Once again, I had found myself at the Getty Center. This time I took a stroll inside the permanent exhibition. The second floor of the Getty’s permanent exhibition buildings are dedicated to paintings. The space is laid out and designed simply; the interior is designed using all neutral colors and the only items that adorn the wall are the colorful paintings and small placards with descriptions. Additionally, the whole exhibit was shrouded in silence. As you can imagine, the space is pretty much designed in a classical way; as opposed to greatly integrating technology or making the exhibit interactive.
If you can recall my last post, I discussed how the Getty Center’s temporary exhibit on Bouchardon featured only one element of technology; a tablet propped up next to an artifact, with a looped video showing how the item was made. It seems the Getty has a standard for only using minimal technology throughout its exhibits.
The above picture shows the only use of technology within the entire upper level of the building. By the exit of the exhibit, they placed two medium-sized touch screens with large headphones. Placed in the hallway, far from the paintings themselves, the touchscreens felt very out of place. And unlike the Bouchardon exhibit, it did not catch the attention of the patrons.
I stood by and watched as literally everyone passed by the screens. Many didn’t even give the touchscreens so much as a passing glance. Most people would slowly male their way through the exhibit, standing or sitting on benches to view the large Italian and French Renaissance paintings. Patrons seemed to be enthralled by the paintings, their sole purpose of being within the space. Once they were done, they seemed eager to leave and see more exhibits. This is when they would head for the exit.
The visitors would either come to discover that there was some form of interactive technology or just unknowingly pass it by as if it didn’t exist. Even if visitors realized it was there, they would never stop to actually use.
This could be because it was awkwardly placed in a corridor, near an exit. Or perhaps because there was no seating in front of the screen, making patrons less likely to want to watch a full video. Even more, perhaps since there was only two touchscreens, those in groups larger than two felt less inclined to use it.
I gave it a try and found the content itself to be interesting, but the physical placement of the technology to be uncomfortable. With videos about J. Paul Getty himself to informational videos on art techniques, the content was very interesting. Plus, the noise cancelling headphones made the experience even more intimate. What ruined it for me personally, was the fact that I had to stand there for the entirety of my interaction with the touchscreen and there were so many people constantly walking behind me.
I definitely feel that the Getty Center should improve upon their integration of technology, making the experience more comfortable for the patrons.
Your observation of the visitors just passing by either not noticing the technology, or choosing not to use it, is so interesting because museums are feeling this pressure to bring technology into the museum space to stay relevant and excite the people visiting, but it is doing the opposite in this case. I think this is also one of those situations where we feel so self-conscious of how we act in a museum that it can be difficult to use the technology if others aren’t using it. There’s this stigma that if you are the only one using the technology and everyone else is looking at the art, you aren’t viewing or experiencing the works in the “right” way. I definitely agree that it sounds like the Getty needs to improve the placement and integration of the technology so that it is not only more obvious to patrons, but more comfortable and easy to use.
The phrase “technology for the sake of technology” comes to mind, and we were just discussing this during the DH201 seminar last week. While the display is interesting and potentially useful, the fact that many visitors choose to disregard the display may suggest that there is either a disconnect in the visitors vs intended audience (was there a variety in demographics?), or perhaps it is not desirable in its context…. I saw much of the same in regards to terminals/screens at ancient “art” exhibits. As saraho says, this might be due to self-consciousness. I wonder if there’s any correlation in genre – that is, does this happen in exhibits that deal with other subject matter(s)?