> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.

Adults outside a field do not go to conferences.

> As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid.

Some kids are interested in art. It can be well presented. You can have guided tours aimed at kids.

> science museums being places for kids is a good thing. The are the ones who benefit the most

I'm not sure how you can look at the current state of scientific literacy in America and conclude this.

> art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid

There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic.

> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.

So if I want to learn more about electricity which conference is a good one to attend?

As a museum professional, I don't agree with a couple of points:

If you want science for grownups, you have conferences.

I work at a history museum, and we serve both students and adults: whole range of people. Conferences aren't designed to communicate science (or any specialized topic) to a wide audience.

Also, that it is for kids doesn't make it impossible to enjoy as an adult, especially if it is about things you are unfamiliar with.

This can be true, but children and adults learn differently. We have lessons and interactives that are designed for both, and activities that are geared towards kids. The way we write information for children in our programming is very different from what you'd see with adults, because of how we have to break the information down in ways that is understandable to them.

If you go to a science museum and think "only a kid can enjoy that". Then the problem is not that it is a place for kids, it is that it is just bad. It is a thing Disney understood very well, its classics may look like they are for kids, but they are actually enjoyable by everyone, and it is a big reason for their success.

I don't understand this line of reasoning: if a science museum appears to be designed for kids, there's likely a reason for that: they're working to communicate science to kids. That doesn't make it bad: it might just mean that they've put a lot of focus on their primary audience. Disney isn't designed for kids: it's designed for families, and they put a lot of time and energy and resources into that design. (Museums can take a leaf from their book and strategies!)

As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid. That's unlike a science museum where they actually try to teach you science. It is only interesting if you are already well into that kind of art, and most kids aren't (yet?).

History museums are kind of a middle ground as they can do the double duty of teaching history (mostly for kids) and showing off artefacts to people who are already into that (mostly for grownups).

I think both of these points are overly broad, and every institution and every exhibition is different: it all comes down to how well they design their programs and exhibitions. There are plenty of art museums that go beyond a mere exhibition.

As for history museums being a middle ground, I don't agree with that at all: kids are fascinated by physical objects! Adults love to learn about the history behind those objects! These aren't mutually exclusive things. It ultimately comes down to intent and installation and implementation.

Art museums are even worse. "Portrait of Duke von Duke (London, 1841). Oils."

Who is this guy in the painting?! How did he merit a painting? What's unique about the style/composition/whatever?

Conversely, I went to an exhibit of Napoleonic Art and they had a whole breakdown of the symbolism. For example, Napolean liked bees as a symbol of hard work and order, apparently, and they were snuck into most depictions of him as little Easter Eggs.

Part of the reason for this is that the world has become deeply multi-cultural and self-aware and, as such, people in the art field—the people who educated the people who are now in power—realized it has become incredibly difficult to write about artwork without smuggling in an agenda that contradicts other perspectives in problematic ways. In the 60s and 70s, artists realized this and initiated a new program for art that privileged the viewer's direct experience in the moment, and totally de-emphasized any outside interpretation. We're still, more or less, living in the wake of those events, since that's basically the last thing that happened in the art historical narrative, and art museums are run by art historians.

To illustrate: when I studied art in the 2010s, the absolute worst thing you could say about an artwork or exhibition was that it was "didactic."

I have a hobby of photographing scientifically incorrect explanations on placards at science museums. Usually found in smaller towns.

> Seeing the real Apollo 10 (I don't remember which module) sticks very clearly in my memory.

The only part that made it back to Earth was the Command Module, so if you saw something from the actual Apollo 10 mission, it was the CM.

I have taken my kids to them at various ages (from five upwards). I think lots for both adults and children.

The National Gallery used to do great guided tours for kids, explaining paintings in a fun way.

The blue whale skeleton hanging from the ceiling of the Museum of Natural History left an indelible impression in my mind when I was six.

I hope it's still there.

The MIT museum isn't very good. It is a science museum for adults, but it is too passive an experience for the patron. I recommend the Exploratorium in San Francisco instead as the science museum for adults.

It's good. Not that big though. But what there is, is worth seeing.

