The Interactive Museum and Its Non-Human Actants

NORDISK MUSEOLOGI 2011 ● 1, S. 45-59

The interactive museum and its non-human actants

JONATHAN WESTIN*

Abstract: This explorative study highlights the different strands of interactive learning technologies available to museums and educational institutions, and analyzes their function as non-human actants from a perspective of power and discipline. Through a generalized symmetry I describe a specific technology – the interactive display – as an actant exercising the same autonomy as the other actants. This raises the non-human actant to the same level as the human actants and emphasizes how it controls an equal part of the communication. In this way I try to map out how an exchange is manifested through a network of actants where the technologies conserve the inquiring actant’s knowledge space rather than broaden it. Despite being offered as a technology to make the visitor heard, the result is as curated as the classic exhibition. I conclude that by themselves, interactive displays do not challenge authority at museums but instead reinforce it. Key words: Interactivity, non-human actant, technology, communikation.

Scene 1: The visitor contemplates the re- variation comes a bibliography of publications construction in front of her. It is a digital that support or discuss that very interpretation. rendition of the Sanctuary of Hercules Victor. At She scribbles down the name of an article that first glance it looks static, but then she notices that seems interesting (Sanctuary of Hercules Victor). it is slowly changing into an alternative interpretation of the same space. And then another Scene 2: A coloured trail winds through the one! This catches her eye. The visualization is landscape. It pulsates and beckons. She starts open; she can interchange various elements or running, following it over rocks, crossing a brook completely remove them. She can cycle between and in through the trees. Suddenly she sees her different versions of the same scene and choose goal; a stag! Motionless they stand observing each from a library of available media presenting other, looking for signs of imminent action. How different aspects of the sanctuary; sound clips, can she notify her pack about her prey? She pushes animations and text. As she cycles between the the H-key and howls. Seconds later the land is different elements of the visualization – removing alive with responses. It was very effective. Exiting a wooden structure here and changing the colours the simulation she seeks more information about of a wall there – she notices that with every this behaviour online (WolfQuest). JONATHAN WESTIN

46 Interactivity, learn-through-play, participatory realization of a two-way communication elements, community building and augmented brought on by an unchecked technology- reality; technologies all at the heart of the deterministic way of thinking. The technology future of exhibitions. Not to be perceived as in these ‘spaces of interaction’ – described as stale, many museums are slowly embracing the two distinct scenes above—constitutes a non- post-modern notion that history – and society human actant that forces certain questions and – is a multitude of conflicting and unique subdues others, turning an infinite number of voices and that the museum should be a possibilities into a pre-programmed few. The meeting place where these can be made heard focus this creates is an effective tool in (Westin 2009). In this tradition they nurture a education since it establishes a controlled positive wish to position the exhibition as milieu which allows for exploration within set a heterogeneous dialogue instead of a limitations leading to the exact series of homogeneous monologue – a communication conclusions that are being taught. Without where the visitor’s voice is an important aspect question, technology allows for new ways of of the exhibition and should therefore be reaching and teaching an audience (as engaged. Technology in the shape of the exemplified in Kahr-Højland 2007; Hazan interactive digital display is often seen as the 2007; Kenderdine 2007; Awouters et al 2009; most fitting instrument to establish this Anzai 2009; Cooper et al 2009), but it prevents dialogue (Witcomb 2007; Santillo Frizell and new solutions from being expressed. Westin 2009). In this new milieu, the visitor is The aim of this exploratory study is to free to choose her own path, sort through highlight two different strands of interactive conflicting reasonings and shape her own teaching/learning technologies and analyze experience. Where a museum visit was once a their function as non-human actant from a collective experience where a common perspective of power and discipline, as objective message, pace and order were set, the described by Michael Foucault (Foucault 1978. interactive display allows for alternative Discussed in Westin 2009). By putting focus subjective narrations. on power exercised by both sentient and non- Susan Hazan argues that media applications sentient actants, I try to map out how an idea serve to “enhance and extend the museum is manifested through a network where the mandate in novel ways, and even open up new technologies – to the same extent as the possibilities for those who may have humans – uphold a knowledge space and conceptualized themselves outside of the enforce it (see Latour 1992; Ivarsson 2010). museum, to be able to find a way in” (Hazan Furthermore, this study attempts to explain the 2007: 134),. This article shares this sentiment, practical ramifications of moving the but my view differs when it comes to the media communication to an interactive milieu where applications’ function as interpreters of action has to be represented. While the information. Far from being neutral forces, I technology in the network seemingly allows argue that although these participatory action, it is its capacity to forbid action – to technologies are aimed at improving limit – that makes it an interesting actant we communication and education, they are above can follow. These limitations shape our all else a disciplinary force – an impoverished interaction with what is presented through the THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

