The website for the Metropolitan Museum of Art recently underwent a major overhaul. Edward Rothstein reviews the new site in his New York Times article “From Met Museum, Virtual Virtue.” Overall, Rothstein does a good job with his article. First, he describes the new site, which has a very simplistic design with black and gray banners and shows off the museum’s many collections. He continues his review with an analysis of this specific website as well as the role of websites for museums.
Rothstein points out the many things he likes about the new website and uses other websites as examples of his ideas. For example, he explains how the amount of information about the objects included on the site is just right, calling the site “encyclopedic.” He presents the websites for the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Louvre as examples of websites that didn’t do this quite as well as the Met did. Another aspect of the website for the Met that Rothstein liked was the way the website associates itself with the museum rather than competing with it. The simplistic design of the website doesn’t try to evoke sensations about the museum and the site includes interactive maps to direct people to the actual exhibits and objects in the museum building. Again, he provides an example of a website that is much weaker in this area, this time using the Museum of Modern Art’s site, which makes you feel “a sense of excitement and variety.”
The ideas that Rothstein proposes and the examples he uses help the reader to think about the role of a museum’s website. They make me wonder about how the websites impact the museums and their visitors. Is it better to see the objects in the museum in person or be able to look at images of them from anywhere? Does putting everything in the museum online make people less motivated to visit the physical museum building? How could this impact the experience? If less people decide to go to the museum because they can see it online, would this be good or bad for the experience of the people that do go to the museum? Is a less crowded museum better or is the social aspect in which people are responding to the objects in the museum together and seeing each others responses a part of the experience? I believe that putting more of a museum online will detract from the meuseum itself. However, I do think that the answers to many of these questions depend on the way the websites and museums are designed and how they work together. If they are designed to go together well, as Rothstein believes the Met and its website are, then people will look to both and there will be the impact could even be positive.
Really is an interesting idea. Would people go see a live museum if could just be done online
i think that people would still go see a live museum even if it could be replicated because there are some things that cannot be transferred to the computer. Like, the dinosaur fossils would be something that you would rather see in person than on the comp.
I believe that as technology continues to become an essential part of life, places like museums and art galleries need to take advantage and create a way to keep up. However, there is definitely something more meaningful and influencial about physically visiting a place like the Met. It is part of the experience and once you slowly retract from that, you lose the essence and pleasure. Nevertheless, the newly designed website might help attract a larger pool of individuals, who would rather view the collections available online and then plan a visit to get the full experience.
While the website serves as a definite asset to the museum, some aspects of art, like texture, vividness, and dimension cannot (or at least not yet) be properly transposed onto a website. The site may prove useful for reference, though one needs to experience a piece in person to grasp its full effect.
I agree with Mark. Even though the website may be able to provide the audience with information regarding a certain piece of art the viewer will not be able to appreciate the art as it was intended to be appreciated until he is standing in front of the piece and focusing his full attention on the piece.
Hey Keith, I agree that the design of the website and also how well it works in sync with the museum would probably be the key factor in deciding whether websites will encourage or discourage people to visit. But, I am inclined to believe that people will be more interested in visiting after viewing and learning more about the collection online.
I think that going to the actual museum is a much better experience than looking at things on a website. I prefer to see things in real life rather than in a picture.
Late comment, but I agree with everyone else. Technology will never replace the atmosphere of a museum (unless its a technological museum). Personally, I wouldn’t even stop to look at an image on the internet, but museums have a magically attraction to the area in front of an artwork.