In this paper I wanted to explore the phenomenon of place in relation to virtual museums and exhibitions.

Some of the readings (Forte, 2007; Dallas, 2007) mention place as something virtual museums/exhibitions should strive toward. I wanted to explore the notion of sense of place in relation to virtual museums/exhibitions in this paper. I want to start off by defining place and place-making. I wanted to apply this notion briefly to real museums before moving on to virtual environments.

Sense of place: There is a whole literature on place and place-making. I thought I would browse through this literature and extract recurring concepts. I think it is necessary to understand place in the real world before we attempt to apply it in an online environment. I have bolded some of the key concepts in the place literature. Here is a kind of collage of what place is from the literature. Places are defined less by unique locations, and landscapes than by focusing of experiences and intentions onto particular settings (Place and Placelessness, 1976). A place is a piece of the environment that has been claimed by feelings (Gussow, 1972). Space combined with memory defines place (The Lure of the Local, 1997). Places are important sources of individual and communal identity (Place and Placelessness, 1976). Place applies to our local, entwined with personal memory, the history of ones experiences, marks made in the land, writes folklorist Henry Glassie. In place, the person feels a part of history (The Lure of the Local, 1997). In both our communal and our personal experiences of places there is often a close attachment, a familiarity that is part of knowing and being known here, in this particular place (Place and Placelessness, 1976). It is the geographical component of the psychological need to belong somewhere. (The Lure of the Local, 1997). The need to belong is the need for roots. It is utterly in our nature to need roots, to struggle for roots, for a sense of belonging. The quality of insideness makes a place from mere setting. Insideness both emerges from rituals and repeated activities that maintain the peculiar properties of a place and is a consequence of the intensity of experience inspired by the place (Place and Placelessness, 1976). Places will emerge from spaces that permit individuals to set their own pace and orientation (Cox, 1968; as cited in Place and Placelessness, 1976:). The conditions are conducive to belonging. Provide conditions that allow roots to develop (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 146).A person has roots by virtue of his real, active and natural participation in the life of the community (The Need for Roots, 1955; as cited in Ibid: 38). Experience of place can range in scale from part of a room to an entire continent, but at all scales places are whole entities (Ibid: 141). Allowing individuals to make their own places and give those places authenticity and significance by modifying and dwelling in them. Placelessness, the opposite of place, is something that must be transcended (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 145). Placelessness is the condition in which different locations look the same and offer the same experiences, the erosion of geographical distinctiveness and diversity (Relph, 1997). Certain urban form has the capacity to provide the conditions for individuals to generate sense of place from the given built setting. Yet, we do not consider as places many of the settings comprising our lives; many urban forms are deficient in conditions for place-making. Exemplary evidence comes from William Whytes The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1982) in which he presents his studies of how people use public spaces such as plazas. He examined Paley Park in New York and the then new First National Bank Plaza in Chicago, as examples. His findings were several: From the demography of users and how they used the spaces he found that the best-used spaces are sociable ones. The more popular and pleasurable plazas were those whose design encouraged friendly social exchanges. What attracted people

most to the plaza was other people. "Many urban spaces are being designed as though the opposite were true. People often do ... speak of getting away from it all. What people do, however, reveals a different priority." (Ibid: 190). In the real world there are numerous examples of places that have emerged from mere settings. Also, there are numerous conditions an urban form can meet to generate place from space. We should keep in mind several key notions of place that have emerged from this overview of the place literature: History, roots, belonging, experience, familiarity, attachment, community, among other concepts bolded above.
How does place-making relate to the museum? Place + Object:

