One of my longstanding peeves is that art museums are treated as serious places for grown-ups but science museums and zoos are treated as places for kids.
One of my longstanding peeves is that art museums are treated as serious places for grown-ups but science museums and zoos are treated as places for kids.
I think that science museums being places for kids is a good thing. The are the ones who benefit the most. If you want science for grownups, you have conferences. Also, that it is for kids doesn't make it impossible to enjoy as an adult, especially if it is about things you are unfamiliar with.
Now, if you go to a science museum and think "only a kid can enjoy that". Then the problem is not that it is a place for kids, it is that it is just bad. It is a thing Disney understood very well, its classics may look like they are for kids, but they are actually enjoyable by everyone, and it is a big reason for their success.
As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid. That's unlike a science museum where they actually try to teach you science. It is only interesting if you are already well into that kind of art, and most kids aren't (yet?).
History museums are kind of a middle ground as they can do the double duty of teaching history (mostly for kids) and showing off artefacts to people who are already into that (mostly for grownups).
> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.
Adults outside a field do not go to conferences.
> As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid.
Some kids are interested in art. It can be well presented. You can have guided tours aimed at kids.
Go to a big city art museum and they're swarming with school groups.
School groups vary. Some kids are interested, some are not.
I have had some bad experiences with school groups who did not know how to behave in a theatre - mostly Shakespeare plays because of where I lived. Some were enjoying them but were not used to keeping quiet. Some just did not want to be there.
And, even in the UK, I've seen school groups that are as well-behaved as you can reasonably expect a bunch of kids to be and I've seen groups making a lot of noise and running around with their teachers (or whoever) vainly trying to maintain some semblance of control.
You do realize that the original Shakespeare and similar time period plays were MUCH more like how the kids did it, right? Plays in that century were bawdy, vicious, and just nuts. And to be fair, Shakespeare's own material talks about stuff, if modernized, would be considered rated 'R'.
Sitting quietly to watch a show is pretty recent. Even classical performances were louder with praise and en-core requests shouted out loud.
I'm not exactly sure when the 'sit down, shut up, and listen' happened, but yeah.
The greatest Science museums leverage interactivity. Art museums do up always 'up to some extent'. Kids should be able to paint anything (moustache?) over Mona Lisa.
If there are tech conventions, why not science conventions?
Do people not in tech go to tech conventions?
My company has a tech convention every year. Last time I went I played spot the tech person - most people there failed the test (they were former engineers now in management trying to pretend they were still technical). I'm a staff engineer and I was the lowest position person I saw there - not even senior engineers much less the low or mid level engineers that would benefit from talking to the seniors at a tech conference.
You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of a tech convention. The sport you need to play is "spot the customer".
You could be right, though I didn't spot very many I couldn't identify, it could be just what I was looking for. The company is selling to tech people in the company as a tech conference, but that doesn't mean that is really the point. (though I would expect the majority of our customers are not technical people, and thus I don't see how there is value in bringing customers in)
The customers are often not in the breakouts or even on the show floor much. When I was involved in my former company's event, there was a big customer briefing center that was back to back meetings with (typically) customer management at some level and a separate day track for executives.
Even as an analyst--as I've been off and on--I didn't necessarily do a ton of breakouts. I'd watch the keynotes, whether in-person or streaming, and then it was hallway track, meetings, and usually some sort of separate analyst/media activity.
There are community open source and adjacent conventions that don't really have customers or, necessarily, many managers there. I'll be at one in a couple weeks. But directly company-run events are absolutely about generating leads/business. A lot of foundation-led events are somewhere in the middle.
I think tech aficionados and media types do. Tech conventions are more consumer-friendly than the scientific equivalent.
I'd categorize both those groups as being "in tech." Even if they're not active developers, they're certainly tech-adjacent especially in the software space.
There are probably counter-examples, but I'm not sure where I'd go if I were, say, an enthusiastic amateur physics or chemistry enthusiast of some sort that would be especially accessible.
