Museums have always been an important part of almost every culture. A collection of artifacts and ranging from paper to stone, and everything in between. A collection that effectively represents the creative and expressive side of cultures throughout many generations, while organized to be an intricate yet effective timeline for those vast and varied cultures. Museums have been around for numerous years, all sharing the same structure and purpose, and all being equally and important to keeping culture alive and keeping others well informed of cultures from our past. The problem that persists today though, is how today’s generation is getting too modern, fast-paced and interactive that people are getting less and less interested in museums and in turn are learning less and less about history and its varied cultures throughout.
In the article, “Museums Can Change—Will They?” Michael O’Hare Poses the argument that museums are dying both in a financial and popularity or social aspect. Despite this, the government along with the workers for those respective museums have the power to change their system to be more welcoming and sustainable than it is currently. O’Hare’s main ideas revolves around the belief that museums and the general museum experience can be fixed by being modernized and driven by today’s generation with technology greatly influencing the way people perceive the world and their behavior in general.
According to the text, many museums are keeping minor art pieces, and even duplicates of those pieces in warehouses instead of presenting or even selling them. This is damaging in many ways to these museums by having them suffer financially as a business and socially as a culture. One of the biggest factors that acts as a cause to this downfall of museums is the government and its lack of collaborative efforts or even approval for outside sources’ efforts to these facilities. Many museums are being denied the ability to sell these duplicates, which denies a way for patrons to interact with the art, and denies a way for the museums to make a profit.
Another issue revolves around the visitors, rather than the staff or government being set to blame for the need in change in museums, fault also falls upon the patrons or visitors. Those who visit museums usually don’t spend much time appreciating the pieces and can either rush by each piece, with only 5 second glances between each one, or just walk through the museum without even looking at the art set on display, or at least a small percentage of it. A supposed way O’Hare believes this can be fixed is through having a more hands on approach with the visitors, he believes making them part of the art will leave a bigger impact and might bring a bit of a personal or individual revival of culture.
A method that can potentially fix the issue of finance and audience is to sell the minor and duplicate pieces that are, as O’Hare said, “locked up in the basements and warehouses of a handful of our largest museums.” Modernizing the experience to new visitors with smartphone apps and other modern tools can attract and captivate a younger audience, via the use of virtual assistants to guide you through the museum with the app, and to also provide the history in speech similar to an audio book, while any customers are exploring the new sights and sounds to these revamped establishments. If done right, these changes will fix the issue of these future generations having an inconsistent and weakened culture, by reconnecting them with older cultures and making them more aware of their own in turn.
I believe that Michael O’Hare makes many strong and inspiring arguments in his article, “Museums Can Change—Will They?” More importantly, I agree with his argument of how museums and the forces running it, including the government, has the potential to change the system and improve the overall museum experience, but it’s either through stubbornness to hold on to the past or a genuine belief that the current system either isn’t flawed or is at its peak performance. I do believe that museums should sell their duplicates for both promotion and profit, although i disagree for the minor pieces that don’t have duplicates, I believe that even the minor pieces of artwork should still have their own space in the museum to be presented and appreciated.