Upon visiting the Hammer Museum, I was pleasantly surprised to find such a wide array of exhibits displayed throughout. The minute I walked through the doors, I was greeted by a collection of art by Simon Denny that was meant to portray the extensive societal potential of the bitcoin as used in blockchain technology. At the forefront of this particular collection stood a singular TV screen that was playing a video giving background on the subject matter. Since this was not an interactive piece of technology, visitors were only given the option of staying to watch until it completed its loop or move on. To this moment, it is unclear to me whether the video’s purpose was to stand alone as an art piece or an education video. The video seemed to supplement a more extensive and detailed description of the topic as shown on the all as segmented pieces of text.
In my observations, I found that most visitors had a tendency to watch the video for a few minutes, move on to the wall text, realize that the content on the wall text is similar to what they just saw and heard in the video, and quickly move on to the next piece. In this way, the implemented technology seemed to serve as a mediator between the visitor and the traditional wall text through summarization and simplification. While the video gave a full and comprehensive overlook on the topic complemented by easy-to-follow visuals, it nevertheless took away from the gravity of the more detailed explanations on the wall descriptions. This proved to be problematic if one was not paying attention, since the rest of the collection was filled with tangible artifacts that painted the subject matter in a way that would only make sense if one had a clear understanding of its background.
In juxtaposition, the other set of technology I came across during my visit was very obviously part of the exhibition as art pieces. Inside of the At the Center of the World collection by Jimmie Durham, six separate TV screens were playing videos on a loop in a dark room. The content of each video was distinctively different and complemented by chairs and headphones that allowed the visitor to differentiate the experience of being immersed into each piece. These pieces portrayed more abstract concepts and the start and end of the loop was always unclear. I observed that people would often view these pieces as artifacts as they maneuvered their way through the entire segment. Most people were not afraid to explore every piece as the novelty of each drew them in. This was an interesting contrast to the previous implementation of technology, in the sense that the first video was more restrictive and almost required the viewer to watch in its entirety in order to fully comprehend it whereas the latter pieces were more free flowing and encouraged viewers to watch at the liberty of their own time and interest.
I love your observation about the way the video mediates people’s experience of the work!
I too went to the Hammer and saw these exhibits! I definitely felt that the videos in Jimmie Durham exhibition provided a very different experience from the video at the Simon Denny exhibit. But I think that was mostly due to the fact that Durhams videos were meant to be pieces of art while the Denny video was more background information.
I like how you compared these two exhibits! It’s interesting to see how people interact differently with the same piece of technology (the tvs) depending on how they are being used.