Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions Agathi Tsoroni Visual Artist and Educator 27 The last two decades have seen the widespread introduction of digital interactive exhibits in galleries and museums. This has brought with it certain expectations on the part of these institutions: digital interactive exhibits are seen as being more democratic than their analogue counterparts and are expected to provide more open-ended pedagogy, as they are understood to be aligned with a postmodern understanding of the role of the viewer/learner. 1 On the other hand, some of the limitations of digital interactive exhibits have been stressed in recent research, including my own. These limitations include: a repetitive visitor experience through the use of similar interfaces for Human Computer Interaction (HCI) this was particularly true for exhibits created in the first half of the 2000s; the fast and ungraceful ageing of technological exhibits; many operational problems, including the quality of the screen display and the sturdiness of exhibits; inflexibility in relation to the level of knowledge and learning abilities of the users; and the heavy regulation of visitor input. 2 Moreover, some researchers assert that the promise of democratisation of art through the introduction of the machine has not been fulfilled. 3 However, the question of technology fatigue is under-researched and under-theorised. Technology fatigue occurs when visitors get so familiar with using digital technologies in their everyday life that the prospect of interacting with them in the gallery ceases to be novel, interesting or appealing. Technology fatigue can also occur when the majority of exhibits in a gallery are computerbased. 4 Technology fatigue is at least partly responsible for the situation common in many galleries and museums where visitors do not find digital interactive exhibits interesting enough to engage with. In 2004 the curator of education and interpretation at the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham maintained that some people do not want to use computers in the gallery after spending the day in front of a computer in their office and therefore the Ikon did not make use of computers in its education programmes. (Education Curator, Ikon. Personal Interview, 7 June 2004) Research at the Science Museum in London has also identified technology fatigue among adult visitors. 5
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions 28 The examples I have chosen to discuss are an art institution (FACT in Liverpool) and a science museum (Thinktank in Birmingham). I draw on data from interviews conducted by myself with members of staff from the education and exhibition departments of both institutions. I also carried out three full-day visitor observations on each site, and I collected both internal and public documents, such as the mission statement of the organisations, visitor statistics, and visitor feedback. The research was conducted between November 2006 and July 2007. Thinktank, Birmingham Thinktank opened in September 2001 and is located in Birmingham s Millennium Point. Thinktank uses digital technologies extensively in its exhibitions, and it is estimated by some of its staff that up to eighty per cent of its exhibitions consist of digital displays. However, Thinktank s mission is not directly connected to the use of digital technologies. It is about presenting science in context to make sense to people It s for people to learn about science in a familiar context. Thinktank intends to provide a variety of visitor experiences in every exhibition, including both digital and non-digital exhibits. The use of digital technologies in the exhibitions is very important. It is part of providing that range of balance of different experiences. And it is about balance. You wouldn t want entirely exhibits based on multimedia and digital technologies; but neither would we want ones that are all physically hands-on. (Exhibitions Manager, Thinktank. Personal Interview, 20 March 2007). However, Thinktank has been reducing the number of digital interactives commissioned for each new exhibition. In the Recycle! Exhibition, which opened in February 2007, there was only one digital display, called Find out More. This reduction is part of a change in Thinktank strategy which has been developing since it opened in 2001. The resident scientist, who was responsible for commissioning