Several notable individuals have argued that the context in which an object is situated is a necessary element in its viewing. We view objects differently in different spaces (Space: Architecture for Art). In fact, it is maintained by some that an object can never be experienced without a context. Experiencing the pure object in this sense, is an impossibility. Ludwig
Wittgenstein, in his book 'Tractatus Philosophicus', noted the paradox of being able to imagine a space empty, but not able to imagine an object alone, without it placed within some context: "Each thing is, as it were, in a space of possible states of affairs. This space I can imagine empty, but I cannot imagine the thing without the space." Emmanuel Kant, similarly remarked: "We can never represent to ourselves the absence of space though we can quite well think it as empty of objects" "Each thing modifies [or:conditions] the whole logical world, the whole of logical space, so to speak." And Foucualt expressed a related idea that space is never empty, never neutral, but always saturated with qualities (Foucault, taken from Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias, quoted in Space: Architecture for Art).

Elements of architectural design, such as impressive entrances, central gathering spaces, and ceremonial staircases (such as that pictured in Fig. 1) contribute to place-making. Examples of museums with these paradigms include the Louvre, the British Museum (1823-47), the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and the Altes Museum in Berlin (1824-30). These features remained largely unchallenged until the beginning of the 20th century. The modernist
approach to the gallery attempted to do away with the idea of ornament and, fundamentally, distraction from the artifact, with the minimalist use of architectural intervention - museum as pure container. However, even this type of gallery affects what it contains in some way, even if that gallery space is a white cube. Other galleries attempt, more consciously to influence its contents. Notable examples include the Guggenheim by Frank O. Gehry in Bilbao, Spain and its namesake in

Figure 1. Entrance stairs, Kunsthistorisches Museum

New York by Frank Lloyd Wright. A work of art viewed at the Solomon R. Guggenheim museum

in New York City would never have the same effect if viewed in a different context. Lighting, circulation and space (and indeed, its fame as an architectural monument), provide a strong sense of place.

We have explored the idea that an object is inextricably linked to its context. That context will influence our understanding, perception and interpretation of that object. Do we want a placeless context within which visitors encounter objects or should we endeavor to have our cultural heritage institutions foster a sense of place? Through design and architectural intervention, community programming among other measures, it is possible to transform the space of a museum or gallery into a place. I realize that there is much more to discuss in relation to physical museums and how they can generate place, but I want to focus the discussion on the online museum/exhibition and sense of place. Figure 2. Interior, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

Does sense of place matter in a museum? Before we move to a discussion of place in a virtual environment, I just want to pause briefly to address the question I posed in the preceding paragraph: should we strive to make the museum a place? How

does perceiving the museum as a place impact our experience with objects housed within? Messham-Muir (2005) points out the trend towards a rise in the use of affective modes in museums. He describes the aim of museums providing this type of experience as creating immersive and moving experiences for visitors, engaging them at a sensory level. MesshamMuir describes several exhibitions such as The Hong Kong Story at the Hong Kong Museum of History and the Imperial War Museums Holocaust Exhibition in London with which we engage through our senses. Generating sense of place (through the museums form and layout as well as other means possibly) is very much in line with this affective trend and complements the affective modes of communication in the interpretation of artifacts that Messham-Muir describes as being increasingly employed by museums. Recall that place is very much linked to affect. Indeed one of the definitions of place is a piece of the environment that has been claimed by feelings (Gussow, 1972: 27).
Virtual museum/exhibition as place: Just as in the real world, where the object is never divorced from its context, similarly the online presentation of a cultural heritage object, is not free of context. This occurs because of the setting in

