I visited the Hammer Museum and looked at the Jimmie Durham exhibit, which incorporated one piece by Cristian Manzutto, titled “Not About Me” (Jimmie Durham Documentation Project). Cristian Manzutto’s piece was located in a sectioned off area in the corner, with each of the three walls displaying a different part of the exhibit. These three parts comprised of: 1) the documentary video, 2) a timeline of Jimmie’s life, and 3) small videos, accompanied by a glass display of artifacts from Jimmie’s life. Manzutto incorporated several technology components throughout his entire work: a 5-hour video documenting Jimmie Durham’s life and 3 smaller videos of Jimmie speaking and interacting with audiences, paired with headsets for visitors to listen.
At first glance, I thought that the core part of the exhibit was the documentary video, since it was displayed on a big screen in the center of the exhibition area. However, after observing the flow of patrons over a period of time, I noticed that the majority of patrons first watched the smaller videos and examined the display of important pieces, including photos and exhibition brochures, located right beneath it. Most patrons spent around 2-3 minutes looking at these parts of the exhibit. The third wall of the exhibit had a timeline of Jimmie’s life, but surprisingly only one patron took time to read the timeline.
Patrons spent different amounts of time watching the documentary. One man spent nearly 15 minutes, completely focused and engrossed in the video. I also saw two ladies who chatted and watched the documentary for 3 minutes. One of the biggest patterns I noticed was that people paid close attention to the video when Jimmie was drawing his art and creating his various pieces. However, when the video showed an interview or Jimmie chatting, patrons tended to not pay as much attention– probably because the audio volume was too low, or the topic was not as interesting to them.
This distinction helped me realize how it is hard to have a definite opinion on how technology affects an exhibit– specifically, we cannot definitively say whether it makes it better or worse. Going through this process made me realize that the experience with technology is what you make of it yourself. You can choose to interact with the technology, such as using the headset to listen to the video, or you could choose to simply ignore it. Artists can implement technology into their work, but how it actually comes across to patrons really depends on them.
Reflecting on this particular exhibit, I found that I interacted with the documentary the most. I found the unscripted and candid nature of the documentary engaging and inspirational. Because I interacted the most with this particular technology, I found it valuable and intellectually provoking. However, to other patrons they may have found the other technology components more compelling.
I think when technology is the exhibit rather than a small part of the exhibit it has a greater presence in the museum experience for the patron. This exhibit simply used technology as an “add-on” piece, but not the central part of the exhibit. If, for example, the exhibit was only a documentary on a multi-screen panel, this would possibly give more insight into how technology as an exhibit itself changes the museum experience.