See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273906702

DESIGNS FOR LEARNING: Interactive Technologies in the Art Museum

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 104

2 authors, including:

Elena Stylianou
European University Cyprus
22 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ar(t)chaeology: Intersections of Archaeology and Photography View project

Contested Heritage: Interpreting archaeological collections in Cyprus with Syrian adolescent refugees View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elena Stylianou on 23 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGNS FOR
LEARNING
Vol. 5 / No. 1–2

Designs for Learning

Volume 5 / Number 1–2
2012
Interactive Technologies in the Art
Museum
PAM MEECHAM, University of London, UK
ELENA STYLIANOU, University of London, UK

When in June 2013 The Guardian newspaper (UK) asked us to ‘help create the
whole picture’ with the GuardianWitness app (‘upload your part of the story
faster with 4GEE at witness.guardian.co.uk’) we know the citizen reporter and
the eyewitness photographer have been allied to faster, participation and the
double page spread (The Guardian, Saturday 06.07.13 pp 2 and 3). Undermin-
ing the authorship, authority and arguably the professionalism of the journal-
ist and photographer, the amateur enthusiast, key eye-witness or commentator
are crowd-sourced to open up, enhance and create a whole, diverse picture of
world events that, in the advertisement at least, speaks of a change in the rela-
tionship of passive consumer to traditional authorities such as newspapers.

Another recent example (summer 2013) links the rhetoric of social change
to technology and visual culture. However it reveals a different set of co-
ordinates. The Renoir Cinema, Bloomsbury, London (the ultimate homage
to auteur in acknowledging the primacy given to the film director’s role
in cinema) is now showing films of exhibitions of ‘great’ artists: ‘A global
revolution bringing the world’s greatest art exhibitions to a cinema near
you!’ (Renoir advertisement). A cinema poster campaign promotes images
of paintings as introductions to the following exhibitions Manet: Portraying
Life Screenings From the Royal Academy of Arts, London; Munch: Munch
150 From the Munch Museum & National Museum Oslo; and Vermeer:
Vermeer and Music from the National Gallery, London. Dates and partici-
pating cinemas are available at, ‘great art on screen’ or for those living in
Australia www.exhibitionsonscreen. The YouTube trailer proclaims, ‘The
world’s greatest art presented exclusively for the big screen: enjoy world
class art, history and biography through the works of the great masters’. It
is a global first with the short-date screenings offering ‘a unique perspective

94
through a behind the scenes approach’ in a ‘theatrical’ series. However the
presentation of the exhibitions through a ‘great master’ and biographical
approach presented as ‘the man behind the Scream’ and disseminated by
an expert curator, speaks of a dissonance between the revolutionary ambi-
tion of access for remote visitors and a dismantling of interpretation away
from expert authority. It also reneges on the promise of global revolution
in the potential digitally enabled shift away from normative western canons
and traditional ways of consuming art through the exhibition format. In a
‘post-canonical’ period with globalization, post-colonialism and ‘contem-
porary ideas on the instabilities of gender and identity’ (Newall & Pooke
2012) pressing down on the universal survey museum we should pause to
question how technology in the museum works: what does it do? In what
ways does it value one perspective over another? That it is just another tool
is not a defensible position as this article will demonstrate: there are conse-
quences to selection and modes of dissemination.

For instance this summer (2013) the National Art Collections Fund (operat-
ing as ‘the Art Fund’ http://arteverywhere.org/artworks) is aiming to ‘put
art everywhere’. You can vote for works, selected as a snap shot of Great
British Art and they will then be placed in public spaces across Britain on
billboards: ‘turning the UK into the world’s largest art gallery’ (art every-
where: a very, very big art show). Not the radical gesture of a Barbara Kruger
bill-board from the 1990s but an extension of the National Gallery, Lon-
don’s earlier 2011 initiative, art everywhere to place parts of its art collection
everywhere. The initial selection was made by ‘experts’ (and does contain
diverse artists including Queer, Black and Asian women). The public can
vote (‘help curate’) from the recently expanded canon to create a top 50. It
is a commonplace observation that the selection of artworks is not accom-
plished by neutral expertise. Tinkering with the canon does not dismantle
the relationship between audiences and collections but merely replicates ex-
isting power structures. The picture is unresolved as although online collec-
tions should promote wider access in practice they often replicate existing
patterns as they are made up of traditional collections. This can be demon-
strated by the issue cited above so that rather than opening up democratic
potential enabled by technology it can also be used to reinforce the Western
canon amassed under a different world order.

95
Farago suggests a ‘Celebration of past scholarship and veneration of pri-
mary sources has never been enough in any open society’ (Farago, 2012, p.
XXI). Critical thinking about the display and interpretation of artworks and
museum artefacts requires recognition of the current situation regarding
access, inclusion, interactivity and the externalizing of collections. The re-
cent rescinding of copyright by major museums and through digital media
the global ‘inclusion’ of cultures unhindered by the West’s attachment to
the original and authentic should herald a re-think about how museums
disseminate the curious and wonderful. For our purposes here what does
interactivity and immersion mean when related to technology?

However before looking at historic and recent examples of attempts to bring

audience and collections in closer proximity we wish to cite an on-going
traveling exhibition, that highlights the issues at stake. Van Gogh Alive-The
Exhibition (Grande Exhibitions of Australia and VisionsCom of France) is
a sensory, immersive digital exhibition see (http://grandeexhibitions.com/
traveling-exhibitions/van-gogh-alive/). Made up of over 3,000 fragments of
artworks accompanied by a classical music score makes no attempt to ‘view’
art in the traditional sense and is closer perhaps to cinema and theatre. Ac-
cording to the organizers it ‘Allows the visitor to be immersed in the artist’s
work rather than observe it’ and ‘Broadens the appeal of Van Gogh’s art to
audience unrestricted by age or taste’ (grandeexhibitions.com). Crows are
animated in wheatfields and trains move across screens, hands mix paint
and the audience walk through dwarfed by the fragmented, multiplied and
scaled up surrogates of famous paintings. The publicity for the exhibition
maintained that the experience of an actual van Gogh could be ‘under-
whelming’. The immersive experience was designed to augment the tradi-
tional viewing ritual of solitary communion with the ‘real thing’ by scaling
up the fragments of digitized oil painting in a holistic way that encompasses
the body and its sensory functions.

Surrogates of artworks through reproductions are nothing new but where-

as the reproduction usually served as a pedagogic purpose either through
slide lecture or the aide memoire postcard the reproductions here are ‘ex-
perienced’ as authentic artworks. The landscape of museum visiting has
perhaps irrevocably changed as technology is deployed to fragment and

96
change artworks whose very authenticity and therefore claim to truth re-
lied on their originality and authorship and were perceived as timeless-
ness.

U S E R - G E N E R AT E D I N T E R A C T I V I T Y
In tandem with the dramatic increase in the global availability and scale of
digital images is a shift away from the curator to the public as interpreters
of the work or disseminators of their own experience of the work. Often
more than a blog or twitter, on-line user-generated content is being used
by some museums as a ‘legitimate’ way of sourcing the energy and interests
of the public. Through the process often called ‘folksonomy’ MacArthur
maintains ‘Proponents … argue that allowing users to describe online con-
tent in terms that make sense to them, rather than relying solely on organiz-
ing principles imposed by others, will make that content more retrievable,
useful and meaningful to the audience’ (MacArthur, 2007). MacArthur
however questioned: ‘Can Museums Allow Online Users to Become Par-
ticipants?’ Although only 6 years ago rapid change has transformed some
museums with users ushering in authorial reform via social networking
media and interactivity blurring boundaries with participation. However,
it is also the case, as we will demonstrate, that while technologically enabled
brokering has changed the relationship of audiences to museums, collec-
tions and curators many have had to relinquish myths and shibboleths that
were important to the Enlightenment museum. For instance many recent
changes have been enabled by a porous approach to staunchly defended
disciplinary boundaries, and creative partnerships and commercial spon-
sorship abound. The changes outlined above also need to be seen in tandem
with the import of academic discourse into the museum’s intellectual and
professional evolution to what Hopper-Greenhill termed the ‘post-muse-
um’ (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000).

