For my website review I looked at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or OMSI. I found that the website contained a lot of information and was able to be navigated with ease. The first thing that I noticed when I got on the site was the mission statement which is “The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) is a scientific, educational, and cultural resource center dedicated to improving the public's understanding of science and technology. OMSI makes science exciting and relevant through exhibits, programs, and experiences that are presented in an entertaining and participatory fashion.” I thought that it was a very well thought out mission statement that was to vague but at the same time would a challenge for any museum. The website in my opinion is well integrated with the mission statement. When of the ideas that they really try to push is making the museum experience entertaining and participatory, which I found that they were able to achieve simply on the website. The website included educational programs for groups, individuals, and teachers which I thought was very important to their mission statement. One interesting thing I found on the website was a program they offer called Science Pub. Science Pub is where people who are interested in a certain topic have the ability to go a to pub and drink and eat while a specialist in a field will present their topic to the pub. I thought that was an interesting way to achieve the public understanding of the mission statement. Other parts of the website that I enjoyed were science experiments that you can do at home. For instance it tells how to make homemade flubber. This is a good way to engage people from a distance and still teach them about science. The events section of the site was also extremely informational for anyone who was interested in a certain topic other than just going to the museum. A museum offering something more than just their exhibits is important to keep their patrons enticed.
Some of the critiques of the site that I can make is the lack of pictures of the actually building. I found it disappointing because the viewer has a vague idea of what the actual place looks like. I personally thought that the background of the website was also a bit boring and that they could have easily changed the colors to make it more appealing to the eye. It would also have been nice if the website would offer a 3-D tour so that a person could become more informed on where to go inside the museum. Overall I think that the website is very representative of what the actual museum is like and is able to aid the viewer.
http://www.omsi.edu/home
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Museum Exhibit Review: Win the Victory: Early Days of Football at Washington State
The exhibit that I chose to to review is the football exhibit that MASC presented from September to February. This exhibit showed an early history of Washington States football team from 1894-1930. The goal of this exhibit was to give the viewer a brief history of the rise of WSU football and what the first teams were like. The way that MASC was able to present the history of WSU football was through the use of pictures, stories, and film reels. One of the more notable film reels that they possessed was on the 1915 season which WSU went undefeated to the Rosebowl and won against Brown. Winning the Rosebowl was a main display of the exhibit because few people know about that winning season.
The exhibit breaks down the history by showing different eras in cougar football, breaking down what was happening in the world along with WSU. For instance, WSU declined to participate in the 1917 Rosebowl due to the outbreak of World War One. In the 1920's WSU saw their first African American player which was a step towards ethnic equality in the university.
Another interesting history that this exhibit presents is the evolution of where the football team played. Before ending up at Martin Stadium, the team played on three other fields; Beet Field, Soldier Field, and Rogers Field. They are able to show photographs of each of these places with the team playing on them. The viewer can appreciate the photos because most of them have been to the places where these fields use to be.
The exhibit also gives insight to the history behind the schools colors and how they started out as pink and blue and eventually evolved to be crimson and gray. They give photos of people wearing WSU clothing in these colors. Butch was also mentioned in the exhibit and how he was not always the mascot of the college. WSU has gone through many different mascots and even use to have a live cougar that they kept and brought to games. I found it interesting that the college would allow a live cougar to be brought to a football game, I thought this to be unsafe and not wise. But they present an evolution of the mascots and tell about each one of them and where they came from and had pictures and postcards of them.
Overall I enjoyed the exhibit because it told of a history that many people are not aware of. This college has change a lot since the late 1800's and they were able to give a good summary on some of the key changes. They are able to give the viewer of the exhibit a good feel of what the changes were like with some primary sources that they have accumulated over the years along with various documents, pictures, and films. It was spectacular that MASC had films of the WSU football team dating back to the 1916 Rosebowl game. The materials that MASC had for this exhibit were well displayed and able to grasp the viewers attention. Having a television in the exhibit that played old games was a nice treat for the viewer so that they were able to see how the game was played in the old days and not just see pictures of it. I would say that the film was the most valuable tool in the exhibit that helped to show the main idea. I would recommend this exhibit but sadly it is now gone. The exhibit gave additional information for the viewers that were interested in learning more than what was presented.
