A change in philosophy on how museums present the past?

Warwick Castle is a good visit.

Somewhat related. Something the missus and me really enjoyed and learned a lot from. A few years ago in Toronto, a fine mix of art and technology;
https://www.lastingimpressionsin3d.com/

Re 'one artist' museums. I love certain American folk art, and Warren Kimble's spot in Vermont was a great visit for me. As is the Rockwell Museum in Corning, NY. Corning also has a good glass museum.

I really dislike use of tech in museums for tech's sake. All too often it's poorly executed and usually not working. The tech should aid a better telling of the story and help highlight the artifacts that illustrate the story.

I do like to view the artifacts in cases, but dang it! please have good copy that clearly identifies the artifact being described, its history and importance. Peeved too many times by poor copy. Through the years I've enjoyed getting detailed photos of iron artifacts then coming home and getting in the forge and reproducing the artifact.

I've worked in museum education for 30 years now. Learned early in my career that I never want to work in a house history museum ever again. Too many shenanigans. Living history museums are tops. In my travels I've absolutely loved the Mary Rose Museum, Weald and Downland Museum, the Museums of the Gorge in Ironbridge, the Dutch Open-air Museum, the Museum of London, and the Wallace Collection. Sometimes I've searched out a museum just to see one artifact or painting. Off to den Haag just to see the Girl with the Pearl Earring, or the Science Museum in London just to see the painting Coalbrookdale by Night. In turn I was disappointed by the HMS Belfast, the IWM and a D-Day museum - Musee Memorial de la Bataille de Normandie - in Bayeux.

25 years ago, it was common for museums to have a room dedicated to showing a video on a loop to add context to what people were about to see, so I guess adding technology to the experience is nothing new. I don't have an issue with bringing more realism to the artifacts but there is always the danger that people end up spending more time on the technology than admiring the actual museum collection. This is especially true with art museums. I know I have been guilty of spending more time reading about a panting than I have looking at the actual painting. Now, you can download a museum's app as you go around and go on a ten-minute deep dive on a painting while still only looking at the actual painting for 30 seconds.

I think the best approach will always be to read about and research what you are going to see before you go there. Having knowledge of the subject will not only enhance your experience but save you time now since you can leave the technology alone.

I've only heard good things about San Francisco's Exploratorium museum. Been hoping to go for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploratorium

[snip]
The Exploratorium is a museum of science, technology, and arts in San Francisco, California. Founded by physicist and educator Frank Oppenheimer in 1969, the museum was originally located in the Palace of Fine Arts and was relocated in 2013 to Piers 15 and 17 on San Francisco's waterfront.

The museum has over 1,000 participatory exhibits and is divided into several galleries, mainly separated by content. Since its inception, the Exploratorium has expanded into other domains and has inspired an international network of participatory museums.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/

The Gernika Peace Museum (https://www.museodelapaz.eus/en/) does an interesting simulation of the attack of April 26, 1937. You sit in a room that looks like it belongs to a house of the period. You listen to narration about life in Gernika and the plans for the day. Then the bombing starts, and a wall that was a mirror becomes see-through, and the room you are in seems to be reduced to rubble. It's very affecting.

Allan, you're right, this is a great blog post of Cameron's. It makes me wish I were more insightful about my museum experiences. I'm really not a fan of history museums that are a collection of artifacts and that require a lot of reading. (I like to call these "Arrowhead Museums.") I derive no pleasure from looking at things that have no aesthetic value and are just relics. If more museums find a way to engage the visitor through technology, I vote yea!

One of my favourite museum experiences has been the Viking ship museum in Roskilde. That fits in the "single exhibit" one, as it is build around a set of well preserved viking ships, but the nice thing is that it is that you actually get a taste what sailing such a viking ship must have been like. They have a fleet of small craft, that they take groups out in. You first row the boat out, then hoist the sails etc...
As a sailor myself I found the whole fascinating, getting first hand experience on how those vessels functioned.

