Digital museum mediation and museology

There was a very interesting discussion taking place at our last course session. We were talking about two very different exhibitions at the National Museum in Copenhagen, namely 'Stories of Denmark 1660-2000' and 'The White Busses'. I am going to revisit this topic, because I think it’s worth it. In my critique, I am going to use the readings I discussed in my two previous posts.

We visited the National Museum together within the instructor and other participants of the course ‘Digital Museology ‘. First we saw the permanent exhibition 'Stories of Denmark 1660-2000'. I admit, I couldn’t concentrate very well on what I had seen. The exhibition seemed quite boring from the start – there were big wooden cabinets with glass front, inside of which were the objects that make up the museum. They were clearly labeled with text usually placed right in front of them.

I would have to agree with Sandra E. Dudley’s text, that this sort of presentation doesn’t exactly leave much to the imagination. All I was thinking was: “I had seen this before.” and I couldn’t help but feel a bit uncomfortable. I was being that kind of museum visitor, who comes with too much baggage and little patience. I was definitely also influenced by the social context – I had actually witnessed a member of the museum staff cleaning one of the glass cabinets, which made the experience even more bizarre.

Our group wasn’t very big, I can’t remember exactly, but we were six to eight people all together. But even such a small number of people, we still had to accustom to the museums narrow way through the exhibition (the physical context). We also stopped only at certain spots, which made my experience hazier. Our concentration was focused on the exhibition design and architecture more than on the content, so we were not the typical kind of visitors.

I have to say though, the exhibition design got better in the next rooms as we went further. There were rooms that were supposed to represent some era, with wax figures. I didn’t think that was especially better, but I still appreciated the lack of glass cabinets. There is something about cabinets, that make the museum look like an old storage with stuff that you’re too afraid to throw out, because it’s old and hence it acquired some sort of time value.

My other objection is against the labels, which were present everywhere. Not only they make it harder to form your own idea, but the amount of them is just plain discouraging. I know that we can always choose what we want to read, but when you choose a couple of times and learn nothing substantial, it makes you automatically disregard the other objects. I think that museum curators should take in account the information overload we are all facing every day, and maybe try to value quality over quantity.

I know I am probably being overly critical of this sort of traditional way of presenting museum objects, but I can’t help my own background and history (the personal context). It’s still just my own opinion. I think that the theory of “the interactive experience model” (Falk, J. H., Dierking, L., 1992) proves to be quite valuable in this context: I think that the museum could benefit in doing a sociological research based on this model, ask certain questions to the willing visitors and maybe gain a very telling statistic. Of course, I have no idea if museums do this or not, but I think it would be a good idea to do this kind of research regularly from time to time, especially when dealing with the permanent exhibition design. If you have data to prove your point, it should be easier to try to change things a bit, even in a very traditional educational environment.

The other exhibition that we visited - 'The White Busses' – was very different. Even though I was much more tired and hungry at that moment, I felt very interested and invested in what I’ve seen. I think this temporary exhibition is a very nice example of latest trends in exhibition design. That said, I’m not all enthusiastic about it, because it’s ‘modern’ and ‘cool’.

Yes, people like new media: sound and light installations, videos and interactive devices. It’s easy to be captured by them. But I think there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it has its purpose, as long as it’s not self-serving. In my case, I became more invested in the topic. I actually took the time to stop several times and listen to the audio in the headphones spots, which seemed to me quite intimate. There was a lot of people, and when I sat down and put on the headphones, suddenly everybody disappeared and I just listened to what I was hearing.

In the class we were discussing, whether the sound was manipulative. I think the sound and light is always manipulative, no matter where you go. Light is pure information.  I understand the word ‘medium’ in Marshall McLuhan’s sense as the extension of man. If we would take in account Martin Heidegger’s theory, modern technology makes us see the world in a certain way, which also speaks about its manipulative nature. I wouldn’t necessary claim, that new media are all that different from the old media. The glass cabinet is as much manipulative as the light and sound installation to me. But it’s of subtler nature, I guess. We are used to it.

