Museums were previously treated as exclusive spaces, for the elite, and often acted as a barrier to a conversation with the rest of the world. However, with time, these notions are changing as museums are being recognized as spaces for conversations that reflect reality rather than allusive and abstract ideas that are limited to the bourgeois. I think the change in term from visitor to user is significant because rather than just treating people as passerbys to the art of the museum, we acknowledge the dialogue and contribution to the artwork. I liked the idea that museums are a cultural space, and the emphasis on the give and take of the community to the museum rather than a one-sided receiving of information. I think that interactive artwork specially, and what we read about in the gallery one is the perfect example of this contribution of the people to the works of the museum, and how this makes the exhibitions even more fruitful. Krep’s take on the evolving role of the curator is more relevant, because as museums become more inclusive they must cater to different cultures, and incorporate elements from these as well as give back to the communities which becomes a responsibility of the curators of each exhibition.

This weekend I visited the arts festival Illuminus in downtown Boston, the contrast of this with the stoic halls of the Louvre is tremendous, to start with, the quiet, empty spaces and dominating walls were replaced by open-air bustling streets. Instead of paintings with multiple security sensors and surveillance, we could walk up to and interact with the art. I thought this is the perfect example of the transition that both articles bring to light and how they begin to involve communities and share interactively. Rather than selective information given to us in the form of labels we were free to interpret as we wished. This also highlighted the evolving role of the curator to cater to this new audience.