Did everyone catch Michael Kimmelman’s article in the New York Times yesterday? CultureGrrl adding her own take to museum sprinting was pretty amusing reading, too and the discussion reminded me of a similar one that David Pogue mentioned back in March about his “to film or not to film” a singular event like the Space Shuttle launch. If you’ve ever been to the Louvre, what Kimmelman mentions is not much of a surprise. I was there ten years ago, way before the proliferation of digital and cell phone cameras, but the people watching was much the same. Photos or not, people were bolting for certain objects and ignoring everything in their path along the way. What fascinated me was not the article—by 9AM yesterday, I discovered the NYT had enabled reader comments and I was riveted. If you have not checked those out yet, it’s worth the time to peruse those comments.
As a technologist, I wanted to take the opportunity to look at those comments and discuss the topic of technology in museums, pointing to a recent example of ours. I’ll warn you, I tend to find technology in museums (art museums) rather distracting and I’m not often a fan of what I see implemented. We do a lot of experiments here and I often find myself torn with the results. You may remember that last year, we produced a series of videos and put them on iPod Touches in the gallery. One idea behind this experiment was to produce the videos as lo-fi as possible with the hope that very little production value would encourage visitors to look at the works of art instead of the screens. Rather than just produce audio tracks, we felt like seeing the artist talking would provide a more intimate experience, but by eliminating video-fanciness we were hoping visitors would get started by watching and then shift their attention to the work as they continued to listen.
I spent a lot of time watching people in the galleries and, in a very informal way, found that 80% of the time visitors were totally glued to those screens:
…by contrast, 20% of the time they were starting with the video, then shifting their attention to the work of art the artist was speaking about:
I’ve not blogged about this observation before now because I’ve had conflicted feelings about it. On one hand, I wish I had seen more visitors engaging directly with the works, but on the other…I have to recognize that everyone will engage in different ways and that should be welcome.
I will say as we are getting ready to launch a new project, this idea of how to implement technology, so it promotes art viewing instead of TV watching has weighed heavily in my mind. I’ll talk a bit more about this particular project in a few weeks as we get closer to release, but in the mean time, I’d love to know your thoughts on this issue. For all the museum professionals and museum visitors who read this blog, there must be plenty of opinion out there?
Author RSS 
RSS 
Eastern Parkway/Brooklyn Museum
Though I can’t speak for other staff, I’ve certainly noticed much more cell phone cameras at Member previews and at First Saturdays. Though it doesn’t seem to be harming anyone, it does seem indicative of a larger trend: wanting to document that you’re experiencing something rather than just experiencing it.
The most recent example I can think of is watching Tiger Woods win the Buick Open this past Sunday. Every shot of Woods putting was framed to show the gallery in the background. In some camera shots, every single person was taking a cell phone picture of Woods putting, rather than just…watching Woods putting.
Unlike some others, I DO think that this issue–how tech folks like Shelley find the balance between distracting visitors and supplementing their experience–is critical to the future of museums. Like everyone else, I’ll be watching closely to see how this plays out.
Will Cary
Membership Manager
I write this comment as a visitor who struggles when visiting art museums to focus on the art. I stand there and think, “how could I spend more time in front of this and get more out of it?”
For me, the value of any assistive technology (including labels) is proportional to its capacity to help me go deeper into the art. The phenomenon you described with the videos is not dissimilar from what often happens with labels–you look at the piece, then read the label, glance back, and walk on. Really good labels (and good multimedia) send you back to the piece several times to dig in (like this experience at the De Young).
And so, for me, the best technology explicitly and repeatedly drives me to look and experience the piece more deeply. I’m reminded of TV shows for preschoolers in which the host says, “now, do X,” and actually waits for you to do it. Same with Improv Everywhere’s MP3 experiments, Janet Cardiff’s art tours, or any responsive technology that waits for you to do, and then continues/reacts.
I’ll note also that for me, while labels and tech can take my attention away from the work, I am not sophisticated enough as an art viewer to comfortably focus on the work and get more out of it on my own. I need some kind of assistive element to keep me from walking away (in most cases). It’s just a question of what will enhance and drive me deeper in rather than distract and send me in another direction.
