Well I don't do I?

But perhaps I do?
In an article written by Joel Garreau, an idea is elaborated upon, the "virtual Museums." Museums where
one could access over the internet. Museums where a person could log onto a website and "virtually tour"
a museum space, quite realisticlly too!

In another article written by Blake Gopnik, the idea of museum expansion and openings was discussed. What
Gopnik was actually discussing is the overall the intake of art and massive crowds. Discussing how the large crowd gathering to view art will ruin the overall feeling of going to see art, also how more museum goers will cause galleries to show more "less than stellar works" so says Gopnik.

Both these articles produce some points that create a great deal of thinking. If Museums expand that must mean more artwork is beinng shown off so more people come, so is more crowded and my experience is ruined. This point might inevitably be true, but also not. With the amount of art work for the need of an expansion would out weight the massive crowds. The logic though is the virtual museums. These like the problem with museum expansion and underacheiving artwork could pose more problems to musuems. What would even be the point of going to a museum? Well everyone knows that when you experience something in person it becomes that much better. Although the virtual museums could also benefit those not as fortunate to make the trip to see a museum. The pro about virual museums is the fact that it allows more people to have the museum experience. In all though much like whether museum expansion will bring in insuffiencent art along with massive crowds or a wholesome museum experience while viewing great work, or the virtual museums allowing everyone to view art all around or the fact that no one would go to actual museums in person nobody has a single answer and only time can tell.
Be Well.