The two articles discuss how museums have changed in purpose and approach over time. However, the first article believes that curators should take a didactic approach when creating exhibits, whereas the other supports the idea of a museum as a space that encourages discussion. Although both acknowledge that museums have to adapt to changing social norms, these differing opinions mean that they interpret the role of the curator very differently.

One thing that the first article mentioned that I thought was very interesting was how artifacts come to be in museums; who deems them valuable enough? The arbitrariness of this and the principle of fixed relation is something that feeds into the concepts discussed in the second article. Both articles agree that objects have taken a backseat, but differ on who they believe is the one interpreting the object, and how clearly defined those interpretations are.

Generally speaking, I think that the type of museum influences what type of curation goes on inside, with art/history museums at one end and science museums at the other. This is not always the case, but is true to an extent, partly due museums being slow to consider diverse perspectives on the material being shown. Boston’s MFA and the V&A are examples of museum that focuses on teaching to a uniform and non-argumentative group of people. On the other hand, the DOX is thought provoking contemporary art museum whose purpose is to use are to challenge conventional perspectives. Science and Natural History Museums are interesting because they strike a balance between the two. They have blockbuster type exhibits like IMAX and self-directed teaching, yet are highly educations