Public funding for the "Arts" Re: Computer Museum

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, woodelf wrote: We're talking about history, which is culture, not products. There mere fact that some arbitrarily old machine (say: LGP-30) would have to be contextualized in its 1950's context clearly shows that. Second, computers -- as products -- are not science. Science is not technology, and technology isn't science (the subsuming of science *into* technological production is another story). Computers are products, not made by 'scientists' but produced in factories by the lowest-skilled label it's possible to get away with. Third, most museums try to appeal to a broad swath of humanity, not just nerds. Computers exist in culture, for purposes of all kinds (which has clearly changed; from 40's hydrodynamics to 00's Grand Theft Auto -- a good museum will contextualize all this. I am fairly high nerd -- yet I care a lot about the culture in which this crap exists, who made them, why, ramifications of use, etc. It's art, and history, and historiography, with a bit of science and a tinier bit of technology. Nerds like us can get a doc set and pore over the schematics; most people will want more.