The last two decades have witnessed a rapid and continuous change in mu-
seum identities, purpose, and educative ambitions as they were coerced,
through accountability regimes and social change, to re-evaluate and radi-
cally change their traditional relationship with audiences unfamiliar with
museum visiting. Internationally, technology or ‘new’ media have been
conscripted to fill the breach: create digital bridges and create alternative

97
forms of knowledge. Digital technologies were charged with paving the way
to improved audience engagement, dialogic exchange and a participatory
ethos. At the same time more comprehensive, pluralistic interpretation of
art and artefacts, and the democratization of collections potentially pro-
vided access for more diverse, globally networked audiences and the cre-
ation of communities of practice. Moreover the technological innovations
across museums, archives and libraries opened up collaborations and the
possibility of user-generated knowledge only previously accessible to the
legitimate scholar. Nevertheless, questions remain and the digital embrace
undertaken by museums has not been uniformly welcomed or successful:
many unused apps testament to a culture not investing in visitor research
before developing interpretive devices. Questions have arisen concerning
the purpose and effectiveness of technological applications in the muse-
um environment. Many museum professionals remain sceptical, even hos-
tile, still concerned about issues of authenticity, authority, ownership, and
truthfulness of representation. Mediation between ‘the thing itself ’ and the
viewer is still a vexed issue: particularly in the art gallery (art museum in
the USA). It is noteworthy that Asian countries such as Singapore who have
a different relationship to technology than some in Europe do not see the
import of technology into the museum as problematic. This article aims
to highlight the veracity of claims about technology providing both failed
and successful examples of applications in museums. Also, it aims to locate
the application of newer technologies within museological and educational
debate within a larger theoretical framework that concerns issues of inter-
activity, participation and engagement.

Certainly, it must be acknowledged at the outset that terms such as technol-

ogy, immersive, interactive, participatory and even visual media are inex-
act and misleading cultural terms (Mitchell 2007, p. 395-406). Furthermore
embedded in such terms and their surrounding rhetoric are naturalised as-
sumptions about the educational and social role of museums; about the
inevitability of progress when linked to technology, and about learning and
social cohesion brokered through the use of technology. This article pro-
ceeds on the basis that many of the terms, definitions and common-sense
assumptions about the museum and technology are subject to revision and
debate, often with little consensus. What follows contextualises historically

98
some of the aspirations and ambitions of the museum sector as they return
to their core historic role of education (McClellan, 2003).

A C H A N G I N G M U S E U M : F I R S T P R O P O S A L S F O R E N G A G I N G AU D I E N C E S
In the year 1903 in two different European cities, curators voiced the first
attempts to change the physical construction of display in museums for
pedagogic purposes. In Manheim, Germany at the Museums as Places of
Popular Culture conference, ‘Dr. Lichtwark envisioned “a great revolution
in the equipment and methods of museums”’ (Griffiths 2003, p. 378). The
conference aimed, among other things, to find ways to make the museum a
more accessible place for the working classes by using media such as pho-
tography and magic lantern slides (Griffiths, 2003). The function of the
previously well-preserved, if haphazard Cabinets of Curiosity was for the
first time challenged because it was felt audience engagement was impaired
by their overcrowded character. In 1903 at the Museums Association’s Ab-
erdeen Conference, Dr. Thiis, a Norwegian curator, ‘argued that “nothing
is more wearisome to the eye, less advantageous for the individual object,
than those long stretches of cases, all to one pattern, covered with black vel-
vet, that are so often seen in museums”’ (cited in Griffiths 2003, p. 378). In
1907 H.C. Bumpus, President of the American Museum of Natural History,
also recognised the interfering function of the glass-case to the museum ex-
perience and proclaimed the demise of the overcrowded museum display.

The historic conferences cited above also expressed concerns that artefacts
disconnected from their original context, by then commonplace curatorial
practice, were at a disadvantage; prescient of the postcolonial and postmod-
ern theories that have dominated contemporary museum debates in the late
20th and early 21st century (Bennett, 1995; Thomas, 2009). Thus, proposals
for more direct interaction with objects on displays were voiced with the in-
tention of popularising exhibits and gaining a better understanding of the
isolated, deracinated object. In 1901, Kate Hall curator of the Whitechapel
Gallery London ‘stated that when school groups visited the tiny museum,
the objects they wanted to study “should whenever possible, be taken out
of their cases”’ (as cited in Griffiths, 1999). In the early 20th century such
philosophies were driven by the belief that hands-on activities improved
learning and increased visitors’ enthusiasm for museums (Black 2007;

99
Reeve, Lang and Woollard 2008). In an earlier article in a 1903 Museums
Journal entitled ‘How to Make Small Natural History Museums Interesting’,
Dr. Hecht responded to the same challenge of the isolated object, by recom-
mending the use of stopping points in galleries, ‘which he defined as displays
relating to the primary exhibit but “chosen in order to arouse, from time to
time, the interest of the public, to lead their mind from the view of a single
animal to larger ideas, to general conception”’ (cited in Griffiths 2003: 378).
Even though Hall and Hecht’s ideas are more than a hundred years old, they
reflect contemporary museums’ philosophies about the display of objects
as well as pedagogic practices. In summary, these early trends in exhibition
design shifted away from overcrowded galleries, to forego the glass case, to
reach out to wider audiences and to contextualize the object on display.

A pioneer of American community museums, John Cotton Dana (1856–

1929) whose regard for culture was derived from Thorstein Veblen (1857–
1929), believed that context was more important than aesthetics in the
design of museum displays. Dana founded the ground-breaking Newark
Museum in 1909 and published his ideas in The New Museum in 1917. He
was particularly concerned that American museums were following Euro-
pean precedents, where the pedagogic foundation of the museum was be-
ing eroded by the cult of the curator compounded by the shift away from
education to collecting, conservation and connoisseurship. By indulging
the requirements of the great and good, the museum rendered collections
irrelevant to the lives of working people. Approaches to viewing art also
fell under Dana’s scrutiny. He dismissed as cant the notion that merely gaz-
ing at great objects through aestheticism alone was enough to improve and
elevate the viewer. For him, engagement, education and full public access
were crucial to the democratization of culture, and therefore should be a
museum’s founding principle. An early advocate of what is once again be-
ing legislated as good museum practice, Dana also sought ways to increase
cooperation between schools, libraries and museums. Deploring snobbery,
‘Dana assert[ed] that beauty bears no relation to age, rarity, or price. To en-
courage recognition and enjoyment of beauty in commonplace things, he
once exhibited well-designed pottery that he had procured from a five-and
ten-cent store, proudly announcing that not a single piece had cost more
than twenty-five cents’ (Ford 2006, p. 2).

100
Dana’s approach bore comparison with a department store ethos, ap-
proaching visitors as ‘customers’ in a non-elitist environment which em-
braced the building, the collection and approaches to education, arguing
that ‘A great department store, easily reached, open at all hours, is more like
a good museum of art than any of the museums we have yet established’
(Hadley nd: 68). The idea of the 24-hour museum that has a department
store culture is currently being widely promoted, especially during the last
few decades, through the virtual museum and the increasingly technologi-
cally enabled commodification of once exclusive collections. Dana’s mantra
of ‘Learn what aid the community needs … and fit the museum to those
needs’ (Weil , 2002, p. 190) was in sharp contrast to the rapidly developing
national museums of the early 20th century. Aligning himself with personal
freedom and cultural pluralism, Dana was dissatisfied with curator’s pri-
oritising of collection over audience. He instead, ‘chided both schools and
museums for telling people what they ought to appreciate, maintaining that
by doing so they encouraged hypocrisy – the greatest impediment to the
genuine sensibility’ (Ford 2006, p. 2). Dana is an important touchstone for
the 21st century, although it is doubtful that he could have envisaged the
way technology would re-conceptualised the museum from penitentiary
for artefacts to a site for health and well-being for all (‘Museum participa-
tion should be a measure of well-being’ (2011) Museum Association to Of-
fice of National Statistics).

It could be argued that the quest to make collections accessible beyond the
traditional graduate-educated audience (see Bourdieu, Darbel, and Schap-
per’s surveys undertaken during the 1970s and 80s on the relationship be-
tween museum audiences and educational attainment1) is potentially pos-
sible within the utopian rhetoric of technological progress. The early 20th
century ambitions sketched above prefigure in many ways the use of inter-
active digital technologies in today’s museums (Griffiths, 1999; 2003). How-
ever, in 1998 at the outset of new media’s relationship with the museum,
Selma Thomas argued that to use media well in a museum context ‘we have
to define, question and evaluate our approaches to and goals for education
and interpretation’ (Thomas & Mintz, 1998, p. VIII).
1. See in particular Bourdieu’s survey Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste and Bourdieu,
Alain Darbel and Dominique Schapper The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public.

101
 M O V I N G T O WA R D S T H E I N T E R A C T I V E M U S E U M

Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies

that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side
forever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters
and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line
and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead
once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a
year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage
and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want
to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?
(Marinetti, 1909)

In 1909 F.T. Marinetti’s ‘Futurist Manifesto’ declared the obvious; museums

were no longer able to respond to the fast changing nature of society. The
increasing demand for spectacle in the 20th century, the fast-paced life and
fascination with machines, speed and industry had inaugurated a new era.
The cultural evolution that sought to modernise life had a great impact on
institutions such as museums that previously defined knowledge, tradition
and cultural values. Self-reflexivity has been a hallmark of the museum’s
historic success and in the 20th century the monumental, universal mu-
seum that spoke for a unitary public had to adapt in the light of seismic
social change.