A few things that I believe that they could have done better given the resources is that they could have included more items such as helmets or footballs. It would have been interesting to see in real life the actual gear that they players used. Pictures can only do so much for an exhibit and with more objects I feel that they would have been able to attract more people. I also feel as thought they could have better advertised the exhibit so that more people would have known about it. I was unaware of the exhibit until one of my classes went down to MASC. They could have put up more posters or put fliers in The Daily Evergreen. The exhibit itself is in a poor location because most people do not even realize that MASC exists but there is nothing that they would have been able to do about this. Given that they most likely did not have all of these resources I still think that it was a well put together exhibit that needed little improvement.
The exhibit breaks down the history by showing different eras in cougar football, breaking down what was happening in the world along with WSU. For instance, WSU declined to participate in the 1917 Rosebowl due to the outbreak of World War One. In the 1920's WSU saw their first African American player which was a step towards ethnic equality in the university.
Another interesting history that this exhibit presents is the evolution of where the football team played. Before ending up at Martin Stadium, the team played on three other fields; Beet Field, Soldier Field, and Rogers Field. They are able to show photographs of each of these places with the team playing on them. The viewer can appreciate the photos because most of them have been to the places where these fields use to be.
The exhibit also gives insight to the history behind the schools colors and how they started out as pink and blue and eventually evolved to be crimson and gray. They give photos of people wearing WSU clothing in these colors. Butch was also mentioned in the exhibit and how he was not always the mascot of the college. WSU has gone through many different mascots and even use to have a live cougar that they kept and brought to games. I found it interesting that the college would allow a live cougar to be brought to a football game, I thought this to be unsafe and not wise. But they present an evolution of the mascots and tell about each one of them and where they came from and had pictures and postcards of them.
Overall I enjoyed the exhibit because it told of a history that many people are not aware of. This college has change a lot since the late 1800's and they were able to give a good summary on some of the key changes. They are able to give the viewer of the exhibit a good feel of what the changes were like with some primary sources that they have accumulated over the years along with various documents, pictures, and films. It was spectacular that MASC had films of the WSU football team dating back to the 1916 Rosebowl game. The materials that MASC had for this exhibit were well displayed and able to grasp the viewers attention. Having a television in the exhibit that played old games was a nice treat for the viewer so that they were able to see how the game was played in the old days and not just see pictures of it. I would say that the film was the most valuable tool in the exhibit that helped to show the main idea. I would recommend this exhibit but sadly it is now gone. The exhibit gave additional information for the viewers that were interested in learning more than what was presented.
A few things that I believe that they could have done better given the resources is that they could have included more items such as helmets or footballs. It would have been interesting to see in real life the actual gear that they players used. Pictures can only do so much for an exhibit and with more objects I feel that they would have been able to attract more people. I also feel as thought they could have better advertised the exhibit so that more people would have known about it. I was unaware of the exhibit until one of my classes went down to MASC. They could have put up more posters or put fliers in The Daily Evergreen. The exhibit itself is in a poor location because most people do not even realize that MASC exists but there is nothing that they would have been able to do about this. Given that they most likely did not have all of these resources I still think that it was a well put together exhibit that needed little improvement.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
NY Times Article Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/arts/design/26curious.html
The article that I am reviewing is about the Curious George Exhibit at the Jewish Museum. It is a new addition that talks about the history behind the story and the authors Margret and H.A. Rey. The exhibition is a collection of letters, books and drawings from their life. The article gives the story behind Curious George and where he came from. The Reys started off married in France in 1939, the two Jewish-Germans lived in a castle owned by some friends. Soon World War II started and they knew that they needed to stay inside the castle and hide from the public's view. This is where Curious George came in, the couple spent their spare time putting together a book about a monkey named Fifi (who became Curious George). Eventually their neighbors saw the couple in the house and called the local authorities on them. They came right away and inspected to find some bomb making materials but were surprised when they arrived to find an art studio with paintings of a silly monkey. This was the first but not the last time that the couples creation of the children's book would save their life.
