The Computer As Catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of Ontario1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ILVS REVIEW 1(2) 1990 91 The Computer As Catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of Ontario1 Douglas Worts Exhibit Interpretation & Programming Department, Art Gallery of Ontario Visitors to art museums can frequently be heard to say, /II really don't know much about art/' a declaration that seems to alleviate any responsibility for being''knowledgeable'' about themasterpiecesinthegalleries. Whatisitthat drawspeopletotemplesofhighart, onlytohavethemconfesstheirperceived inadequacy at responding to the creative expression of otherhuman beings? There aremany possiblereasons whypeoplevisitartmuseums. Perhaps this phenomenonis due to the widelyheld belief that simple proximityto art is fundamentally "good" for personal development, quite apart from any actual fulfillment. There is some speculation that people visit art institutions in order to be perceived by their friends as /lhaving been" to such an inherently enriching site (Kelly, 1984). For those few who have pursued advanced education inthe visual arts, a museumvisit mayrepresent a desire to validate their acquired knowledge and understanding of art. Others may simply feel that museums are good places to take out-of-town guests. One truly satisfying thought would be that people visit art museumsbecause the creative expressions of artists through the ages somehow resonate with the visitors' own creative and perceptual potentials, allowing them to see the world and themselves in a new light. It will take a great deal of research to understand both what motivates individuals to visit art museums and what drives their reactions.2 Defining the potentials of visitor experiences will be at least as difficult. But for the 1 Parts of this paper are based on an article (Worts, 1989b), jointly published by Apple Canada Inc. and York University. 2For example, see Marilyn Hood's research into what motivates people to attend or not attend museums (Hood, 1985). Also, research currently underway at the Denver Art Museum compares expert viewers' approaches to the art gallery with the approaches of art novices and amateurs. 92 ILVS REVIEW 1(2) 1990 present,onethingis clear. Audience research <e.g., McDermott-Lewis, 1988; Worts, 1989a) shows that many visitors "graze" through art museums, spending only a few seconds with each work ofartbefore moving on to the next. And there is evidence that many feel uncomfortable or inadequate in thisprocess.Overthepastseveralyears, theArtGalleryofOntario(AGO) has beenattemptingto make gallery visits morepersonallysatisf'yingandmean ingful for the public by experimenting with interpretivedevices that better meet visitor needs. One of these devices has been the microcomputer. In this paper we will begin by examining the issues raised when com putersare integratedinto artexhibits. Secondly, we will consider the impact ofcomputersonvisitors to anexperimental artexhibit thatusedthis technol ogy to encourage visitor interaction with the art objects. Finally, we will examine a majorcollaborationbetweeneducationandcuratorial staffs using computers and other interpretive supports to enhance the public's involve ment in a permanent collection gallery. Computers in Art Museums: The Issues To many, the thought of computers alongside a Picasso is nothing short of sacrilege---a direct threat to the "resthetic integrity" of the art experience. Suchpervasiveattitudes withintheartmuseumcommunityhaveslowed the development of computer-based interpretive systems for visitors to art galleries. However, the few institutions pioneering such systems3 have discovered some of the previously untapped potentials of computers for helpingvisitors understandandenjoyartexperiences. Theyalso have found that computers can have serious pitfalls when improperly used. What are legitimate reasons for using computers in art exhibits? The answer to this question requires an examination of four different issues: • The potential of art to affect people in a meaningful way • The interaction ofart and visitors within museums • The capabilities of computers to direct a person's attention, provide relevant information, and otherwise build visitor confidence during interactions with art • The pitfalls of computer-assisted exhibits. The Potentials of Art and Art Museums Over the centuries, the ways humanity perceives and interacts with its en vironment have found expression in art. Traditionally, the visual arts have reflected humanthoughtsandemotions, valuesandattitudes. Thus,looking atartcanpotentiallyprovideinsightsinto thehumancondition,bothpastand 3 For example, the London Regional Art Gallery, London, Ontario, Canada. ILVS REVIEW 1(2) 1990 93 present. But perhapsmore importantly, art can provide, throughitsrealistic