The use of newer technologies in museums first began with the aspiration
of changing their character to adapt to newer sensibilities as mentioned
above. In 1969, its centenary year, the American Museum of Natural History
in New York curated a blockbuster exhibition, entitled Can Man Survive?
It cost a half-million dollars, a respectable amount for the time, and lasted
two years, a long time period for a temporary exhibit. Technology, environ-
mentalism and postmodernism were issues addressed by the show, which
aimed to challenge visitors to rethink the sustainability of their lives (Ducao
& Koen, 2007-2009). The show was divided into different trends deemed to
be threatening the environment: large cars, littering, noise pollution, water
contamination, industrialisation, cruelty to animals, overpopulation. The
corridors of the galleries were intentionally narrower than usual to create

102
emotional and physical discomfort to the visitor. Aiming to increase the
exhibition’s impact, ‘A mix of slides, film and video were projected onto
randomly slanted walls already full of text, texture and graphics’ (Ducao
&Koen, 2007-2009) a process of bodily interaction that predates by over 40
years Van Gogh Alive-The Exhibition. In Can Man Survive? technologies of
representation and interpretation, both ‘old’ and ‘new’ were utilized, radi-
cally so as portable video recorders were introduced into the market only
two years earlier. Ducao and Koen (2007-2009) rightly point out that while
the artist Nam June Paik was filming the Pope in downtown New York, a
more institutional type of ‘video art’ was adopted for purposes of interpre-
tation and participation in this exhibit2.

Despite its popularity Can Man Survive? received strong critical responses
reflecting what would later become a considerable gap between audience
and curators’ approaches to technological applications and which only re-
cently has been ameliorated through greater technological embeddedness
in museums. As early as the 1960s, the first concerns were related to destabi-
lizing the very foundation of the museum’s authoritative character. Within
material culture collections, technological interventions were perceived as
potential threats that would undermine the art and artefact’s authenticity.
There was also a pressing question relevant to the type of experience visi-
tors would have when technologies became part of the displays. In what
ways could museums enhance visitors’ engagement and learning? They were
and remain difficult questions to answer, although the subject of recent re-
search, indicating that the application of technology in museums should be
neither taken for granted nor remain unchallenged.

In his ‘Medium is the Message’ (1964) the Canadian Marshall McLuhan

(1911-1980) foresaw the huge impact of new technologies on ways of life,
communication and learning and identified the difficulty of approaching
new media. He suggested ‘We approach the new with the psychological
conditioning and sensory responses to the old’ (McLuhan, 1964). McLu-
han’s fifty year old claim of witnessing a transitional period, during which
2. This relative relationship between the uses of technology by museums and artists is important. Without
necessarily suggesting here that one is better than the other in the ways that they adopt and use new
technologies, such practices often remain parallel even though collaborations might prove useful.

103
attempts to respond to social changes using the tools of the past seemed
doomed to failure, are still relevant. Often, the smart new devices used by
museums aiming to potentially stimulate visitors’ interest and engagement
with collections fail to do anything more than imitate older forms of inter-
pretation. (It is still a moot point that the sketchbook and pencil can accom-
plish more in greater scale, texture and communicability than more recent
technology). Pod-casting and mobile phone tours are replacing the tradi-
tional audio guides, such as the web-based iguides piloted at the Dulwich
Picture Gallery, London (Beazley, 2007), PDAs replaced information kiosks,
which in turn aimed to replace the exhibition catalogues and text panels.
The significant difference between early guides and navigational support,
such as paper based instructions to follow ‘the director’s favorites’ or ‘high-
lights from the collection’, is the greater choice apparently afforded by the
technology. In practice however the guides, paper-based or audio, usually
replicate existing patterns of interpretation with the greatest benefit being
audio rather than written instruction with many galleries using celebrities
to voiceover. The use of guides for resolving the issue of interpretation, as
much as the degree to which this influences or improves interactivity in
the museum, are both important challenges for technological applications,
as they are notions that in themselves require further exploration and re-
search.

T E C H N O L O G Y A N D I N T E R P R E TAT I O N : T I E D T O C O N T E X T
It is with the burning issue of interpretation that technology in and out of
the museum has a legitimate place (rather than technology merely search-
ing for a job to do). As early as 1904 the curator Dr Ant Fritsch in an essay
titled The Museum Question suggested the use of phonograph recordings in
exhibition installations to provide contextual information for objects dis-
played (Griffiths 1999; 2003). A method considered radical for its time, it
has been a primary consideration for new media technologies used for mu-
seum audio guides, downloadable iTunes recordings of audio guides, in-
formation kiosks, and other portable interpretive devices such as the ubiq-
uitous smart phone. The last 10 or so years have seen an increasing debate
around the written text panel placed next to an exhibit. Under access and
inclusion agendas the explanatory text panel grew ever longer. However,
under more recent budgetary constrains we have seen a move to minimal

104
or even no supporting text: a return in art galleries to aesthetic reading of
artworks. However in some galleries technology has been used to replace
panels offering pluralistic interpretation user-generated ‘tagging’ through
the use of smart-ticketing.

It is worth noting how quickly technology has been adopted by museums.

In 2005 the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) launched the first hand-
held device for their museum collections. This was a user-friendly PDA,
named ArtXplore, aiming to provide visitors with ‘greater freedom to cus-
tomize their museum experience’ (Indianan University, 2005). It provided
‘multiple layers of audio and visual content, such as graphics, animations,
video and panoramas, on 16 objects from the IMA’s American collection. It
also allow[ed] visitors to review their experiences and convey comments to
the IMA’ (Indianan University, 2005). In the same year, the Getty Museum
in Los Angeles was lending visitors hand-held computers that contained
information about the entire collection, but specifically about the French
painter Jacques-Louis David for the purposes of the exhibition ‘Jacques-
Louis David: Empire to Exile’. Getty’s executive director for digital policy,
Kenneth Hamma, suggested that this was a reaction to the static nature of
computer-based displays in the galleries up to that date (Hafner, 2004).
Since these first uses of such devices in museums, their visibility has in-
creased. Few international museums are without social networking media
and virtual spaces for visitor interaction. In addition, companies such as
Apple or Google, acknowledging the shift from the confined museum to
a space of open interaction and interpretation by users, launched applica-
tions such as Art Authority for ipad Patrick J observing ‘… ArtAuthority
takes away the sore feet and time constraints. As its App Store description
declares, it is an amazing museum right at your fingertips…’(Review for
ipad Insight May 21, 2010) It has a personalized approach to interpretation
through contextual information and a close-up gaze at the digitized art-
work. GoogleArt project launched in 2011 uses Street View technology fa-
miliar through google earth. The project was extended in 2012 with virtual
access to 46 international art museums and galleries including The Frick
Collection NYC whose collection does not travel, Uffizi Florence, The State
Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Museum of
Islamic Art, Doha. Users can zoom in and study details of paintings in high

105
resolution. They can also navigate around the museum and see the context
within which artworks are viewed. The second generation platform using
google+ will be multilingual and has a video and audio content, quizzes
and educational materials that allows a level of interaction with numerous
collections, slides shows to be made and research done (collections can be
cross-referenced). This level of DIY engagement and interaction is unprec-
edented previously for all but curators with extensive travel budgets. The
aesthetic objections to looking at inferior surrogates has largely been tech-
nologically overcome.

Historically, especially in the beginning of the early 20th century, provid-

ing contextual information to the objects on display has been one of the
main concerns of museums. Even today, establishing accuracy and truthful-
ness about an object bears heavily on museums that often turn to histori-
cal information. Freeing an object from its historical and cultural context
immediately makes it susceptible to unsubstantiated generalizations or
interpretations, often far removed from the object’s original identity/pur-
pose. However, personalization of collections and multiple visitor interpre-
tations are sought after by the constructivist museum seeking to diversify
audiences (Hein 2003). In addition, museums recently seem to move away
from fact and historical record to a more loosely related approach to inter-
pretation, allowing narrative, myth and fiction into museum displays. For
instance, at the Chelmsford Museum, the display of industrial machinery
has shifted from factual and technical information to SCOT (social con-
struction of technology). The displays of old technology, such as winnow-
ing machines (part of a miller’s equipment developed in the 19th century),
are framed within social history, adding narratives to the previous scientific
explanation. Traditional top down histories that privileged the great, good
and intellectual, are here replaced by a bottom up approach that empha-
sizes social and economic processes: part of contemporary movement for
social change. The shift away from factual, empirical data to more nuanced
multi-vocal histories has gained ground in museums and galleries for three
specific reasons: first, a reflection of post-colonial and competing social
voices; second, the rise of constructivist approaches in education depart-
ments and third, accountability and instrumentalism that have called pub-
licly funded museums to account within the rhetoric of MLA’s framework

106
Inspiring Learning for All and widening participation.
A more recent example from the Museum of London confirms that the
shift to narrative from historical truth seems to be gaining ground as new
approaches to museum interpretation that include fiction are sought out.
In the Pleasure Gardens (2010-2013), a three-dimensional immersive envi-
ronment is created in the newly renovated galleries to provide visitors with
a re-envisioning of the experience of the Vauxhall Gardens previously only
imagined through Canaletto’s painting Vauxhall Garden: the Grand Walk
(1751). In the gallery space, three-dimensional figures, dressed in historic
costumes seem to stroll casually, against a theatrical backdrop of painted
gardens. At closer inspection, each figure wears hats, created by hat design-
er Philip Tracey, anachronistic for the time of the stroll, unusual for even
a contemporary onlooker. The subtle blurring of truth and fiction seems
natural in the museum setting, simultaneously alluding to a necessary ac-
knowledgement that the two, truth and fiction as constructions, have al-
ways been interwoven in the stories that museums are shaped to tell. The
Pleasure Gardens also uses film in which actors exchange their personal ex-
periences in the gardens. A fictionalized account that entertains in a way
that Canaletto will not. Pleasure Gardens also stands as a useful example of
a historically recorded tendency of museums to establish immersive spaces.
These are considered to be useful in increasing visitor participation and
interaction; the latter a term initially coined with technological application
but which needs further analysis and in-depth examination.

