Response to Readings for 10/22

I like the idea of creating a blog while the museum is in a state of transition and is not actually open. A blog allows dialogue to continue in the community and also informs the public that the museum is alive and well even though its doors are temporarily closed. This particular blog allows the museum to attempt to attract a new audience (youth) and discover what new relationships can be had. I think the museum handled its construction well by publishing posts internally first and defining clear goals, such as what would be talked about and how would they talk about those topics.

The article by Darren Peacock was a little harder to digest. Yes, the ability to define an online audience is difficult, if not impossible. I believe the article went in circles and did not really establish a true solution to the problem. Though some good points were made in relation to the failed attempted to evaluate audience based on marketing strategies, over all usablity, and visitor studies.

Paper discussions:

I think it is great that museums are actually working towards putting their collections database online with only limited public access. Museums are supposed to be for the people, a resource for learning. OpenCollection software is very user friendly and will allow people the type of access to collections that promotes thorough research. Other museums will also benefit from the collaboration opportunities it presents. A database is not as valuable if it is just a resource for collections staff. This software allows all of the museum staff to benefit from it, as well as the public. The link between externally and internally focused collection functions can be very helpful. I love that it frees up some finances by not requiring license fees, etc.

I liked the idea of My Evidence a lot. It reminded me of a project Marisa, Aspen, and I created for the Intro class last year. We created a plan for an introductory hall to explore the statement, “Scientific knowledge is uncertain, tentative and subject to revision.” Recent controversy over topics such as evolution and global warming, demonstrate the ease in which the public can develop criticism for that which they cannot directly observe. The exhibit we proposed, “What is fact?” aimed to create in the visitor a tolerance for uncertainty and recognition that science is not a linear process with concrete answers. As an introductory hall, it targeted those visitors with skepticism and preconceived notions of what a science or natural history museum has to offer. I think it is great to allow the visitor a chance to challenge the science they are about to see. It is great to let them know how we as a museum staff, gather evidence to present a product to the public.

Hello all,

Here is the link to the paper I would like to read for class:

http://www.archimuse.com/ichim07/papers/devine/devine.html