which you are while in front of your computer (compare viewing at Tim Hortons versus while you are on a plane travelling somewhere) plus the character of the site within which the objects are housed. Obviously, the site designer/creator has no control over where the viewer is present while visiting the site, but can control aspects of the site itself. But what about place? Can a website be a place? Marc Aug, a social scientist, describes in his book 'Non-Places : Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity', the placeless environments that we find ourselves within: the shopping centre, the car, and in front of a computer, among others. He describes them as "space without place". According to him, non-places are places of transience and thus do not hold enough significance to be regarded as places. I want to argue that, though certainly not all websites are, websites exist that are places. I think our email providers sites (ie. Hotmail, Gmail, UTORmail etc.), Facebook and for us, even ROSI are all good examples of place in the virtual environment. Assuming that it is not our first time on these sites, but that we have used the services of these sites for some time, elements of place in the real world (identified above) are present here. Namely: We have memories connected with these sites (that horrible mark that drastically lowered your GPA, forever memorialized on ROSI); they are sources of our individual and communal identity (we can fashion our identity on Facebook and through our academic record displayed on ROSI), there is a history (we can remember the various looks Hotmail has had throughout the years), roots (some people I know have as their email address their name and year that they first joined Hotmail ie. danielle_h_16@hotmail.com, thus they have a personal history with the site), a familiarity (when you are travelling overseas, that feeling you get when you check your e-mail), social exchanges occur here and we have repeated activities connected with these sites (checking Facebook multiple times a day) as well as rituals (check your email first thing in the morning). So it is possible for a website to be a place. A virtual museum/exhibition is no different from any other type of website. It too can be a place. Except it must be taken into account that unlike the sites just discussed, visitors are often first-time and [one-time] visitors. How can a virtual museum/exhibition be a place?

Elements of place (focusing of experiences, arousing feelings, creating memories, source of identity, history, familiarity, intense experience, modification, sociable space, participation in communal life) are developed from the definition of place in the real world. I dont think this is an exhaustive list, but it does capture the essential elements of place; nor is it necessary to propose a whole new set of criteria as it may be argued that the virtual is quite a different environment than the physical and perhaps therefore different criteria are needed to explain place. I think the real world definition works well online and while there may be other criteria I have not mentioned, I dont think we need to fully alter our operational definition of place as developed for the physical environment. What we do have to keep in mind is the fact that place in the real world assumes moving through three-dimensional space and multi-sensory experience. Website as place:
Although there may be other criteria and this isnt an exhaustive list, here are several factors which contribute to a website being a place. This is derived from the definition of place as extracted from the literature (see above).

Perhaps you may argue that a website is a fundamentally different type of space from an actual physical space and therefore altogether different criteria from those in the real world are necessary to make virtual space into place. Applying the definition of place (as above) to websites, here is how a site can be a place: Focusing of experiences and intentions onto the site Arousing feelings Create memories Make it a source of identity and communal identity History Familiarity Intensity of experience Individuals set own pace and orientation Participation in community life Allow individuals to modify Sociable spaces
What does/would a virtual museum/exhibition as place be like: Lets examine several virtual museums/exhibitions to see if they foster a sense of place. In this way we will develop particulars for virtual museums to achieve a sense of place. One big thing that emerges is the necessity for a community of visitors. This is done well with My Brighton, My Hove virtual exhibit. On this exhibition, visitors can interact with each other. To engender sense of place it is recommended that there is some interactive component where visitors can communicate with each other. Like a blog or forum, or social tagging [site that jesslyn talked about]. Also there should be a way for visitors to interact with what they are presented. We saw this with the archive site jesslyn talked about. Other visitor paths could be shown [as in archive site jesslyn talked about]. Choose the color of the walls, create a gallery of your works (Muva). However in Muva, your gallery isnt stored and your path through the gallery isnt recorded. If it were it would engender more history with the site, ie. roots. Perhaps you could see others galleries fostering community. Arouse feelings as in my brighton site, source of identity. Intensity of experience, furthered with more immersive technology, but not necessarily. Also in my brighton site. Through narratives, context and visual cues, the viewer is engaged. Of course, Monticello Explorer: Monticello Explorer (http://explorer.monticello.org/) is a multi-media look at Monticello, Thomas Jeffersons house in Charlottesville, Virginia created by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation with 3-D models of the house, interactive map, and narrated tours among other features. The site is interactive in that you can interact with the map of the plantations to view specific areas of it and travel through the house as if you yourself were visiting it. As you tour the rooms of the house, there is information about each room that is presented including dimensions, colour and as you travel through you can pause to click on colour photographs of various rooms and architectural details as well as view flash animations of specific architectural or design elements such as sources for the entrance hall entablature and how the parquet floor was assembled. The site is interactive but interactivity is limited. One cannot alter or add content. And nothing of your previous visit is stored on the site should you choose to return. You cannot

