this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
-46 points (11.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26280 readers
1358 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

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.

[–] Brewchin@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)