There are. But there are mostly attended by people working in the field.
> science museums being places for kids is a good thing. The are the ones who benefit the most
I'm not sure how you can look at the current state of scientific literacy in America and conclude this.
> art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid
There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic.
> There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic.
Sure, but 80% of the words in that sentence are indecipherable to my 7 year old. Just like an art museum. We can absolutely go there, as long as we are prepared to hear “I’m bored” about 10 minutes in.
Personally I enjoy seeing him run around marveling and experimenting with physics a lot more.
> There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic.
Those are in the eye of the beholder though. In many cases they are things I still don't care about after learning about them. An ugly painting doesn't become any more interesting to me when I learn about the struggles the artist went through - a lot of people do find it more interesting - good for them, but it isn't for me. (then again the paintings I'm thinking of most people thought were nice even before they learned about the artist...)
> An ugly painting doesn't become any more interesting to me when I learn about the struggles the artist went through
Personal struggles? Sure. An ugly painting that opens the door to me learning about a war or revolution or system of government I was previously unaware of? Or a style or medium enabled by a new technology of the time? That can be fun.
I live near a large collection of wildlife art. I can't say many of them are beautiful. But noting how wolves have been portrayed over millenia, and across cultures, was a genuinely interesting exhibit. (In America, they went from ferocious creatues to essentially dogs. Most wolves in art today are not physiologically wolves. Akin to how most butterflies in art are dead.)
That can happen, but often the story isn't interesting (at least to me). It is the same story: someone decides the world is out to get them and they won't "sell out". I don't care, I don't agree with their world view, and in any case they are not unique. If anything they need mental help - but they are plenty of other people around who also need such help who didn't paint.
Do not mistake what I said for some claim that all art is bad/ugly. There is a lot of art I do enjoy. What I enjoy is personal. I do not fault someone else for enjoying art that I don't enjoy in general.
I saw Da Vinci's drawings and smaller paintings and they were fun, with the investigation of flowing water and (illicit?) anatomy and various devices with wooden cogs in. Not exactly educational, but historically interesting and oddly aesthetic. Does that count? I mean, art galleries can show lots of different kinds of art. It doesn't have to be monotonous self-expression.
I have no idea how your replp fits in with my comment. I find some 'art' ugly and knowing about the artist doesn't change a thing.
I find Da Vinci the engineer makes things I find nice to look at, but he did many other paintings and I would need to see each to make a judgement on it. Knowinghis issues just makes me wish he lived with modern medicine where we might be able to treat him - and wonder what he could have done if he had modern training - many of his machines have obvious flaws that his day was not advanced enough to know about. That is me though, maybe you are different - this is a personal thing and so it is hard to call anyone wrong.
> when I learn about the struggles the artist went through
The comment you responded to was about "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art". Which is something entirely different.
This really reads like someone knee jerk dismissing something they never bothered took at, but just assume it's stupid.
I have looked just enough to know that my dissmissal is correct for me. I do not find those parts of interest.
you can enjoy them that is okay. Just don't think I'm wrong for not.
My argument was not about those things being interesting or not. My point was that you are wrong about what the content it.
"Artist struggles" is not what art museums writeups are about. They are not even caricature, they are just something people who do not go to art museums imagine to be there. Mostly because the only thing they know about art is that some artists struggled.
Also "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" dont have all that much to do with "artist struggles".
I see the misunderstanding - you are placing too much emphasis on "artist struggles".
I have seen "about the artist" writeups and museums, and I've been to about the artists talks - both talking about struggles. The idea that they don't exist is false in my experience. However generally writeups by the art itself is "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art".
The "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" do not move me at all. I've seen plenty of writeups on them next to art I enjoy - I've learned to not bother reading those place cards (and I love reading!) because they are a waste of time. I know what I like, and those writeups are uninteresting to me.