the Find out More exhibit, told me that more consideration is now being given to how each exhibit contributes to the learning aims of the exhibition as a whole. There was a phase a few years ago, when using computers and multimedia was very fashionable. And everyone was doing it as much as they could. We ve now learnt that, yes, computers and multimedia are great, if they re used appropriately. They are not the solution or the answer to everything. Some things are great when done on a computer, but some things aren t. So the way we prefer to do things now is: ok, we want an exhibit to do this. We want people to do this, we want people to learn this. What is the best way of doing that? Is it a computer? Is it something mechanical? Is it something written? Is it some role playing? We now think of that much more. What do we want the visitor to get out of this experience? What is the best way of us helping them do that? So it might be a computer, and if it is a computer it will be because we ve decided that a computer, or multimedia, is the best way of doing it. But at the same time, if it is a mechanical exhibit, it s the same reason: we ve decided that a computer is not appropriate to do that. (Resident Scientist, Thinktank. Personal Interview, 21 May 2007) It has been pointed out that the earlier approach this amazing technology exists, what should we do with it? can result in some less than exciting displays. we ve probably got some here [laughs] really dull, so what? exhibits, where you think, well, I ve pushed a few buttons and it looks very nice on the screen, but, you know [laughs]. I could have read that information on a text panel. You haven t really gained from it. (Exhibitions Manager, Thinktank, op. cit.) Museums would benefit from creating exhibits designed to be flexible in the sense that they could support more developed technology when it becomes available. Walter Benjamin in The Author as Producer (1983) used the term modishness to describe how the new technologies of his era, namely photography and film, were seen by artists and critics as having an intrinsic and unquestionable value. Any new technology tends to be seen in this way. Benjamin proposed that, instead of relying on the naïve optimism of much media practice, new technologies should be seen in terms of their technical innovation and revolutionary use value. Thinktank s recent strategy, in which digital interactives are only one of a number of ways of promoting learning, is in keeping with Benjamin s views. FACT in Liverpool The Foundation for Art and Creative Technology (FACT) started in 1988 as Moviola, an agency dedicated to supporting video artists and showing video installation art works. Its Director, Eddie Berg, organised the first UK installation-based festivals of video works. The festivals were called Video Positive and were held biannually at different locations in Liverpool. Moviola was relaunched as FACT in 1997, and in 1998 it started 29
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions 30 to secure funds to create a building dedicated to the exhibition of new media arts. The FACT building opened in February 2003. FACT has arguably the best known galleries for exhibiting digital artwork in the UK. It organises exhibitions of interactive and media arts, but it does not hold a permanent collection. FACT aims to be in the forefront of technology by exhibiting innovative, cutting edge digital works, which would not be shown in other mainstream art galleries. FACT, like Thinktank, exhibits a large number of digital interactives, and like Thinktank, FACT has reached a point where some of its audiences do not consider digital technologies to be intrinsically interesting. The technologies themselves may no longer be new, as people are very accustomed to seeing computer and television cameras in their everyday lives. Although both institutions have noted the waning of interest in digital interactives, FACT and Thinktank have adopted different strategies for combating technology fatigue. Strategies and the need for research In my research I have encountered two strategies for combating technology fatigue. The first is to limit the digital interactive offer in the galleries, and the second is to invest in the creative use of more cutting edge technologies. Thinktank has opted for a strategy of reduction. Digital technologies will be used only when they are deemed the best way of realising the aims of an exhibition. FACT, on the other hand, has opted for innovation, investing in research in more cutting edge technologies, and finding ways of being creative with them. This might mean experimenting with different interfaces without keyboard and screens, with biotechnologies or other innovations which are being developed. 6 Thinktank s collection is primarily a permanent one whilst FACT has no permanent collection. This might affect the kind of strategies they adopt. Another factor, which was beyond the scope of my own research, may be the content of the exhibits scientific subjects as opposed to contemporary art. This might be a fruitful area for further research. Although technology fatigue has been observed anecdotally by museum professionals, it has been given very little theoretical consideration. 7 For example, more research needs to be done into attitudes toward digital interactives in different age groups. In 2007, an exhibition officer at Urbis in Manchester suggested that younger visitors in particular, coming from schools very reliant on computers, might welcome non-digital exhibits in the galleries. Thinktank maintains that older visitors do not use digital interactive exhibits in the galleries because they are not computer literate, or are afraid of the technology. The underlying assumption is that the more familiar they became with digital matters, the more interested older people would be in digital