interact with other visitors. Multi-sensory and moving thru 3D space isnt important for sense of place online. The Mesoamerican ballgame: An online educational companion to the travelling exhibit. Geared for grade school children. Explore the MesoAmerican world between __ and __ with an interactive map. Explore the rise and fall of nine Mesoamerican civilizations between the years 1500 BC and 1519 AD. Explore the Ballgame section you learn about the game and why it was played. Watch the game and then play the game and September 2001 December 2002. Travelling exhibit related to the Mesoamerican ballgame. http://www.ballgame.org/main.asp?section=5.

Their ideas of an object being intrinsically linked to a context or state of affairs seem to have major implications in the way the designers of virtual environments should be working. Narrative and context, coupled with visual cues can engage the viewer and provide a sense of place in cyberspace. Why should we try to make it a place? How do we do this? Lets look at some examples of virtual exhibitions to see if they are a place and what could make them so. Not necessarily that making the virtual museum more like a realistic museum visit will engender sense of place. Perhaps, but there are other methods that may not be so prohibitive financially. One of the readings suggested inexpensive technology for home-use that would make the virtual visit more multi-sensory, but who is going to by a haptic mouse just to visit a museum site? So perhaps other ways Are virtual museums places? Lets look at a few examples. Why should we want them to be places?

-focusing of experiences onto particular settings -get to know others -real, active and natural participation in the life of the community -attachment, familiarity, being known here in this place -history

Several of the articles suggest making the experience more multi-sensory. I think that can help to foster sense of place, but other things like community is essential. My Brighton is a good example. Roots applies really to repeat visitors. Their previous actions on the site would be saved. There would be some trace that they had been there. This would make the site familiar and establish their history with the site. Belonging- fostered by participating in the community and interacting with the site in a natural way. Allowing visitors to interact with each other. See other peoples paths on the site. Experience ie. someone flashes you in a suburb. If you happen to be driving through a suburb where everything looks the same and you spot someone doing something on their porch that is shocking, that site becomes a site of experience; therefore it has place; that site is a place for you. It has a sense of place. somnething has happened ther e that is meaningful for you. History- that that site has history to it. Not necessarily your involvement there but that things have happened in that site that are historic. The Louvre has history. If I can find history use it, if not, dont. that location is historic, like there was a battle there. Roots- you have a past in that place. Your home has for you roots because you were raised there. Belonging if you have roots there, you feel as if you belong there. You have roots and that it is a past that attracts you to it. You can have roots but not belonging. Ie. the spot my father was killed.

Web sites as place Several of the readings argued that an experience on these virtual sites similar to our real-world experience, the better. Currently we are only really involved one sense, vision, and for a richer experience