If you like them fine, but they harm my enjoyment. For that matter if art exhibts were about something else than "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" I would likely enjoy art more. (and I supposed artists would scream about the museums selling out)
> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.
So if I want to learn more about electricity which conference is a good one to attend?
As a museum professional, I don't agree with a couple of points:
If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.
I work at a history museum, and we serve both students and adults: whole range of people. Conferences aren't designed to communicate science (or any specialized topic) to a wide audience.
Also, that it is for kids doesn't make it impossible to enjoy as an adult, especially if it is about things you are unfamiliar with.
This can be true, but children and adults learn differently. We have lessons and interactives that are designed for both, and activities that are geared towards kids. The way we write information for children in our programming is very different from what you'd see with adults, because of how we have to break the information down in ways that is understandable to them.
If you go to a science museum and think "only a kid can enjoy that". Then the problem is not that it is a place for kids, it is that it is just bad. It is a thing Disney understood very well, its classics may look like they are for kids, but they are actually enjoyable by everyone, and it is a big reason for their success.
I don't understand this line of reasoning: if a science museum appears to be designed for kids, there's likely a reason for that: they're working to communicate science to kids. That doesn't make it bad: it might just mean that they've put a lot of focus on their primary audience. Disney isn't designed for kids: it's designed for families, and they put a lot of time and energy and resources into that design. (Museums can take a leaf from their book and strategies!)
As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid. That's unlike a science museum where they actually try to teach you science. It is only interesting if you are already well into that kind of art, and most kids aren't (yet?).
History museums are kind of a middle ground as they can do the double duty of teaching history (mostly for kids) and showing off artefacts to people who are already into that (mostly for grownups).
I think both of these points are overly broad, and every institution and every exhibition is different: it all comes down to how well they design their programs and exhibitions. There are plenty of art museums that go beyond a mere exhibition.
As for history museums being a middle ground, I don't agree with that at all: kids are fascinated by physical objects! Adults love to learn about the history behind those objects! These aren't mutually exclusive things. It ultimately comes down to intent and installation and implementation.
It drives me absolutely bananas that the "interpretation" (fancy museum word for "signs") at science museums is so parsimonious. Some fascinating device vital to the history of an important branch of science will have a brief paragraph about the person who invented it, nothing about what it's for, and then just a date and the device name.
Often there's little or nothing further even in the museum shop. It's a crying shame.
Art museums are even worse. "Portrait of Duke von Duke (London, 1841). Oils."
Who is this guy in the painting?! How did he merit a painting? What's unique about the style/composition/whatever?
Conversely, I went to an exhibit of Napoleonic Art and they had a whole breakdown of the symbolism. For example, Napolean liked bees as a symbol of hard work and order, apparently, and they were snuck into most depictions of him as little Easter Eggs.
Most likely, there is no special backstory and the painting was simply commissioned. And most likely, there no super special composition in that portrait and the style is exactly the same as the style of surrounding paintings.
Most paintings dont have a cool backstories. They are just paintings. Art student can see technical details of how they were done, but those are not really interesting if you are not trying to learn to paint.
But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits." Etc
> But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits."
This is basic knowledge.
Unfortunately portraits are what used to put dinner on the table for an artist, which is why you see so many portraits of random rich person. The camera changed all that though.
Then there are the “artist statement” ladies on some exhibits where artist get to describe their work on self-aggrandizing terms that only make sense to people with a graduate degree in the field
The longer the artist statement, the worse the art.
Part of the reason for this is that the world has become deeply multi-cultural and self-aware and, as such, people in the art field—the people who educated the people who are now in power—realized it has become incredibly difficult to write about artwork without smuggling in an agenda that contradicts other perspectives in problematic ways. In the 60s and 70s, artists realized this and initiated a new program for art that privileged the viewer's direct experience in the moment, and totally de-emphasized any outside interpretation. We're still, more or less, living in the wake of those events, since that's basically the last thing that happened in the art historical narrative, and art museums are run by art historians.
