This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the Hammer Museum located right here in Westwood. As an avid museum visitor I was excited to attend this local museum for the first time as I feel like I have constantly put a visit off due to its close proximity. The Hammer Museum was unlike any museum I have visited, from the floor plan to the actual structure. Since I am use to going to large, more mainstream museums such as The Broad or Met, I was surprised at the lack of exhibit space.
Altogether there were six galleries each hosting a different exhibition. I will say that it was rather a very interesting experience based on the fact that there was not much technology to interact with. I have never really questioned how much technology played a role in the experience of the museum but being aware of the impact really helped me understand how it really contributes to the make or break of the museum experience. I found it very hard to stay engaged in works that lacked visual background information or some element of technology to paint a bigger picture of the work. Reading the descriptions surrounding the work became tedious, when I just wanted to take in the work and its beauty. Jimmie Durham: At The Center of the World was one of the exhibitions that incorporated the use of technology. Walking into the room I was immediately drawn to the approximately 10 televisions in a dark section of the exhibit equipped with headsets only to be distracted by a constant ding in another corner of the room. This sudden activation of sound led me to a dinged up refrigerator equipped with a television set with presumed the same fridge being hit with stones, it was then that I found myself reading the description of the piece. I then made my way around the room looking at everything on display, skimping through the descriptions eager to just take in the work. I moved onto the next exhibit by Kevin Beasley where I was surrounded by colorful scarfs around what seemed like a Games of Throne type chair. There was no content just this one display, however I think that use of technology would have taken away from this experience, because this piece of art becomes yours in a sense. Its what you think the inspiration behind it is making you feel more connected.
The one exhibition that was nearly impossible to get into incorporated real life societal issues into a virtual reality experience. The waitlist was full so unfortunately I did not get to experience it myself but watched as people galloped into a dark room with some sort of glasses that looked borrowed from the future. The group responsible for the exhibition described themselves as the “world’s most foremost producers of virtual,augmented, and mixed reality.” The V.R. experience was intended to create room-scale virtual reality environments that placed users at the center of action. It took user into the violence and hostility the LGBQT community face and made them eyewitnesses in the sequence of events leading to Trayvon Martin’s deadly encounter with George Zimmerman.
Although I didn’t get to experience this exhibition it was by far my favorite because of its relevance to the issues going on in our world today. It isn’t everyday that we are allowed to witness things from a different perspective. If everybody had the opportunity to walk a day in someone else’s shoes how different would our world be? This technology was able to give people an experience that they will never forget, however it will not just be a memory but something can effect the way we each view or act towards each other. This has the ability to reach further than the confines of the museum.
Hi there! Great post. I think it’s interesting that you say at first that the lack of technology was problematic and reading the info cards was tedious, but that at least one exhibit without technology really made the exhibit a personal experience for you. I think that tension is one that museums fight with on a daily basis–how do you give patrons enough info but without drawing away from the experience? Thanks for pointing it out!
I also visited the Hammer and found the use of technology in the Jimmie Durham exhibit interesting. As you mentioned, they sectioned off the televisions in a darker room, perhaps for fear of the technology being too distracting, but then had a loud and repetitive loop on a screen which accompanied the physical art piece of the refrigerator. These two uses of technology almost seemed at odds to me, and although they probably had different goals, it is hard to say which use was better or worse.
Interesting post! I thought the use of technology in Jimmie Durham’s exhibit was jarring in a compelling way, that highlighted attributes of the art, rather than detract, but your perspective is intriguing. I also visited the Hammer, and was curious as to what your interpretation of the RISK game-themed exhibit was, which seemed extremely heavy on the technology.
I’m a little confused- did you find it harder or easier to concentrate with technology/didactics? it sounds like you wanted more technology but also wanted to just focus on the artwork itself?
This was a lovely and really engaging view of the Hammer. I appreciated that you took the time to work through all of the galleries and there is NEVER enough time to get in to the VR exhibits in any museum. The exhibition spaces will work it out over time but for now its always a long wait, if you get in at all. Your idea about the Beasley exhibit got me thinking about how we engage with art and incorporate our own choices into the spaces set up by the artist. I think that there is room for technological exhibits to foster the same sort of engagement that you had with the Beasley piece, but I’d say that if tech is part of the exhibit, it can detract too much. Perhaps its that the technology in some way mediates the experience of what is meant to be experienced directly?