we should aim to mimic reality and make the experience a multi-sensory one. While this may be one way to foster sense of place, it is not necessary to throw technology into the mix, the more technology the better the experience. Maybe for other things, but when it comes to creating a place, technology is not absolutely necessary. What can foster sense of place in the virtual realm? I think it is important to aim for a sense of place in a virtual museum/exhibition. And I think that it is possible. A sense of place need not be tied to architecture, but we can strive for it on any type of virtual exhibition/gallery. There are different types: explain what they are. I think we are able to apply our definition of sense place and criteria from the real world into an online environment. There may be other criteria, but we have these already for the real world and I think they can work well in the online realm. We just have to be more creative as to how we fulfill these criteria. For example, how would we go about creating history on a web site? How would we foster roots? I will suggest several ways through examining several virtual museums. There may be other ways and perhaps there may be different criteria. Application: Case studies Can virtual galleries have a sense of place? We are looking for experience, history, roots and belonging. MuVA: history: won the award. Says this on the homepage. To enhance history, can say that it has been in existence for however long and this is what it is (see Alicia Haber article). -place online is dif than place in the real world because online place just means that it convinclgy mimics the real world not simply that it achieves not being placeless as in the real world; but then you have fantasy world, they can have a real sense of place because they dont simulate the real world. So fantasy worlds are always places whether in real world outside the computer or in the computer but a fantasy place that is on the computer that mimics a fantasy place in non-computer world can become placeless because it doesnt have those qualities of having a history, is authentic, b/c then it just becomes a copy. One of the criteria for place is that it isnt a copy. If you have a virtual gallery that isnt trying to be a real world setting but a fantasy world then that is a place. Galleries that dont try mimic architectural settings in the real world are a place b/c if a place is one that isnt just a copy of some other place. Those sites that most try to convince us that its a place (an actual architectural space are probably least placeful of all) because even if the building that it shows is a building that doesnt exist in the world, if it looks like a generic space then it isnt place but if it creates for you a gallery that doesnt exist -sense of place can be present for certain viewers but not all because it is dependent on the viewers knowledge of what is the original place vs. everything else (the actual Taj Mahal versus the Taj Mahal in Disney World). -can a virtual museum have a sense of place? -does sense of place online have to have the same conditions as sense of place in the real world? -what is sense of place in the real world? It isnt a duplicate, that it has history to it, etc.

-the fact that the computer is a different medium, actual presence in the space, does it mean that the judgment on whether the site has sense of place, does it rely on meeting or not the conditions for sense of place in the real world? -going to actual gallery in Seville. Compared to someone telling me in their words about what ones visit would be like. My experience of the gallery in the second way, has it generated a sense of place

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------kinds of galleries there are online Types of virtual galleries/exhibits: 1) Like typical website. Series of windows that serve as links to more windows. Some are photographs taken from the world and some are photos of actual artwork. All 2D series of windows. Only 3dimensionality is photos from non-computer world. Example Moor at Kew. http://www.kew.org/henry-moore/discover/natural-forms.shtml 2) Simulated move within a three-deminsional space. Simulated physical travel within threedeminsional space that is a simulation of an actual physical space or a space that could exist in the real world. Example MuVA. 3) Same as 2 except its the actual imagery of that place. -some galleries have qualities of each. If a person has been to the actual gallery in the past, the present virtual gallery can become a place just by virtue of them having been there even if the gallery si the example that it is a page with list. E should focuse in the essay on the person who has never been to the gallery. -Thesis: can virtual galleries have sense of place? -What is sense of place according to the literature on sense of place in the real world -what are the criteria for the criterion online? Same as real world? Galleries have different ones. -apply sense of place criterion for online and apply to different types of galleries. - The simulation of an experience of visiting an existing gallery and have that simulation be quite similar. TSome sites do that. But that is limited to a uni-modal experience. You just see it (palasma article). Then theres the other kind of site tha tisnt just a simulation of whats out there but goes beyond criteria. Sites that are simulations of the real world

-conclusion: why does sense of place matter? Because the purpose of galleries is to make it cognitive and affective experience and in real world sense of place increases these experiences. And taking into account that according to Foucault, Wittgenstein and others, the art experience is never divorced from context (or in the intro). This thought is the justification for writing this essay. -do we have to architecture to achieve sense of place. Do we have to have the experience of this website match the experience of being at that architecture in the real world (ie. walking through it) or is pictures enough? Does place have to mimic the real world? Can sense of place be online and divorced from actual physical world? Can sense of place be achieved online if it doesnt relate to reality in any way? Does creating sense of place require the mimicking of the day-to-day sensory experience of humans in the real world?