To illustrate: when I studied art in the 2010s, the absolute worst thing you could say about an artwork or exhibition was that it was "didactic."
I have a hobby of photographing scientifically incorrect explanations on placards at science museums. Usually found in smaller towns.
My favorite example of this is an exhibit that I saw at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh many years ago. There was a diorama of several forest animals, and an interface that shined lights on animals with different features. The "lays eggs" light shined on an assortment of animals including a Rabbit. Rabbits don't lay eggs, they only deliver them to good boys and girls.
We pointed this out to a worker that day. Several years later, we went back to see that the exhibit had not changed. I'm not sure if it's still there today.
Obviously, an easter egg. Well done Carnegie Museum! :-)
Been to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky yet?
I want to see these!
I don't remember the big Kensington museums being like that when I was a kid. There was a kids' section or two, but the rest was clearly for adults (and has stuck in my memory just as much, if not more than, the kids' sections).
Seeing the real Apollo 10 (I don't remember which module) sticks very clearly in my memory.
I also rode on a "heritage" train recently, and what struck me the most was that the interior decor of the passenger cars looked as though it had been designed for and by grown-ups.
> Seeing the real Apollo 10 (I don't remember which module) sticks very clearly in my memory.
The only part that made it back to Earth was the Command Module, so if you saw something from the actual Apollo 10 mission, it was the CM.
Yep, makes sense, and looks like they still have it:
https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co40509...
I have taken my kids to them at various ages (from five upwards). I think lots for both adults and children.
The National Gallery used to do great guided tours for kids, explaining paintings in a fun way.
The blue whale skeleton hanging from the ceiling of the Museum of Natural History left an indelible impression in my mind when I was six.
I hope it's still there.
I'm not sure which way you're going with this, but the Philadelphia Museum of Art, down the street from the Franklin Institute, isn't specifically geared towards adults and has lots of programming specifically for kids. Seeing Rubens' Prometheus Bound there as a child as part of such a program left me in awe. I remember the feeling to this day. Every time I go, I see families with young children or even just groups of teens there.
The Philadelphia Zoo also has events planned specifically for adults. My girlfriend and I went to one a few months ago. I'm not sure what specifically about the Philadelphia zoo, the Bronx zoo, the Shedd aquarium, etc. is for specifically geared towards kids, though.
Largely agreed, with one exception. If you're ever in Boston/Cambridge MA, check out the MIT museum. I've always told people that its a science museum but for adults. The Harvard museums are worth visiting as well, but the MIT museum really impressed me with their content.
The MIT museum isn't very good. It is a science museum for adults, but it is too passive an experience for the patron. I recommend the Exploratorium in San Francisco instead as the science museum for adults.
I've only been to a play (staged reading) at the new one but, in general, I'm not sure how interested most adults are in interactivity. I've been to the Exploratorium for an event and it was fun. (Having those sort of distractions are nice when you're tired of feeling like you need to speak to people at an event.) But not sure I'd have made a trip there otherwise.
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in SF, thanks for the recommendation!
It's good. Not that big though. But what there is, is worth seeing.
Art museums could be made friendlier for kids, but they would need significant design and maintenance effort. In particular: many kids need a lot of running around, want to play with things with their hands, and get quickly bored just standing and looking at artworks. It would be nice if there were better art museums for kids though.
(For what it's worth, there are plenty of non-interactive and thus boring-for-kids science, technology, history, etc. museums if you look around.)
I took my 6 and 8 year old to SFMOMA and they loved it, to the point that they’ve asked to go (and have gone) to several more “boring” art museums since. We had a talk about ground rules (quiet voices, hands to self, no running, no exceptions) beforehand, and the mood of the place helped enforce those rules. A big, crowded space can be powerful in its quietness.