representation in the virtual space of the first I try to define what technology is in a 47 display, and decide what can and what cannot museum context, while I in the second describe be expressed. A representation is a rethought and analyze two empirical studies of interactive substitution for an event – not the event itself communication in an attempt to argue my – where a layer of interpretation and focus has thesis. The interactive spaces studied have been been added. Hence, the complexity of an event chosen for their diversity as well as the amount is displaced by a manageable representation of material they have afforded. Though they are that can be communicated, but is in this act not presently deployed at any museum, they translated to something new. represent two typical examples of interactivity I argue that you can never directly act in the aimed at communicating research to an interactive space, only choose between a series informed third party. They have their technical of predefined re-actions, which translates that counterparts in numerous museums around the interactivity subject to this study is not the world and will be a common sight in future about releasing power, but about forcing exhibitions. The first of the two spaces, the certain answers. This is a problem when an Sanctuary of Hercules Victor, has been co- exhibition wishes to use interactivity as a developed by the author as part of an technology to entice an audience to enter a interdisciplinary research project on heritage dialogue, since – as this paper proposes – digital management and communication – giving interactivity does not in its current form access to both the reasoning behind it and its support that kind of communication. As a technical specifications – while the second growing number of museums and educational interactive space, WolfQuest, has been institutions move their communicative thoroughly studied from its inception to its ambitions into a digital space, a lack of present state. The interactive display of the understanding about the non-human actants Sanctuary of Hercules Victor was presented at a that reside in most communicative technology press event in Rome 2009 at the Swedish could result in a dialogue that is conservative Institute of Classical Studies on the occasion of rather than progressive. It is therefore a state visit by the King and Queen of Sweden. important when designing interactive displays Present were the Swedish Minister of that the limitations of interactivity are Education, the Soprintendenza Archeologica di recognized, since they constitute a disciplining Roma e del Lazio and representatives from of the subject not always intended. To several of the foreign scientific institutes in discipline the communication between two Rome. Since then, the display has been subjects is in itself not wrong, and it can be presented at various institutes internationally as argued that it is often the preferred model, but an example of the possibilities of interactive digital interactivity should be revised or displays and how they could be used in a combined with other venues of communication museum setting. It demonstrated how a in situations where it is important that the representation shapes our perception of an opinion – or knowledge – of a visitor can be occurrence, and how the visual language could expressed. be used to encourage the audience to In terms of structure, I approach this issue by understand that there exist many possible dividing the article into two main parts. In the interpretations. WolfQuest is a freely available JONATHAN WESTIN

48 precursor to the immersive digital systems that simply behave. An actant, like a representations of historic settings thought to machine or technology, could consist of several become a common sight at many museums in micro-actants important to the macro-actant the future as collections give way for context. but possible to ignore until the macro-actant By visualizing this context through displays and fails in some way. Consider a computer. Until virtual reality settings, it becomes ”mobile, it starts behaving erratically, flickering and immutable, and reproducible” (Hermon 2008: turning itself off, it is to the end user a single 37; Latour 1986). WolfQuest has been actant akin to a black box (Latour and Callon awarded prizes by several institutions, 1981). However, if the user opens it up, trying including a 2009 MUSE award from the to fix it, it stops being a single actant and American Association of Museums and an becomes a network of actants – circuit boards, official selection by the National Science power inverters and CPU fans – all vital to the Foundation in the US to make a presentation computer but until recently something that the at the 2009 Senate Education Technology end user could ignore. Apart from the actants Showcase in Washington D.C. (www.wolf- that make up the technology of an interactive quest.org/about_overview.php). display, I will for this article not dwell on all the actants that make up a museum or visitor. In the communication network between two METHODOLOGY actants, A and C, through a third actant, B, As a method, I lean heavily on Actor-Network they all need to perform their duties in the Theory (ANT) and the work of Michel Callon network for communication to work. If the and Bruno Latour (see Callon 1986; Latour third actant – the technology through which A 1992; Latour 1993; Latour 2005). I describe and C interact – stopped functioning or if the exchange between the two communicating actant C refused to acknowledge actant B, the parties and the technology through which they network would dissolve and communication communicate as they were all actants capable of would be interrupted. For a new network to action. Through this generalized symmetry a establish itself and for the communication to structure consisting of three subjects becomes continue, all actants must re-negotiate their apparent, a structure which is then analyzed in positions in a way that makes them accept and its capacity of allowing or limiting action. ANT perform their duties. How can actant A and C is a sociology of associations which map out formulate themselves in a way that is both true how material and semiotics are combined into to the message and allowed by actant B to be a whole that is constantly challenged and expressed? How can actant B mediate this confirmed through negotiations. Just as in the communication in a way that allows actant A power theories of Foucault, where power is not and B to understand each other? something you can own, only exercise, the Actant B, the technology, emerges here as a actor-networks need to be active not to fall mediating actant – an actant that transforms the apart. A network is therefore not a constant but communication to make it mobile – and not a always new and dependent on all actants’ neutral intermediary, since both actant A and collaboration. An actant is a neutral term that actant C need to adapt their message to a form includes both actors capable of action and that actant B allows. This adaptation is in ANT THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