and symbolic representations, opportunities for a viewer to reflect onthe art experience itself from his/her own personal vantage point. Conscious per sonalization of the art experience maybe a critical component in facilitating manypeoples' appreciationofartobjects,becauseitbuildstheviewer'sconfi dence in his/hersubjective reactions. Further, itcanbe argued that withthis personalconfidencecomesgreatermotivationforaviewerto seetheartobject inthelargercontext ofits artistic, social, political oreconomicmilieu. Inother words, every vieweris capable ofbringingboth a subjective and an objective perspective to the art experience. Furthermore, a viewerwho responds to an artwork in both manners can generate a richer experience than if just one perspective is employed. For this to occur a viewer needs to enter into some kind ofsignificant interaction with the art object. Itis one of theresponsibili ties of the public art museumto create optimal conditions for this interaction to take place. The Interaction of Art and Visitors within Museums rwhy do people visit art museums?' and rwhat do theyget from a visit?' are important questions that have not been fully answered. While research and theoretical discussions are available (Chambers, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Robinson, R., 1986; Hood, 1985; Edwards, et aI, 1990; Housen, 1987; McDermott-Lewis, 1988; Screven, 1986; Williams, 1982, 1984, 1985), these studies fall short of providing full explanations for what actually happens to visitors during art museumvisits. What does seem clear is that the museum visit is a complex experience affected by many variables. Among these are visitor learningstyles, demographics, social relationships, buildingarchitec ture, themicro-environmentcreatedbyexhibitdesigns,thekindsofinterpre tive supports available, and so on. Some of these variables are controllable by exhibit design processes. Others are a function of the individual visitor and are difficult, if not impossible, to change-thesemustbe accepted and accommodated as much as possible. For example, 1earning style' is a major factor in how a person relates to the world-and people do learn in different ways. Some learn by exploring a particular problem and working their way towards a more abstract understandingofasubject. Othersintellectualizelearningbyfirst es tablishing an abstract framework, within which they attempt to solve a particular problem. Both styles are valid and lead the learner to new under standing.However,itisdifficulttodesign anexhibitthatallowseachlearning style to function naturally without causing chaos for all. This situation is made more complex with the recognition that many people have learning styles that fall somewhere between the two poles outlined above. Although it may be impossible to design art exhibits that lead visitors with different 94 ILVS REVIEW 1(2) 1990 learning styles to intended cognitive and affective outcomes, it may be possible,withtheaidofcomputertechnology, to assistindividualsto seekout and applyrelevantinformationintheir ownway. This approach would give greaterresponsibilityto thevisitorfor hisorherownlearningthantraditional forms of support such as authoritative information panels and extended labels. Itmust be remembered that learning style is only one of manyvariables that affect the visitors interaction with an exhibit. Whether the quality of visitorexperiences inmuseums improvesdepends onthe ability ofmuseum staffs to understand and accommodate the significant forces in both the members of the public and in the museum environment. The challenge to design new interpretive systems to address visitor needs, including com puter programs, will likely be an important frontier. Ifaudienceresearchinartmuseumshasrevealedanythingaboutvisitors, itis thattheirbehaviorissimilarto thatobservedinothertypesofmuseums i.e., it is generally unfocused and even superficial. This "grazing" phenom enon suggests that, for many visitors, the potential for meaningful experi ences is largely unrealized. Two major causes of the apparent superficiality of visitor attention to artworks are postulated here. The first is a lack of contextualization of the artbyvisitors, or the inability to put the objects into a meaningful context. This is often rooted in a lack of relevant information provided by the museum. The second is a lack of personalization of the artby visitors, which may stem from an absence of institutional validation of the visitor'spersonal experienceandresponse. Ifthevisitorscanfeel comfortable with their own personal reactions, seeing them as perfectly valid responses, they can thenextend their personal perspective into a more objective under standing of the artwork. Then the possibility for reward is great. But if the museum considers itself primarily as the arbiter of artistic "quality" in some