A lot of the weird, experimental, and experiential pieces seemed to scratch the novelty itch that they might otherwise get by running around or touching stuff. We were all ready to leave at the same time … or actually, I wanted to leave before they were ready, so it wasn’t like they got bored quickly. They are not uniquely quiet or well behaved kids, either—quite chaotic a lot of the time, really. I think a lot of people don’t give kids a chance to experience these kinds of places because they assume the kids won’t do well, which is too bad.
I took my 6 and 9 year olds to SFMOMA and they played along for about 20 minutes and then started rolling all over the furniture and complaining about being bored, despite my best efforts to engage them in discussions about the art pieces. I got them to settle for a while by playing pencil-and-paper games with them, but then I couldn't look at the art either.
A more extensive talk about ground rules wouldn't have helped. Kids aren't all the same, and most art museums aren't really designed to meet their needs.
(By comparison, they would be happy to spend all day every day at the Exploratorium, and the hardest part there is occasionally pulling one away from some exhibit so that the next kid can get a turn.)
The top floor of Copenhagen Contemporary gallery is primarily for children.
The current exhibition is "where visitors are invited into the artist’s imaginative world and encouraged to participate in a process of transformation — quite literally — through hats, masks, and performative gestures. The shelves overflow with peculiar faces and twisted creatures, and on the green monster stage, anyone can step into a new version of themselves."
"The exhibition marks the first chapter of CC Create, a three-year educational and exhibition initiative that transforms Hall 4 into an open studio for play, learning, and co-creation. Specially trained hosts are on hand to guide visitors in exploring their own creative potential in dialogue with Chetwynd’s art."
Last time I went, the interactive kids bit had a huge wall and a massive bucket of darts and visitors would contribute to the artwork by throwing additional darts at the wall. This is very kid-friendly if the kid is Danish.
https://copenhagencontemporary.org/en/cc-create-x-monster-ch...
The Art Institute of Chicago goes out of its way to be family friendly and not take itself too seriously [1], and it is consistently seen as one of the best art museums in the world.
PS - the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis is ridiculously good for kids.
[1] https://www.artic.edu/visit/whos-visiting/families-2
Yeah, this must be a negotiated market at this point... Kids not being interested in art museums, and thus art museums not bothering making it family friendly.
However, I have to say the computer history museum in Mountain View was nice and felt serious. So I think placing all science museums under one umbrella is a bit harsh.
There is such a place at the Cleveland Museum of Art: https://www.clevelandart.org/artlens-gallery The Studio part of the gallery has several kid-sized interactives.
There are some art museums around the DC area where kids can paint and draw things, but those are indeed a minority
A lot of them have kid areas now where they have art classes and the like now.
There are exceptions - here in the UK we have the RI: https://www.rigb.org/
The Christmas lectures are probably the most famous thing they do, and these have definitely moved in a more 'child' focussed direction. If you were attending the Christmas lectures in the 1850s however, the audience would have been middle class victorioans, and you'd have had Michael Faraday telling you about electricity, forces, chemistry etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institution_Christmas_Le...
I would recommend attending one of their lectures if you happen to find yourself in London, just to be in the building, and to sit in the lecture theatre!
Listening to the Christmas lectures was a high point of my childhood, and everyone in my family still remembers and talks about the ones we watched.
I get the economics of it for science museums, but at least science museums in major cities tend to have adults-only nights now.
Where the adults get to act like kids and drink.
They don't add substance to the exhibits, they don't attempt to educate, they just attempt to tap an adjacent market for the same dumbed down slop.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the _idea_, just a huge critic of the _implementation_.)
The Exploratorium had a few speakers at the adult night that I went to. It was definitely on the pop-sci end of the spectrum, but it was definitely not dumbed down to kid levels. Heck, even during normal operations, I'd say the Exploratorium walks a fair line between "approachable to children" and "teaching more science topics than we expect most adults to know".
Agreed. They make it into a space for adults by simply removing kids and adding beer. It’s good for a casual date, but you don’t actually get adult level content.