terminology referred to as a translation where render it neutrality and displays that decide 49 the offspring is a hybrid, the result of a how it should be understood (see Goodwin negotiation between several actants. To make 1994 for an analysis of how an archaeological this process visible, and to show how an open site is organized through the use of communication is translated into an enforced technology). This process does not end with structure through supposedly neutral the physical artefact but extends into its digital technologies, I intend to map out the representation where visual, dimensional, negotiation process in the initially described locational and environmental aspects are interactive spaces. This to problematize translated into images and numbers (for an interactive media as a mediating actant that account of this process see Arnold 2008). plays an increasingly larger role in museums’ Just as past technologies have shaped our communication with their visitors. Before that, perception of the museum object, new however, I wish to flesh out a definition of technologies often help conserve this technology in a museum context where perception instead of bridging the gap between previous technologies have shaped the object and visitor. So why talk about these institution and future technologies help latest technologies in museums and education conserve or develop it. as something different? Because they are communicative technologies that encourage action on behalf of the visitor. As an increasing MUSEUM TECHNOLOGY / CREATING THE number of questions are raised concerning the ARTEFACT shaping of knowledge and what ideologies The museum – though often perceived as a govern an exhibition, an outspoken objectivity conservative space – has always relied on is not enough (Stead 2004: 6). Technology – in technology all through the process of the shape of inclusive displays that encourage preservation and exhibition, and as a the visitor to contribute – is thought to remedy consequence it has been shaped as an institution this by exposing the subjectivity of history. by that very technology. Likewise, the object, However, an ever-present risk with interactivity and how we perceive it, has forever been is that it disciplines the actant into a structure changed. It is turned into a museum artefact – of finite choices rather than creating a milieu disconnected from its original context – as a which allows alternative interpretations to be result of how it has been processed through all expressed. Instead of communicating that there the transformations that the technologies of a are several different ways of interpreting an museum make up. The technological process occurrence, it can be understood as if the that transforms an object into a museum presented choices are the only choices, artefact – or museal fact, as Grahn puts it effectively solidifying their status. This is a by- (Grahn 2005) – includes a written description product of how interactivity imperfectly caters that decides what aspects are important; to the body’s function as both receptor and photography that decides how it should be transmitter – while it stimulates reception, it remembered; conservation efforts that decide allows only reactions to transmit and not how it should be perceived; exhibition design actions (Westin 2009). In that perspective, that that decides how important it is; spotlights that which the museum believes to be a relaxing of JONATHAN WESTIN

50 the old subject–object power relations is really can’t allow access to every part of an intricate just a repackaging which enforces the structure. system from one point in an effort to reduce steps since that would expose the user to too The non-human actant many conscious choices to be meaningful. By letting the visitor’s body become a part of Likewise, the interface cannot compart- the exhibition, you engage her analogue senses mentalize every choice since it would introduce and create a connection. In the physical too many reactions in reaching the required interactivity of the classical science museum, goal and therefore be perceived as less tractable. the body fills the function of powers – it creates To manage this conflict, the interface movements and connects elements. This differs anticipates what the user wishes to do and from the digital interactivity present in guides her. Herein dwells the “Non-Human humanistic arts where interactivity does not Actant”; digital interactivity must by design be always trace back to the activity, or reactivity, of a series of possibilities presented as choices in a the visitor’s body in other ways than through hierarchical structure and those choices are choices. However, the goal is the same; activate non-negotiable (Westin 2009). By introducing the visitor in a way that makes her involved in limitations in the form of choices, the user is the exhibition and makes her feel more like a guided by the non-human actant residing in contributor than a visitor and more like a the structure of interactivity, not by a person creator than a user, thus promoting a creative she can communicate freely with. reasoning that trains her inductive problem In a simple interactive space, two alternatives solving skills (for a discussion of the positive are being presented by the interface. Thus, the effects, see Greenfield 2009; Lee 2009). visitor has three choices; Pick 1, pick 2 or leave Neither a user nor a visitor can be a target it as it was. However, she may choose, she has group since these are descriptions of defined herself as a re-active object in this occurrences tied to a body for a finite period of structure – she has relented to the will of the time. It is therefore not practical to address interface, since those choices have been them as a social/psychological group or prepared and therefore only reflect the demographic (Barry 2001: 135). Of course, a knowledge put into the interface by the body can be compelled to use, or visit, programmer, and not the knowledge of the something on a regular basis creating a user visitor. When you accept an option, you always situation or an active visitor. re-act, never act. Hence, the dialogue between An active visitor is created by presenting a – two subjects has been displaced by a formula for the recipient – attractive end result as highly where the responding subject is limited to accessible, which makes the actions to reach a expressing what the inquiring subject allows. certain goal tractable. In user interface design The technology in this network of actants this is traditionally measured in steps or consists of a Non-Human Actant that promotes choices, where the optimal solution is the one and solidifies a reasoning; Communicating that requires the lowest amount of conscious Actant A (the Museum) that communicates reactions to reach a certain goal. It should be with Communicating Actant C (the Visitor) noted that the above sentence reveals the through Mediating Actant B (the Technology) complexity of the problem; the digital interface that disciplines Actant A into certain questions THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

