Quote

A lot of our insights are based on the ways in which people spend time at museums. They're curious, open, interested, and engaging. They want to express themselves and see their own identity refracted through the museum's.

Shouldn't a great museum foster serious seeing before all else?

Many museums are drawing audiences with art that is ostensibly more entertaining than stuff that just sits and invites contemplation. Interactivity, gizmos, eating, hanging out, things that make noise - all are now the norm, often edging out much else.

Museums are like the quiet car of the world. It's a place you can come to escape, where there's authenticity, there's uniqueness, there's calm, there's physicality.

People come to museums for storytelling and engagement, and the technology needs to facilitate that.

Museums are like sports stadiums, hotels and hospitals: they are in the category of captive-audience dining.

Museums are managers of consciousness. They give us an interpretation of history, of how to view the world and locate ourselves in it. They are, if you want to put it in positive terms, great educational institutions. If you want to put it in negative terms, they are propaganda machines.

I do not think that a museum needs to engage with pop culture in order to make itself interesting to museumgoers. Museums are already interesting and engaging with pop culture for its own sake is just a quick way to seem and become dated.

Museums provide places of relaxation and inspiration. And most importantly, they are a place of authenticity. We live in a world of reproductions - the objects in museums are real. It's a way to get away from the overload of digital technology.

More and more, museums will look at restaurants and chefs differently - as if they are curating art.