Something about travel and prior knowledge

This is a short film from the "Paris, Je T'Aime" collection, by director Alexander Payne: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfkUF2bAvF0.

This may not be the best example for what I am trying to say, but, aside from being a beautiful and heartbreaking short film, it does reflect on some aspects of which I would like to discuss, mainly how information changes travel.

Humboldt's said, "I regretted that travelers, the most enlightened in the insulated branches of natural history, were seldom possessed of a sufficient variety of knowledge, to avail themselves of every advantage arising from their position." If we position that comment in the historical time of which it was made, it is interesting to think about the possibilities of how scientific exploration and collection would have been different if those participating in the exercise would have had "a sufficient variety of knowledge." And while I see that you could dissect and take up issue with the usage of "sufficient," arguing that it is a purely subjective term, I also see that certainly "different" knowledge would have produced "different" results; however, I don't know if it possible to confidently surmise what would have changed

If we think for a moment about the short film and Carol's experience in Paris we might be able to see my point more clearly. Carol's experience was almost completely dictated by prior knowledge and research; she knew what to see, what to do, etc.. Consequently, her trip was a bit prescribed to her previous motives (this is not to say that her feelings, however, were equally prescribed). She saw the sites and likely new a little about them.

If we look at the 1985 film, "Before Sunrise," (trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvrzpebA6k) we see that the main couple experience a night Vienna without much prior planning and their experience takes a different form. They also do see sites, but not from a factual or purely historical sense; instead their exposure and reactions are more aesthetically based, spontaneous and surprising.

I understand that these two examples are not the best (maybe thinking about the experiences of people who plan a vacation to a city would differ compared to people who have a one day layover at the same place. They might see similar things, eat similar food, but inevitably, their experiences are going to be different). But my main point is that a "difference" of knowledge will change the experience: it will change what is brought back, what is looked at, explored, how things are understood, etc. I don't know what would have changed if scientific collectors, as Humboldt said, would have had "sufficient knowledge," but I feel safe in saying, and maybe this is all a bit of a oversimplified reduction, that something would have.