On the need to make the relationship between culture and technology permanent

Given the importance it has assumed in our individual and collective lives, we are so dependent on the idea that technology acts as an evolutionary lever in any sector that the combination of “application of new technology” – “growth and development “is no longer a ‘hypothesis subject to demonstration, but an axiom according to which the manifestations of reality can be bent.

Still not always there technology it really worked as expected: communication has certainly been distorted by digital applications, certainly the traditional industry has benefited from the latest innovations.

When it comes to analyzing the relationship between technology and culture, however, the evidence is not so unequivocal: for if, on the one hand, it is indisputable that the relationship between technology and art has always been an extremely fertile hybrid and hybridized territory, on the other hand, the relationship between museums and technology is certainly more incomplete.

There are certainly excellent cases, but considering that one of the basic rules of networking is that they achieve value for their use (if there are two of us who have Facebook all over the planet, Facebook is very , very little worth), then it is not to the case studies we are going to look at, but to the general and broad dimension of museums (the so-called critical mass).

Suffice it to say that even today, in 2022, we are still talking about social networks being important to museums, and that it is necessary for our museums to develop skills in this sense in order to understand that technology, in the cultural sector, so far, has really affected a lot.little.

The question is actually complexand involves elements of public finances, the necessary renewal of many of the staff, including in the so-called Autonomous Museums, the organizational structure of the institutions as a whole and the inability of the technology sector to illustrate the great opportunities introduction of new technologies.

In fact, it is no coincidence that many of the “peak” episodes have involved technology as a “communicative” tool: from games to virtual reality, the most “innovative” applications have all played an advertising role: making news and communicating this or that institution within generalist communication channels.

All this is, of course, understandable: to start processes that use technology, not as an “external” element, through which one can create a product or service, which must then be delivered to the public, but as an internal element and therefore as a enabling tool is anything but simple.

Add to this the great speed that characterizes the processes of technological innovation today: If this property is certainly a positive condition in many contexts, it is less in contexts that instead have longer technological adoption times. In other words, if the time interval between the choice of a technological product and its complete operation at all organizational levels is too high, it is likely that the product at the start time is already obsolete and more expensive than what is on the market.

However, these considerations in no way seek to confirm that the delay in the adoption of innovative services can be entirely attributed to a generic mismatch between demand and supply of technology in the cultural field.

On the contrary.

Rather, they want to emphasize that the issue is much more complex and entrenched than we usually think, and that the general scarcity of even the most trivial technological tools unfortunately only represents a symptom of a more complex systemic and structural difficulty, which is hardly can only be solved completely through the extraordinary resources that the EU has invested.

Because the extraordinary resources will make it possible to acquire some “self-closing” services, some time-limited resources that understand the alphabet and grammar of new technologies, but it will also be necessary to develop a new way of understanding the relationship between culture and technology for to ensure that the temporary benefits become one permanent partnership.

Or do we really always want the breathless aspect of someone who hunts, hunts and hunts?

Comment with Facebook

Leave a Comment