A study on transforming the museums through interactive exhibiting
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A study on transforming the museums through interactive exhibiting Simge Esin ORHUN Interactive Media Design Department Faculty of Arts and Design, Yıldız Technical University Davutpasa Campus, Davutpasa Street Esenler Istanbul, Turkey Tel: 00 90 212 3835051 sesin@yildiz.edu.tr esimge02@gmail.com Abstract With the advancements in networking and displaying technologies, museums started to make use of the rich sources of interaction obtained by the transforming modes of communication. Few of the latest interactive exhibitions make use of these physical spaces as a mediator to connect user, technology and data. We believe that interactive exhibiting has the potential to alter museums to mediums through the architectural qualities of space. This research examines conceptual interactive exhibition designs developed for different architectural spaces in Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive Media Design Department, Yildiz Technical University within 2009-2011 to find clues to transform museums into communicating environments. Introduction The traditional forms of art has started to be replaced by process based, participatory and interactive installations In parallel with the current networking and dynamic technologies, which caused a change in the relationship between the art work, the physical space and the audience (Buskirk, 2005). Driving from these developments, museums started to make use of the rich sources of interaction through multiple, participative and interconnected applications in order to maintain the permanence of art, knowledge and cultural heritage, considering the fact that the artwork is defined as the whole process that involves the participant to interact with the art object nowadays (Bullivant, 2006). These changes also questioned the ways and methods for displaying and exhibiting these process-based site-specific interactive works and looked for proposals on contemporary art exhibitions point out the relationship between the work and the place (Greenberg, 1996). With the beginning of 2000s, the use of virtual technologies within the installations also created another dimension in the relationship of the artwork and the physical space. These installations not only communicated with the audience, but also with the physical spaces and enhanced
their potential in many ways (Bullivant, 2007). These improvements in the changing modes of communication brought alternative possibilities for the transformation for museums and galleries that give the opportunity for the audience to participate with the artworks in various ways. In parallel with the recent discussions, although it is agreed that the architectural qualities of the physical space plays an important role for the formation and shaping of these works, the analysis of the latest interactive exhibitions and works showed that few of them made use of the physical space as a mediator to connect user, technology and the emotional qualities of the data and rather focus on the design of hands-on exhibitions (Caulton, 1998; Smithsonian, 2002). This study searches for keys to guide us for the transformation of museums into intelligent spaces through interactive exhibiting and looks for clues that will yield outcomes for the methods and ways to make use of architectural space for interactive exhibiting in an efficient way. Integration of Interactive Media to Architectural Space Through Spatial Interaction From the perspective of architecture, the architectural quality of the physical space is vital to stage interactive designs in a physical medium (Ozcan, 2002), whereas the concept of interaction sets constraints that create and shape the user-oriented qualities of design for moving within the content through participation (Kolko, 2007). In the frame of the context of exhibiting, both architectural space and interactive media focuses on displaying and preserving and the concept of interactivity in physical space will help designing the human behavior with the use of spatial data. So, “designing the activity” would provide us a guidance to combine both the design of media and architectural space. We believe that interactive exhibiting has the potential to transform museums into communicating environments on the basis of activity, use of media and spatial organization, respectively (Kaptelinin, Nardi, 2006). The theme guides the exhibition, which also serves to define the constraints and the active intent of the product (McCulloughm, 2004). As the theme of the exhibition is identified, the activity that rules the set of actions and operations are defined. Mediation of the tools placed in the physical space will realize the actions in the space. The interactions that support the theme are developed by creating the best possible combination of images, texts and sounds that form the graphic user interface in terms of IMD (Manovich 2001), and through the proper design of the access