I want the actual exhibits and content to be able to teach things to adults and not just signs with “wacky trivia” meant to engage kids for two seconds while they sprint to the next thing that has a button for them to push (e.g., one of the worst genre of “wacky facts” are stupid size comparisons about how things are bigger than X football fields or Y school busses).
Tl;dr You could get drunk while you’re watching Zoboomafoo, but that doesn’t suddenly make it it for adults the way that an Attenborough documentary is.
I do recall a "late" at the London Science Museum where you could collect wristbands with the names of STDs to win prizes. Ok, still not very educational, but it was quite amusing to hear people trading gonorrhea for genital lice etc.
On a more serious note they do or did offer free lectures that were much more in-depth; one of the things I rather miss now that I live abroad.
In depth science lectures would definitely be a step in the right direction. I think those are gone though:
"Our evening events cover everything from cult film screenings and live performances to gripping panel discussions and exclusive premieres—we’ve got something for everyone."
https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/halloween-lates
What you need if you really want an education is a tour by a curator that can dive into the exhibits in age appropriate levels (and maybe even answer some questions).
It often seems like these adult themed exhibits are generally just a bunch of signs which are copy/pasted from wikipedia.
I really soured on the whole “wow can you believe this crazy science fact” targeted for adults kind of media when Instagram and Subreddits like “I Fucking Love Science” got massively popular. Which of course led to them enshitifying, then being worthwhile conduits for propaganda.
“SCIENCE FACT! Republican voters are known to be morons who don’t want to learn anything! Like and subscribe!”
I soured on science media when I learned just how terrible the "journalists" and editors are.
"Scientists find super duper magic unobtanium which does mystical things that will revolutionize the world!" Click through and "Bob found a conductor with slightly lower resistance than a previous material. It's created by a 500 step process which results in an organic chain that breaks down in temps above -40C."
The issue with the medium is every day needs an exciting headline. So they make them up rather than waiting for them to come.
Sounds correct about republican voters tho. And everyone suffers because of it.
Everyone suffers because you believe that stereotype instead of getting to know republicans and discovering it is false - many of them love science (who you vote for is a compromise - nobody will support everything you want them to)
I do know republicans, I am from more of conservative environment. I still semi regularly read conservative journals. It is currently what it is. Trying to idealise that word serves no one.
They dont like science. They used to like cosplay liking science, when it felt more manly or when they thought it sticks it to feminists. That interest ends long before any real science starts and have nothing to do with it.
They dont think much of actual scientists.
Individual republicans may well love science, but the Republican party is and has been anti-science for a long time, and aggressively so.
I didn't understand art as a kid. You need experience, culture, history, and often at least a cursory understanding of religion to understand art. Art is an expression by the artist. It is necessary to understand the milieu of the artist first.
Science is universal. It crosses time and language barriers. The underlying physical principles are immutable. Kids can be expected to understand science museum exhibits after a few minutes of explanation. You can't explain the historical and social context behind a painting in just a few minutes to a kid.
Certainly now, yes.
But back in the 70's, OP's museum -- Franklin Institute (fi.edu) -- used to have serious lectures, classes, and even some research. Upstairs there used to be lecture rooms, a library, and classrooms.
One science museum that is not like that is the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin, at least when I was there (shudder) about a decade ago.
It was a museum that was designed for parents to explain to children. The written material for any given piece in an exhibit went into sufficient detail and successive sections of writing would build on each other without necessarily requiring that the previous section had been read.
Back then the museum had an exhibition on the longitude problem and time keeping, precision, drift, etc. that walked you through the development of increasingly accurate chronometers, the practical reasons why, etc. It was an absolute masterwork exhibit, and it expected the adults to be actively engaged with helping digest the material with the kids.
The most fun I've ever had in a museum was at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas. The exhibits are interactive, educational, fun... mostly for kids...
I was 33 years old... I'd love to go back and do it all again.
