According to "Can interactive mediation tools bridge the identity gap between the public and the art museum?" There are 6 types of experience the museums offer:
- Cognitive: Observation, concentration, understanding, memorization, knowledge acquisition
- Rhetorical: The meaning that one gives to the visit
- Hedonic-sensory: Aesthetic pleasure, positive or negative sensations and emotions during the experience
- Temporal: Ability to manage and optimize time as a resource
- Social: Visitor exchanges and interactions with other visitors and museum staff
- Active: Appropriation of the place
And my assume that even though art museums offer different dimensions of these experiences, not a lot of visitors get the variety range of experiences.
How bad would it be if this assumption is wrong?
- People want to talk about something when it is meaningful
- Museums currently provide only one perspective/voice
- Knowing contents increase interaction
I believe that providing a platform to share different perspective for museum goers who don’t know where to find value in visiting art museums will achieve a way interact with people and artworks with their own thoughts.
I will know this is true when I see different thoughts shared among visitors and the public that are not just how the museum itself describes the works and the visitor can describe their experiences in museums.
Approaching in System vs Thing
- no limitation in contents, audience, and space
- easy customization
- more involvement from the locals
One of the most obvious advantages in a designing system about creating a museum that can be installed anywhere is that it has no limitation in reaching out to the audiences in different locations. Once the system is settled, it will be easier to share the information the art/culture is giving out to gain knowledge who are not able to go to or not familiar with going to museums.
Also, the contents can be freely created with the free flow thinking and it can be easily customized to fit the culture around the neighborhood/area. More involvement of the people is also a positive thing.
- No control over the contents. Professionally curated contents vs. anyone does it
- Lack of support if special care is needed. Conservation, technical support, etc.
Disadvantages in this will be there is no control over the contents that are shown. This can simply mean the use of good art and cultural references but it also means contents are carefully curated by a professional who have spent their time studying the culture and art, it is somewhat already proved that it is important to know.
The budget will also be an issue. If the work of art needs special conservation technique or high-quality maintenance, it needs someone who knows it to take care of it. Even if it is shown in a digital format, it still needs somewhat technical supports which if museums are in charge of it, then they already have the resources to install or fix if any problem occurs. To be a system, those technical and physical resources have out of their own pocket or funded which can raise the bar in getting people involved.