The Hammer Museum primarily serves as a center of art and culture. Though it is still in its infancy, it continues to try to showcase more progressive themes. At the moment, here is not much technology used to complement exhibitions, other than some video displays and its main website. As most exhibits revolve around art, there is greater emphasis on observing the artworks themselves, rather than introducing digital material, unless that is part of the artist’s medium. As such, there is not a lot of interactivity between visitors and the exhibits.
However, the digital content developed for the Simon Denny exhibit was very well-done. The video that played on the screen outside the exhibit introduced the significance of blockchain in representing and recording our human interactions. A blockchain is a protocol for an online database, that can record and execute a number of transactions, from contracts, to property ownership transfers, to elections. The video showcased a number of visually stunning effects, as well as a well-scripted narrative.
In terms of exhibition context, it showcased a set of alternative versions of the popular Risk game, in order to show the differing views of three blockchain enthusiasts on the future, with larger-than-life game boards and game pieces. In essence, each game was designed to demonstrate Denny’s interpretation of each visionary’s agenda. The walls were lined with descriptions, describing his concept of introducing blockchain into gameplay. There were some items that were shaped like one of the dice that he introduces, with an image placed in an embedded back-lit display.
I briefly interviewed the staff member that was watching over the space, Marissa, who mentioned that this particular exhibit was much heavier in text than the majority of their exhibits, in order to explain the definition and significance of blockchain and cryptocurrency, as well as the game design. Most visitors were not that interested in reading the didactic material, predominantly spending around 90% of their time browsing the objects. It was also mentioned that though the video outside was well-produced, many visitors were not well-aware of its connection to the exhibit inside.There were many panels of text outside, which contributed to the story, including many that seemed to frame online articles regarding bitcoin, its creator, and other related content.
Although the core of the exhibit did not feature much integration of technology, the video on the outside display was very helpful in understanding the context. Despite it being roughly only three minutes in length, I did not observe many people taking the time to watch it in its entirety. This may be due to the fact that it is outside, adjacent to a courtyard space. However, it is quite ironic that though it is so short, and we are now heavy consumers of media content, from a variety of streaming services, that a video at a museum, an institution of authority, would still be unable to capture the interest of its visitors for a mere three minutes.
I love that you took the time to speak with a staff member! Reading your post, I began thinking about how artists must now create works that take into account the way viewers will be engaging with ambient media (phones, mostly) even as they encounter the art. I wonder how this changes works of art themselves.
I thought your post was very interesting, and the exhibit sounds very interactive in the way it immerses you in realm of this emergent technology. It seems as if inviting this technology into the space of an art museum requires a lot of expository and contextual information. In a way, too, this technology is approached with an ironic tone as well – I can’t help but laugh at the use of Github/4Chan/Reddit Alien amalgam as a troop piece in the RISK game. I’ll definitely want to look into this exhibit more, thank you!