Also, I want it to be free and on my schedule. I realize that I would probably benefit greatly from both docent tours and audio guides, but I very seldom choose to take advantage of these because of cost, schedule, and perceived constriction to someone else’s (possibly poor) interpretative modality.
I do wonder if there is a difference in viewing behavior of those visitors who are going to a museum as a destination – either to cross it off of their “bucket lists” (Go to Louvre – check!) or to have a place to socialize — compared to those attracted to particular artists, exhibitions or collections. I would think that the latter would take a slower pace because they arrive more motivated to do so. Our challenge is to make sure that the speed viewers and meditators alike feel welcome and engaged in a way that best suits their individual needs and expectations.
Shelley – I hear what you’re saying, I’ve always found in-gallery technology somewhat of a challenge. I’ve always tried to this challenge to build deeper connections with the works of art. The piece of technology or digital content is not supposed to replace that experience with a work of art but aid in providing a deeper, meaningful experience. I find producing for the online arena a lot easier. We’re going to release an iPod Touch tour for an exhibition later this year and we are grappling with this very issue. More to come…
I would love to hear what others have to say, I know there are plenty of readers with opinions on this.
I’m an art historian and my husband a computer networking professor at a university IT Dept. We have spent hours complaining about what we both see has “gratuitous tech” in both the museums and the classrooms. Even in IT, he sees the use of too much technology as often a hindrance to real learning…learning from others, learning from listening, learning from seeing.
I find this to be the case with museums. There is very little that would convince me that the use of popular technology helps the viewer see and understand the art.
The “taking of photos” bit — people crave some sort of validation of their experience. Or in some cases, they just like having a reminder of the experience, so the photo taking is like scrap-booking to them. I have no problem with that.
The second bit is the mixing of technology with works of visual art. I have worked on integrating video & A/V with museum exhibits and then watched the visitors go through the exhibits and I guarantee you, if there’s a TV screen or computer monitor in the room, it will get the most attention. If it has motion-video and/or interactive elements, it will be even more popular (or distracting, depending on your point of view).
Obviously the key is to be judicious with the content you put on the monitor. While in theory I love the idea of putting an artists explanation of a work on video right next to the work, I know it’s likely to get more attention than the work itself. If a bit of text will do, maybe use that on the monitor instead, and give the visitor an interactive choice (read the text and then “press here to hear the artist”), rather than looping a video. Or put all the video at the end of the gallery, let people walk through the art, then view the video/interactive items, and then go back to revisit the artworks, if they so choose.
I’m also a fan of not letting video or audio elements loop continuously in a gallery, I much prefer something that is activated by proximity (i.e., a silent, mostly-static display on a monitor, until a visitor approaches it, and then either auto-start or button-start)
While it would be great if people took the time to truly understand the significance of the work around them, a lot of times that just will not happen.
The people that want to engage… will engage. They will rather look at the brush strokes for passion than an ipod screen.
The people that do not – will not. To no fault of their own but most museum trips are not about education but rather a “thing to do” with the family or while they are on vacation.
How do we reverse the trend? Education at public schools where the art and music classes have been getting cut left and right – and great teachers who ask questions and don’t lecture information but involve students.
The new generation wants involvement and I agree with the comment above that it is not only about experiencing something… but cataloging it as well. Think about yourself growing up… I maybe had a 200 – 400 photos from my 1-18th birthday. I got my first digital camera and 9 years later I have thousands… most of which are horrible shots that express nothing.
Using technology, like visiting a museum is never going to be the same thing to everyone.
Many visitors to museums are there for a once in a lifetime chance to see the masterpieces of a particular museum and then it’s a mad rush to see as much as possible after that. Sure its drive-by viewing and I’ve been guilty of it. I’ve also been guilty of seeing an exhibit multiple times and of revisiting certain galleries everytime that I visit. Sometimes exhibits just aren’t that interesting – I can think of several recent exhibits that fall in that category!
Here are some examples of what I thought were great uses of technology:
Kiosk – viewing a scan of an artist’s sketchbook which you can flip through. The entire book is available to view rather than only the 2 pages that someone decided to display.
Videos – An artist at work or a talk with the artist about his work.