elements such as windows, doors, knobs, buttons, zips, handles… etc that act as the solid user interface elements of 3D forms (Ozcan 2002). So the works have to employ multiple narratives including a number of mediums such as text, graphics or technology, in order to drive the theme forward. Lastly, the theme gains a structure with the design of the sequences of experiences and behavior (Hughes, 2010). So, the users primary form of interaction becomes moving within the content, which is composed of the organization of the spaces or the information (Saffer, D., 2007). With all of the actions and tools arranged on a navigational path on the basis of a theme, the architectural space is expected to transform into a communicating agent. With the steps given above, we tried to define interactive exhibiting through spatial interaction and to make clear on what is intended for an architectural space to be a medium of its own. On the basis of these issues, within this research, we attempted to define an interactive exhibiting space as a dynamic environment with a theme that involve user experiences in real time (Lorenc et al., 2007) With the use of space supported by movement and memory, this environment is expected to provide multilayered communication through a balanced construction of interconnected components (Kosmann, 2009). Using these definitions, we tried to develop conceptual interactive exhibition designs for varying forms of architectural spaces in order to see the effects and benefits of the qualities of different architectural space. Different Methods For The Spatial Interaction Design Course: In parallel with our aim, we tried to develop conceptual interactive exhibition designs for different physical spaces with the anticipation to obtain varying outcomes for the use of the space to act as an agent for the transforming modes of communication in Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive Media Design Department in Yildiz Technical University. This course was carried out for 4 semesters in the Interactive Media Design Department of Yildiz Technical University with an average of 15 students each semester. These students had no prior experience of architecture but are well educated for creating interaction designs for different mediums. Between 2009 fall and 2011 spring, in parallel with the works of the students, this course had been implemented in 2 different versions: 1. Design brief based on a linear space
The students tried to develop projects for a linear space that has two entrances and has a length of 35 meters, a width of 2.80 meters and a height of 6.50 meters (Figure 1). The students were encouraged to make use of the height of the space within their projects as the space was high enough to create two floors and most of them used this factor to enhance the quality of the space as a medium. The choice of the audience profile was left to the students to be decided in relation with the theme. Figure 1. Plan of the linear space Figure 2. Project named “Prehistoric Times”, by Evrim Aytemur, aimed the user to experience the activities of early times and organized the space in sequence with the developments of manhood by using different displaying modes.
Figure 3. Project named “My Social Exhibition”, by Ozge Caldiran, aimed the users to build the content of the exhibition by themselves with the support from social media. Different displaying techniques were used, where the user can become the audience of another at the same time. With the analysis of the works, we recognized that the linear plan of the space limited the choice of technological tools and the navigational interactivity maintained within the space. As the linear condition of the space was very strong, the works did not yield many alternative solutions in terms of the use of spatial organizational techniques. Most of the assignments were based on a linear story and most of the students made use of screens and displays for their projects, rather than searching for alternative modes of interactions. The projects that were not based on a linear story were less successful in maintaining the unity of the exhibition area. Still we obtained different alternatives for displaying techniques, in connection with networking technologies and social media (Figures 2,3). 2. Design brief based on a multi story square shaped building After experiencing the advantages and the disadvantages of the linear condition, for 2010 Fall and 2011 spring, we decided to work on a different physical space. So we chose a 3-story building with an area of 16 meters by 16 meters per floor with a floor height of 2.50 meters for each floor, having 2 entrances from different levels (Figure 4). The students were advised to make use of the total floor height, including the possibility of adding or deleting a floor.
Figure 4. Plan of the 3 floors for the building Within the works, we have seen that the students struggled with the shape and the configuration of the building, which required for different needs other than the linear space. The lack of architectural knowledge caused difficulty among the students in both maintaining the theme, selecting and adapting the interactive tools and developing the navigation within the physical space. Although we discussed about the architectural concepts and spatial organizational solutions, few were successful in transforming the space suitable for an interactive exhibition. We recognized that the projects that could be considered successful among the rest have added a user profile or a disability and developed the design and the choice of technological tools accordingly. These cases showed us that when the physical space was not inspirational enough, the students needed an additional limiting element within the brief, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Project by Çağrı Yenen named “Labyrinth”, that focuses on the life stages of working class, from bottom to top. The labyrinth gives choices for the audience to make his life decisions and guides for his achievements. With the works, we have recognized that, limiting the user profile guided the students to draw upon some facts about the choice of interactions and the selection of the interactive tools. This leaded them to create encouraging solutions both for the organization of the space and the spatial interactions proposed through their projects. With this assignment, we can say that the students were better in interpreting the space as a medium of its own. Figure 6. A project by Berkin Nalbantli named “Perceive” that focuses on the Gestalt principles of visual understanding and communication for the audience group of autistics. Basic forms are used to explain how human buildings develop perception from childhood to adulthood, with matching interactions for autistic people. Evaluation of the Works: As we examined the project briefs and the student works in the previous section, we reached conclusions in terms of the use of spatial solution methods and understanding spatial data for interactive exhibiting. First of all, we can say that