and Actant C into certain responses. Actant A digital space the visitor is expected to navigate 51 can then remove itself from the conversation – at his or her own leisure as labyrinth and does so quite often – and let Actant B interactivity. This interactivity is not limited to handle Actant C all by itself, creating a milieu the navigation of digital representations of in which no new opinions can be voiced. physical rooms – the space that labyrinth interactivity concerns itself with is a space of stories, movies, interviews, texts and images STRANDS OF INTERACTIVITY: LABYRINTH AND that can be consumed and presented in any SIMULACRA variation and constellation. Labyrinth Power relations expressed through interactivity, as a pedagogical tool, is prevalent communication – both inside and outside the in the humanistic arts. Museums are frequently museum – take many forms and may not using labyrinth interactivity in their exhibitions always be apparent. By identifying action and when they offer up a selection of information reaction – along with consumption – as a in the form of text or audio clips, images and distillation of the processes that make up movies. In historical museums, interactivity is interactivity in the digital space, we can analyze often presented as a freedom of paths or a different forms of communication to see how shuffling of cards. Information can here be they are disciplined. Below I give a short digested at the visitor’s own pace through description of two interactive models which I different media and augmented reality. argue represent two distinct types of teaching/ Through the interactive display, the visitor can learning situations, where communication is pick what she is interested in, go back and forth established through a digital interface set to in the hierarchy of options, or simply choose to engage an audience in exploring layers of follow the default pre-programmed path. information in a way that aids a deeper Interactivity has a wider meaning than being a understanding. The aim is not to give a simple narration device; in a museum context it comprehensive account of all elements of these “promises to turn the unfocused visitor- interactive spaces but to identify and consumer into the interested engaged and communicate the role of the “Non-Human informed technological citizen” (Barry 2001: Actant”. These descriptions will constitute the 129). This description is applicable to labyrinth empirical material of my analysis. interactivity since it can be used to foster an The main focus of this paper is the digital understanding for alternative branches within a form of interactivity, and I only briefly mention given field. the physical form of interactive displays. The interactivity where the actant is Additionally, I am mostly concerned with the shouldering a role – with its own specific rules communicative aspects of interactivity where – I call simulacra interactivity. This interactivity the technology is used to create a connection, differs from labyrinth interactivity by including and I will therefore primarily address the artificial restrictions based on the analogue strands of interactivity aimed at communicating conditions and relations it sets out to mimic. research. Through this narrowing- down Simulacra interactivity differs from the process, I have identified two types of labyrinth interactivity by introducing the interactivity. I will refer to the design of a simulation of a body. The reactions are filtered JONATHAN WESTIN

through this body. The body does not have to and at a fraction of the time and cost of an be a digital representation of an analogue body, internship program” (Laughlin 2007). The but does consist of a series of restrictions that simulacra interactivity, like the simulacra of discipline the user into a modus operandi. These Baudrillard, produces an inter-link with the restrictions constitute an imperfect mimesis real that is tropic, but cannot be treated since they imitate the knowledge of the body – objectively as true or false (Baudrillard 1988: not the body itself – and are changed through 166–170. See also Doel and Clarke 1999: their translation into figures in the digital 266). sphere. The actant entering the simulacra interactivity accepts the restrictions as tropic Labyrinth interactivity and the Sanctuary of and works within them. The simulacra convey Hercules Victor the idea that the figure is seen, and treated, as a The interactive visualization of the Sanctuary of perfect representation of reality. It is an Hercules Victor consisted of a reconstruction – a aspiration of simulating reality with something scene depicting the templum of the sanctuary that is perceived as a possible substitution for in Tivoli, Italy – that was mercurial in its reality. NASA, developing a massive multiplayer constellation; the image shifted between two game, sees the educational gaming platform as distinct versions of the same scene – one as a a persistent, synthetic environment supporting serene garden area and the other as a lively education as a laboratory (BBC 18.01.2008, market. Most objects were removable, or could Wired 21.01.2008, Wired 22.01.2008). be changed into alternative interpretations “Virtual worlds with scientifically accurate which were supported by text that explained simulations could permit learners to tinker the reasoning behind them (fig. 1). The goal with chemical reactions in living cells, practice was to communicate an uncertainty rather than operating and repairing expensive equipment, trying to convince the user of a truth, and give and experience microgravity[…] [It] will foster her the freedom to express her own career exploration opportunities in a much interpretation of the space (see Santillo Frizell deeper way than reading alone would permit and Westin 2009 and Westin and Eriksson THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