When people go and visit the exhibit they don't just learn about the history of the books. They also learn the history of one couples journey to escape the Nazis. This exhibit was chosen to be placed in the Jewish Museum because of all of the hardships that the Reys endured and how they were singled out because of their beliefs. It is an inspirational story that keeps the interest of the viewer. The Reys were forced to travel the world and not find a place they were able to call home because of their Jewish heritage. They had created the idea of Curious George from the notion that consequence were everything during the time they lived in. They thought that there was no better way of showing that than by creating a monkey that had the curiosity of a five year old. The exhibit was named 'Curious George Saves the Day' because George saved the day in his adventures just like the paintings of him saved the lives the Reys.
The exhibit itself is shown in a gallery fashion so as you walk through the French style doors you see many of the original drawings from H.A. Rey. The walls are painted a yellow that help bring out the vibrant colors of the drawings. One important feature of the exhibit is that a lot of the drawings are moved lower than a typical exhibit because of the amount of youthful viewers.
I found this exhibit very interesting because I had never known anything about the creator of Curious George. I believe that the article gives an insightful experience of what he went through during a time that Jewish people face persecution. The exhibit seems as though it not only displays his works in an appealing fashion but also gives the view a great story as well.
The article that I am reviewing is about the Curious George Exhibit at the Jewish Museum. It is a new addition that talks about the history behind the story and the authors Margret and H.A. Rey. The exhibition is a collection of letters, books and drawings from their life. The article gives the story behind Curious George and where he came from. The Reys started off married in France in 1939, the two Jewish-Germans lived in a castle owned by some friends. Soon World War II started and they knew that they needed to stay inside the castle and hide from the public's view. This is where Curious George came in, the couple spent their spare time putting together a book about a monkey named Fifi (who became Curious George). Eventually their neighbors saw the couple in the house and called the local authorities on them. They came right away and inspected to find some bomb making materials but were surprised when they arrived to find an art studio with paintings of a silly monkey. This was the first but not the last time that the couples creation of the children's book would save their life.
When people go and visit the exhibit they don't just learn about the history of the books. They also learn the history of one couples journey to escape the Nazis. This exhibit was chosen to be placed in the Jewish Museum because of all of the hardships that the Reys endured and how they were singled out because of their beliefs. It is an inspirational story that keeps the interest of the viewer. The Reys were forced to travel the world and not find a place they were able to call home because of their Jewish heritage. They had created the idea of Curious George from the notion that consequence were everything during the time they lived in. They thought that there was no better way of showing that than by creating a monkey that had the curiosity of a five year old. The exhibit was named 'Curious George Saves the Day' because George saved the day in his adventures just like the paintings of him saved the lives the Reys.
The exhibit itself is shown in a gallery fashion so as you walk through the French style doors you see many of the original drawings from H.A. Rey. The walls are painted a yellow that help bring out the vibrant colors of the drawings. One important feature of the exhibit is that a lot of the drawings are moved lower than a typical exhibit because of the amount of youthful viewers.
I found this exhibit very interesting because I had never known anything about the creator of Curious George. I believe that the article gives an insightful experience of what he went through during a time that Jewish people face persecution. The exhibit seems as though it not only displays his works in an appealing fashion but also gives the view a great story as well.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Architecture is the Museum
When going to a museum for the first time the very first thing that everyone notices is the building that houses the museum. From the moment that you see it for the first time the viewer starts to create a vision of what the museum as a whole looks like. Each museum that I have gone to in the past I feel as though the architecture has played a vital role in creating a more authentic experience.