Allan, thanks for reminding me to read Cameron Hewitt’s blog. Like you, I enjoyed his piece.

Happy travels

Cameron’s blog was excellent. Technology to bring realism? No ! History isn’t an amusement park ride. Creatively displayed artifacts that tell a story can fill the bill. Objects (like a warship on display) can be enhanced with good docents. Technology is to some degree a lazy way to tell a story.

I visited the Little Bighorn and stood on Mt. Suribachi. I know what happened in each place and stood, trying to absorb the gravity of momentous events…..no artificial stimulation needed!

I'm really not a fan of history museums that are a collection of
artifacts and that require a lot of reading. (I like to call these
"Arrowhead Museums.") I derive no pleasure from looking at things that
have no aesthetic value and are just relics. If more museums find a
way to engage the visitor through technology, I vote yea!

I enjoy an exhibit or museum that tells a story. It doesn't necessarily have to be through technology but it also needs to be more than an artifact with a sign. For example, in May we visited the Lucerne History Museum which was simply artifacts on shelves with a barcode. You scanned the barcode with a museum supplied tablet but all it told you was what it was, i.e, this is a sword from 1536. The Aquitine Museum in Bordeaux doesn't use technology but it's set up in a way that the signage and artifacts tell a story of the history of what you're seeing.

If I can get potentially controversial for a moment, I have hopes when the Louvre goes through it's major renovation with a dedicated space for the Mona Lisa, that it creates more than a space with a painting on the wall. How about an entire exhibit detailing the history and importance of the painting? Like the Mystic Lamb, I'm not opposed to a VR experience.

Allan, I completely agree about the augmented reality experience with The Mystic Lamb. It really enriched my visit. I had previously seen the altarpiece when it was upstairs at the front of the church in a tiny cramped space. Seeing it again a few years later and doing the program in the crypt first really added to my enjoyment and understanding.

@VAP - "I do like to view the artifacts in cases, but dang it! please have good copy that clearly identifies the artifact being described, its history and importance. Peeved too many times by poor copy.". OH GOSH, I felt my head nodding along as I read that! I get so p*ssed off at one presentation in Yellowstone regarding the Fires of 1988...they have a whole wall of equipment used by firefighters on the line and no, then do not have the Pulaski tool identified or any of the history given (developed by "Big Ed" Pulaski after the 1910 Big Burn where he saved most of his crew of 45 by herding them into an abandoned mineshaft as the firestorm went over them). The tools were used in the early 1900's and are still used by hand crews today. Ooops....off on a tangent!

I just got back from France and loved the museums that are doing downloadable audio guides/tours using your phone and earbuds/air pods. The Louvre exhibition on Jacques-Louis David was exceptional including being able to scan the huge Coronation of Napoleon painting and have extra information points pop up on the screen of your phone. The very small Musee des Beaux-Arts in Carcassonne also had QR codes for certain paintings or objects. That was a bit more tedious because the text on the QR link was in French so I had to click to translate each one but I soldiered through. I have no idea if the museums are able to capture numbers on how many use the QR codes but I wanted to encourage them if they do, lol!!

I do enjoy smaller museums that are focused on one subject and may be more "local" so not as high tech. I'm thinking of the boat museum on the island of Unst and the Shetland Bus Museum in Scalloway. Interesting local information in a small building that can be done in an hour or so.

Thanks for the link to Cameron's piece.

If I can get potentially controversial for a moment, I have hopes when the Louvre goes through it's major renovation with a dedicated space for the Mona Lisa, that it creates more than a space with a painting on the wall.

When we were in Valencia this summer, we viewed the exhibit on Leonardo da Vinci at the science museum within the Ciutat de les Artes i les Ciències. Among the many fascinating exhibits was one explaining the recent restoration of the Mona Lisa, including the high-tech nondestructive testing used by the restorers to understand Leonardo's original work. Utterly fascinating.

I believe this exhibit will travel to other museums worldwide; it's definitely worth seeking out.

