';
allPropa[2] = 'They came shambling up out of subway tunnels and stumbling out of SUVs, feet pounding the ground ponderously in syncopation. They were easily recognized by their glazed eyes and the white electrical leads dangling from their ears which kept them oblivious to the universe around them. Their infection spread from the cities on the coasts inwards towards the soft tissues of the entire country and outward around the world. They were the pod people, and on the floor of the NASDAQ, where a 500 pound gorilla means something quite different than it might to Diane Fossey, Apple stock was going apeshit. The iPod, the twenty-first century\'s answer to whistling, through a genius marketing scheme was coming to represent such an effective branding that it could be classified as a cult.
The first and all subsequent marketing blitzes for the iPod featured lovingly photoshopped dancing faceless shadows whose only distinguishing features were the white headphone cords undulating through the air around them. These advertisements suggested to their targets that they are not individuals, but by plugging these devices into their ears they could stand out and be immediately infused with divine hipness. The tell-tale white headphone cord became an immediate iDentifier of people who were wealthy and stylish enough to be one of the new iElite. The advertisements were so recognizable that they became the focus of a controversial anti-war campaign entitled iRaq in which the faceless shadows were replaced with silhouettes of a tortured and humiliated Iraqi prisoner with white electrical wires dangling from his fingers, and insurgents with white shoulder straps on their assault rifles. The latest incarnation of the iPod advertisement asks “Which iPod are you?” further defining the consumer as a soulless entity capable of personal iDentity only through ownership of the shiny white commodity.
The high price of the iPod further served to make ownership an act of devotion. This devotion was rewarded with social aggrandizement. Shortly after the introduction of the iPod, apple struck a bargain with BMW to outfit new "Bimmers" with built-in iPod docks. The association of the iPod with the German-engineered yuppie-wagon, whose place in American culture has become increasingly associated with achievement of its national dream, immediately conveyed the attribute of social status to iPod owners. Numerous attempts to copy the iPod without infringing on Apple\'s patents were attempted but failed for the simple reason that, much like a knock-off Gucci bag or fake Rolex watch, only possession of the actual object and not the semblance of such allows the owner to feel like an initiate into the privileged group.
Meanwhile, through the establishment of shared playlists, downloadable from the Apple website, and the evolution of the podcast, which allows everyday people and celebrities alike to create radio shows distributable to iPod owners, the iPod was endowing its owners with a sense of community. Clearly, listening to a collection of songs which Britney Spears’ publicist has chosen to post on the Apple website does not actually create a meaningful relationship between Britney and the listener. This reality would not stop the consumer, though. The sense of belonging which iPod owners can experience is so strong that there is now even a periodical entitled iPodworld. The illusion that owning an iPod grants the consumer membership to a community has helped to artificially bolster the legions of consuming devotees.
It is possible to argue that the success of the Apple iPod has been entirely due to its superiority as a product. The intuitive interface, sleek design, and enormous storage capacity certainly make it the best value per dollar in the mp3 player market. However, the ability of Apple to sell iPods to people who never had the desire to own portable listening devices in the past seems to indicate otherwise. Self proclaimed audiophiles, who had not only decried the concept of mp3 file compression but had shunned the idea of digital music as a whole, were now overjoyed to receive their algorithmically-shrunken songs through pitiful nine millimeter speakers jammed into their ear canals because if they wanted to be known as someone who loved music, it was necessary to be easily identified by the white cords emerging from their pockets and creeping up towards their heads. Neither were people dissuaded from purchasing the devices when it became clear that iPod ownership put them at a unique risk of becoming a crime victim. Just as people were assaulted or killed for their Nike(one of the first truly great cult brands) sneakers in the early nineties, violent crime rates in New York escalated as iPod owners, easily iDentifiable by their white earbuds, were mugged for their iPods. A number of people in New York, after being mugged for their iPods, immediately bought new iPods without even considering the possibility of purchasing less recognizable headphones. In light of such evidence, it becomes difficult to believe that the iPod\'s place in society is merely that of an advanced musical device and not a substitute for the fulfillment of some primal need, which has nothing to do with portable music.