One of the museums that I have been to that the architecture has played an important role was OMSI. I remember the first time going to OMSI, pulling up in my car to a large industrious looking building. The building from the outside was brick for the most part and had a giant smoke stack on top. I instantly thought that I was going to a factory. To my surprise when I went inside, I observed that everything was very modern looking and brightly lit up, it was as though that the outside of the building gave a complete different image to it. The inside was very open and you could see all around which greatly enhanced my experience there. The exhibits were influenced by the architecture of the building. One of the exhibits that was greatly influenced by the architecture was the submarine that they have. If the museum had been built in a different place not near a river or didn't have as many exits/entrances this would not be the same. Being in a submarine actually underwater made the experience that much more enjoyable. It would have not been nearly as memorable if it had been on land. Another example of OMSI's exhibits being impacted by the architecture would be the interactive science room where you actually get to perform experiments or use the equipment they have. The room that houses all of this is massive and gives a person the feeling as though they are outside because the room is so large. In this room I remember making helicopter out of simple items and flying it inside not worrying if it hit the ceiling because it would be nearly impossible. If the room had been small this would be nothing special of an exhibit and not so memorable.
My memories of going to museums like OMSI would not be the same if it had not been built the way it was. The experience that I had at OMSI proved to me that the architecture is the museum.
One of the museums that I have been to that the architecture has played an important role was OMSI. I remember the first time going to OMSI, pulling up in my car to a large industrious looking building. The building from the outside was brick for the most part and had a giant smoke stack on top. I instantly thought that I was going to a factory. To my surprise when I went inside, I observed that everything was very modern looking and brightly lit up, it was as though that the outside of the building gave a complete different image to it. The inside was very open and you could see all around which greatly enhanced my experience there. The exhibits were influenced by the architecture of the building. One of the exhibits that was greatly influenced by the architecture was the submarine that they have. If the museum had been built in a different place not near a river or didn't have as many exits/entrances this would not be the same. Being in a submarine actually underwater made the experience that much more enjoyable. It would have not been nearly as memorable if it had been on land. Another example of OMSI's exhibits being impacted by the architecture would be the interactive science room where you actually get to perform experiments or use the equipment they have. The room that houses all of this is massive and gives a person the feeling as though they are outside because the room is so large. In this room I remember making helicopter out of simple items and flying it inside not worrying if it hit the ceiling because it would be nearly impossible. If the room had been small this would be nothing special of an exhibit and not so memorable.
My memories of going to museums like OMSI would not be the same if it had not been built the way it was. The experience that I had at OMSI proved to me that the architecture is the museum.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Success within a museum
Success within a museum is difficult to assess and has no clear answer. The term “success” is relative depending on who you talk to; each person that has anything to with a museum, be it a patron or the director all want to get something different out of it. Weil tries to break down how to measure success of a museum using four different pieces of criteria: purposiveness, capability, effectiveness and efficiency. Using these four aspects of a museum he is able to explain how it is possible for a self-evaluation. I do agree with him that all of this is necessary to gauge success for museum staff. I however find it difficult to use this to gauge success for patrons at a museum.
One aspect that I have felt that is overlooked in many museums is the ability to engage with the viewer in an interactive environment. I do understand that not all museums are capable or should actually do this, but at the same time too many museums are simply created around the uniform idea that you just observe an exhibit, then move on to the next one. For example when I go to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or OMSI, I feel as though I am more knowledgeable walking away from an exhibit because I have had some interaction with it. A few years back when I went there, they had a exhibit on earthquakes and the destruction they do. They had many different interactions with the patrons of the museum such as walking into a house that would replicate certain magnitudes of earthquakes. This combined with pictures of the results of an earthquake made me truly understand what it was like to go through what the people of the picture did. I would have not been able to have the same experience at the exhibit if there was not the room that replicated an earthquake, I most likely would have just moved on to the next exhibit. Exhibits that engage the patron can simply leave a more lasting affect than one that is only for viewing.