Historically the 19th century cyclorama and Kaiser Panorama Theatre (3D
slides of postcard shown with incense wafting for added sensory enjoy-
ment) also attempted illusion to bring the ‘exotic location’ to all. In New
York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art displays John Vanderlyn’s (1799)
Panoramic view of the Palace and Gardens of Versailles in a purpose built
circular gallery. It is a walk through immersive experience in a gallery 12 ft
by 165 ft (360cm x 49m). Again it bears some comparison with the Van Gogh
Alive-The Exhibition and Pleasure Gardens all attempt to provide audiences
with a holistic, sensory experience.

I N T E R AC T I V I T Y : A N OV E RU S E D T E R M
Interactivity can be separated into two distinct, although not entirely sepa-

107
rate, activities: interactivity as active through bodily activity and interactiv-
ity through imagination and memory. Albeit the enthusiasm with interac-
tivity as the means of making effective displays and/or learning experiences,
technological mediation in the museum is generally marked by a tendency
to work with the former understanding of interactivity at the expense of
the latter. The underlying assumption that interactivity can affect change in
participants and create a new kind of spectatorship is criticized by Burnett
who points out that any kind of measurement or validation made for claims
remain elusive, insisting that ‘Interaction is about the interplay between fic-
tion, the reality of the moment, and projection’ (Burnett’s italics) (Burnett,
2007, p. 313). Burnett gives primacy to the role of the imagination in inter-
activity and maintains therefore that it is not the technology that enables
interactivity but the activity itself. This important distinction is crucial in
establishing what happens when one looks at material culture. Part of the
problem lies in the familiar representation of old technologies or old media,
such as the diorama or still-photograph, as static and the activity of merely
looking as passive. Interaction, projection, immersion, and identification
are the key terms that Burnett uses to understand the ways in which inter-
activity is experienced by the participant.

A further difficulty lies in new media requiring a history that is compa-

rable to the old art history (Grau 2007, p. 1-13). If new media is allowed to
function within the art academy on its own terms rather than be seen as
inauthentic it will gain greater credibility. There is a need to recognise that
a new vocabulary, ‘a typology of interactive processes’ (Burnett 2007, p. 314)
needs to be developed to articulate participation and multi-faceted recep-
tion when using digital media. In particular we need to understand further
how emotional and intellectual responses are evoked in the user through
both kinds of interactivity. This is of particular importance for education in
trying to understand responses to multi-media devices when they are used
to mediate between artwork and visitor/audience. This is not to claim that
there is a difference between the authentic and the inauthentic but to un-
derstand that mediation is not necessarily an engagement in evaluation.

Part of the issue is what do inter-actives do? Why have they in general just
replicated existing patterns of interpretation already used by museums and

108
galleries becoming merely mobile text panels or traditional tools similar to
the paper gallery-plan. There is a comparison to be drawn from the devel-
opment of early cinema that developed along two paths: one to so-called
realism, the other to radical experimentation that used the medium in
unexpected, innovative ways. Interactives can merely be conventional re-
working of existing pedagogic and traditional art historical methodologies
or historical narratives with the myth of personal control. If imaginary pro-
jection has always been one of the ways of identifying with screen-based
experiences it is also the case that imaginary projection unmediated by
technology or text-panel has been at the core of looking through pathetic
fallacy. The term pathetic fallacy was coined by John Ruskin (1856) Modern
Painters to ‘signify any description of inanimate natural objects, that as-
cribe to them human capacities, sensations and emotions’. Anthropomor-
phic tendencies are important if artworks (normally inanimate objects) are
to function as capable of creating sensations and emotions in the viewer.
Imagination then enables a suspension of belief across time and space al-
lowing the viewer to empathise with landscape and images across cultures
and time.

However, despite the tendency to dismiss past media as static and passive
there is also a tendency to believe that digital technologies encourage in
audiences an expectation of greater control and participatory activity. The
humble sketchbook and pencil, a staple of school and college visits can be
regarded as a participatory tools: the sketch-book provides before and after
investigation can be passed on, annotated, posted and returned for discus-
sion and scholarship.

Interactivity in the museum also chimes with the history of participation

art. Since at least Dada and Surrealism of the early 20th century, artists have
addressed the possibility of interacting with artworks, not only allowing
visitors to touch and handle their work but also inviting them to do so, ac-
cepting the viewer as an integral, necessary aspect of the work. Such artists
were the first to practically address Umberto Eco’s notion of ‘openness’ in
art and Michel Foucault and Ronald Barthes’ notion of the ‘death of the au-
thor’. The artist liberated the work from his/her authoritative presence and
allowed the visitor to create meaning for themselves. The work of art could

109
therefore mean a number of different things and polysemic interpretations
were directed by what the viewer brought to the work. Long before the re-
lational aesthetics of the 21st century, John Berger spoke of ‘ways of seeing’
and many artists created works that invited the viewer to become part of
the artwork itself (Berger 1972). Many museums were slow to embrace the
idea of audience’s changing once unitary and authoritative meaning but
such displays are now commonplace in less traditional museums. In tan-
dem with such changes about where meaning resides has been the growth
of constructivist learning and teaching methods now commonplace (if
not uncontested) in many museum learning departments (Hein, Hooper-
Greenhill, Falk and Dierking). New digital technologies offer the promise of
increased participation and thus of improved learning.

This expectation of audience participation is part of a greater awareness of

the role of the spectator in interpreting artworks or artefacts and witnessed
in Nicholas Bourriaud’s influential (2002) Relational Aesthetics a touch-
stone for art students this century. Marking another seismic shift in gallery
culture, under Bourriaud’s gaze artworks are judged upon the inter-human
relations which they represent or produce, rejecting traditional art history
(in particular the formalism of the 1950s and 60s). In 2002 he curated Touch,
Relational Art from 1990s to Now for San Francisco Art Institute. Important-
ly he is most interested in exploring the interactive works that often invest
in the worlds opened up by the internet. Although the imaginary placement
of the self in to pictures can be done without recourse to technology via the
imagination, the possibilities for innovative interpretation can be enabled
through mobile hand-held devices. Decreasing curatorial control can allow
for audience entrance-narratives to override the now outdated search for a
single authoritative voice, guiding the one meaning of the picture, or the fall
back position of reading artwork through the artist’s biography. Canonical
art history can be narrow and often elitist and dependent on arbitrary taste
rather than any objective criteria. New apps offering a range of competing
sometimes contradictory voices have developed in tandem with the rise of
the social art history that foreswore artists’ intentions or aesthetics as the
dominate way of reading an artwork to privilege the reader’s voice/subject
position or entrance narrative. Ushering in a period when relative autono-
my replaced any ahistoric3 notion that art existed outside of culture and was

110
therefore immune from ideological imperatives, the social art history had a
profound if belated effect on museum education. Formalism was called to
account by the so-called New Art Histories of the mid- to late 20th century
and while once the galleries preferred position (it requiring nothing of its
audience but ‘sensibility’) the social art history took account of the viewers’
subject position ousting the universal subject and questioning the basis of
the universal survey museum4. The move to digital technologies has the po-
tential to enable audiences to fracture into smaller communities of practice.
Digital media has the possibility of beginning the process of differentia-
tion between audiences and bringing an end to the homogenising tenden-
cies of educational strategies that delivered to a receptive unitary audience.
At ‘the heart of interactivity, which is more about navigating through the
landscape of available technologies…interaction is about communication
processes, which link meanings together in ways that are not predictable’
(Burnett 2007: 333). If this is the case the inter-actives in many museums
and galleries still have some way to go to realise their potential.