Art exhibition “The Disorder of Things“, 09/2015, Kvalitar Gallery, Prague

„If museums seek to reduce this distance between person and thing, if displays and interpretations are constructed in such a way as to facilitate a wider or deeper sensory and emotional engagement with an object, reather than simply enable intellectual comprehension of a story or set of facts presented by the museum and merely illustrated or punctuated by the object, might visitors actually be enabled to appreciate more aspects of both the objects and its story?“  (p. 9)

Discussed text: Dudley, S. (2012). ‘Encountering a Chinese horse. Engaging with the thingness of things’. I Dudley, S. (red.), Museum Objects. Experiencing the property of things. Oxon & New York, Routledge

In the beginning of the text, Sandra H. Dudley tells a story about her surprising and memorable encounter with an object in a museum – a majestic and beautiful Chinese horse. She didn’t expect to see something like this and when she did, she was moved to tears. There was no immediate need to read the accompanying information, which was safely “hidden” from the eyes in the museum guide.

The ready interpretation wasn’t right there. Instead, there was freedom to form her own relationship with the object, to try and attune to it.

Dudley calls for a different approach in museum exhibition design: visitors should have the possibility of engaging with the objects in a more direct way, to experience some of their “magic”. By a direct engagement, she doesn’t mean that people should be able to touch museum objects. But there should be less obstacles standing in the way of visitors’ own imagination. If you put a long text right in front of it, possibly even covering a small part, how are you supposed to fully focus on the object? Your experience will be affected and shaped because of the interpretation or story at hand. The objects shouldn’t be just illustrations or mere punctuations for what the curator wants to tell you. They should have their own right to tell you something!

It might sound a bit ridiculous, but it makes total sense. We do not live in a world created by our knowledge and background, we live in a world full of objects. Because of our background and knowledge (and lots of other things I don’t care to mention right now) we see the world in a certain, our very own, way. But that does not mean that we cannot experience objects - at least partly - as they are. Let’s illustrate this with a quote by Dudley:

“Two different people (…) [will respond] to the same object in different ways, (…) but for both of them, part at least of their engagement with the object will be determined by its material characteristics - their reactions would not be as they are (whatever they may be), if the object were not what it is.” (p. 7.)

Somebody might object that the primary role of museums is to educate. But Dudley doesn’t condemn the traditional educational experience, she just places another one next to it - but equally as important. Because you can also learn something new if you try to see the object as it is there, right in front of you. The experience might be a personally transformative event that can have a big effect on you.

Based on “the interactive experience model” (Falk, J. H., Dierking, L., 1992) any visitor’s experience of a museum is completely unique and thoroughly influenced by a number of variables. Any person comes to a museum already predisposed with his own personal context, which includes his interests, motivations, concerns, previous experiences and knowledge. He or she visits the museum with a ready set of expectations and anticipated outcomes.

The other two parts that constitute the interactive experience of a visitor are the social context and the physical context. The social context depends on how the visitor interacts with the people in the museum, which includes the staff and the visitors. The physical context is tied to the character of the exhibition place and to its many constituting elements such as the objects on display, the ambience, the walking distances… If we are looking for the most appropriate option on how to organize an exhibition, we have to consider all three of those aspects and how they interlink. I’m going to try to apply the theory above to my own recent experience of visiting the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek two days ago.

The personal context

I was visiting this museum for the first time, but I’m definitely not a novice in the given subject matter. Since I have a background in art history, I had seen many museums like this one before. At the same time, I’m also not an expert on this particular subject – ancient and classical sculptures, French art of the 19th century. But I should mention that I used to be very interested in this period of French art and that I frequented a number of classes dedicated to this topic. I didn’t have any specific expectations from the visit other than having a good time and maybe see something done a bit differently than usual.

The social context

I was coming to the museum with two friends, so I engaged in some conversation during the visit, which definitely affected my concentration and probably also what I chose to focus on. The visit took place on a day when the admission was free, so there was a lot of people, including the staff. There wasn’t that many custodians and they didn’t act condescendingly or unfriendly as it is the situation sometimes.

The physical context

The building is apparently quite old and has its own history, which you can see everywhere. It’s the opposite of “the white cube”, you can appreciate the space as much as you pay attention to the exhibited objects. There is for example a magnificent staircase, very decorative rooms with beautiful ceilings and – especially – there’s the central greenhouse with a café. Everything kind of leads to that garden and you’ll find yourself looking at it a lot of times from various and often surprising angles.

Many of the rooms (or I should say the halls?) have a sort of temple-like character, which suits the classical sculptures very well. The objects are in most cases placed on pedestals, which even more underlines the temple/ church-like quality. There’s always a name tag with some basic information about the exhibited item. The items are sometimes placed very close to each other in a somewhat forest-like assembly, which result in dynamic compositions.