-most important criteria is a site of emotional experience. If a website can enduce emotion, it can help serve purpose of art provider similar to museums goal. What enduces emotion? Many criteria for online sense of place: one is that it evoke an emotional response. So can website evoke an emotional response? Also make the experience a personalized experience Do we havef to have a simulation of the actual sensory experience as it could take plac e in the real world? Do we have to have a simulation of a real or probable sensual experience of a gallery visit to have a sense of place? Does the website have to mimic for me what I would probably experience if I went to the Victoria and Albert? I arrive at the door, I feel the surface of the doorhandle, it has a heater, you walk this way, you hear crowdsthis is a series of sensual experiencesor can I say that sense of place can involve none of that but merely the visual experience of noething more than a series of windows that could or not contain just photographs or do I mimic a walk through a computer generated look such as at MuVA. Do I have to have experience asin the real world? A sensory experience to have a sense of place? Since the fundamental criteria for sense of place is the evocation of an emotional experience, then can the virtual gallery because it is a visual experience, can it then evoke the emotional experience or is it that because it is a different medium are more factors required? In the real world, vision alone is sufficient to evoke an emotional experience, but online is more required? This question justifies the addition of criteria to the criteria set out for the real world because online doesnt have same conditions so question is, the criteria is: is the emotion that can come from the computer enough for a sense of place or do I need to have real world site to have sense of place or is it enough that Can one criteria that works in real world (namely an (emotional) experience), create sense of place if it is a virtual site given that it lacks those other conditions that are around when real world site is creating sense of place . Is this enough to make virtual thing place? If this site generates for me an experience (define that operational definition experience is something that is memorable, elicits an emotional response) or does it have to mimic conditions in non-computer world The criteria for the real world is that it evokes history, roots and most importantly that it evokes an experience. Online, all you can is experience because when you open your email or visit a cool website. So obviously you can have an experience on the computer, but is that experience enough to generate sense of place. In the real world, yes. So in real world, site of experience is enough to make an otherwise

placeless site become a place, but can you have a place occur online when the only criteria is that it generates experience but t lacks that it isnt a multi-sensory experience, that it isnt that you mojving through 3D space and so on and that it also lacks the other criteria for sense of place in the real world. Ie. history, that it evokes a sense of belonging. Is it enough that the experience be there to have sense of place (which the experience is there). Can I have sense of palce online even though assumptions of real world sense of place arent there? -can you havce sense of place in the computer in absence of the assumptions of sense of place in the real world? Ie. thats its multi-sensory, that u can move through 3D space. -Yes. Give example of me checking my email. Can have sense of history, not historic content Can a website have history, roots, experience can the vR gallery have a sense of palce? Online doesnt have multi-sensory or 3D at best its a simulation framed by a computer screen so does the absence of those assumptions of sense of place in the real world, does that take away from possible generation of sense of place online. So even though the assumptions of the real world sense of place are not applicable online, why is it that I do sense of place online? Prove to the reader that when they go to their email for example they do feel sense of place (checking your email when youve just arrived ina foreign place history and belonging and how you feel when you open your email from a provider that youve had for years compard to opening your email from a recent provider youve had for just a few days ie;. hotmail for years versus gmail youve had for a week irrespective of what emails are waitng for you, but just that site that speak to history, and roots and belonging; CBC site, ok BBC site ok, le Monde how annoying this massive advertisement for a flashy car when I want to read about the news and that ad is part of what Im reading online (that was an experience) all the examples so far have been an experience. -when Im talking about the history in relation to virtual gallery, Im talking about history of the site, it can be the name or something (ie. if the Guggenheim moved and are housed in one of the aisles of Walmart). -the part of the analysis in which I talk about or prove that in fact that assumptions that exist in the real world arent needed for sense of place online (ie. four criterion experience, belonging, history, roots, are enough to generate sense of place online discuss the difference between those virtual galleries that are a series of windows and compare that to the galleries that are virtual real tour where it has pictures and you walk through it. Discuss one example from each of the extreme types (Seville gallery as an examples of realistic virtual one vs. Moore one which is a series of windows and possibly one that lies in between or that is a separate category (ie. the Uruguay one). Yes! It becomes a place for me.