The Art Institute of Chicago goes out of its way to be family friendly and not take itself too seriously [1], and it is consistently seen as one of the best art museums in the world.

PS - the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis is ridiculously good for kids.

[1] https://www.artic.edu/visit/whos-visiting/families-2

I took my 6 and 8 year old to SFMOMA and they loved it, to the point that they’ve asked to go (and have gone) to several more “boring” art museums since. We had a talk about ground rules (quiet voices, hands to self, no running, no exceptions) beforehand, and the mood of the place helped enforce those rules. A big, crowded space can be powerful in its quietness.

A lot of the weird, experimental, and experiential pieces seemed to scratch the novelty itch that they might otherwise get by running around or touching stuff. We were all ready to leave at the same time … or actually, I wanted to leave before they were ready, so it wasn’t like they got bored quickly. They are not uniquely quiet or well behaved kids, either—quite chaotic a lot of the time, really. I think a lot of people don’t give kids a chance to experience these kinds of places because they assume the kids won’t do well, which is too bad.

The top floor of Copenhagen Contemporary gallery is primarily for children.

The current exhibition is "where visitors are invited into the artist’s imaginative world and encouraged to participate in a process of transformation — quite literally — through hats, masks, and performative gestures. The shelves overflow with peculiar faces and twisted creatures, and on the green monster stage, anyone can step into a new version of themselves."

"The exhibition marks the first chapter of CC Create, a three-year educational and exhibition initiative that transforms Hall 4 into an open studio for play, learning, and co-creation. Specially trained hosts are on hand to guide visitors in exploring their own creative potential in dialogue with Chetwynd’s art."

Last time I went, the interactive kids bit had a huge wall and a massive bucket of darts and visitors would contribute to the artwork by throwing additional darts at the wall. This is very kid-friendly if the kid is Danish.

https://copenhagencontemporary.org/en/cc-create-x-monster-ch...

Yeah, this must be a negotiated market at this point... Kids not being interested in art museums, and thus art museums not bothering making it family friendly.

However, I have to say the computer history museum in Mountain View was nice and felt serious. So I think placing all science museums under one umbrella is a bit harsh.

There is such a place at the Cleveland Museum of Art: https://www.clevelandart.org/artlens-gallery The Studio part of the gallery has several kid-sized interactives.

There are some art museums around the DC area where kids can paint and draw things, but those are indeed a minority

A lot of them have kid areas now where they have art classes and the like now.

Listening to the Christmas lectures was a high point of my childhood, and everyone in my family still remembers and talks about the ones we watched.

Where the adults get to act like kids and drink.

They don't add substance to the exhibits, they don't attempt to educate, they just attempt to tap an adjacent market for the same dumbed down slop.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the _idea_, just a huge critic of the _implementation_.)

And history, until you've had some life experience and seen the world change, which is a lot of what makes art and science museums more interesting.

That's disappointing. I liked to believe it would remain an example of a good museum after other places followed this trend. But on the west coast, I've had no reason to visit the Smithsonian in many decades.

I'm still unsure whether changes I see are all about the facility or partially about my changed perspective. I visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the La Brea Tar Pits in the past decade, and I found neither of them stands up to my memory of them from 1980s school field trips.

Back when big tech did Christmas parties but before they had hired so many people they wouldn’t all fit in a museum (thus requiring the renting of hangars), we booked this whole place for the night. It was great as everyone was dressed to the nines and drinking while the staff taught us about fish and quasars or something.

The zoo near us had boozy lemonade stands on Labor Day this year. Quite refreshing.

It is really tough to queue up along with kids who are not letting go of any interactive exhibit easily — and similarly tough to explore it well while there are kids waiting behind you.

So in theory you are right, in practice there is a lot of social pressure to bear to do it.

The best is if you can go in outside peak hours (take day off work etc).

> they're basically prisons

Sure, a zoo can never simulate reality exactly, but they come pretty close now-a-days. Animals have several square kilometers to run and it's crazy how they are able to simulate different climates. A lot of animals now only exist in zoos since the natural environment now got inhabitable.