The interactive experience

I think the museum is organized very nicely and appropriately, but at the same time, there’s nothing all that surprising except for the garden in the middle. Even though there was a lot of people, the museum is so big, that it didn’t bother me at all. At some places, we were even alone. Sometimes I have a problem with custodians, but in here I didn’t notice them that much. In Czech Republic, they have a tendency to stare at you all the time, look all hostile and vigilant, waiting for you to make a mistake that they could scold you for.

I liked the distinct style of the building, it suits the character of the exhibited objects. At the same time, it emphasizes the church-like sentiment of a museum institution where you go to think about transcendental stuff and look at old timey relics of the past, put on a pedestal, that existed before you did and will exist after you are long gone. And there’s so much of them! So many heads and other body parts. Eventually, you will get tired of it. But you understand why it’s there – it has a unique value.

According to the text by E. Hooper-Greenhill (1992/2001) („What is a museum?“. In Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge) practically anything can become a museum. The problem is then: how to justify them? What is their role in the society? Are they really valuable assets to the community? Usually we say, that museums are first and foremost educational institutions. Very often they are also research centers.

Presumably, curators have the power to alter our perception of the world. In art museums, they also function as a sort of dictators of taste. They can even change the purpose of the artifact. Take for example medieval sculptures; their sacred function was tied to their place of origin, the context from which they come from. In museums, they are often put on a white pedestal, to be admired by the masses as an aesthetic object. Is that wrong?

On one hand, we should be glad that the object survived the centuries and that we can now appreciate its uniqueness. Does it matter what was its original function? But on the other hand, museums are by their definition institutions that preserve artifacts. This is where I see a very significant distinction between a regular museum and an art museum.

In art museum, everything becomes art. No matter the original purpose, no matter the context. The white cube tries to be invisible, only being there to create a neutral background to the art objects. You’re not supposed to look at the white walls, you’re not supposed to see any context. The only thing that points to the object’s origins is usually a little tag with few lines of information: the title, the artist, the year of creation, sometimes the technique used for the production. These tags have therefore a lot of power on the visitor’s perception – it’s the only other thing there.

In my general experience, the more generic museums try much harder to re-create the original context. They are usually trying to paint a scene, to take you there. I think this takes us back to the role of museums. Unlike art museums, they always deal with the topics of history. And they are usually trying to tell you a particular story.

Take for example the Silesian museum in Katowice, Poland. It seems totally logical that this museum contains permanent exhibitions of local history and scenography. Scenography is here actually also used as a technique of presenting history. We can find another example of such a museum presentation as far as in Albany, NY, aka the New York State Museum. This very popular museum goes very far in creating historical scenes. You can find there an old classroom or enter the subway train. These museums show a new way of presenting history: they don’t just show you “the stuff”, they actually try to take you on a trip to the history.

In my opinion, art museums are in fact much more rigid. Maybe it’s because of their long history and practice. The rules of presenting art objects have changed very little thorough the second half of the 20th century. The most vivid arguments you can witness in an art museum institution usually deal with conservation of art. Should we keep this damaged baroque sculpture as it is or should we repair it and risk losing its originality? Usually, the first solution is the one being followed. In the art museum context, the art object is no longer a living thing, it’s a corpse that you hang and tag.

Hej,

my name is Katerina Cepakova, and I’m from Prague, Czech Republic. I’m in my second year of master’s degree studies at Charles University, my major is curiously called New Media Studies. A week ago, I came to Copenhagen as an exchange student to study Information Science and Cultural Communication.

I got my bachelor’s degree in Art History, so I’m naturally very interested in museums and art galleries. I worked for several galleries (commercial and non-profit) that focused on contemporary art.

My best experience so far was when I worked for a post-internet (watch out, buzzword!) gallery Plevel, where I co-curated some of the later exhibitions. There I became very interested in new media, especially internet-focused art. My bachelor thesis was about the influence of the internet on contemporary art and art world, which was of course a ridiculously large topic :3 But it was somehow successful and thanks to that I got to write an article about the word “post-internet” later for a nice cultural magazine.

Last year I started my own gallery project, Kurzor_gallery, with a friend and a brilliant artist Kristyna Lutzova. We held five one-night exhibitions and two screenings in her art studio. The online presentation of the project was just as important as the actual events.

I’m very much interested in presentation of art online, digital remediation and ways, how to engage online users. I’m probably going to focus on the phenomenon of online galleries in my master’s thesis.

For all these reasons, the course Digital Museum Mediation and Museology is perfect for me.