Showing the use of objects in a cultural context – Brooklyn Museum’s videos in the Arts of Africa Gallery are great examples of how this should be done.
Audio/cell phone tour – you can listen and look at the same time.
The people who visit a museum to learn will use technology as a tool to educate themselves while those who visit just to say that they were there use technology as entertainment. It’s a distraction from something they weren’t that interested in to start with.
Technology, in museums or elsewhere, is a tool, and not an end in itself. As museum professionals it is perhaps useful, in considering if it’s to be liked or not, to ask ourselves the question: “what is it for”?
As it is the case with other tools – from stone chisel, to Underwood, to… Blackberry – “content reigns”…
On the other hand, a tool can help us not only in giving form to our content, but also in discovering new ways to display, associate, etc. it.
I get uncomfortable with both aspects of this – the spirit of over-documentation that seems to be everywhere these days and the possibility that in-gallery technology will detract, instead of enhance, the visitors experience. It’s such a narrow line, and a subjective one at that. In terms of photography, I understand the want for marking your experience for the memory books, but it’s a shame when this replaces the actual experience itself. This summer I went to Rome for the first time, and I couldn’t believe the number of people who snapped a photo without even looking. They’re capturing a moment they barely even had. In terms of in-gallery technology, this is something we definitely struggle with at the Pulitzer – we don’t even have labels or wall text in our galleries. One of the goals behind each exhibition is to emphasize the visitor’s personal interaction with the work of art – whether that be informed, or not, good, or bad. On the flip side, I completely agree with Nina that supplementary information is important and technology can enhance a viewing experience by encouraging further exploration. We provide information in the forms of exhibition brochures and in-gallery kiosk and I’d like to take this a step further with our next exhibition – but it can be difficult to shake the worry that it might interrupt or color the viewer’s personal feelings about that work of art too much. I think I prefer them to be available as options, not necessities.
I’m with Nina here — I think the number of people who actually engage with the objects — really engage — is incredibly small. People look at the labels to explain, take a quick look and move on. And they do this in part because we’ve failed to teach them basic visual literacy skills. But there are many other reasons. Looking at art is hard work. Really hard. Looking at an exhibition with 25-50 works in it is utterly exhausting — if not impossible, and yet we ask this of people all the time. We want them to slow down and look, but we give them too much to see and not enough hooks (to use Peter Samis’s metaphor of visual velcro) to engage the work in a meaningful way. If folks are taking pictures as a way to have a fun experience in an art museum, I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Who knows? Maybe the photos are helping them to look at the objects and reflect when they get home? Maybe the experience of being in a museum is more important to them than looking closely at the art, and maybe that’s ok, and if it’s not, maybe it’s our fault. So I suppose my position is that perhaps a lot of this needs to be rethought – and that technology versus the object is perhaps not the right frame for this discussion. Technology can encourage close looking (I am especially interested in the Nous technology that was used at SFMoMA for their Frida Kahlo exhibition) but there are other things we can do. How can we encourage open conversation and close looking – together? The museum is a social space after all. Maybe the model of one person and one object is the wrong one?
It sounds like your experiment proved that video is overly distracting. An audio track by the artist, describing the work would draw me further into the piece and push me past the usual quick-view and walk-on. I love commentary from an artist because they know more about the piece then anyone else and in part an artists job is to sell their piece, describe its deeper meaning. People love video screens, they’re hypnotized by them and the world is shifting towards gaining most of their information from video, its frightening but true. For the general public, watching the video screen will feel like more of an educational experience then if they were to look at the art.
I too am not happy with too much technology in the gallery, because it prevents people from engaging with the artworks. But really, it’s a bigger issue than that.
Tourists taking photos of views they barely looked at, people focusing on labels or videos rather than the actual work of art–what this indicates is the present condition in society where people do not take the time to have their own experiences–they do not trust their own ideas or thoughts, or they do not possess the patience to slow down and let thoughts come to them, or they don’t appreciate anything that cannot be figured out in 15 seconds or less. They have been conditioned to expect that an immediate or mediated experience, or maybe reaction is a better word, is preferable to a deeper more personal experience. To me, this is not right.
