Sounds quite authorative, does not it? Like the author definitely knows what he/she is talking about. Or more like it’s coming from a well-known news channel that does not feel their job is fully done if the title does not sound like groundbreaking news. The article referenced by The Huffington Post, No Pictures, Please: Taking Photos May Impede Memory of Museum Tour, is more balanced and less categorical, and therefore looks more trustworthy to me.
If someone takes photos at the exhibit it does not automatically means they are not fully engaged in their experience and rely on technology to remember it for them.
Is the next day after the event when pic-snapping and just observing participants of the research were tested for what they remembered as important as long-term memories? What if brains of older people work differently from those of undergrad kids, especially for those with less then perfect visual memory? And since the research is not available to the general public (the abstract does not count for much) it’s anybody’s guess how exactly it was carried out, what the participants’ background was, or how many participated. All of that affects how relevant the results are to our everyday experience.
And why there is the assumption that the reason people takes shots at museums (and possibly other places) is to preserver the memory of the event? I use those snapshots to do my research on the piece or the artist later, and more then once sharing those pics helped to spread the word and get more people enjoy the art as much as I did. And in reading through a growing number of comments to the research (or rather, to how it was reported) I see that I am not the only one who does not use a camera or phone merely as a memory crutch. Is the problem that the research points out even a real one?