Artifacts and their presentation seem to be the minor problem in my opinion.

Personally I see how time witnesses die out around me. The people who can tell by their own personal experience how Nazi or WWII time felt get less and less. Every time I eat lunch with my 94 yrs old buddy Heinz here in Schwerin I ask myself how we can save this for the times when he will have left us. I guess I will call a local museum and ask for a video interview which can be showed on display in the museum and as well in the Internet.

I was already part of a time witness project about the fall of the Berlin wall. And I was happy that I was able to tell my very little part of it to a person who was able to write it down because it still makes my eyes wet and my arms crowded with goosebumps.

One thing I want to highlight - although not a museum - is the multi-awarded Berlin History app.

I'm the sort that does like and can appreciate the cased artifact and good copy. I tend to be a very visual learner. I also appreciate that there is such a thing as museum fatigue -- I get it too.

But this is where I believe living history museums or museums with very robust on-site education departments truly shine.

We go to a museum that is, let's say, dedicated to stone tool technology. It is not enough to simply view archaeological artifacts in display cases with copy that merely identifies the artifact as "clovis". What is it, what was it used for? What sort of economy existed that brought stone to stone poor regions? In turn if all your museum is doing is displaying artifacts with copy that only satisfies academic sorts - you suck. Such a stone tech museum should be employing educators who know how to work stone tools. It is not enough to just break stone, but to actually make stone flakes and then use them to butcher an animal.

You are a pre-industrial textile museum. Don't just put a swatch of fabric in a display case and tell me that it is a 2-in-1 twill or 3-in-1 twill cloth. Show me what it is. Explain the weft and the warp. Better yet don't just have a loom in a giant display case. There should be a working loom with someone that knows how to use it.

I would love to see more art museums with artists in residence -- as educators. Don't just create a painting, explain how and why. It is the process, not the product! Ever consider why Bob Ross is still popular?

People crave this kind of connection. This is my daily life working as a museum blacksmith. Kids especially are so mesmerized just standing there watching me make nails. I meet adult visitors telling me that they visited the museum as kids, how much fun they had, and that the blacksmith back then gave them a nail, that they still have. They had so much fun and they were now bringing their kids to see the blacksmith too. I'll give their kids a nail. Sometimes they show me the pictures that were taken those years ago and it usually takes them a moment to realize that I was the smith then too.

I had a ball visiting the Mary Rose museum where their education staff put a 1545 stone cannon ball in my hands and then a section of rope that still smelled of tar. I had an absolute blast stumbling upon the Steel Art Museum in Prague, where visitors are invited to interact with, touch, handle, even sit and climb on or into the exhibits.

I agree with Veteran Traveler. There's no need for simulations on battlefield sites. Thankfully America's historic battlefields are run by the NPS without cheesy, offensive high tech.

Last May in Normandy I saw billboards for the "D Day Experience" in which you board a simulated plane that rocks you around as though you are being shot at flying over the Channel like the paratroopers in Band of Brothers. To me it's tacky to make that into a thrill ride, trivializing the courage of those men.

GTo SWanderer,
Oh my! Tacky isn't a strong enough word for the simulator ride you mentioned. It sounds totally dispespectful of all those who were part of the war, military or civilian, on the ground or in the air or at sea. Shame on those who trivialize and monetize their duty, honor and sacrifice! This sounds beyond tasteless!

I, too, am a visual learner. I detest museums that have audio running constantly that you can't get away from.

I also agree with Allan about the virtual reality experience with the Ghent alterpiece. I had been worried beforehand that i would find it hokey, but not at all. It was really enriching.

I had an unexpected wonderful non-tech experience at the Archeological Museum in Bologna last year. I was desiring information about several items in the large collection of Etruscan ceramics in glass cases with minimal text. I asked the staff person stationed in the room and found she was trained in archeology, spoke fluent English, and without having to look up anything was able to tell me things about each of a handful of pieces I pointed to, and she seemed happy to answer questions. I guess I have too often assumed that most of the staff I see in museums, unless they are giving a tour, are attendants just making sure visitors don't do any damage; I had not appreciated what a great resource was available, at least in this museum.