the configuration of the working site for design was recognized to be an important issue in dealing with the design of the exhibition. In the first year, the spatial interaction design projects were %80 based on displaying technologies and the multiple ways of using the displays and surfaces, which brought a variety of applicable designs. Also a theme to adapt the linear space in terms of exhibiting space was recognized to be difficult to transform the physical space into a media space. The design projects of the second year were able to reflect spatial interaction on a much better level as they introduced the component of limiting the user profile and this fact provided solutions closer to the idea of interpreting the space as a medium of its own. When the audience profile was not limited, the projects designed were less successful than the previous year. Overall, we can say that, the theme of exhibiting was achieved with the 90% of the projects. In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, we believe that the following issues needs attention in order to create interactive exhibitions: i. It is understood that spatial interaction is beyond placing interactive tools or technologies in the spaces. The transformation of an architectural space to a medium involves the spatial arrangement of the interactive tools on the basis of a theme. ii. In terms of the choice of architectural space, an interactive exhibition would benefit more from a nonlinear condition, as the linear spaces may not go beyond storytelling and may not yield philosophical interactive spatial solutions. iii. Defining a user profile helps to limit the theme and the possible interactions, which brings more control to the exhibition design and yield compact spatial solutions. Conclusion Interactive exhibitions give the opportunity for the audience to connect with the physical space, and they provide environments for different readings of the meanings of the artworks. However, making use of the architectural quality of these physical spaces to create the multi dimensional layers of varying modes of communications will provide an efficient way for developing these exhibitions. This paper looked for clues that will guide the design of interactive exhibitions that will transform the architectural space into a dynamic medium. Spatial interaction offers the integration of physical space with interactive media on the basis of activity, interactive tools and the spatial organization of the place. Within Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive Media Design Department in
Yildiz Technical University, we studied interactive exhibiting for a linear space and a multi story square planned space within 2009-2011. While the organization of the square planned spaces seemed vague, it yielded successful works when a user profile is added to the design brief. With the analysis of 42 projects, we recognized that successful designs approached the design problem strategically by, (i) making use of the architectural space as guidance for the selection of the theme, (ii) defining a user profile to select and limit the interactions. We observed that squared planned spaces designed for a specific user profile served best for the transformation of these spaces into communicating mediums. As digital technologies gain more power, the architectural spaces will be converted into media spaces, which will increase and enhance the function of museums in society. REFERENCES Buskirk, M. (2005) The contingent object of Contemporary Art. The MIT Press Caulton, T. (1998). Hands On Exhibitions: Managing Interactive Museums and Science Centers. London; New York: Routledge Caroline A. J. (2006). Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and Contemporary Art. MIT Press Greenberg, R. (1996). The exhibited and distributed. In R.Greenber, B.W.Ferguson & S.Nairne (Eds.) Thinking Exhibitions (pp.349-367). London: Routledge Bullivant, L., (2007). Interactive Architecture 4D Social: Interactive Design Environments AD. Wiley and Sons, Vol.77, No.4. Bullivant, L., (2006). Responsive Environments: Architecture AD. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, Hughes, P. (2010). Exhibition Design. Laurence King Publishers, London Kolko, J. (2007). Thoughts on Interaction Design. Brown Bear publication, Georgia Lorenc, J., Skolnick, L., Berger, C. (2007). What is Exhibition Design. Rotovision, Switzerland Kaptelenin, V., Nardi B.A. (2006). Acting with Technology, Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press
Kossman.dejong (2009). Engaging Spaces: Exhibition Design Explored. Frame Publishers Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press McCulloughm, M. (2004). Digital Ground. Cambridge: MIT Press. Ozcan, O. (2002), Cultures, The Traditional Shadow Play and Interactive Media Design, Design Issues, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 18-26, MIT Press Saffer, D. (2007). Designing for Interaction. Berkeley: New Riders Smithsonian, Institiution (2002). Developing Interactive Exhibitions at the Smithsonian, www.si.edu/Content/opanda/Reports/BackgroundPapers/Exhibitions/ EXInteractives.pdf. Accesses on: 15.Feb.2012
You can also read