In McLuhan’s ‘Understanding Media’ (1964) the metaphor of cool and hot

media were used to define the degree of interactivity. McLuhan suggested
that media such as the radio are hot because they minimise the degree of
interaction between audience and medium and they leave little space for
participation, whereas new interactive media, such as the computer, are
cool because they are high in participation. Certainly, such a metaphor was
quite fascinating in its time but today distinct categorisations between ‘old’
and ‘new’ media are less secure. Newness does not directly establish some-
thing as ‘cool’ or ‘better’, but rather, it is the ways media is used that defines
the degree of interactivity. Museums often unquestioning use new media
misled by the assumption that interactivity is linked to their manufacturing
date. In Robert Markley’s edited Virtual Reality and their Discontents (1996)
the authors suggest that there is need for scepticism concerning the notion
that a new form can dispatch and replace an older one.

Certainly, attempts have been made to combine the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ in
3. The use of ahistoric formalism promoted by Kant (18th century) Fry and Bell in Edwardian England and
Clement Greenberg in mid-20th century America dominated gallery interpretation until the 1980s.
4. See Duncan and Wallach (1980) The Universal Survey Museum.

111
order to stimulate interest and visitors’ participation. At the Museum of the
Rockies in Bozeman, Montana, a computer-based exhibit allows visitors to
enter information to find the age of a rock and even though quite popu-
lar, an equally engaging material-based exhibit nearby, a set of drawers that
visitors can open to reveal various strata and fossils in a rock (Hafner, 2004)
is also popular. The Wellcome Collection in London uses a similar ‘seek and
find’ approach with artefacts to encourage participation.

At the National Archives in Washington the Public Vaults is a good example

of the way in which new computer technology is integrated with the old ar-
chival documents, some of them impossible to access physically because of
their fragility. Displaying at any given time 1,100 record-originals or facsim-
iles of documents, photographs, maps, audio and video clips and drawings,
the archive allows the visitor to see material otherwise inaccessible. Even
though the degree of interactivity in this case is again minimised to clicking
buttons and navigating through a pre-determined structure of information
and documents it does suit the context in which it is displayed for it repli-
cates the physical act of navigating archives. The Darwin Centre (Natural
History Museum, London) also uses facsimiles and archive material effec-
tively. Fragile pressed plant book (to scale) can be digitally opened and the
use of hotspots allows deeper knowledge of the plants to be revealed.

However, there is currently little empirical evidence to demonstrate that

interactive displays in museums have long-lasting effects or whether such
displays promote better learning in museums than older forms of engage-
ment and traditional interpretation methods (Evans & Sterry, 1999). With-
out doubt interactive exhibits are popular with visitors, especially young
ones, and they do increase the time people spend in the galleries. But, this
might simply be the result of technology’s attractive character and its po-
tential to sustain attention without this necessarily relating to visitors’ at-
tention with exhibits (Screven, 1990; Evans& Sterry, 1999). Griffiths suggests
that ‘we know little about how or what types of information visitors retain
from media installation in galleries’ and this was voiced ‘as long ago as 1969
in the conclusion of one of the earliest studies of audiovisual media con-
ducted in the museum at the Fort Parker historic Site in Texas’ (Griffiths
2008, p. 275). Audiovisual media used without testing their ‘effectiveness’

112
both in the immediate museum experience and in the long-term is a prob-
lem that many audience studies still face. Part of the problem in terms of
mediating between forms using multimedia devices is that they are largely
written text based while many of the objects at the centre of the interpreta-
tion are mono-modal (i.e. painting). The act of interpretation is therefore
though another medium (usually speech, word text or music) sometimes
confounding experiential, bodily, haptic and tactile modes of learning.

Interactivity, in theory, became an approach that favored the subject who

interprets information provided and moved the museum away from the
contemplative approach toward the object. Integral to the new interpretive
devices, museum engagement focused on the multiplicity of perspectives
and the celebration of their diversity. Art and artefacts have struggled to
remain on the pedestal of objectivity set up during the museum’s crucible
in the 18th century Enlightenment, and are now subject and object becom-
ing mediators of multiple histories rather than documents of a history fixed
in facts. The distance that museums established between their displays and
audiences during the earlier years of their creation is disappearing with at-
tempts to bring audience and collections into closer, more dialectic/dialogic
relationships. Nick Serota’s manifesto for the Museum of the 21st century
suggests it is worth considering the ‘extent [to which] we remain authors,
and in what sense… we [museums] become publishers providing a plat-
form for international conversations?’ Burnett would argue that authorship
needs a radical rethink as,

The ubiquity of digital tools and computers means that the role of imagi-
nation and projection as fundamental attributes of any cultural experience
will be in the hands of creators and the audiences. This more than anything
else may finally broaden and deepen the interactive potential of all audienc-
es and lead to radical changes in the cultural understanding of authorship.
(Burnett 2007, p. 333-334)

I M M E R S I V E E N V I R O N M E N T S A N D E D U TA I N M E N T
Despite research and continuous attempts to monitor technological use in
museums, and an increased acceptance of new media technologies by more
museums today, unresolved debate remains. In part it is a philosophical

113
issue with museum staff and core historic audiences concerned about the
so-called ‘Disneyfication’ of museums and dumbing-down. Applied tech-
nologies often appear to blur the line between education and entertainment
in the museum galleries. As early as the turn of the 20th century curators
were ambivalent about the thrill and excitement caused by some exhibi-
tions. Even the diorama ran the gauntlet of charges of ‘too easy’ and ‘too
accessible’ to be pedagogically challenging enough. In 1892, Morus Jesup,
president of the American Museum of Natural History in New York spoke
of ‘rational amusement in the form of respectable recreational pursuits’
(cited in Ducao and Koen 2007-2009). Exemplary are the so-called freak
shows and wax works popular in the United States between the 1840s to the
1970s. Since the beginning of such shows, debates and oppositions to their
entertaining potential was recorded by the response of more conservative
curators who thought this marked the decline of the authentic museum. In
1905 in Museums Journal Frank Woolnough maintained:

…[t]he old curiosity shop days of the museum are over. The misguided lamb
with two heads, and the pig with two tails, are relegated to a back closet, if they
have not already found a resting place in the sphere of the dust-bin. There is so
much that is beautiful in nature to preserve that we have neither time, space,
not inclination to perpetuate freaks and errors.
(cited in Griffiths, 1999)

Removing curiosity and wonder, the increasingly regulated and puritanical

museum moved towards taste and conservative conformity with the desire
to exhibit ‘beauty’ to elevate the feckless masses. At the same time, it can be
argued presenting ‘freaks’ also became unacceptable within the postmod-
ern paradigm. In effect, technologies proved to be a safe solution for main-
taining entertainment in the museum while at the same time responding to
younger audiences, or a generation of youngsters born digital.

In her 2008 book ‘Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums and the Im-
mersive View’ Alison Griffiths points out that the effects of wonder and
entertainment were best achieved historically through immersive environ-
ments in museum exhibits. The first diorama, the panorama and today’s
digital virtual reality environments engage the viewer in an embodied expe-

114
rience that stimulates imagination through the illusion of being there; in a
constructed time-space. On the one hand Hayles, describing the experience
of a virtual three-dimensional environment argues that, ‘the boundaries of
self are defined less by the skin than by the feedback loops connecting body
and simulation in techno-bio-integrated circuit’ (as cited in Robins 1995:
138). Further, Michael Benedikt argue that ‘cyberspace can be seen as an
extension, some might say an inevitable extension, of our age-old capacity
and need to dwell in fiction, to dwell empowered or enlightened on other,
mythic planes’ (as cited in Robins 1995, p. 139). Grau (2003) agrees that the
sense of being in the picture has always been part of the way we respond to
images. Since their digitally developed genesis, virtual reality environments
promised to deliver the user of such technologies from the constraints and
defeats of physicality and everyday life. Such uncensored and individual
experiences are associated with imagination and thus, one could argue that
the fascination with the virtual is the result of a possibility to enact fantasies
similarly to dreams.

Virtual reality technologies have been received with immense enthusiasm

for their inherent participatory nature. Certainly, as mentioned previously,
interaction and engagement in participation is not always clearly defined or
assessed and the effects of such applications remain unknown. In the most
part, even though visitors tend to engage with virtual reality installations,
museums are still skeptical about their threatening potential of taking away
from the authentic experience with museum objects. In 1986, when interac-
tivity and technology were the buzzwords, curators darkly cautioned ‘every
exhibit topic does not lend itself to intensive interaction. Activity that is
purely for entertainment may be fine in an amusement part, but a museum
activity should be a goal in museum exhibits only if the interaction has a
clear purpose’ (Griffiths 2008, p. 274).

But if the shift to more open, entertaining access enabled by technology is

lauded as the key to the future it is also the case that ‘the thing itself ’, the
material base of the museum, the stuff of the collection is often character-
ised as in need of no technological or indeed any other mediation. In the
same conversation at the LSE, MacGregor reminded his audience that ‘The
dialogue with the single thing can still change lives’…. (MacGregor, 2009).

115
The issue of technological mediation or interventions between the audience
and artwork/artefact in the gallery itself is historically problematic with a
clear distinction between the museum artefact and the gallery fine artwork:
the latter often characterised as needing no intervention. Even the services
of word-based, wall-mounted text panels are a disputed intervention.

