In both her preface and TED Talk, Nina Simon makes several remarks on ways to change the nature of museums from that of a static showcase to a dynamic exhibition where visitors contribute meaningful content. Simon brings up the idea of design being an integral part of eliciting meaningful contributions from visitors, and I think that it’s interesting how her statement correlates with the goals of curating a traditional museum exhibition. Both rely on designing a contextual environment to evoke depth and purpose in understanding (conventional) or expression (participatory). The close connection makes me wonder what level of ease museums have in adopting a participatory element for their exhibitions. Simon brings up the social barriers museum directors put up, particularly the disdain some art museum directors have against ‘Sunday painters.’ The mentality and perhaps prejudices of experienced curators of exhibitions evokes the question then of who exactly can create these participatory spaces. Is it a question of changing current curators’ mentality of what museums are and who they are intended for, or finding different individuals who can curate this new kind of experience?

Simon also emphasizes the importance of creating personal, meaningful content in a participatory museum, but she talks less about its consumption. Are participatory museums designed just for meaningful contributions, or for meaningful consumption as well? With a participatory museum, there is an issue of content density to consider. Simon’s example of memory jars was an exhibition already with 300 contributed — an average visitor would not stay to read all of the others after creating their own. Is curation of contributions necessary as well in participatory exhibitions? Or does the charm come from the serendipity of the contributions one chooses to examine?