2 min read
Personally I always presumed that digital curation as compared to in person curation were one in the same besides the medium being used. Through this class and especially through this week’s readings I have been enlightened to that not being the case. Both have he same goals of, as it is a curators job to engage his audience. In Daniel Price’s article he addresses the use of ‘discernment’ a curator has to keep in mind while creating an exhibit. The difficulty of displaying a message to a wide range of people, with different levels of knowledge on the subject is a huge task at hand. Cynthia used an comparison of a curator to a translator which helped me grasp the entire concept a little easier. In “The Mediated Museum: Computer-Based Technology and Museum Infrastructure” brought up another aspect into the thought process of making exhibits and which is the intentions of the creator. With digital media being the norm, there is seemingly limitless space so creating an exhibit with a personal agenda or bias is acceptable when there can be a platform for other opinions as well. As historians we need to be aware of this, for an outsider with little knowledge of the subject trusting one source or exhibit could be detrimental. Archives play a huge role in creating these online exhibits, in Tim Sherratt’s, “It’s All About the Stuff: Collections, Interfaces, Power, and People” he uses the example of ‘The real face of White Australia.’ The misconceptions leading the audience away from the truth can rewrite history. The common theme I got throughout the readings is that for one I do not envy curators, though the task at hand for our own digital projects has become more clear. We must view the broad audience and not only capture their thoughts with facts to gain interest but the responsibility to guide them to the truth is going to be the real task.