Materiality, as described by Steven Conn, offers “the simple pleasure of looking at and the thrill of being in the presence of real things, made by human hands through time and across space or fashioned by nature in all its astonishing variety”. But how does this “presence” of an object affect one’s understanding of it, or of its historical period?
When handling the 1900s news clippings about Oscar Micheaux and Archie Moore, I did feel the “thrill” and “presence” that Conn refers to. It was like holding a part of history. Being able to physically touch and experience an artifact is almost like being transported back to its time period. So, handling the actual object did affect my understanding, in the sense that it made me feel more emotionally connected to it, and more interested in learning more about the subject. However, I think there lies a discrepancy between an object that one can physically hold, and one that stays behind a glass case. In museums, it makes sense that people typically cannot hold the ancient sculptures or historic fossils or Renaissance paintings. But this also takes away from the “presence” and experience of materiality. Viewers are only allowed to observe the objects from a few feet away, and as much as “being in the presence of real things” is neat, it does not seem as able to enrich one’s understanding or provide an emotional connection to the history. Therefore, in this case, I argue that materiality- in terms of museums and historical documents- are especially enriching if one is permitted to actively interact with the object, and by extension, the object’s history.
Although it is exciting to see a physical piece of history, seeing it only through a glass case may actually promote a sense of disconnect because it is sealed and separated away from its modern viewer. For this reason, I really enjoyed the way that Smithsonian’s X3D objects encouraged the viewer to interact, and get up close to the object using 3D digital technology. While it may not be the actual, physical object, it still provides a way to experience the object more personally. I think that if there are not means to foster people’s connections with artifacts through physical interaction, then why not use technology to supplement that? If technology can promote a meaningful experience between a viewer and a part of history, than it becomes much more than just “the simple pleasure of looking”.
I agree with what you’re saying. While I prefer examining objects in person during my studies, there is something to be said about being able to “handle” 3D models, and the glass cases do cause a disconnect in museums vs our experiences in special collections. I wonder if there might be a way to bring this “presence” or “thrill” into digital representations/exhibits…
I wholeheartedly agree with the points you made about the “presence” and experience of materiality. I also felt transported back in time when physically handling the objects from the special collections, and at the same time I have also experienced a disconnect when visiting a museum and simply walking by glass case after case observing sealed objects. While the Smithsonian’s X3D technology encourages a digital interaction and connection with objects, I also think that another way that we can connect more with objects is through learning about their history. All the museums that I have been truly impacted by are ones in which I actually knew about the history of some of the objects that I was looking at. Hopefully there is a way that we can use technology to convey the history of each object without leading to a long, boring set of paragraphs that visitors rarely read or glance at.