One aspect that I have felt that is overlooked in many museums is the ability to engage with the viewer in an interactive environment. I do understand that not all museums are capable or should actually do this, but at the same time too many museums are simply created around the uniform idea that you just observe an exhibit, then move on to the next one. For example when I go to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or OMSI, I feel as though I am more knowledgeable walking away from an exhibit because I have had some interaction with it. A few years back when I went there, they had a exhibit on earthquakes and the destruction they do. They had many different interactions with the patrons of the museum such as walking into a house that would replicate certain magnitudes of earthquakes. This combined with pictures of the results of an earthquake made me truly understand what it was like to go through what the people of the picture did. I would have not been able to have the same experience at the exhibit if there was not the room that replicated an earthquake, I most likely would have just moved on to the next exhibit. Exhibits that engage the patron can simply leave a more lasting affect than one that is only for viewing.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Contextual Approach
“Contextual Approach” is the idea of viewing objects in a museum with a feel for the object within a more natural environment. Susan Pearce talks about how without having enough surrounding information around the object that its true importance can be lost. If the Declaration of Independence was put in a exhibit that showed what paper from the 1700's compared to the founding of America makes a huge difference. People that would go visit the museum that had a bunch of old paper might not think anything of it. But if it was placed in an exhibit with other significant items from the founding of the nation, everyone would understand how important and significant it is.
For instance when I was at the Toi Gold Mine museum in Japan I walked through the gold mine that had been dug out hundred years ago, inside the mine there were dummies to show the working conditions that the laborers had gone through. Without the dummies being put in the parts where the workers were at I would have never looked at the place in the same way. This museum would have meant very little to me if I had not seen the dummies. When at the museum I got a feel for the daily lives of the people that were there, something I would have not been able to gather from pictures or some other type of description. The contextual approach allows the viewer to take place within the story that the exhibit is trying to portray. Without the contextual approach, the viewer becomes disconnected with the exhibit and is unable to fully understand what they are viewing. Museums will always be need because nothing can replace the context that a museum can create.
For instance when I was at the Toi Gold Mine museum in Japan I walked through the gold mine that had been dug out hundred years ago, inside the mine there were dummies to show the working conditions that the laborers had gone through. Without the dummies being put in the parts where the workers were at I would have never looked at the place in the same way. This museum would have meant very little to me if I had not seen the dummies. When at the museum I got a feel for the daily lives of the people that were there, something I would have not been able to gather from pictures or some other type of description. The contextual approach allows the viewer to take place within the story that the exhibit is trying to portray. Without the contextual approach, the viewer becomes disconnected with the exhibit and is unable to fully understand what they are viewing. Museums will always be need because nothing can replace the context that a museum can create.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Looking Inside a Museum
Each person that goes inside a museum will look at the collects in a different fashion. I believe that the greatest influence on how we perceive collections in a museum is how they are presented. The presentation affects the way that each person will look at objects. For instance, putting something in a glass case that is in the middle of a room and having lights shining on it, will obtain the focus of the viewer more so than an object that is poorly lit and put in a corner of a room. If all of the exhibits were in the same condition with no variation on light or placement in a room, then it would be truly up to the viewer to decide what they like the most. Because of the people that create the exhibits there will always be a bias towards what they believe is the most important to show off or present. This bias will change how a person will see inside a museum.
When I enter a museum I honestly try to take in account all of the factors that are influencing me to look at one thing or another and attempt to look past these obstacles for viewing. For instance when I went to the Conner Museum last Thursday, one of the first objects that I noticed was a Kangaroo. This Kangaroo was one of the largest objects in the room and clearly visible, it drew my attention right away. I believed this to be my favorite thing until I looked around a little bit closer to see that in the corner that there was a Mexican bird collection and that some of the birds had greater detail and more information. This collection was far more fascinating than the kangaroo that I had looked at. I then realized that because of an objects placement I had tended to focus on it more and was oblivious to my surroundings until I forced myself to look around more. This goes to show that the placement of a collection can have a profound effect on the viewer.
When I enter a museum I honestly try to take in account all of the factors that are influencing me to look at one thing or another and attempt to look past these obstacles for viewing. For instance when I went to the Conner Museum last Thursday, one of the first objects that I noticed was a Kangaroo. This Kangaroo was one of the largest objects in the room and clearly visible, it drew my attention right away. I believed this to be my favorite thing until I looked around a little bit closer to see that in the corner that there was a Mexican bird collection and that some of the birds had greater detail and more information. This collection was far more fascinating than the kangaroo that I had looked at. I then realized that because of an objects placement I had tended to focus on it more and was oblivious to my surroundings until I forced myself to look around more. This goes to show that the placement of a collection can have a profound effect on the viewer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)