I never understood the benefit of public museums, especially in the internet age.
If you want to look at some artifacts without touching it, you could google it and see it.
Also in public museums a lot of artifacts get damaged due to visitors behaviors.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the old artifacts at storage facility and release a high quality pictures of it instead of putting it in a museum?
Is there is a benefit for public museums?
No.
It doesn’t matter how hi-res photos are. Seeing the real thing is a different and essential experience.
For instance, I was in the Met in NYC last year, and just happened to walk into a room that contains one of Henry VIII’s suits of battle armor. This is as close as I can ever be to meeting that historical figure, and I get to see in real dimensions how big and tall he was, and appreciate the worksmanship of his smiths.
The met also has some rebuilt rooms from historical places, such as Roman temples, and a photo can’t replace those things. A photo cannot give you the experience of standing in a Roman temple.
Definitely agree. I had zero interest in sculpture until I walked into the Louvre and d’Orsay museums in Paris. I was transfixed by the sculptures there. Specifically the Winged Victory of Samothrace, the Rape of Persephone, and the Venus de Milo.
As in staring at each piece for nearly an hour, unable to imagine how the artist got that out of stone. It blew my mind, and the memory of it still does.
I don’t care how good your photos are, or whatever visualisation technology you’re using, nothing - absolutely nothing - compares to standing in the same room as the real thing.
Conversely, being in the same room as the Mona Lisa was unexpectedly disappointing. It’s so small and hard to see with 800 fellow tourists crammed into the viewing room. That probably is better examined online, though seeing it in person is an experience.
The Sistine Chapel is also something worth seeing in person. You can’t judge the scale from photos.
The same applies to pictures of hikes. Sure you can take a nice panorama but that doesn’t do justice to actually being there.
Absolutely. If you haven’t seen Washington Crossing the Deleware in person, you simply haven’t experienced it properly. You don’t get the sense of scale on the internet. Same with the Louvre, d’Orsay or any other world-class museum. Even local museums like the Columbia Maritime Museum in Astoria OR has exhibits and stories that really require that intimate exposure to be engrossed in the information. It transforms your reception to the exhibits and cannot be replicated virtually.
100%
And that god-awful frame they constructed for it, haha.
The Met is awesome, you can’t even see everything in one day.
The Rijks Museum in Amsterdam was huge. Couldn’t get though it all ina visit.
Same goes for the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Oh! And Berlin’s Museum Island is a wonder of the world. Just so much to see.
How does it com0are to the Vatican Museum?
I don’t know enough about those to comment. I have not been there yet.
Given how much history and artifacts the Vatican can assemble, they’re likely on the same scale, if on differing topics.
If you’re looking for religious artifact collections, the Bode in Berlin has a huge collection. It’s very deep for Christian iconography, as well as later paintings and sculpture. They also have some Greek materials. If you want Roman sculpture the Altes Museum (especially the rotunda) is phenomenal.
Of course the British Museum is just frakkin amazing end to end. When I was trying to navigate there (I was a bit lost) and wondered what the cluster of people were looking at next to me, and it turned out to be THE Rosetta Stone, holy shit. Worth the trip.
True. An incredible experience.