In light of some recent discussions about new uses of technology, an article in the May-June issue of Museum, journal of the American Association of Museums, caught my eye. The article concerns smart phones--cell phones with web access--being used more and more as a gallery tool. The educational opportunities are exciting as are the "tracking" capabilities of such applications. Marketing and visitor services departments, among others, can quickly receive demographic and behavioral study information previously very difficult to acquire.
But what about the "swoon" a few recent blogs have suggested; will it be lost in the midst of touch screens and their graphics, YouTube videos, and personalized sound effects? I understand visitors might want immediate information/gratification of THEIR choosing and that museum staff like the idea of visits being more interactive and social. However, I mourn the potential loss of quiet contemplation, if that's what I want to experience, not to mention browsing the glossy gift shop catalog essays (and buying them if I am truly swept away), reading the curatorial insights on the wall labels, even glancing at the "old-fashioned" guest book comments to see what others might have written. It is the "swoon" experience of the actual object(s), not the app., that I have come to expect from great museums. It's the art I want to see and "feel", not my cell phone!
4 comments:
thanks for the observations. In an age dominated by technology many exhibition programs are trying to tap into precisely what you're suggesting: from the entire "cell phone" exhibitions to simply trying to prevent art-goers from making un-or-mis-informed opinions. These tools could provide an educational service to viewer. So the intentions are good, although I agree, not perfect, as problems are often created by those very acts with good intentions (JFLyotard). Goes without saying, it would depend on the type of exhibition, in which case, the most valuable asset here is the forward-minded (and responsible) curatorial staff. Good follow up to "art lunch," thanks--
To chime in on technology and the contemplative -- an interesting note about technology and glossy catalogs....On the west coast, a recent exhibition @ LACMA--Manly Pursuits: The Sporting Images of Thomas Eakins--featured a "print on demand" catalog, ebook version, and black and white images only. This is a stunning change for exhibitions of deceased and (on occasion) "historic" artists. Makes me wonder what the "mark" of an exhibition is? What is the trace that remains of unpublished research and exhibition?
When it comes to technology, I would never equate it will the real solid thing. I would use it to help for my research, for it is very unlikely that I can see an artist in New York while I'm currently writing a paper on him. However, in order to understand a work I would ideally like the experience the real thing. To me you just can't look at a picture, not even a digital recording, of a Jackson Pollock. You just cannot fill the texture or the movement of the physical paint-strokes in the same manner as looking at it from life. It would be different if the work was intentionally 2-D or poppy. Those types of works are made for mass communication and easy reproduction. Art for me should if possible be viewed more so from life for more adequate appreciation. However, tools like this are better for instant immediate research or just jumping into understanding a artist. Better judgement would require the viewer to see the physical work as well as what was on the screen. (Then again this is coming from someone so old school that I would prefer holding a smelly old book than reading an digital copy on a computer laptop or digital reader. I hate those things for they are nothing like an old beat up book for me.)
Moving slightly off topic here, but I am with Devon regarding the paper format of a book over an e-reader. I appreciate Laura's comment about "guest books" at the close of exhibitions. Moving from that comment to a broader discussion, consider this format that we've adopted in the department (of a blog). This is an activity that is technology oriented. Could we engage conversations among our populations (be they students, faculty, alum, friends, and so on) in another way? Sans technology? I am sure that we could, but would our dept followers, students, and so on participate in that kind of exchange?
Post a Comment