October 1 Assigned Readings

I enjoyed the chapter four reading as it focused on the digitization and preservation of archaeological findings and reports and not on visitor interfaces. Not only was the excavation  project monumental but also combines some of the subjects we’ve touched in class. This was an international collaboration effort between English and American museums, digitized the objects and the original paperwork and notes taken, and details the staffing that went into making it happen. Personally I know UPenn is an important institution for archaeology especially in the Middle East so establishing relations across the ocean with the British Museum strengthens scholarly ties between the continents. From a registrar viewpoint it was satisfying to read about the process of the project and how the work focused on both digitization and preservation/restoration.

The chapter 7 reading was intriguing in that the exhibition in question was a recreation of a country store that tailored to a range of audiences and interactives. There is a logical progression by adding and modifying the Pepper’s Ghost animations although I do not agree with spending so much time making it a visitor interactive. From the reading it was apparent there was some apprehension on behalf of visitors and some issues syncing the holograms to the physical items. The reading doesn’t necessarily state a need for the holograms but continually claims the space was “passive” so that would explain why the AAHOM wanted to incorporate more visitor-based holograms. The chapter states that this particular exhibition is “trendsetting” and I agree it is but without reading on visitor feedback or a visitor-based desire for certain technologies I would definitely reconsider what is needed and what is not.

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in chapter eight is a good example in what museums in the 21st century are doing to expand and enrich their visitor experiences. The study reveals a great deal about what the museum wanted to do around the time of their opening, how they made modifications, and how technology began playing an increasingly bigger role in their exhibitions. Naturally their studies helped pinpoint issues with visitor interaction with the technology and discussed some changes even as simple as leaving courtesy notes for visitors. Though it is a lesson seen in nearly all assessments the idea of subsequent changes is continually helping museums make changes to technologies so that interaction is beneficial and not a complication.

Chapter nine of the readings on the Smithsonian’s AAA exhibition on the Monuments Men was (personally) a bit out of scope with the previous readings on digitization and visitor experiences. It is still a good study in discussion how museums are using social media and collaborative efforts to make collections more accessible and promoted. The AAA has a plethora of documents and significant records from the work of the Monuments Men and stated this was the first time they were able to contribute documents to be on view (page 93). The online collection from this exhibition (hyperlinked in paragraph) is also beneficial to allowing access for those who were unable to attend. The discussion of the social media outreach seems to be becoming a no-brainer for younger generations but in the scope of museums it is becoming a more pivotal method of promotion and visitor feedback, so understandably there must be analytical reports conducted and presented on it.