Sense of Place: We could have a whole discussion on sense of place in actual, real museums, but we will focus on virtual museums. There is a whole literature on sense of place but I just want to provide the necessary basics to be able to then discuss its online presence. First we shall define what place is in the real world. Lets get a sense for what place is by sampling the place literature. Places are defined less by unique

locations, landscapes and communities than by focusing of experiences and intentions onto particular settings (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 141). A place is a piece of the environment that has been claimed by feelings (Gussow, 1972: 27). Space combined with memory defines place (The Lure of the Local, 1997: 8). A lived-in landscape becomes a place (Ibid: 8). It is a location of experience, the container of shapes, powers, feelings and meanings (Walter, 1988: 9). We do not consider as places many of the settings comprising ours lives. It is utterly in our nature to need roots, to struggle for roots, for a sense of belonging, some place recognized as mine, as yours, as ours; nations, cities are more than politics, geography and history, they reflect the need to stay someplace and get to know other people and a particular environment or space or neighbourhood or set of circumstances (Coles, 1970; as cited in Place and Placelessness, 1976: 38). The conditions are conducive to belonging. Provide conditions that allow roots to develop (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 146).A person has roots by virtue of his real, active and natural participation [my italics] in the life of the community (The Need for Roots, 1955; as cited in Ibid: 38). In both our communal and our personal experiences of places there is often a close attachment, a familiarity that is part of knowing and being known here, in this particular place (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 37). History is the essence of the idea of place, writes folklorist Henry Glassie (The Lure of the Local, 1997: 13). Our human landscape is our unwitting autobiography. (Ibid: 9). Place applies to our local, entwined with personal memory, known or unknown histories, marks made in the land (Ibid: 7). Often, however, we study history as great waves that pass over the land and change how we use and think of it, but apart from an element of nostalgia, or longing, it tends to pass us by ... It rarely seems to be our story ... We forget it goes right up to yesterday. (Ibid: 13). This feeling of disconnect nurtures further feelings of a need to affect history, make ones mark in the sands of time and become part of history via places. In place the person feels a part of history (Ibid: 13). Placelessness must be transcended (Place and Placelessness, 1976: 145). Placelessness is the condition in which different locations look the same and offer the same experiences, the erosion of geographical distinctiveness and diversity (Relph, 1997). We can distill all of this down into the fact that for a site to be a place it has to be a site of experience, it has to have roots, belonging and history. These concepts often overlap, but here are examples:
This is in line with the museums cognitive and affective goals. Visitors cognitive experience will be enhanced. You will remember more [psych study] [explain] inherent in place-making is experiences and affect and an affective experience is one of the goals of the museum at least as of New Museology. The purpose of the museum is cognitive and emotional. Place increases the emotional experience of the site, so the fact that a site is a place contributes arousal. A site that is a place elicits an emotional response. A place is a site of feelings, emotions and memories. When a site is a palce because it has feelings tied to it, because that site arouses emotion, then it will be more memorable and where there is more memory for that site people will remember the artwork and itll leave an impression on them. Place as an emotional experience. Emotions increase memory. Flashbulb memories. If an experience is emotionally charged,

itll be more memorable. Psych has shown that if a perception is tied to emotion it is remembered better. One of the aims of the art experience is cognitive and emotional. The purpose of the museum is cognitive and emotional (site). Place is emotion, feeling, etc. (site). Psych shows that if an experience is emotionally charged, itll be more memorable. So if the museum is a place, the objects will be better remembered by the visitor and the overall experience will be more affective. Misattribution of arousal If the place elicits the emotional response, which it will if its a place, visitors may misattribute their emotional response to the place to the artwork.