2010 for a comprehensive description of the documents with alpha channels, and then 53 project). imported into Adobe Photoshop CS3, where To reach this goal there had to be they were assembled as a multilayer document. negotiations between a series of actants; the This allowed them to be combined in a variety instigator, the media and the recipient. In of ways. Each component of the assembled the negotiations between the museum Photoshop document was then exported as a (Communicating Actant A) and the interactive PNG image with the alpha channel intact and display (Mediating Actant B), the initial ideas imported into Adobe Flash CS3 as unique of the museum had to be translated into a movie clips that could be interchanged using structure that was supported by the tools at the ActionScript 3 language. The initial idea of hand. Technological possibilities, skill and time the museum has now – by being codified in affected this translation and shaped how the graphics, symbols, text and clear choices – been interactive display mediated the idea to the translated into a hybrid that both the visitor (Communicating Actant C). Further, interactive display and the visitor accepts. The not to break the communication, the visitor interactive display acknowledges this by demanded that the idea followed a certain working and the visitor acknowledges this by structure for it to be understood – as a recipient partaking in the communication. she had to be familiar with the meaning of the In making the components of the components of the interface to be able to visualization interchangeable, the interactive navigate the idea successfully – which further display allows the visitor to express her ideas translated the idea into a collaboration between about the space by controlling the combination all three actants. Through this negotiation of components. A wooden rail or a stone process the project took a detour from the balustrade? A coloured tent or a white canopy? initial plan – a plan which was interrupted by Red or white columns? Hence, a finite space the visitor’s perceived lack of interest – to a less was created and offered up for exploration. complicated one that was considered better suited to the task of engaging the visitor. Only Simulacra interactivity and WolfQuest symbols and modality markers that the visitor WolfQuest, developed by Minnesota Zoo in would instinctively recognize were used. conjunction with EduWeb (www.eduweb.com), Options were reduced and simplified so that is described in the press release as a wolf the visitor wouldn’t feel overwhelmed, and the simulator aimed at educating the player about language was adapted to be comprehensible by the wolf. Through the simulation of being non-scholars. The interactive display was made inside a wolf body and being confined to those possible through a number of software motions allowed by that body – lack of speech applications, which all shaped the product: and hands, but with great speed, hearing and Strata 3D Studio CX 5, Adobe Photoshop CS3 sense of smell – the visitor is expected to learn and Adobe Flash CS3. A series of 3D models about the ecology of the wolf. In the character were first created in Strata 3D Studio CX 5, of a wolf, the visitor can freely move about a each reconstructing the scene differently. Key vast digital landscape populated by prey and components were selected from each scene, other wolves with which she interacts (fig. 2). rendered as high-resolution Photoshop Furthermore, she is encouraged to seek JONATHAN WESTIN

alternative sources – one such source being the through literature. The developers choose wolf biologists available through the game’s Unity as a 3D game engine and brought in online presence – and contribute to the external expertise on both 3D modelling and community through art and stories. So how do game engine optimization to adapt their vision you create a digital wolf simulacra? for the integrated authoring tool. Furthermore, EduWeb (Communicating Actant A) had an they established an advisory committee to assignment from Minnesota Zoo to create an provide the project with additional expertise to interest in the ecology of the wolf through inform both the design and dissemination of interactive media. The aim of this interactive the project. media (Mediating Actant B) was to give the WolfQuest, as a teaching/learning space, had visitor (Communicating Actant C) a deeper to be a product of EduWeb’s collected understanding of the various aspects of a wolf’s knowledge about wolf ecology – obtained from life. For there to be uninterrupted Minnesota Zoo and a group of consultants – communication between EduWeb and the where certain key characteristics were identified visitor, WolfQuest had to attract the attention that could easily be communicated and learnt of the visitor. This was achieved through through experiences, or translated into stylized, presenting WolfQuest as a fun experience that turn-based social interactions. These let the visitor quickly learn through play. A characteristics were then turned into figures translation on a grand scale was necessary; and, as a method to even out the learning information was adapted and codified so the curve, translated into a language of symbols visitor could navigate it from a wolf’s point of that could both be processed and visualized by view. By putting her in the simulated body of a WolfQuest and which the visitor could relate wolf and then let her experience and react to to. A coloured trail represented lingering scent different situations that highlighted the ecology and a compass communicated the wolf’s ability of a real wolf, she was both enticed to stay in – to “read” the land. The complex emotions or keep returning to – the interactive teaching/ involved in a howl were mapped to a single key learning space and gain an understanding for stroke. EduWeb’s and Minnesota Zoo’s aspects of the wolf that are hard to obtain solely knowledge of the wolf has successfully, just as THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

