The purpose of this essay is to assess two opposing views of changes that have
been integrated by modern museums. The two texts discuss whether the current
methods are for better or for worse.
On one hand, the first text thoroughly believes that the transformation of
museums over time is beneficial to society. It presents two main arguments;
inclusivity and accessibility. Firstly, it is emphasized that exhibits have become more
local-friendly rather than gatekeeping information. In terms of accessibility, it argues
that incorporating technology into museums creates user-friendly exhibits. The first
text demonstrates strong and persuasive evidence, ultimately accentuating their
claims.
On the other hand, the second text has a more conservative view. In contrast
to the first text, it disapproves of technology-assisted exhibits, reasoning that shallow
entertainment is prioritized instead of depth and content. As a consequence, it states,
museums nowadays disregard their priority of cultivating knowledge for the
community. The second text expresses a strong distaste towards the subject with
intense notions to prove its viewpoint.
In comparison, I believe the first text has compelling examples supporting its
major arguments to prove its point of view with a fair mix of facts and opinions.
Whereas, the second text appears to have been more emotionally influenced,
resulting in the majority of its claims being rather disrespectful or controversial
opinions.
From my point of view, withholding information for the sake of making it
limited and elite is morally unacceptable. It discourages newcomers who are
interested in a particular subject. The same notion applies to museums. The purpose
of the current shift in the nature of museums is to make knowledge available to
people of all backgrounds and I am certainly on board with it.