Apple’s marketing strategy claims that the iPod not only provides the user with a portable music player, but with a sense of self and membership to a community. In a society where people increasingly define themselves in terms of their favorite television shows, pop stars, and websites this should hardly seem surprising. In creating legions of devoted iPod owners, Apple has not only increased their sales, they have created a cult. Even Glorious Leader Steve Jobs could not have foreseen this.
A good museum must be carefully designed. Its designers must pay attention to education and community service as well as to the display of its collections. The experience of being in a museum is manyfold and it is necessary for a museum to not only educate but to provide a space for social interaction and personal reflection. The museum serves a purpose which lies on many boundaries. A museum is a boundary and a bridge between entertainment and education, between concrete and ephemeral, between the past and the present, and between knowledge and belief. Because a museum is always hanging in these delicate balances, it is crucial that a museum and its exhibits are designed in such a way as to provide for all of its many roles. To properly design a museum experience, and experience is the crucial factor, one must pay attention to three major points- aesthetic immersion, transmission of understanding, and usability.
A museum must, first of all, impart a feeling to anyone present in its halls. It need not be pretty, modern, sleek or classic in design. In fact, a museum may be raw and abrasive or silly in character if such is complimentary to its purpose. One would hope that the museum of clowning would project an aura of playfulness rather than austerity, for example. So the museum must be beautiful in that its form fits into its integral purpose. This does not imply any definition or standard of beauty, however. By employing forms which are complimentary to the purpose of the museum, the museum becomes complete and balanced. But this form must not, under any circumstances, detract from the artifacts which the museum houses. The museum is, after all, in existence largely to display its collections. Wherever possible, lighting should be designed to illuminate the artifacts individually and to allow visitors to gaze at one object without being distracted by other objects or events in the museum. Not only visual stimuli, but auditory, olfactory and somatosensory stimuli should be presented by the museum whenever relevant. In short, the museum\'s beauty should come from its relationship to the collections it displays.
The museum should also enlighten its visitors intellectually or spiritually. Wherever possible, the museum should strive to achieve this end by juxtaposing its displays in such a way that visitors are able to construct stories which tie the exhibits together. Information about the objects on display should be available to the visitor via didactics but these should be located in such a way as to provide a secondary source of information after the visitor has already made judgments about the exhibit based upon their senses and reasoning. Information should only be presented as knowledge when it is certifiably true and not plausibly refuted. When facts are presented, they must be accompanied by at least some minimal description of how these facts were determined. Any display should attempt to offer multiple sources of information. A display on a particular fish, for example, could have a model, a video, a preserved or live specimen, a distribution map and an animation on feeding habits. An exhibit of a particular artist likewise could include not only works by that artist but works by that artist\'s inspirations, letters by the artist, objects from the artist\'s studio, and various reviews of the art placed in context. But again, such additional objects should be placed in a way such that they do not distract one who is viewing the art on display.
The goal should be to generate epiphanies in the visitors via immersion in the subject.
Of course, a museum that is exceedingly beautiful and full of knowledge and epiphanies waiting to be made is useless if it is inaccessible to its public. A museum should take care to ensure that even at 100% of capacity, it is still possible for individuals to move from exhibit to exhibit at will. Pathfinding is paramount. Proper employment of signage or maps and possibly even color coded paths or other "bread- crumb trails" are excellent means to this end- but if they are obtrusive, they take away a valuable attribute of the museum- the promise of getting lost inside. In a well designed museum, visitors are able to move at whatever pace they like without significantly slowing down others in the museum. If one wishes to rest for a moment, there must be a place to do so. Special features should be employed wherever possible to provide for the handicapped and infirm. Technology can greatly enhance a museum, but nothing can kill a trip to the museum faster than technology which fails or requires skill to manipulate. No matter how exciting and novel it is, the employment of a new technology should be transparent to the museum visitor- unless the technology is the subject of the visit. As a general rule, if an exhibit requires more than a single sentence explanation to be used, then it needs to be rethought.
Because a museum straddles so many lines which distinguish one thing from another, it is easy to believe that its design is a matter of oxymorons and hypocracies, but rather, museum design is an issue of balance and reconciliations. When the museum no longer seems like it is trying to do X or trying to do y, it is successfully and silently accomplishing both.
';