In viewing and appreciating art, I do admit that a little guidance is necessary. I am an art historian, but my specialty is historical art, so I sometimes find myself needing a little background info to help interpret contemporary works. But a little info is better than too much. In my opinion, anything that can get people to slow down and take their time and think and trust their own views is the way to go.
i love nina’s point about audio guides that ask users to look and consider a particular aspect, then the audio pauses while you take a look.
many people are more experienced in looking at a video, at a mobile device interface, text wall label. they are sophisticated in dealing with information that comes in these formats which we are all exposed to constantly, every day. but people don’t often know HOW to look at an art object. i am an art lover but not a professional–i’m trying to read TJ Clark’s book about spending three months with two Poussin paintings, and it’s teaching me some ways of seeing (i thought he must be out of his mind–three months with two canvases?!). but HOW to look at art is not intuitive, and it’s not easy. same goes for cellphone interfaces and video, it’s just that we have more and varied opportunities for learning how to look at screen-based content.
Doesn’t this come down to inadequate art education?
How can we expect people to appreciate complex objects and ideas when we really are not taught to think for ourselves? Art intimidates many people because they think that you have to be in-the-know to understand it. They are told that they should go to museums, but not that its OK to interpret what they see based on their own experience and point of view. And yes, there is so much to see that to try to pay attention to all of it would be overwhelming.
Maybe taking cell phone pictures is one way for people to own the experience, make it part of their daily life. Maybe some of those pictures will prompt further looking, further thought, and future museum visits. Where hopefully there will be well designed interpretive material that enhances the experience, rather than distracting the viewers’ attention.
I usually find technology in museums to be incredibly distracting, which is why I ignore it. I remember going to the Gallerie Accademia in Florence and seeing Michelangelo’s David. Right next to it was a computer terminal with the David in “3-D.” Even more amazingly, people were actually spending all their time looking at the virtually 3-D David instead of the actual David that was right in front of them!
The only time I’ve experience technology as a benefit was in the Palazzo Medici, where they had an interactive screen that told you what/who all the figures in the magi fresco were. But that was in a completely different room from the actual fresco, so it didn’t interfere with the viewing of it.
There are ways that tech can enhance the museum experience by providing on demand content and allowing the visitor to interact with this content. The Pause play tour at The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum is a hand held device that has audio from featured artists, curators, educators, and visitors. One can listed to any or all of the audio files by touching a button on the screen and then record their own comments which are then uploaded. Using this device was a revolutionary experience for me. I’ve never been told that what I had to say about art would matter to an institution and the ability to pick and choose what content Ii wanted to listen to and when made me more comfortable.
This conversation needs more geeks.
I have done a good bit of thinking about how technology can enhance various cultural and arts experiences. I get very excited about everything from Second Life re-creations of famous art work (see “Nighthawks” http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/2494162024/ ) to 3D goggles to augment reality (see http://www.rikomatic.com/blog/2006/07/the_future_of_t_1.html ).
I am not a very sophisticated art viewer — those little labels are essential for me. Modern art in particular has what appearsr to be lots of encoded meaning that the artist is privvy to and almost no one else is. So having a video or audio of the artist describing their work and what they are trying to express is super helpful to me.
I like to fly through a gallery and casually scan the artwork there, until something grabs me and then I might sit for 20 minutes just mesmerized by it. At that point, I want to do SOMETHING. To touch it, to draw it, to write about it, to photograph it. I feel moved and don’t want the feeling to be forgotten.
I think that technology can help people to continue to be moved by powerful art long after they have left the museum. And to share with others what they have discovered. Tech can make it easier for the visitor to recontextualize art, to connect it with her own experience.
My two brothers know next to nothing about art and art history. Since I am an artist and intern in museums they are often dragged (mostly by our parents) to visit me at work or attend my exhibitions. Where they promptly take out their gameboys and state that they have seen every thing. Today was much the same except there were video pieces included in the museums exhibition. This meant that my brothers sat and engaged with one of the most complex pieces in the exhibition. They watched it, asked questions and talked about how odd a narrative it was. I was amazed. So at least for them tech engages and I am thankful.
