Some of the questions raised at the end of the chapter stuck with me the most: what is a museum without a collection, and how might we define a museum without it? I think there is some value that a museum’s collection adds to the experience, but it’s difficult for me to fully explain what the impact of its absence would be. For example, there is a difference in the experience of seeing a piece of art online as compared to is seeing ‘the real thing’ in ‘real life,’ but what does this mean when thinking about pieces that are created and exist digitally first? Is the idea of collecting these things, and limiting where and when they can be shown, even a good thing?

I think if museums were to move away from having collections, there would still be value in collecting and preserving things - if not for museums, then for some other institution. A shift towards media and artifacts that cannot be collected, though, could lead museums to emphasize the interpretation and design choices that come with curation rather than trying to make them appear objective or nonexistent. If everyone has access to the same thing, creative presentation becomes even more important. One thing that this chapter highlighted for me was that the way we define museums is a way of setting priorities about what museums should do. It could be that there’s a very good reason to continue prioritizing collections and I think that’s worth considering. But it could also be the case that moving away from collections opens up new ideas about what a museum is and how it should operate that better fit our current needs.