


6) Interpretation to children should not be a dilution but a fundamentally different approach.


I believe that following the rubric that we set up museums can change and maintain their identities of guardians of culture. If they follow this and still use social medias then there is a good chance some of that identity won’t be lost.





Museums Standing for Education?

For me it was interesting taking this class not having a great perspective on what Museums true goals were. Firstly I thought that Museums were just big buildings that were specifically for paintings and art. Things that I thought would never interest me. On the contrary I learned that museums were meant for learning. They stood for houses of physical education things that you could look at and learn from.


However, now museums aren’t staying true to their intentions. I say this because through taking this course and reading about strategies and ways to get more people interested and involved it seems that the education aspect of museums is beginning to get lost in the transition. Museums are beginning to become more involved in staying relevant and trying to conform to the new digital age. Which is completely relevant for them if they want to continue being a business, however that only stresses the lack of attention to the education aspect that seems to have gone missing in modern museums.


“Digital tools are letting visitors experience objects in new ways.” Says András Szántó who is a writer on The Art Newspaper.


But the new ways that digital tools allow aren’t allowing the objects to be expressed how the original curators intended them to. People just look, they don’t learn anymore. They just look to look because it is what we as a society do we look through pictures not actually caring about what is in them unless we are passionate about them.


Although this article was written in 2010 it only stresses how much the time has changed us we are more developed into the digital age taking us further from the purpose of educating and rather focuses on what is in right now.  It begins to pose the real serious question of whether museums are tools of learning or just a big place to put old crap in an organized fashion.


Traditional Teachings vs. New Museum Teachings

All semester we have read articles that pertain to how a museum should be curated, how items should be conserved, and how museums need to entertain the public while still trying to educate them. All of these ideas that have been followed by museum majors for a long period of time ever since the shift in museums paradigms after the WWII.  But are these teachings still relevant? Are students learning the “modern” way of running a museums? Museums have changed and therefore so must the teaching styles.


The article “The Future of Museums,” found on


Proposed a very interesting question at the end of their article are students being properly trained for the shift in the modern museums? This is speaking of the new digital age that museums have incorporated into their daily routines. I know that in our own class we have always related most of our teachings to how it is relevant today. Especially when it comes to the social media and how they are such a big part of our society now a days. For example an extinct dinosaur has a twitter page and it tweets daily. This is just an example of the world that we live in.


However I am not trying to critique the world that we live in, I am critiquing the way that museum major are being taught. If this new digital age is going to completely change how we perceive museums then it is time for a change in the way museums are being taught. We might as well teach museums students how to run a successful YouTube channel and what filter to use on Instagram pictures than how to set up an exhibit. There should be more of a stress on being a relevant “hot” museum rather than a museum of learning.