in the case of the Sanctuary of Hercules Victor, information space controlling order, selection 55 been translated into a hybrid that is both and pace. This interactive setting is a closed allowed by the interactive space and accepted space where the visitor is only free to transmit by the visitor. Once again the interactive within its borders. display acknowledges this by working and the Simulacra interactivity gives you a role to visitor acknowledges this by partaking in the play. By playing this role, you learn about its communication, an act measured by the relations in the surrounding world. The reported 400,000 downloads and the over one simulacra interactivity functions as a visualized million forum posts (www.wolfquest.org/ presentation of these relations, setting up rules about_overview.php). for how certain reactions foster subsequent reactions. However, these relations are figures based on pre-programmed conclusions that are ANALYSIS enforced by the non-human actantt. In your The two strands of interactivity briefly role you try to solve a problem – how to find described – the result of a series of detours and food – but the tools at hand only let you negotiations made necessary by earlier failures proceed in ways the non-human actant deems – are teaching/learning environments that right. By utilizing knowledge gained outside work in seemingly very different ways, but the the role, the player evolves the simulacra communication is disciplined through the interactivity, making the experience richer by same non-human actant. The simplest form – applying a layer of insights to the motions of labyrinth interactivity – functions as a the role. This creates what Baudrillard calls the visualized presentation of ideas. These ideas are hyperreal; something more than what is available through a series of choices presented imitated, augmented into a perfected reality by the interface. The interface – the non- through the ambition of mimicking reality. human actant – allows the visitor to navigate This is analogue to the physical interactivity information made available, but does not present at natural science museums, where the afford her any active way of communicating reality of the effect is the starting point and a her interpretation of the space back to the state is conjured where the interaction of the museum, since her expressions are limited by user produces that effect through movements the pre-programmed alternatives handed down that are tropic to the actual relations. to the interactive display from the museum. Though both of the described strands of Hence the non-human actant allows the visitor interactivity allow movements, what sets them to react to what is presented, but does not allow apart is the way the non-human actant her to act. Labyrinth interactivity is therefore disciplines the movements of the user; the the freedom of choosing from available versions forced movement within the created borders of of stories, consequently navigating conflicting the labyrinth interactivity or the forced themes, and choosing from a variety of media movements within the created digital body of representing aspects of these stories. As the the Simulacra interactivity. The first presents a description implies, these stories can be finite material for the body to arrange in a finite navigated as a labyrinth where the visitor may number of possible ways while the second puts choose different paths on the way through the you in a digital body that operates in a world JONATHAN WESTIN

56 with clear and unbreakable rules. Even though they seem disparate, what unifies these spaces is how they displace action with reaction and thus – through the non-human actant – limits the communication to choices within the established knowledge space. The museum shoulders the role as a guiding subject who, gracefully, reaches out to another subject, the visitor, and asks her to voice her meaning Fig 3: Both the museum’s and the visitor’s knowledge spaces are mediated, and thus translated, by the narrow through the interactive space. By putting the interactive space. © 2011 J. Westin. answering subject into a milieu built by the enquiring subject, the latter controls the possible expressions of the former. Thus all responses presented by Actant B in the choice given in the interactive sphere is by interface. If Actant A has decided that a wolf consequence a disciplining of the respondent can only contact other wolfs through a certain into a knowledge space controlled by the behaviour, then that behaviour is by code the instigator (Westin 2009). However, even only one that is accepted by Actant B. The Actant A, the instigator, has been disciplined visitor must play along even if she has other into certain expressions by the non-human additional ideas about how to solve the problem. actant. The question changes from “what can I as a When Actant A wishes to communicate with wolf do?” to “what would EduWeb and their Actant C, Actant B forces Actant A to express enrolled experts think a wolf would do and this communication through specific questions how have they translated that behaviour to and responses. In the interactive visualization WolfQuest?”. Thus, action is in all instances of the Sanctuary of Hercules Victor, this is displaced by reaction, confined to a few expressed by Actant A through the indirect permitted responses, and a vast knowledge question “how do you think it might have space is narrowed down to fit within the looked?”, a question that must be answered by interface of the interactive space (fig. 3). Actant C through the series of possible When designing an interactive interface the responses presented by Actant B in the museum essentially locks it down; it brings its interface. There is no way for the visitor to building blocks to the table, blocks that the point out a fourth or fifth option based on her visitor could arrange in a number of ways, but own expertise and truly partake in the dialogue the museum will not allow them to be replaced. on her own terms. The museum’s knowledge However, this analogy is intentionally flawed – space remains intact, and unchallenged, since at an actual table the visitor, if unhappy with no other voice can make itself heard. the present selection of building blocks, could In WolfQuest, the power relation is clear some of them away and empty her bag established by Actant A through the indirect right there, exposing to the museum and other question “how do you wish to notify your visitors her selection, and build a structure true pack?”, a question that must be answered by to her message. It might not look as Actant C through the series of possible professional as those built by the museum’s THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

