{"id":49,"date":"2026-07-09T05:55:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T05:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/287.hyperlib.sjsu.edu\/hypercelerys\/?p=49"},"modified":"2026-07-09T05:55:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T05:55:21","slug":"reflection-on-hyperlinked-environments-hyperlinked-museums-galleries-and-archives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/287.hyperlib.sjsu.edu\/hypercelerys\/2026\/07\/09\/reflection-on-hyperlinked-environments-hyperlinked-museums-galleries-and-archives\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflection on Hyperlinked Environments: Hyperlinked Museums, Galleries, and Archives"},"content":{"rendered":"

WE\u2019VE ALWAYS DONE IT THIS WAY<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u273f<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI urged readers to explore alternatives and new ways of working to make sure efficiencies couldn\u2019t be improved. I cautioned: if librarians are hiding behind that phrase because they\u2019ve had enough new things or just want to keep things the same, it might be time to move on\u201d (Stephens, 2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

This week, for my reflection on Hyperlinked Environments, I chose to engage with the section on hyperlinked Museums, Galleries, and Archives. I was initially excited to learn about new innovative technologies being used in museums and galleries, like those mentioned in the Museum Next and the Museums and the Web articles. Although I enjoyed reading about the different AR and VR implementations, I quickly found myself frustrated at the language used in some of the other articles. Instead of discussing the ongoing technological endeavors in museum, gallery, and archival spaces, I wanted to instead address the harmful biases I saw laden throughout.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBeing a good, innovative librarian means taking a humanistic stance toward policy, decision-making, and experimentation. It means focusing on the heart\u201d (Stephens, 2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

Here are some of the offending statements and my immediate thoughts on them.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has discouraged the use of photography and taking selfies in front of pieces to protect the art pieces, as well as to create an encounter with art rather than a \u201cpassive and superficial experience<\/span>\u201d driven by social media\u201d (Daily Bruin Staff, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cVisitors are easily distracted<\/span> and do not truly experience<\/span> beauty, magic, and wonder\u201d (Wanshel, 2015).<\/p>\n

What do they truly intend to say by utilizing this type of passive-aggressive language? The second quote is presented as an objective reality but is actually subjectively biased and prescriptive. Although encouraging attendees to draw is a fantastic idea to encourage creativity and engagement, is the condescension and dismissiveness necessary or helpful to achieving that goal?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s understandable that the use of technology will get people through the door and create more exposure for the artists. I just hope that I can stop seeing photos of people<\/span> pretending<\/span> to lift Michael Heizer\u2019s \u201cLevitated Mass\u201d sculpture at LACMA on my news feed.\u201d (Daily Bruin Staff, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

Do the selfie-taking people damage the sculpture in any way? If not, why does it matter, and why does the author care? If these people aren\u2019t being destructive or causing harm, then why are we policing how they interact with art?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThey were worried<\/span>: If you show the art online, then why would people come to the museum?\u201d says Sreenivasan. The new site lets people download high-resolution images and use them for free in non-commercial work. \u201cShouldn\u2019t they be crappy pictures?<\/span>\u201d (Titlow, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

I guess we should remove accessibility to those not privileged enough to physically visit a museum, for whatever reason that may be. Making pictures from a free resource, crappy on purpose, is a form of gatekeeping that perpetuates classism.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTwo groups emerged from our analyses: one had higher scores<\/span> than the other in all goals and in their initial interest – this is the \u2018highly engaged\u2019 group<\/span>\u201d (Oliveira & de Barba, 2018).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe highly engaged group were more likely to adopt deeper levels of cognitive processing about exhibition content<\/span>, like trying to tie learned information back to their own experiences, seeking out connections between exhibition content, and searching out further information on their own\u201d (Oliveira & de Barba, 2018).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe less engaged group<\/span>, on the other hand, were more inclined to read exhibition titles and seek out interactive exhibits, rather than trying to cognitively process and reflect deeply on exhibition information\u201d (Oliveira & de Barba, 2018).<\/span><\/p>\n

How do you determine engagement when everyone\u2019s baseline is completely different? Did this research take into consideration those with disabilities or those who are neurodivergent? How do you know the \u201cless engaged\u201d group didn\u2019t cognitively process and reflect deeply after they left the museum? Why does this have to happen only at the museum? Why even have interactive exhibits if engaging with them makes a person less engaged? Galleries, museums, and archives aren\u2019t only for the \u201celite\u201d; they are for everyone, and not everyone comes in with the same level of knowledge, interest, or ability. We should avoid judging and instead focus on helping others learn, grow, and feel excitement about new information.<\/span><\/p>\n

How would you feel reading this article, and knowing you were labeled as a member of the less engaged group?<\/span><\/p>\n

These articles, although well-meaning, reinforce Western Eurocentric standards of \u201cproper\u201d engagement. Although they want to increase museum visitation, attendance, and retention, their language, which reflects their poor perceptions of others, gatekeeps culture and perpetuates ableism. Labeling not just smartphone use, but also individuals, as \u201cpassive,\u201d disregards technology\u2019s ability to facilitate personalized and equitable access and unfairly judges and excludes disabled and neurodivergent participants. If the goal is to focus on the heart and practice \u201cheretical thinking\u201d, then a lot of these authors and people who hold power in these spaces need to make a concerted effort to acknowledge, engage with, and dismantle their biases through targeted reflexive practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cVisitors come to museums with varied backgrounds, motivations, interests, and prior knowledge, which influence what, when, and where they visit and engage\u201d (Oliveira & de Barba, 2018).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSo while people of all ages are increasingly glued to their devices, that doesn\u2019t necessarily mean they\u2019re less engaged with their surroundings\u201d (Titlow, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u273f<\/span><\/p>\n

Something Interesting: A fun intersection of art, technology, and libraries<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
@malindipress<\/a> <\/p>\n

More than a century later, W.E.B. Du Bois\u2019s data portraits still feel ahead of their time. At Brooklyn Public Library, Printing Black America revisits the intersection of Black life, design, research, and resistance. #fyp<\/a> #art<\/a> #history<\/a> #design<\/a> #brooklynpubliclibrary<\/a> <\/p>\n

\u266c Red Room – Hiatus Kaiyote<\/a> <\/section>\n<\/blockquote>\n