Isaac’s case study of the National Museums of the American Indian is the potentially the best demonstration of many of the issue and tensions that we have been discussing in class. The Museums aim in incorporating technology into the museum was to open the discussion about the objects, express different cultural view points surrounding the objects, and to moderate the ideas of both letting the object speak for itself as well as culturally contextualizing it. The intention is very positive, as it always is, but Isaac notes several ways in which the technology doesn’t work out as planned. The overwhelming amount of it can be distracting, some visitors never look up from the screens (particularly the younger generations). The act of never looking up, however, seems to be a very common current trend in younger generations, period. I’m always amazed walking through campus and seeing how many people never look up from their phones while crossing streets, or just walking down sidewalks. I have a suspicion that the screen viewing obsession is not something that museum curators took into consideration when working to incorporate technology into the exhibits. But videos, and tv screen tend to be distracting anyways, partly due to the fact that they produce sound. In an otherwise sound-less environment, where the only sound is the mumbles/talking of visitors and the shuffling of feet, music and the projected dialogue of the videos can capture attention easily. They are also attractive because they are more “conversational” let’s say, than looking at something that is behind glass – videos talk to you, present a stream of images of objects or people, and give you information with you having to interact with the objects (they present it without you having to go look for it, or read it – the idea of digital story-telling). Isaac’s conclusion states that while the NMAI has a wonderful intention of broadening the cultural scope of the museum, they seem to be teetering on the edge of having added to much mediation between viewer and object.
2 thoughts on “Appropriating week 4”
Comments are closed.
This is a very interesting analysis of the case study being analogous to our current state of society to be completely dissolved into our technology. The examples and moments you describe are perfectly on point and reflect pretty clearly the society we live in today — this concept of just “looking up,” has suddenly become something we have to actively think about rather than something innately done and its something worth pondering further on.
That is a really interesting opinion on how Isaac’s case study on the NMAI is a reflection of our technology-driven generation. On that token, do you think that part of the reason why people are so connected to the screens is because they want interaction? I know quite a few people who think it’s awkward to go to a museum by themselves because they don’t get to share their thoughts/talk to someone else, and subsequently spend a lot of their time on their phones. Maybe that’s another aspect of the problem.