One of the last and best sessions at the MCN conference was on the Horizon report. I had planned to skip out on Saturday and tour a couple of museums. However, my better judgement got a hold of me and I knew that i should hear about the technologies culture institutions are adopting. It was a really great session, and ended up providing me with some of the best information to pass on to my stakeholders. I wish we could have talked about the items that didn’t get on the list and why. So, I was happy to see that Donald wrote up his thoughts on the panel session for his blog submission. Here it is:
Donald Urquhart
Director of Collections Management
Portland Art Museum
Last week, I attended my first MCN conference. On the first day, I became keenly aware that everyone around me had already drunk the techno Kool-Aid. The presenters and the participants all seemed convinced that technology is essential to the fulfillment of our respective missions. It was strangely comforting to commiserate about legacy systems and non-standard data. And it was encouraging to hear colleagues extolling the virtues of DAMs, Dashboards, and UPDIG, but I surprised myself by sometimes missing that other voice – the voice that defines actual reality in museums by the very personal interaction between the visitor and the object, unaffected by outside influence or distraction.
This feeling culminated on the last day of the conference, during the presentation of the Horizon Report. There, Susan Chun led an excellent dialogue about the future of technology in museums. Audience participation was great as the group discussed ways that emerging technologies will impact museum professionals in every aspect of our work. Topics ranged from open content to geolocation, but the subject that received the most attention was Alternative Interaction Devices. It was then that I longed for the traditional curatorial perspective.
In actual reality, there’s much we can do to enhance a visitor’s experience. We might begin by choosing a sympathetic wall color and investing in full-spectrum lighting. We almost certainly will add a label with basic tombstone information, and perhaps a didactic panel to convey an idea. It’s common now to further enhance the experience by adding an audio guide or podcast. Is there room, then for more devices? What happens if we add interactive iPhones, tangible object interfaces, and multi-touch environments? With these add-ons, I wonder if we run the risk of passing the point of diminishing returns – of deluding the experience instead of enhancing it.
Happily, some Alternative Interactions Devices exist which promise to strip away the add-ons. RFIDs and specialized sensors that track a movement, gaze, or gesture could enhance that moment in the gallery by personalizing the experience with minimal intervention. In the future, a painting could recognize me, then customize the information it conveys. It might sense my native language, education level, and art historical preferences. It might relate itself to the last work I visited, and then suggest the next. Or, if I preferred, it could say nothing. It could let me do all the work, without a label or didactic panel; without a download, or a kiosk, or a touch screen.
The beauty of such innovations is that they allow museums to meet a visitor on his or her terms. They leverage technology in ways that appeal to purists and technophiles, all in the fulfillment of the mission. This future may be a long way off, but it excites me, and I look forward to being a part of it.