Technological mediation inside the historic gallery and traditional muse-

um, beyond navigational tools such audio wands, has, with several notable
exceptions outlined below, been kept to a minimum. The newer museums,
or cultural centres that do not have a particularly long historic legacy have
largely embraced technology throughout the institution. In particular the
British Music Experience within the O2 building in London is almost wholly
interactive, the rest of the collection being music memorabilia. The inter-
actives vary, from timelines to digital record collections which can be vir-
tually scrolled through, to a fully working ‘studio’ with instruments that
the visitor can play and record to later listen to at home. The whole can be
accessed via interactive tickets. Atypically science-centres too have a long
history of working with technology in the display areas. In Whitehall, The
Cabinet War Rooms and Churchill Museum Home (complete with on-line
virtual tour) has exemplary inter-actives and integrated technology that
may reflect the wide use of archive materials and the lack of precious and
aesthetic objects in the collection.

E VA LUAT I N G T E C H N O L O G Y : R E V E A L I N G A R T W I T H N E W T E C H N O L O G Y
Museums have recently sought out alternative ways for interpretation that
move beyond re-creating orthodox text-based and data dump approaches
that marked the first wave of digital devices. The most interesting and suc-
cessful approaches move beyond written, explanatory language to engage
the viewer visually. The exhibition Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, Experi-
ment and Design, of Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings at the Victoria and Albert
Museum in London in 2006, curated by Martin Kemp stands as a celebration
of the ways in which technology can modestly cherish the art it attempts to
interpret. High above the still, often fragile, and sometimes faded, da Vinci’s
drawings, computer animations offered interpretations to the mesmerised
viewer, of Leonardo’s working processes. The screens became windows on
Leonardo’s mind bringing to life the strongest mechanism ever; that of the

116
human mind. Adrian Searle of The Guardian describes his own experience:

Above the displays of drawings, computer animations lend Leonardo’s sketches

the movement they always implied. Geometries turn and mutate, muscles flex,
a Renaissance tank start firing on all cylinders. I come out reeling – but com-
pared with Leonardo, feeling as useless as one of his perpetual motion ma-
chines.
(Searle, 2006)

The same year, Tate Britain used technology to give access through x-ray
technology to the original sketches of Constable’s six-foot canvases at the
exhibition Constable: the Great Landscapes. In the exhibition the six-footers
as they are called were displayed for the first time with the original pre-
liminary full-scale sketches so that visitors could see the changes Constable
made before arriving at the final work. The interactive displays placed at
the end of the exhibition were designed to further the curator’s ambitions
to reveal Constable’s working methods. The design brief for the installa-
tion asked for an interactive capable of engaging visitors, supporting cu-
ratorial themes, complementing the space and surviving months of heavy
usage. Further, the ‘interactive interpretation’ should allow visitors to see
the changes the artist made between the sketches and the final picture and
to understand the ‘physical techniques used to create and scale the work’
(Design Brief). Crucially for the gallery at least ‘Any developments would
have to preserve the integrity and aesthetics of the pictures themselves, to
enhance rather than undermine the objects’ (vom Lehn, Hindmarsh, Luff &
Heath 2007, p. 1486).

Two installations were created, a gestural interface and a touch-screen pan-

el, both connected to large projection screens showing Salisbury Cathedral
from the Meadows (1831) and A View of Stour Near Dedham (1822). The in-
stallations were designed by All of US, London. Research was conducted by
King’s College, London using discrete video-recording and field observa-
tions. Installation one was an x-ray examination of life-size (six foot) pro-
jection of Constable’s (1831) sketch of Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows.
The projection was video-mixed with the x-ray of the painting to analyse
the artist’s initial images and over-painted changes. It was connected to a

117
conventional Pentium PC and basic black and white CCTV camera located
underneath the projection screen. As the camera captured people’s move-
ments in front of the projection bespoke software translated their move-
ments into changes in the picture. The curator hoped the x-ray examina-
tion would allow ‘for exciting and intuitive exploration of the changes that
Constable made in the sketch’ (Design Brief). In installation two a ‘Drawing
activity’ aimed to reveal how ‘the artist would lay a grid of threads across his
sketches for the purpose of accurately transferring the image to the finished
painting’ (Design Brief). The installation consisted of a large projection of
Constable’s (1822) painting A View on the Stour Near Dedham and a table
showing a pencil sketch and a slightly larger oil painting of the same scene.
The oil painting was placed under a touch-sensitive glass-panel. The sketch
and oil painting were the basis for the six-foot final work. By touching vari-
ous sections of the glass-panel, parts of the painting become visible on the
projection screen in front, software on a PC translated the user’s actions on
the glass-panel into images on the projection.

The research for this project is telling5. The research team saw sensor-based
technology as an unobtrusive way forward in relation to technology’s per-
ceived disruption of the ‘real thing’. But they suggest following their research
that there was a need to understand among other things,

™=dleZdeaZXVcWZbdgZhbddi]an^cigdYjXZYidi]ZjhZd[
installations and their part within the exhibition?
™=dli]ZhnhiZb¼hgZhedchZhXVcWZYZh^\cZYidbdgZgZVY^angZÅZXi
the different forms of participation arising in its locale?
™=dlhnhiZbhXVcWZYZh^\cZYidZhiVWa^h]XaZVgZga^c`hWZilZZc
interactives and the original artworks?

The last point grew out of research that demonstrated that the drawing ac-
tivity and the x-ray examination that are displayed in a room remote from
the original artwork did not result in increased visitor engagement: ‘Only
very few visitors returned from the installation into the main exhibition
5. Paper (CHI 2007 Proceedings- Trust and Engagement San Jose, USA 2007). Engaging Constable:
Revealing Art with New Technologies Dirk vom Lehn, Jon Hindmarsh, Paul Luff and Christian Heath, Work,
Interaction and Technology Research Centre, King’s College London

118
to view Constable’s paintings. It would be worth considering how to better
support connections between the two’ (vom Lehn, Hindmarsh, Luff and
Heath 2006: 1493). This last issue is the most important for museums. What
is needed is technology that will make people pay attention to the artwork
or exhibition. It is also noteworthy that the vom Lehn, Hindmarsh, Luff
and Heath research is typical of research around museums and technology
that has tended to look at the ways people used/interacted with the technol-
ogy or each other rather than furthering any understanding of the viewer’s
learning around the exhibit. The detailed research did nothing to address
the issue of how the technology impacted on people’s understanding of the
artworks.

Both of the above exhibitions used technology’s potential to animate, vi-

sually illustrate and penetrate under layers of paint and to ultimately be-
come a window to a level of interpretation unattainable with the printed
word. Additionally, the above use of technology even though it does little
to modify canonical art historical interpretation, does allow for designers,
educators and historians to work together to use technology in a ‘convinc-
ing, accessible rather than gratuitous way to illuminate our understanding
of process and material of the past’.

In 2008 the British filmmaker Peter Greenaway was invited to re-invent

Leonardo da Vinci 510-year-old painting of ‘The Last Supper’ as a sound
and light installation.

To the strains of modern opera, he used cutting-edge technical trickery to make

Leonardo’s Christ appear like a three-dimensional hologram while a radiant
sun rose and fell over his head. He turned the original colourful image red, grey
and black before the artist’s gentle brush strokes were replaced with a chalk
outline of the 13 figures, as if Leonardo had drawn a crime scene. Dawn broke,
dusk fell and by the end the disciples had been dramatically cast into the shad-
ow of prison-like bars.
(Booth, 2008)

Even though no physical alteration to the original artwork was made,

Greenaway’s vision of the work made it look three-dimensional as if com-

119
ing to life and extending in space. Despite some people’s strong opposition
of Greenaway’s work, describing it as cultural vandalism (Booth 2008), no
one can deny that the artist’s technological intervention bestowed the paint-
ing with new life, one that was always underneath its presence but never ac-
tualised in this manner; the painting’s own cinematic narrative. The viewer
faced the painting as if for the first time, forced to look at it as the changing
lighting effects on the painting created multiple points of view, each time
pointing at a different direction while maintaining the illusory character of
the original perspective painting. In all of the above examples, merging the
old technology of drawing and painting with new digital technologies is a
strategy that has great potential for it immerses the viewer with the work,
and creates new contexts that a simple text label or catalogue is inadequate
to achieve.

C O N T E M P O R A R Y A P P L I C AT I O N S : FA I LU R E S A N D S U C C E S S E S
During a survey in 2001 at the San Diego Natural History Museum visitors
ranked computers very low in their preferences suggesting that what they
sought in a museum visit was something entirely different from what they
were doing all day, which often involved a great many computer tasks (Haf-
ner 2004). In a 2004 article in the New York Times, Katie Hafner suggests
that ‘until recently, computers were seldom used creatively. More often,
they were little more than information supplements, glorified, trackball-
assisted posters or charts filled with text that few visitors took the time to
slog through’. Especially for art museums, digital technologies used to be a
supplement for increasingly more information about collections; the result
of museums’ enthusiasm about the possibility of large memory banks ful-
filling the desire of maintaining art historical authorship. It can be argued
that the original cabinet of curiosities vanished under the weight of infor-
mation overflow. In effect, the question whether technology is indeed use-
ful for museums and whether its applications effectively change museum
practices remains unanswered.