Technology is to some degree a lazy way to tell a story.

I disagree, for me it's a 'different' way to tell a story. It's a way to appeal to a wider audience which means engaging more people who may not have been interested in history or museums before.

Last May in Normandy I saw billboards for the "D Day Experience" in
which you board a simulated plane that rocks you around as though you
are being shot at flying over the Channel like the paratroopers in
Band of Brothers. To me it's tacky to make that into a thrill ride,
trivializing the courage of those men.

I think I found the website for the sign you saw. It doesn't advertise itself as a museum but it definitely has musem like qualities describing the realities of the invasion. I'm not sure if that's tacky or not; it's definitely for profit. But is it different than what Hollywood has done over the years with WW2? Hogan Heroes and Operation Petticoat are TV shows that come to mind. I grew up reading GI Combat and Sgt. Rock comic books so the war subject for profit is nothing new. I think it may have been the movie In Search of Private Ryan and it's opening scene that was the first time I remember my eyes being opened to the brutality of war.

On the other hand I recently wrote in a Trip Report about my visit to Vimy Ridge and it being a personal visit because I was named after a great uncle who fought there. I'd be fascinated if there was a VR experience about going over the trenches and up the hill, but I likely wouldn't be happy if it wasn't done with seriousness and to teach about the horrors of war. The D Day Experience is my perception of how the US treats its war history compared to the European and Commonwealth countries. Their attitudes in its memorials and museums is "lest we forget' while I notice the American attitude can be about heroes and kicking a##. I think back to my visit to DC a couple of years ago and I learned about the controversy regarding the Vietnam memorial. There was such a protest about a sombre memorial recognizing the dead instead of the heroes that another statue nearby had to be erected that symbolized the American soldiers as heroes. It's purely speculation on my part but while the D Day Experience is French owned, it strictly focuses on the American involvement in D Day and the owner knows what Americans want to see.

I miss the good old days when museums were free of the pollution of electric lights.

I say let's give technology a chance! There is only like a 20% chance that technology like AI will lead to an extermination event.

On second thought, maybe we should think about what technology to embrace and how. So, yeah, never mind.

Happy travels!

I guess I have too often assumed that most of the staff I see in museums, unless they are giving a tour, are attendants just making sure visitors don't do any damage

At Tate galleries in London the attendants are "Visitor Assistants" and are very well informed, generally. They work for a department called "Visitor Experience". I think that's how most, if not all, the national museums you'll find in London work it. It's going to be right at the threshold of London Living Wage, but in my experience, Visitor Assistants are often vastly overqualified, or trying to make a living as an artist as their main gig.

@Gerry - That is very interesting about the "visitor assistants" and the Visitor Experience department. It kind of makes me want to roll my eyes at the marketing names BUT....I have had excellent conversations with the visitor assistants particularly at the National Gallery. A couple of times I was trying to find my way to a particular piece and felt like I could not get there from here, hahaha. The room attendant confirmed that and told me to go to such and such a room and ask again, lol. I did and found it. I've also asked the room attendants which piece in the room was their favorite and gotten a LOT of information on a particular piece. They seem thrilled that someone would ask. I try to only talk to the ones that are making eye contact, though.

I WISH I spoke enough French to talk with the room folks in the Louvre. Although they all speak at least a little English I hate to make them go into a big explanation in a language they might not be comfortable in.

I disagree about how America treats its battlefields. I remember years ago when Disney wanted to build a theme park close to Manassas. The outcry nixed the project. I've visited battlefields all over the US: Gettysburg, Amtietim, The Wilderness, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Petersburg, Lexington and Concord, Vicksburg, Fort Sumter, Yorktown and more. Not one had anything remotely theme park-ish.