exhibits. This is at odds with the emerging research which suggests that interest declines with greater familiarity. It is yet to be shown whether, or to what degree, what is being observed in the older age group is due to unfamiliarity and fear, or to overfamiliarity and fatigue, or to other factors as yet unformulated. 8 As technologies become more affordable, museums will no doubt be more prepared to replace or experiment with them. I believe that museums would benefit from creating exhibits designed to be flexible in the sense that they could support more developed technology when it becomes available. An example is the proposed exhibition at The Public, where exhibits would change with every visitor s interaction. 9 It is hoped that visitors will find something new and interesting every time they visit the gallery. It is clear that sustained and long-term research is needed into the causes and symptoms of technology fatigue and the strategies for combating it. Such research would inform future exhibition planning, by indicating not only the optimal number of technological pieces in a given exhibition, but also the kinds of technologies (if any) which are likely to generate ongoing interest in the audience. Notes 1 See Rush (1999), Graham (1997) and Tsoroni (2008) for an account of the pedagogical expectations for interactive exhibits. 2 Refer to Tsoroni (2008) for an analysis of the limitations of digital interactive displays. 3 Both Grau (2003), and Meecham and Sheldon (2005) maintain that digital interactive exhibits are not more democratic than their analogue counterparts. 4 See Gammon (1999) for an account of visitors technology fatigue at the London Science Museum. 5 Ibid. 6 There has been a recent increase in the exhibition of biologic art, or bio-art, in art galleries and museums. The forms of expression of bio-art are many, ranging from bank notes and stamps to works of art such as electronic games, music, paintings, sculpture and tapestries (DaSilva 2004). Bio-art reinforces science, helps in engendering public awareness of biotechnologies, and is of value in the social interpretation of the advantages and limitations of biotechnologies. Moreover, bio-art provides an aesthetic appreciation of scientific research (Ibid). 7 Gammon (1999, 2002) has been, to the best of my knowledge, the only researcher who has theorised this notion. 31
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions 32 8 Gammon (1999), discussed in Hornecker and Bartie (2006). 9 The Public (formerly Jubilee Arts) was established in West Bromwich, West Midlands in 1974. A decision to create its own purpose-built building was taken in the late nineties. A four-floor exhibition space would show all newly-commissioned, digital interactive exhibits in the heart of the new building. The Public aimed to create digital interactive works which would simultaneously be independent artworks and would also provide visitors with active learning opportunities (The Public, c.2004). The Public went into administration in March 2006. Its successor The Public Gallery opened briefly in late June 2008. References Benjamin, W. (1983) The Author as Producer. In Understanding Brecht. London: Verso. DaSilva, E. (2004) Art, Biotechnology and the Culture of Peace. In Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 7, No.2. Gammon, B. (1999) How Do Visitors Use Computer Exhibits? http://www.big.uk.com/ knowledgebase/exhibits/computer_based_ exhibits_v1.htm (accessed 20/08/2008). Gammon, B. (2002) Advice on How to Develop Visitor-friendly Computer Exhibits, or Seven Gruelling Years of Watching Angry Visitors. Visitor Research Group: Science Museum, London. Graham, B. (1997) A Study of Audience Relationships with Interactive Computer-based Visual Artworks in Gallery Settings, Through Observation, Art Practice, and Curation. PhD thesis: University of Sunderland. Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hornecker, E. & Bartie, P. (2006) Technology in Tourism: Handheld Guide Systems and Museum Technologies. http://www.hitlabnz.org/ publications/2006-tr-handheldguidsystemsand MuseumTechnologies.pdf. Accessed 23/07/08. Meecham, P. & Sheldon, J. (2005) Modern Art: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Rush, M. (1999) New Media in Late 20th Century Art. London: Thames & Hudson. The Public. (c.2004) The Gallery as an Alternative Learning Environment. Unpublished internal document. West Bromwich: The Public. Tsoroni, A. (2004) Constructivism in Museum and Gallery Education. Unpublished MA Thesis: Birmingham City University. Tsoroni, A. (2008) An Extended Investigation into the Educational Offers made by Digital Interactive Exhibits, the Sustainability of these Approaches, and their Capacity to Provide Novel Experience. PhD Thesis: Birmingham City University. Images in order of appearance 1 Installation shot from Recycle!, Thinktank, Birmingham, 2007. The Find out More kiosks are seen on the bottom right of the photograph. 23/05/07. 2 Screenshot of Find out More. Thinktank, Birmingham, 23/05/07. 3 David Rokeby. Very Nervous System. 1986-2004. Digital interactive installation, dimensions varied. Installation image from the exhibition at FACT, Liverpool. FACT