There are museums that have maintained a sceptical stance toward technol-
ogy in the actual museum and viewed it mostly as a danger rather than a
panacea to access problems. In effect, such museums – the British Museum
in London is one such example – have used little overt technology in their

120
permanent displays. Technology in these cases is pitted against art and ar-
tefacts, where maintaining what Walter Benjamin defined as the original’s
‘aura’ maintains its importance. Feeling comfortable in their orthodox role,
such museums seem to consider the uses of technology in the face of the
real thing a sacrilegious act. An example, was the latest use of technology
by the British Museum, for room 61 which re-opened in 2009 with an ex-
hibition based on the tomb-chapel of Nebamun. An exhibition about life
and death in ancient Egypt, room 61 displays the famous newly restored
wall-paintings that date from about 1350 BC. The frescos displayed from the
tomb of Nebamun are surrounded by objects from the same period which
provide context for better understanding the life of the wealthy official, Ne-
bamun. A three dimensional animation of the tomb aims to contextual-
ise what the visitor sees in the galleries and imaginatively places paintings
and artefacts in their original context. Articles about the specific exhibition
made reference to an immersive environment:

Now, in Room 61, he tries to recreate the setting of the fragments, to help the
viewer experience something as close as possible to actually walking into the
burial house of Neb-Amun now lost in the desert west of Luxor. An interactive
computer simulation shows you what the house would have looked like in its
natural setting - and then there are the paintings.
(Soueif, 2009)

Even though the journalist is enthusiastic about the possibility of re-cre-

ating the experience of walking into the burial home, the reality is far re-
moved from such experiences. Instead, the screen is displayed behind a wall
separate from the rest of the exhibition (and easily missed). It is not pos-
sible to view the technology and wall-paintings at the same time. The cura-
tors’ apparent skepticism, even technophobia, is rather obvious in the way
in which technology was handled.

However there are reasons for the reservations. In 2012/13 a new large inter-
active touch screen was placed on the walls of a gallery few feet away from
the Gebelein man (a naturally persevered mummy that has historically
been a highlight of the collection). After research via CT scans and a virtual
autopsy the large interactive display that allows the body to be manipulated

121
and uses hot spots to disseminate information was a compelling addition
to learning about ‘Ginger’ the affectionate name given to the mummy who
has red hair. Research undertaken by students at the Institute of Education
in the gallery revealed two changes in visitor behavior. In brief they spent
less time looking at the mummy sometimes not relating the screen image
to the mummy itself and second were not always successful at using the
sophisticated technology. Keying into the popularity of forensic police sci-
ence visitors are invited (on the web) to use the autopsy table and find out
about murder on Ancient Egypt. While a compelling addition to the display
of Gebelein man more research is needed on how to maintain attention on
the mummy and how to instruct users on the use of technology in the gal-
lery itself.

C O N C LU S I O N : T E C H N O L O G Y A S A T H I N G I N I T S E L F
The argument that technology is not a neutral force for good but one that is
driven by social forces was advanced by Raymond Williams in 1979, with spe-
cific reference to communication technologies. The argument against techno-
logical determinism runs that just because we are capable of doing something
it does not automatically follow that we ought to do it. …The uses to which we
put technology often shape its future development.
(Meecham and Sheldon, 2005, p. 285)

The literature on technology in the museum has been marked by deep di-
vision arising from the historical, intellectual and practical conceptualisa-
tions of two distinctly different disciplinary domains: museum studies and
computer science. Although it would be tempting to characterise technol-
ogy’s arrival in the museum as a welcome and expedient breath of fresh air
amongst the dusty relics of the past breathing access and inclusion into ob-
jects resistant to easy interpretation as the new verses the old, that would be
to paper over an ideological divide around the relationship between tech-
nology and the material culture of the museum: broadly speaking a schism
between technology in search of a job to do and the ‘thing itself ’. According
to Heidegger, technology is also about revealing and in that sense a useful
metaphor for technology’s dual role in the museum. In Heidegger’s essay
‘The Question Concerning Technology’ he advised:

122
We shall be questioning concerning technology, and in so doing we should like
to prepare a free relationship to it. The relationship will be free if it opens our
human existence to the essence of technology. When we can respond to this es-
sence, we shall be able to experience the technological within its own bounds.
Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology […] the essence of
technology is by no means anything technological.
(Ibid, 1993, p. 311)

In his essay, Heidegger provides an important lesson for museums that need
to consider what technology really is, before applying it in their collections.
A better understanding of the essence of technology can only create a better
relationship with it since potential misuses are minimised if not eliminated.
Also, understanding that technology is not just a computer or a machine,
or anything technological, but all that one could utilise for a purpose, is
significant for the museum if it seeks to establish a more balanced relation-
ship between technologies ‘old’ and ‘new’. Instead of dismissing the ‘old’ the
museum could consider the possibility of combining the two, as we saw in
Greenaway’s intervention, something that can prove to be useful for learn-
ing. If museums think of technology in this way, the essence that Heidegger
spoke of, becomes one of possibility, bringing technology closer to the no-
tion of Greek techne; a form of creative poesis.

Technology is not yet at the core of museum activities on site, in many cases
it is dispatched to the virtual and actual periphery of museum activity: the
preserve of education (itself often on the margins of museum activity/hi-
erarchy). In some cases however technology offer the possibility of viewing
and recreating the museum, by means of web sites, as a virtual gallery. The
traditional curatorial system can be bypassed and viewers can create their
own museums, collect their own works and install them in their own homes
- an electronic museum without walls. Moreover, by building technology
into exhibits themselves and using new media in creative ways audiences
can engage with art and artefact and work with their own entrance narra-
tives to create new knowledge. Museums are working towards effective in-
corporation of technology in exhibits and working at ways of incorporating
technologies within a changing landscape of audience participation. Social
networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have now become common-

123
124
© Rob Kirk

125
place tools in the drive for new audiences. However, if museums cling to
their Enlightenment origins and attachment to exhibitions as a primary
function it is unlikely that democratization within and without its walls can
take place. The huge (if singular) success of the BBC’s British Museum col-
laboration in 2010/11 ‘The World in a 100 Objects’ delivered on antediluvian
Radio 4 demonstrated that collections can be listened to, that new narra-
tives can be compelling.

Opening up access to the Netful of Jewels (Anderson 1999) via digital tech-
nologies was at the forefront of museum directors thinking before the end
of the 20th century. Digital museums would deliver access and services in a
variety of ways: publishing being one of them, participatory activities with
‘two-way interaction’ between users, museum staff and many different pub-
lics’ (Anderson 1999) another. The development of archives (the wallflow-
er of public services) in the last decade has aided museums in uncovering
hidden and repressed histories with which the public are being asked to
interact. Creating new narratives, digital histories and user-generated con-
tent is challenging the authority of the museum. The use of fiction and the
consumption of digital artworks provides further challenges. Being provid-
ers of such services could change the relationship of museums to the new
consumer who currently may well see the museum as a social venue, site
for scholarly activity or shopping outlet rather than as a glass cabinets of
curiosities.

REFERENCES
Anderson, D. (1999) A Netful of Jewels: new museums in the learning age, a report from the National
Museum Directors’ Conference

Barthes, R. (1977) Image-Music-Text. (S. Heath, Trans.). New York, NY: Hill & Wang.

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing Penguin Books

Benjamin, W. (1999) (1955) ‘The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov’, in
Illuminations (pp. 83-107). London, UK: Random House.

Bennett, T. (1995) The Birth of the Museum London: Routledge.

Beazley, I. (2007) ‘Spectacular success of web based, interactive learning’. In: J. Trant and D. Bearman
(eds) Museums and the Web 2007 Proceedings. Toronto, Archives and Museum Informatics, 2007
http://www.arcimuse.com/mw2007/abstrcts/prg_325001001.html

126
Black, G. (2005) Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. London; New York:
Routledge.

Booth, R. (2008) ‘Greenaway’s hi-tech gadgetry highlights Da Vinci for the laptop generation,
The Guardian. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from: http://arts.guardian.co.uk

Bourdieu, P. (1984; [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Bourdieu, P. and Darbel, A. (1969) The Love of Art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourriaud, N. (1998 English version 2002) Relational Aesthetics. Les Press Du Réel.

Burnett, R. (2007) ‘Projecting Minds’. In: O. Grau (ed.) MediaArtHistories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press. (pp 309-337)

Drotner, K. (2013) and Schrøder, K.S. (eds) Museum Communication and Social Media: The
Connected Museum Routledge Taylor and Francis New York and London.

