A une Damoyselle Malade
Ma Mignonne
Je vous donne
Le bon jour.
Le sejour
C’est prison :
Guerison
Recouvrez,
Puis ouvrez
Vostre porte,
Et qu’on sorte
Vistement :
Car Clement
Le vous mande.
Va friande
De ta bouche,
Qui se couche
En danger
Pour manger
Confitures :
Si tu dures
Trop malade,
Couleur fade
Tu prendras,
Et perdras
L’embonpoint.
Dieu te doint
Santé bonne
Ma Mignonne
-Clement Marot
The poem itself, a silly get well card of sorts, has little relevance to museums, technology, or the digital humanities. What matters is that it’s featured as the topic of the first story on season 13, episode 1 of Radiolab. The episode is called “Translation,” and this particular story details Douglas Hofstadter’s obsession with translating the poem into English. After many years, dozens of translators, and hundreds of versions, no one poem managed to maintain Marot’s strict form, lighthearted tone, and original content all at once. Hofstadter makes the point that just as one cannot understand the essence of a person based on a single photograph, one must read a collection of translations to truly understand a poem. In a world where technology has the potential to either enhance or detract from the museum experience, where “museums will have to find new ways to tell stories and engage their audiences,” this holistic approach to translation might act as a crucial tenet of the marriage of museums and technology (Museums in the Digital Age, 2013).
The ARUP article cites collaboration and diversification as two themes that museums must seek to incorporate in our increasingly global and desensitized society. Hofstadter’s approach speaks to both of these issues: by inviting and sharing translations of the poem done by people of all walks of life, he engages disparate people in an obscure, arguably irrelevant 16th century poem, to the point that they undergo a shift from apathy (I am projecting and generalizing here, but I know that if I had come upon this poem, I would’ve glanced at it, recognized a few words I knew, and never given it a second thought), to connection on a very personal level. In fact, in the comments section on the Radiolab website, members of the general public offered their own translations and insights, proving a deeper engagement with the piece. Further, the vehicle of Radiolab, as a popular podcast, allows for the expansion of the audience of the poem in a way that an anthology of 16th Century French poetry, for example, would not. In fact, “Translation” has the most downloads of any Radiolab episode ever. Scholars of Marot can only dream of his poems, on their own, reaching even a fraction of that audience.
The integration of technology in museums can serve a purpose similar to the effects detailed above. If one applies Hofstadter’s approach to the considerations detailed in the ARUP article, technology can have the ability to contextualize objects, further their storytelling, expose diverse audiences to them, and facilitate engagement with them on a deeper level, in a way that the traditional museum setting cannot.
I agree that technology can facilitate viewers’ engagement with an object as well as with one another and foster broader interpretations that add complexity and dimensions to people’s understanding of an object. Many museums are already taking an active role in integrating technology in exhibitions – the Rain Room in LACMA, for instance. The Rain Room uses science and technology to create an immersive experience of what it’s like to control rain. Although the Rain Room gives a chance for many viewers to share an experience together, the dialogue about the art work that percolates is primarily inward and one-way, between the artist and viewer. The viewer asks his or herself, why did the artist make the Rain Room? What message is the artist trying to convey ? How did the artist create the space? Why did the artist choose rain, not snow? For museums to incorporate a more holistic approach of “translation,” they should incorporate more open, interactive spaces, programs or activities that allow viewer-to-viewer dialogues about artworks. Ideas need to be shared for them to have any bearing. But if thoughts that viewers form about exhibitions and installations at museums remain in this inward space and never see the light of day, it will be hard to achieve diversification through collaboration.
I truly enjoyed this post. The comparison between poem translations and different understandings of artwork was very insightful. I can easily foresee museum creating digital spaces that can open forums for discussions about specific art pieces. By creating a space such as this, the museum would be able to actively engage with their visitors. Similarly, an idea like this would enable a broader range of people to have their interpretations of art heard.
I’ve actually listened to this Radiolab episode a while back, and I appreciate your thoughtful connection back to the issue of contextualizing objects within the museum setting. Does context and information distract from the object itself? Does it further complicate its meaning, perhaps lead us to different meanings that were not originally intended? Like the translation of this poem, with each interpretation, we get farther and farther away from the true essence and meaning of the original work, which makes contextualization a complicated matter.
Fascinating! This reminds me that some of my favorite museum exhibits are those that actually lay bare the act of curation. For example, the New-York Historical Society has open shelving for its artifacts, which allows the visitor to wander among the objects and think about those objects that made it into exhibits and those that didn’t. It seems as though the Radiolab episode is interesting in part for the same reason: it highlights not only the poem itself but the mechanism of its translation.
I loved your example that you used. The Radiolab you referenced sounds really interesting, and this sparked me to listen to it. I thought it was interesting that like the poem, when it is translated each time it loses a little of its essence as the poem itself. I feel like the same can be said when looking at artwork, the more it is interpreted and worked – the less it is just appreciated for it as itself as the art piece. I thought your comments were really insightful and thought-provoking!