blocks, but it would be a more honest answer 57 to the museum’s wish that the visitor’s voice be heard. There is no non-human actant there at the table to discipline her response and stop her from partaking in the dialogue on her own terms, even though, admittedly, all the non- human actants that make up a museum environment could have enough of an intimidating effect to make her not to. Fig 4: An alternative channel outside the interactive Back in the interactive space, all movements space, which permits a less constrained communication. are disciplined by the available options in the © 2011 J. Westin. interface – a digitized selection of the museum’s knowledge put there at the birth of the non- to engage the visitor and make her a part of the human actant and since then enforced by the exhibition, but, as I have shown, functions as interface – and there is no channel that allows an autonomous actant in the communicative the visitor to express herself outside the exchange, which limits the dialogue to the building blocks the museum hands her. There museum’s knowledge space rather than is no digital equivalent of clearing the table and including the visitor’s. emptying your own bag of experiences and I have described two interactive situations, ideas. So why do the museums then keep each representing a typical example from a asking the visitor to make her voice heard when distinguishable form of interactivity. In both all she can do is choose between answers given examples there has been a network consisting to her? of three macro-actants; Communicating Actant A, Mediating Actant B and Communicating Actant C. When Actant A and Actant C wish to CONCLUSION communicate they have to go through Actant The technologies at the heart of the future of B, the non-human actant. What lacks in both museums are all communicative technologies, models is an element of feedback from Actant and in all communication there are at least C that alters the fundamentals of the three actants; two communicating actants interactivity, and transforms it beyond the and the medium through which they intentions of the initial action by breaking the communicate, be it voice, signs or technology. fishbowl all interactivity resides in. The In this study I have described, through a simulacra interactivity described, however, had generalized symmetry, a specific technology – established a communication channel outside the interactive display – as an actant exercising the interactive space in the form of the available the same autonomy as the other actants. This “wolf biologists” and a dedicated forum. The raises the non-human actant to the same level user, if enterprising, could turn to these as the human actants and emphasizes how it channels and establish a dialogue about the controls an equal part of the communication in subject where she can express herself in a way an exhibition. The non-human actant is not permitted within the interactive space. initially programmed by the instigating actant This holds true in a museum context; when JONATHAN WESTIN

58 employing interactive displays aimed at The virtual representation of the past. Ashgate: creating a communication with the visitor – a London 2008: 159–170. communication where the visitor’s input is Awouters, Valère et al: Awouters, V., Jans, R., Jans, taken seriously – you also have to provide a S., Veltjen, A. “How can teachers integrate games channel outside the interactive space where the in their education”. ED-MEDIA 2009 Procee- visitor can express her thoughts about the dings. AACE: Chesapeake 2009: 2720–2724. experience (fig. 4). As stated in the introduction; Barry, Andrew: Political machines – governing a interactivity is a great pedagogic tool since the technological society. Athlone: London 2001. visitor is free to navigate a large amount of Baudrillard, Jean: “Simulacra and simulations”. Post- information at her own pace. However, most er, M. (ed.) Selected writings. Stanford University interactive models can never be a source of Press: Stanford 1988: 166–184. information beyond the scoop of their creator BBC 18.01.08: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technolo- – they can never in themselves be a dialogue gy/7195718.stm. Accessed on 21 January 2011. between museum and visitor. By itself, an Callon, Michel: “Some elements of a sociology of interactive display does not challenge authority translation: domestication of the scallops and the but instead reinforces it through discipline. fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay”. Law, J. (ed.) Power, It is a challenge to find a pedagogic approach action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? that opens up a technology to action instead of Routledge: London 1986: 196–223. reaction, by-passing the inherent subject– Cooper, Tessa et al: Cooper, T., Carroll, S.P., Liu, C., object relation of the museum. A visitor could Franklin, T., Chelberg, D. “Using the virtual very well be better informed about a certain world of second life to create educational games subject than the museum, but interactive for real world middle school science classrooms”. displays in their current form, I argue, do not ED-MEDIA 2009 Proceedings. AACE: Chesapeake offer an opportunity for these visitors to express 2009: 2124–2134. themselves and share their knowledge, as a Doel, Marcus A. and Clarke, David B.: “Virtual consequence of the non-human actants. By worlds – simulation, suppletion, s(ed)ucrion and acknowledging the non-human actant’s role in simulacra”. Crang, M., Crang, P. and May, J. disciplining any communicative exchange, (eds.) Virtual Geographies – bodies, space and museums and developers can take steps to relations. Routledge: London 1999: 261–283. minimize its effect and deploy several layers of Foucault, Michel: The history of sexuality, 1: an interaction to allow both the museum and the introduction. Pantheon Books: New York 1978. visitor as much freedom in their expressions as Goodwin, Charles: “Professional vision”. American possible. Anthropologist. No 3, 1996: 606–633. Grahn, Wera: “Från vardagsföremål till museala fakta”. Aronsson, I. and Meurling, B. (eds.) Det REFERENCES bekönade museet. Uppsala universitet: Uppsala Anzai, Yayoi: “Play and learn with mobile technolo- 2005: 95–122. gy”. ED-MEDIA 2009 Proceedings. AACE: Greenfield, Patricia M.: “Technology and informal Chesapeake 2009: 3520–3526. education: what is taught, what is learned”. Arnold, David: “Digital artefacts: possibilities and Science. No 323, 2009: 71–69. purpose”. Greengrass, M. and Hughes, L. (eds.) Hazan, Susan: “A crisis of authority: New lamps for THE INTERACTIVE MUSEUM AND ITS NON-HUMAN ACTANTS

