25.6.06
New media...
In the world of art, physical computing and interactive technology projects have engaged viewers by incorporating the viewers actions and inputs — whether breathing, gesturing, waving — into the process of creation. Words fall, colors radiate, sounds emanate, images fracture, objects respond. These effects are often intended to evoke, disturb, startle, mesmerize, elate … in other words, their intentions are to engage while stimulating viewers to question or revisit some aspect of their surroundings or social behaviors. While the project itself may arise out of a well-argued conceptual framework, the visitor experience tends to shy away from intellectual engagement and instead be highly sensory/emotive. Something is captured, learned — while the experience may linger, the idea may be transitory.
In the realm of the museum and other informal learning environments, efforts have been made to engage visitors through interaction — moving objects, pressing buttons — as a means of spurring on learning. A tension then arises between two sometimes conflicting aims — the desire to impart some body of knowledge with the greater aim of raising visitor awareness and the desire that visitors should somehow engage with these educational structures in a way that stimulates their curiosity but also allows them to “participate” in their own education.
In science museums, visitor interaction is easily engaged through the process of re-creating certain effects, e.g. through direct experimentation. Thus we can be fascinated by an arc of light or spinning orb whose and then desire to learn what scientific or mechanical process has made this thing possible. In this way it is possible to directly involve visitors in the process of discovery, whereby known conclusions are reached. These technologies often promote the visualization of science (see Why art).
In art museums, visitors engage directly with the work on display by reading — and not merely passively viewing — the works. There is not a single line of reasoning or point of view to communicate: viewers in a sense create the works before them through their varied interpretations. In other words, each one conjectures something different and what is evoked is by no means universal.
In the realm of the history and anthropological museums, another set of problematics arise. These exhibits often are focused on the display of artifacts — artifacts that are in some way impugned with meaning or in some measure give insight into the social realm of some other society (past or present). In this, the objects may be said to take on some kind of “aura” of significance — whether intrinsic or suddenly conferred by the special lens through which the audience is encouraged to engage in disquisition (i.e. the display case or raised platform, the spotlight). Interpretive texts are then meant to lend greater insight, maps and photographs impart context.
The question needs to be posed: what role can the latest ‘strategic impacts’ (horrid phrase ... from where did it come? warfare?) play in heightening visitor learning — and experience — in the historical and anthropological museums? Certainly, many online educational sites — such as those produced by the Field Museum — have provided one successful example
In designing museum exhibits, certain ends are commonly sought: one hopes that visitors, upon leaving an exhibit, have come to view a certain subject in a new light; one hopes to awaken people from the sleep of the everyday, to cause them to question what is commonplace, to view their world in a new light; to make connections between the knowledge offered for their taking and the world in which they live. These aims are often the underlying motivations — or strategic aims — of most exhibits. My long-winded question then concerns the degree to which new bells and whistles (or smoke and mirrorrs) actually enrich the experience of learning.
[more to come]
In the realm of the museum and other informal learning environments, efforts have been made to engage visitors through interaction — moving objects, pressing buttons — as a means of spurring on learning. A tension then arises between two sometimes conflicting aims — the desire to impart some body of knowledge with the greater aim of raising visitor awareness and the desire that visitors should somehow engage with these educational structures in a way that stimulates their curiosity but also allows them to “participate” in their own education.
In science museums, visitor interaction is easily engaged through the process of re-creating certain effects, e.g. through direct experimentation. Thus we can be fascinated by an arc of light or spinning orb whose and then desire to learn what scientific or mechanical process has made this thing possible. In this way it is possible to directly involve visitors in the process of discovery, whereby known conclusions are reached. These technologies often promote the visualization of science (see Why art).
In art museums, visitors engage directly with the work on display by reading — and not merely passively viewing — the works. There is not a single line of reasoning or point of view to communicate: viewers in a sense create the works before them through their varied interpretations. In other words, each one conjectures something different and what is evoked is by no means universal.
In the realm of the history and anthropological museums, another set of problematics arise. These exhibits often are focused on the display of artifacts — artifacts that are in some way impugned with meaning or in some measure give insight into the social realm of some other society (past or present). In this, the objects may be said to take on some kind of “aura” of significance — whether intrinsic or suddenly conferred by the special lens through which the audience is encouraged to engage in disquisition (i.e. the display case or raised platform, the spotlight). Interpretive texts are then meant to lend greater insight, maps and photographs impart context.
The question needs to be posed: what role can the latest ‘strategic impacts’ (horrid phrase ... from where did it come? warfare?) play in heightening visitor learning — and experience — in the historical and anthropological museums? Certainly, many online educational sites — such as those produced by the Field Museum — have provided one successful example
In designing museum exhibits, certain ends are commonly sought: one hopes that visitors, upon leaving an exhibit, have come to view a certain subject in a new light; one hopes to awaken people from the sleep of the everyday, to cause them to question what is commonplace, to view their world in a new light; to make connections between the knowledge offered for their taking and the world in which they live. These aims are often the underlying motivations — or strategic aims — of most exhibits. My long-winded question then concerns the degree to which new bells and whistles (or smoke and mirrorrs) actually enrich the experience of learning.
[more to come]