Duncan, C. and Wallach, A. (1980) ‘The Universal Survey Museum’, Art History 5 (4): 448-469.

Ducao, A. and Koen, I. (2007-2009) ‘The Cabinet’s Latest Curio: Science Bulletins in the Museum’,
American Museum of Natural History, New York. Retrieved July 28, 2009 from, http://ikoen.org/main/
content/view/32/77/

Eco, U. (1989) The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Evans, J.A. and Sterry, P. (1999) ‘Portable computers & Interactive multimedia: A new paradigm for
interpreting museum collections’, Archives and Museum Informatics, 13: 113-126.

Farago, C. (2012) In: Newall and Pooke (eds) Fifty Key Texts in Art History: Preface xxi. Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group

Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1992) The Museum Experience. Washington D.C.: Whaleback Books.

Ford, B.E. (2006) A Champion of Individual Liberty: John Cotton Dana 1856–1929. Newark, N.J.:
‘Newark Public Library [online] http://www.npl.org/Pages/ Programs/Exhibits/Dana/Champion_

Grau, O. (ed.) (2007) MediaArtHistories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Griffiths, A. (1999) Media technology and museum display: A century of accommodation and conflict,
paper presented at Media in Transition, International Conference, MIT. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from:
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/griffiths.html

Griffiths, A. (2003) ‘Media technology and museum display: A century of accommodation and conflict’.
In: D. Thirburn, H. Jenkins, and B. Seawell (eds) Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of
Transition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (pp. 375- 390)

127
Griffiths, A. (2008) Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums and the Immersive View. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.

Guardian, The (2013) GuardianWitness advert app(The Guardian Weekend edition Saturday 06.07.13
pp 2 and 3)

Hafner, K. (2004) ‘At museums, computers get creative’, The New York Times, Retrieved 24th July
2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/technology/circuits/02muse.html

Heidegger, M. (1949) ‘The Question Concerning Technology’. In: D.F. Krell (ed.) (1993 edition) Martin
Heidegger: Basic Writings from “Being and Time” (1927) to “The Task of Thinking” (1964).
San Francisco: Harper.

Heidegger, M. (1993) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings from Being and Time (1927) to The Task of
Thinking (1964). London and New York: Routledge.

Hein, G. (1998) Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge.

Hein, H.S. (2000) The Museum in Transition: A Philosophical Perspective. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) (1999) The Educational Role of the Museum. Leicester Readers in Museum
Studies; London: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000) Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007) Museums and Education: Purpose, Pedagogy and Performance. London:
Routledge.

Indiana University New Room (2005) News Release: New technologies transform the art museum
experience. Bloomington, IN. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from: http:/newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/
print/2129.html

MacArthur, M. (2007) ‘Can Museums Allow Online Users to Become Participants?’ In: H. Din and P.
Hecht (eds.) The Digital Museum: A Think Guide. Washington, D.C. American Association of Museums.
(pp 57-66)

Markley, R. (1996) Virtual Reality and their Discontents. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

McClellan, A. (ed.) (2003) Art and Its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meecham, P. and Sheldon, J. (2005) (2nd edition) Modern Art: A Critical Introduction. London:
Routledge.

Meecham, P. (2013) ‘Social Work: Museums, Technology and Material Culture’. In: K. Drotner and K.C.
Schrøder (eds) Museum Communication and Social Media: The Connected Museum. Routledge
Taylor and Francis: New York and London.

128
Mitchell, W.J.T. (2005) What Do Pictures Want: The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, W.J.T. (2007) ‘There Are No Visual Media’. In: O. Grau (ed.) MediaArtHistories. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press. (pp 395-406)

re:source (2001a) Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England’s museums. London: MLA.

re:source (2001b) Inspiring Learning For All. London: MLA.

Reeve, J., Lang, C. and Woollard, V. (2008) The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the
21st Century. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Ruskin, J. (1856) Modern Painters Viii pt 4.

www.lse.ac.uk/events MacGregor, N. and Serota, N. ‘The Museum of the 21st Century’.

Robins, K. (1995) ‘Cyberspace and the world we live in’. In: M. Featherstone and R. Burrows (eds)
Cyberspace, Cyberbodies, Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment. London, UK:
Sage Publications. (pp. 135 –155)

Screven, C. (1990) ‘Computers in Exhibit Settings’. In: S. Bitgood, A. Benefield and D. Patterson (eds)
Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, Volume 3, Proceedings of the 1990 Visitor Studies
Conference. The Center for Social Design. (pp. 130-138)

Searle, A. (2006) ‘Leonardo da Vinci: Experience, experiment and design’, The Guardian. Retrieved
November 22, 2008, from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2006/sep/14/1/print

Soueif, A. (2009) ‘Talking to the dead’, The Guardian. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jan/10/heritage-exhibition-neb-amun

Thomas, D. (ed.) (2009) Museums in Postcolonial Europe. London: Routledge.

Thomas, S. and Minz, A. (eds) (1998) The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum. Washington:
American Association of Museums.

Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., and Hindmarsh, J. (2005) ‘Rethinking interactivity: design for participation
in museums and galleries’, paper presented at the Workshop Re-thinking Technology in Museums:
Towards a New Understanding of People’s Experience in Museums. University of Limerick, Dublin.

Vom Lehn, D., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P. and Heath, C. (2007) ‘Engaging Constable: Revealing art with new
technology’. CHI 2007.

Zizek, S. (1996) ‘From virtual reality to the virtualization of reality’, Electronic Culture: 16-22.

129
 Editors Advisory board
Susanne Kjällander, Stockholm University, Sweden Bente Aamotsbakken, Tønsberg, Norway
Robert Ramberg, PhD, Stockholm University, Sweden Mikael Alexandersson, Gothenburg university, Sweden
Staffan Selander, Stockholm University, Sweden Henrik Artman, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden
Anna Åkerfeldt, Stockholm University, Sweden Anders Björkvall, Stockholm university, Sweden
Birgitte Holm Sørensen, Aalborg University, Denmark Andrew Burn, London, Great Britain
Thorkild Hanghøj, Aalborg University, Denmark Kirsten Drotner, Odense, Denmark
Karin Levinsen, Aalborg University, Denmark Love Ekenberg, Stockholm university, Sweden
Rikke Ørngreen, Aalborg University, Denmark Ola Erstad, Oslo, Norway
Chaechun Gim, Yeungnam University, South Korea
Editorial board Erica Halverson UW/Madison, USA
Eva Insulander, Mälardalen university, Sweden Richard Halverson UW/Madison, USA
Fredrik Lindstrand, University of Gävle, Sweden Ria Heilä-Ylikallio, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Eva Svärdemo-Åberg, Stockholm university, Sweden Jana Holsanova, Lund University, Sweden
Glynda Hull, Berkeley, USA
Copyrights No 1–2, 2012 Carey Jewitt, London, Great Britain
Front cover: Anna-Lena Kempe, Stockholm university, Sweden
van Gogh Alive: The Exhibition. © Grande Exhibitions Susanne V Knudsen, Tønsberg, Norway
p. 2 Staffan Selander Gunther Kress, London, Great Britain
p. 4 van Gogh Alive: The Exhibition. Per Ledin, Örebro university, Sweden
© Grande Exhibitions Theo van Leeuwen, Sydney, Australia
p. 10 Staffan Selander Teemu Leinonen, Aalto University, Finland
p. 14 Sophia Diamantopoulou Jonas Linderoth, Gothenburg university, Sweden
p. 19 Eva Insulander Sten Ludvigsen, Oslo, Norway
p. 21 Fredrik Lindstrand Jonas Löwgren, Malmö University, Sweden
p. 23 Sophia Diamantopoulou Åsa Mäkitalo, Gothenburg university, Sweden
p. 24 Sophia Diamantopoulou Teresa C. Pargman, Stockholm University, Sweden
p. 36 Museum of National Antiquities Palmyre Pierroux, Oslo, Norway
p. 41 Fredrik Lindstrand Klas Roth, Stockholm university, Sweden
p. 82 Flickr Sven Sjöberg, Oslo, Norway
p. 124 van Gogh Alive: The Exhibition. Kurt Squire, UW/Madison, USA
© Grande Exhibitions Constance Steinkuehler, UW/Madison, USA
p. 125 Google’s Art Project. Daniel Spikol, Malmö University, Sweden
National Museum of Denmark. © Google Roger Säljö, Gothenburg university, Sweden
p. 135 Vaike Fors Elise Seip Tønnesen, Agder, Norway
Johan L. Tønnesson, Oslo, Norway
Barbara Wasson, Bergen, Norway
Tore West, Stockholm university, Sweden
Christoph Wulf, Berlin, Germany

ISSN 1654-7608
E-journal: ISSN 2001-7480
© The authors, 2012
© Designs for Learning, 2012
DidaktikDesign, Stockholm University,
Aalborg University

146

View publication stats