old”. Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (eds.) The- 2007. Accessed on 21 January 2011. 59 orizing digital cultural heritage – a critical discour- Lee, Chien-Sing: “Scaffolding everyday creativity: a se. The MIT Press: London 2007: 133–148. spiral cascaded curriculum development appro- Hermon, Sorin: “Reasoning in 3D: a critical apprai- ach”. ED-MEDIA 2009 Proceedings. AACE: sal of the role of 3d modelling and virtual recon- Chesapeake 2009: 770–775. structions in archaeology”. Frischer, B. and Santillo Frizell, Barbro and Westin, Jonathan: “Dis- Dakouri-Hild, A. (eds.) Beyond illustration: 2D playing Via Tecta”. Bjur, H. and Santillo Frizell, and 3D digital technologies as tools for discovery in B. (eds.) Via Tiburtina: space, movement and arte- archaeology. Archeopress: Oxford 2008: 36–45. facts in the urban landscape. Acta Instituti Roma- Ivarsson, Jonas: “Developing the construction sight: ni Regni Sueciae: Motala 2009: 219–230. architectural education and technological change”. Stead, Naomi: “The semblance of populism: Natio- Visual Communication. No 9, 2010: 171–191. nal Museum of Australia”. The Journal of Archi- Kahr-Højland, Anne: “Brave new world: mobile tecture. No 9, 2004: 386–397. phones, museums and learning”. Nordisk Westin, Jonathan: “Interactivity, reactivity and activi- Museologi. No 1, 2007: 3–19. ty: thoughts on creating a digital sphere for an Kenderdine, Sarah: “Speaking in rama”. Cameron, F. analogue body”. ED-MEDIA 2009 Proceedings. and Kenderdine, S. (eds.) Theorizing digital AACE: Chesapeake 2009: 814–819. cultural heritage – a critical discourse, 2007: Westin, Jonathan and Eriksson, Thommy: “Imaging 301–332. UTG, ORT the Sanctuary of Hercules Victor”. Bernardini, F. Latour, Bruno and Callon, Michel: “Uscrewing the and Santarsiero, D. (eds.) Archeomatica. No 2, big Leviathan: how macro-structure reality and 2010: 58–62. how sociologists help them to do so”. Knorr- Wired 21.01.2008: www.wired.com/wiredscien- Cetina, K and Cicourel, A. V. (eds.) Advances in ce/2008/01/would-you-play. Accessed on 21 Ja- social theory and methodology: toward an nuary 2011. integration of micro- and macro-sociologies. Wired 22.01.2008: http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci- Routledge: London 1986: 277–303. ence/2008/01/nasa-seeks-inpu.html. Accessed on Latour, Bruno: “Visualisation and cognition”. Hess, 21 January 2011. D., Layne, L. and Rip, A. (eds.) Knowledge and Witcomb, Andrea: “The materiality of virtual tech- society: studies in the sociology of culture past and nologies”. Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (eds.) present. No 6, 1986: 1–40. Theorizing digital cultural heritage – a critical dis- Latour, Bruno: “Where are the missing masses?: the course. The MIT Press: London 2007: 35–48. sociology of a few mundane artifacts”. Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds.) Shaping technology/building society. The MIT Press: London 1992: 225–258. *Jonathan Westin, M.A, PhD-student Latour, Bruno: “Ethnography of a ‘high-tech’ case”. Lemmonier, P. (ed.) Technological choices. Address: Department of Conservation, Routledge: London 1993: 372–398. University of Gothenburg, Box 130, Latour, Bruno: Reassembling the social. Oxford SE-405 30 Göteborg, University Press: Oxford 2005. Sweden Laughlin, Daniel: www.fas.org/programs/ltp/publications/NASA%20eEducation%20Roadmap.pdf, E-mail: [email protected]