Snipes With Artillery
22nd March 2005
Yesterday I finally checked out the California State Military Museum, which has artifacts ranging from the Spanish military presence to California's current involvement. It's fairly small and doesn't tend to go into great detail, but it's a decent museum, especially if you already know the story and just want to see some cool artifacts.
What do you guys prefer in museums? Cool stories, or cool artifacts?
Artifacts. If I want to read about history I prefer books. Reading while in a musuem seems uncomfortable, so I prefer to walk around and look at stuff.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Museums, aren't those those things your parents drag you around when you're five and complain about you not being interested in things?...
If something has to be in them I suppose it may as well be artefacts. The occasional coffee shop wouldn't go amiss either. Can always read stories at home.
Artefacts, and for the same reasons mentioned above... I'm forced to read boring stuff in school all day, I hardly want to go to a place where I'm just going to be reading more boring stuff.
Faktrl is Best Pony
10th September 2007
Is "artifacts" really spelled differently in the UK?
"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.
Definitely artifacts. Seeing a tank in a book is not the same as seeing it IRL. I've been to mostly war museums like Parola tank museum in eastern Finland and various museums in Normandy, Holland and Brussels.
In Dallas there isn't much in the way of museums. The Art Museum here has a good collection that won't break your wallet to get in, and is closer to where I live. Their Natural History museum is fair, but I think it can't compare to others. History-wise there's not much going on in Dallas beyond the usual amazing history of Dallas, but there's of course the place where JFK got shot at Dealey Plaza if that floats your boat. Always kind of found it amusing that's something we highlight here. Bonus points if you run into conspiracy theorists and get a souvenir to take home in the form of a pamphlet telling you the real story behind JFK's assassination.
I liked going to the National Mall in Washington DC and visiting the different Smithsonian museums as well as other colleges such as the Holocaust museum, the Native American Museum, etc. I enjoyed the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History the most though. New York City's museums were pretty nice too, liked how they were positioned in the city, for the most part.
Usually when I go overseas I try to make a point to visit Museums that relate to the country's culture in some way. It's a touristy thing to do, but I find them interesting places to learn about a country's ways, as well as what the country's viewpoint is in what aspects of their country they highlight and what they choose to ignore or downplay.
I'm fine with any sort of historical record, be it a hard 'artifact' or reading primary sources. From a Museum's standpoint though artifacts and other visual things help to get people in through the door. Especially nowadays with Museums facing funding problems, they're doing what they can to make their things interesting with out (presumably) making it less educational. Admittedly I'm more willing to go to museums now than when we were corralled into them for school field trips.
I'm already off-topic as it is, but I think museums are important for at least preserving cultural relics and creating some sort of 'lineage' where people can appreciate the development of things. I've seen this problem a lot in developing countries which due to many reasons Museums can not find the necessary support from public or private sources. Subsequently these relics begin to deteriorate and fall apart, with it some irreplaceable aspect of their history.
When I went back to Iraqi Kurdistan there's a lot of physical history, but little interest from the authorities to preserve it. The only real 'success' has probably been the old citadel in Arbil, which is conveniently the capital of the federal region.
Some buildings reasonable preserved,
It's more problematic outside the capital. Looking at old Assyrian Ruins which only recently came under protection- mostly forgotten in the decades and centuries before.
Guess what I'm saying is it's very, very easy to lose these relics and artifacts. People take it for granted I think nowadays the role of preserving these things and their importance to history, both on a local level and how it fits in globally. I've had trouble finding out my own history, in between the numerous wars that goes on and many of the historical resources here being plagued by the usual problems of commentators during that time (1800s and early 1900s) plaguing their interpretation with a Eurocentric viewpoint -though I would argue this is still the case with histories and coverage of the reason- and all the more problematic that you can't find out much going straight to the source.
computernerd;5615190Is "artifacts" really spelled differently in the UK?
Arte + factum = Artefact
Haven't the faintest idea why your country felt the need to switch one letter..
A museum should rely on it's artifacts, but recently, most museums I went to ( the Smithsonian museums) Don't indulge enough into the specifics. I mean If you have a fossil or an aeroplane, Just saying it's name does not cut it for me. I'm not saying the Smithsonian is a bad set of museums, quite the contrary, but I'd like to get even more of a back-story.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Museums are great, I love to look or even touch the artefacts on display. Reading I can do at the comfort of my own home, be it via books or background information provided on the museums website.
Ofcourse the question is, which museum? If it concerns history or mechanics I may very well be interested. Modern art? Not so much, there some if it may look nice, but I do get bored rather quickly in such museums. Especially if I know the price tag for some of the junk or crap they have on display. But then again, beauty (and the price tag..) is in the eye of the beholder...