Quite agree with the sentiment, and the presentation of science to the public in general. However, that probably also reflects a rather accurate assessment of scientific literacy in the general population on the part of planners.
Anyway, among US museums of natural history & science, a prominent exception is the AMNH in NYC: yes there are things for kids, but also things for "grownups". After dozens of visits I still learn something new every time.
I agree with you but I also think it’s hard for kids to appreciate art without life experience. At least in a full way.
And history, until you've had some life experience and seen the world change, which is a lot of what makes art and science museums more interesting.
There's an interactive Leondardo da Vinci museum in Firenze that does a good job of appealing to both. It's full of kids, because it's interactive, but you could fill it with adults just as easily.
If you ever get a chance, the Hunterian Museum at Glasgow has a permanent display of some of Lord Kevlin's instruments. You can look at the actual tools used to characterize the volt, the amp, and the electro-static forces.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/collections/#/details?irn=16534&catTyp...
I visited part of the Smithsonian recently (the natural history museum) and the level of patronizing displays is truly incredible. It seems pretty clear that if you're more than 10 years old, you're not supposed to be in there. But that feels like a development of recent decades.
On the other hand, zoos seem to have become more adult-oriented and less children-oriented over time.
That's disappointing. I liked to believe it would remain an example of a good museum after other places followed this trend. But on the west coast, I've had no reason to visit the Smithsonian in many decades.
I'm still unsure whether changes I see are all about the facility or partially about my changed perspective. I visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the La Brea Tar Pits in the past decade, and I found neither of them stands up to my memory of them from 1980s school field trips.
I've seen a few different science museums and the like have a special day of the week where they stay open later and are 21+. Booze is involved. I've never been, but it seems like it could be a fun time.
Just for clarification, are you upset that art museums tend to be less kid-focused, or that science museums and zoos tend to be overly kid focused? Both seem to be things to be potentially concerned about IMO.
You should check out the Deutsches Museum if you're in Munich sometime.
Exploratorium and Academy of Sciences in SF have adult nights I believe. I remember attending a Yelp Elite event back in the day at the Exploratorium at night and it was pretty fun.
Back when big tech did Christmas parties but before they had hired so many people they wouldn’t all fit in a museum (thus requiring the renting of hangars), we booked this whole place for the night. It was great as everyone was dressed to the nines and drinking while the staff taught us about fish and quasars or something.
Visiting my parents this summer with my kids, I was excited to find that the zoo served beer. That definitely wasn't an option for my dad when I was growing up.
The zoo near us had boozy lemonade stands on Labor Day this year. Quite refreshing.
Same, not everything should be for kids. It’s become pretty evident that the adult population doesn’t know science.
Nothing about a science museum filled with kids precludes you from playing with the exhibits yourself.
It is really tough to queue up along with kids who are not letting go of any interactive exhibit easily — and similarly tough to explore it well while there are kids waiting behind you.
So in theory you are right, in practice there is a lot of social pressure to bear to do it.
The best is if you can go in outside peak hours (take day off work etc).
Pittsburgh's Science Center has over-21 events all the time. They're very popular.
You're right. Kids should be able to enjoy art, too!
I mean as a kid, zoos are "wow cool, animals :)", while as an adult, you realize that they're basically prisons profiting off animal exploitation for entertainment
> they're basically prisons
Sure, a zoo can never simulate reality exactly, but they come pretty close now-a-days. Animals have several square kilometers to run and it's crazy how they are able to simulate different climates. A lot of animals now only exist in zoos since the natural environment now got inhabitable.
Our science museum has dumbed everything down to where truly only a child could enjoy it and they don’t even seem to like it much. When I was a child the exhibits were so different and really interesting to both ages. Now it’s the most homogenized crap imaginable. Something only Blippi (the lobotomized) could love. I donate blood there and I’m never even tempted to go look at an exhibit. A lot of this happened in just the past few years, maybe they are just matching their reading and science impaired audience, I don’t know.