I think technology may help people engage with what they feel disconnected from. As it relates to museum visitors, especially diverse audiences, there usually isn’t much of a reflection for that person to see themselves i.e., the exhibition, admin, promotions. Without cameras and cellphones how are they to able to recall and communicate their experience without a capture?
Mostly likely the visitor isn’t there from an ongoing strategic outreach campaign at their group which then makes them feel part of the museums group. Museum visits for many are part of a drop or thrown-in adventure except those that are raised museum-goers.
Many museums and other cultural institutions have a tendency to state there’s no budget for strategic outreach so they should be happy to see visitors taking photos and videos which will probably end up online, tagged?, hopefully… then track backs could be made to at least help the public relations department make the case to development that they had better start quantifying their diversity outreach claims helping to secure funding.
All in all … people want to feel connected where perceived to be disconnected which technology is now helping many feel, especially in museums which have historically and continuously left too many people out.
Interesting comment about “no budget for strategic outreach” — any organization that is using that excuse should be shown what the Brooklyn Museum is doing with the web, twitter, etc. I live blocks away from the museum but have been largely disengaged, until I started following on twitter and then from twitter reading the blogs. Now I’m a member and a regular visitor. There are a ton of free and low-cost options for any non-profit to reach out and engage current and potential visitors now.
Also, that’s an interesting comment about younger visitors and their gameboys. I wonder if anyone’s worked on an exhibit-helper aimed at tweens & teens using PSP’s or some other portable game platform that they’d be comfortable using. I’ll be waiting to see who implements something like acrossair’s augmented reality iphone apps into a museum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps49T0iJwVg — it could be really great.
Tourists visit the Louvre, NYC Met., Vatican, etc. not because they are interested in art, but because they are tourists and these museums promote themselves as a tourist destinations. I like visiting a museum and seeing some information about certain pieces, whether it is through video, audio, or print, because a lot of art cannot be put into context just by looking at it alone. You need some background information (even the Mona Lisa) to understand that there was a conscious decision on the artists part to create what they did. Now if someone wants to fly through an exhibition and just snap photos without taking the time to look, there is nothing a gallery or institution can do about it. Yes it is annoying, but the only way to solve tourists taking extraneous photos of the Mona Lisa, is enforce a ban on all camera or video equipment at these tourist destinations. That means, you are asked to leave if you are caught taking a photo. I doubt museums will enforce this because most tourists pay to get into museums – they don’t want to lose this vital part of funding. Also, there is a point where a gallery or museum can provide whatever technological tools available to create a memorable exhibition. Then they have to let it go and let the viewer decide what they want to do. In other words, its out of the curator’s hands.
I would take photographs, but the colours in my head are, by far, more vivid.
I’m being glib, but it is true. I don’t listen to audio commentaries, I refuse to put headphones of any sort on and I certainly wouldn’t be watching a screen telling me about a picture I’m stood next to.
Do you need to know about history or context to really appreciate a piece of art? Possibly. Do you need to have that information fed into your brain whilst you are actually looking at it? Probably not.
And this is going to sound horribly elitist, and it isn’t meant to… but a lot of people don’t really know how to visit galleries. I don’t know if this is because of how school trips are arranged these days or whether it is the way the Internet influences how we obtain our information, but there is an expectation for things to be both immediate and interactive, in a multi-media sort of way.
Do you think it is pressure on such spaces to attract visitors that then encourages them to include these facilities, as well as the obligatory cafe? I can understand that, but at the same time it is eroding the actual purpose of the gallery making it less a physical space for the appreciation of physical art and more of a rather expensively decorated themed Internet cafe.
Okay, I know I’m about a year late to the conversation, but just a couple things:
1. For my current internship I have been researching gallery technology. Blogs like this one are fantastic resources. Thanks, Shelley, for being so brave and open about sharing your thoughts, successes, and failures!
2. Some of you might know about this already, but for those who are looking for “research” rather than “this is what I believe about gallery technology philosophically and anectdotally” (I personally value both!), here’s a link to Minneapolis Institute of Arts evaluation reports about interpretive technology:
http://www.artsmia.org/index.php?section_id=80
The What Clicks? project sponsored by ILMS yeilded a lot of useful insights. Enjoy!