Our visit to Museum Albert Kahn was one of my favorite activities of our trip. I was in awe of the sheer amount photographs they had displayed.  I noticed that the Cinematheque and Musée Albert Kahn both had many interactive elements in the exhibition which I think functioned extremely well. There were creative interactive elements in the museum that I had never seen before. For example, there was a tablet on a table that you could slide to different categories to learn more. When the tablet moved to a new category, you were able to scroll through different photographs at your own pace. There was one part of the exhibition in particular that I found to be very informative. It displayed how glass autochromes were developed and touched up with color. It seemed like the museum really wanted people to learn in a way in which they can explore their curiosities.

The interactive elements and further reading information seemed to be what the LACMA exhibition was lacking. Many museums are hesitant to overwhelm the walls with text which I understand, however, I think the interactive elements were a great compromise. It allowed people who wanted to learn more to do so. I think it would have been successful to place something like a tablet in the exhibition for people to further explore the things that piqued their interest.

While the grand wall full of photographs was aesthetically pleasing, I would have loved to have information about each of the photographs. I did not spend too much time looking at the photos on the wall because there was no context as to who took them and, when, or where they were taken. I enjoyed that they delved into the works of individual anthropologists and ethnographers instead of solely focusing on Albert Kahn.

As one of Albert Kahn's goals with the Archives of the World was to photograph and document cultures that are on the verge of disappearance, I found it interesting that I could not find a photograph of Armenia. Around the time some of the photographs were taken, there was a lot going on in Armenia such as the Genocide. Maybe I missed some photographs which is very possible. On the other hand, maybe there were not any trips to Armenia at all. This leads me to my questions; how did ethnographers and anthropologists decide where to travel to? How did they determine which cultures were worthy of being documented? Were the Archives of the Planet meant to show similarities between cultures and create a sense of universalism? or were they meant to highlight differences?