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.