No digital system has yet solved the problem of physical presence. Even people who enjoy virtual tours often acknowledge that a screen changes the encounter with an object. Texture, weight, and scale, among other attributes, are perceived differently when mediated through a flat image, regardless of resolution. Standing in front of a large painting in a quiet room, or handling a small piece of porcelain under a light, elicits emotional and sensory responses that a virtual surrogate can only hint at.

Technical and economic barriers also complicate claims of universal access. A project that relies on virtual reality headsets, high-speed internet, or newer devices may unintentionally exclude users with older hardware or limited connectivity. There is an additional layer of accessibility concerns when immersive experiences cause motion sickness or eye strain. For some audiences, a simple, well-designed web gallery may be far more usable than an elaborate interactive environment.

Also, digital preservation raises questions distinct from those encountered in physical collections. Websites become outdated, software platforms are retired, and file formats fall out of use. A museum building requires maintenance, but a virtual museum requires an ongoing commitment to migration and updating. Without that attention, an impressively documented collection can become inaccessible within a few years, even though the underlying digital files still exist on a server.

Finally, there is the issue of trust. A physical museum’s authority partly derives from its responsibility for the objects themselves: Visitors understand that curators have examined them, confirmed their authenticity, and documented their provenance. In a virtual setting, especially one run by individuals or small groups, viewers may find it harder to judge whether an image is an accurate, faithful representation or a loosely sourced picture with incomplete information. Clear documentation, provenance notes, and transparent labeling help, but skepticism remains a reasonable response.

Current virtual museum projects span many types of collections, and examining specific examples helps illustrate the variety of approaches. The Kremer Collection’s virtual museum focuses on a relatively small but carefully selected group of 17th‑century Dutch and Flemish paintings, presented in a polished virtual-reality environment rather than on physical walls. Visitors move through simulated rooms and can examine details that might go unnoticed in a crowded gallery.

By contrast, Vienna’s Österreichische Galerie Belvedere maintains an extensive online collection interface as an extension of its historical palace setting. The site allows viewers to explore the museum’s holdings, including the well-known paintings by Gustav Klimt, at their own pace, without reproducing the architecture in full 3D. Here, the web platform functions primarily as a research and discovery tool rather than a virtual walkthrough.

Other institutions have experimented with 360‑degree tours and panoramic photography. The Guggenheim in New York, for instance, offers virtual tours that let online visitors navigate the museum’s distinctive spiral ramp while viewing modern and contemporary works. In the decorative arts, projects such as the Canton China Virtual Museum and various porcelain-focused initiatives use close-up images and rotational views to highlight forms, glazes, and patterns that collectors often want to compare in detail.

Specialized collections have found virtual formats particularly useful. Numismatic organizations, for example, can display rare coins and currency errors at magnifications that would be impossible in a public gallery. Thus, the originals are protected in secure storage. Similarly, regional or archaeological collections use virtual platforms to present pottery types, vessel forms, and context information that might otherwise be scattered across separate publications or storage facilities.

The term “deaccessioning” is commonly used in discussions of museum policy, yet many private collectors face a similar set of decisions when considering the dispersal of their holdings. They must determine what to sell, what to give away, and what, if anything, to leave as a coherent legacy. A virtual museum or catalog can play a surprisingly practical role in that process.

For one thing, creating a structured digital record forces a collector to clarify basic information: acquisition history, attributions, dimensions, condition notes, and any relevant literature or exhibition history. That work benefits heirs, who may know little about the individual objects, and potential institutional recipients, who must assess whether a gift fits their collections and storage capacity. Even if the collection eventually fragments, the virtual record preserves the logic underlying its assembly.

A well-designed virtual presentation can also function as a portfolio when approaching museums or other nonprofits. Curators often require an overview before deciding whether to pursue a formal gift or purchase. Providing a consistent set of images, entries, and groupings can make those conversations more efficient and less abstract. If an institution can accept only a portion of the material, the virtual museum still documents the collection as it existed in the collector’s hands.

From the collector's perspective, there is an emotional dimension as well. Many people spend decades developing expertise and taste, and they understandably worry that their efforts will be invisible once objects are scattered through auctions or divided among heirs. A virtual museum does not entirely solve that problem, but it does offer a means to preserve the collection's story and to attach a name and point of view to it. Future researchers, dealers, or family members can see not only individual pieces but also the relationships and themes that unite them.

In this sense, the virtual museum parallels institutional deaccessioning: In both cases, careful documentation and thoughtful planning aim to balance personal or organizational needs with the broader interest of scholars and the public. Recording and contextualizing objects before they leave a collection helps ensure that they remain useful, even when their physical locations change.

Virtual museums are unlikely to replace traditional museums, and many visitors would not want them to. Instead, they sit alongside physical institutions as complementary tools that expand who can see what, and under what circumstances. For some collectors and smaller organizations, they also offer a realistic alternative when a permanent building is out of reach.

For those considering the long-term fate of a collection, the digital sphere offers a new option: to document and interpret the material while it remains together and then to allow the objects themselves to move on. In doing so, the collector’s choices, research, and arrangements remain visible long after the last piece has changed hands. As digital tools continue to improve, the challenge will be to maintain that documentation over time and to keep virtual projects as thoughtfully curated as the best physical exhibitions.

References

Shirley M. Mueller, Inside the Head of a Collector: Neuropsychological Forces at Play, Lucia Marquand, 2019: page 153.

© Psychology Today