While social media is reliant upon new media technologies, the two are not synonymous. In fact, social media is made possible by Web 2.0 technologies and applications. New media, defined as, “technologies which can be used to create new applications or perhaps even enrich existing ones,” (Greenhill, 1995: 89) are the product of the convergence of mass-media practices and technologies with data, created by the synthesis of sound, images, graphics, computer animation, in the form of smart phone applications, audio tour guides, video installations. These technologies typically manifest in the form of websites.
A well tuned and engaging website is crucial to any social media campaign. Once all the social media platforms are decided upon, the website should serve as the social media hub, providing links or widgets to all social media outlets such as Blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. When functioning at its best, “the web has progressed technologically and creatively to a branding tool par excellence.” (Wallace, 2006: 89) Thus, websites should be seen as an opportunity to provide as much information as possible to as many target audiences as possible, especially providing a space for those who are not necessarily targeted in physical museum communications. It is sometime helpful to think of the website as a place which “queues-up the physical visit (before) and extends the museum experience (after).” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009)
No matter how much content is provided, the website should be designed to be easily navigable, rather than flashy, and simple rather than overwhelming. In this way, the site does not exclude those who do not have high-res screens or high bandwidths. When deciding what content to include, organizations should consider the goal of the website: to engage viewers for as long as possible (Wallace, 2006: 96) This is best achieved by building an interactive site, with opportunities for viewer participation and feedback loops, (for example, the 100 Objects campaign by the British Museum). It is also important to encourage visitors to enter information that can be trapped by a back-end database and used for consumer research as well as e-mail newsletters and marketing blasts. Websites also work well in partnership with an e-mail program because visitors are alerted when content has been updated and it encourages them to return to the site. The Louvre, in particular, has established an excellent platform for engagement, which allows users to create their own space on the website and completely customize their interactions with the content on the site. In addition to its website, the Louvre has also created mobile phone applications to provide visitors with handheld tours of the museum.
Mobile technologies, including applications for iPhones and other devices, and text messaging represent other popular incarnations of new media. Others include interactive installations, podcasts, RSS feeds and online gaming. What all these new media formats hold in common is a focus on user experience and design. These very often converge to create new ways of experiencing information, or even, reality. For example, ‘augmented reality’ (AR), describes the live direct or indirect view of a physical, real-world environment where elements are ‘augmented’ by computer-generated sensory input, such as sound or graphics (Wikipedia, 2011). Another way to describe the concept is ‘mediated reality’, in that the ‘reality’ of the situation is in actuality diminished rather than augmented, but one’s perception of reality is enhanced by technology and additive functions that create a sort of simulated environment. In real-time use, augmented reality combines artificial information about the environment of the user and matches this with the surrounding real world to create an interactive and digital malleable experience.
Within the context of exhibitions, new technologies are working to de-lineate the museum experience and add layers of meaning and a variety of ways of experiencing the objects within. Hooper-Greenhill argues that such interactive experience “provide the opportunity for further learning and deeper experiences.” (Greenhill, 1995: 89) The technology gaining the most momentum in this capacity is the mobile phone. Smart phone applications such as Sticky Bits, Culture Clic, or Rick Steve’s Orsay Museum Tour and others (all available via iTunes) are revolutionizing our interactions with museum exhibits.
Fig 6.0 – MoMA iPhone Application
While multi-media applications (especially mobile devices) certainly have an allure, one should consider that there is a tendency to valorize their ubiquity and proficiency. There are several issues to cogitate. The first has to do with the likelihood that a digital application will help the museum exhibition achieve its aims and objectives, based on how it impacts the visitors’ experience of the exhibit and how it is perceived by its target audience. (Greenhill, 1995: 92) The second, closely-related issue has to do with the importance of measurement and determining the effectiveness of an application. Does the cost of installing interactive museum displays outweigh the benefit to the visitor? Does it truly enhance the museum experience or is it superfluous? This naturally leads to the third issue, which is: will visitors be impressed or disappointed? Is the hardware and software up-to-date and desirable? Are sensitive technologies such as touch screens overused and malfunctioning or up-to-date and appealing? Is the software easy-to-use or does it leave visitors feeling marginalized due to perceived technical incompetencies? Are museum staffs trained to assist visitors in learning more about the applications functionality or troubleshooting problems that arise during use?
Perhaps most important of all these issues is the role of the curator. Writers such as Ames claim that too much prominence is placed on the value of the curatorial viewpoint and vouch for a more democratic approach to consuming museum information and objects, as well as to the general control of museums. (Greenhill, 1995: 92) New media technologies (especially mobile devices) place a lot of control in the hands of its user, and encourage visitors to explore the museum collection, exhibits and other offerings at an individualized pace and depth. (Macdonald, 2011: 302) This has caused many visitors to expect personalized experiences using cell phone tours, PDA tours, downloadable podcasts, iPhone/iPod/iPad touch applications—“all tools that allow visitors to have a greater hand in co-creating/curating their experiences to better meet their specific interests.” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009) This can be beneficial to a museum, but harmful to the role of curators. As Nina Simon (Museum 2.0) said, “In a world where visitors want to create, remix, and interpret content messages on their own, museums can assume a new role of authority as "platforms" for those creations and recombinations.” For example, ‘mash-up’ websites can create an “active, participatory environment where audiences can share their viewpoints and experiences with museums and with other audience members.” (LaPlaca Cohen, 2009) The individual aspect of this is important, for as author Lynne Connor, points out:
True enrichment programs individualize the people who make up the audience. Effective audience-centered practices dismantle the notion of art object and art maker as ‘enlightener’ and replace it with the idea of an art object and art maker as participants in a civic dialogue. (Connor, 2007)
This is significant since few individuals claim to have a personal connection to art institutions or the visual art world, and consider this the most exclusive of all the areas of cultural practice (Bennett et. al., 2009: 130). On the other hand, there is worry that multi-media applications undermine the authority and credibility of the curator, and wonder if giving control of the exhibition experience is really to the visitor’s benefit. What occurs when the exhibit experience is completely democratized? And in this context, how would value be distributed among art, if it is determined by a public not necessarily educated in the historical context and perceived significance of the objects before them? Some would argue that visitors to the museum already have control of their experience, because they decide how much time to spend in front of a work of art, and how much of the wall label to read before moving on to the next piece. Considering this is the typical method of consumption, it would seem that enhancing the experience with multi-media tools would only add to the overall experience and perhaps spark greater interest in pieces that would otherwise go unnoticed. Others, such as Mike Wallace, applaud efforts to democratize museums “sharing authority with communities,” and purports that this does not transfer ‘power’ to the community, but simply creates a public discourse that can be used as leverage by curators against funders who would otherwise repurpose exhibits to suit their purposes. (Greenhill, 1995: 123) Eitherway, it should be acknowledged that media has long supplemented the visitor’s experience of an exhibition, and whether that come in the form of pen and paper or a mobile phone may be irrelevant.
Whatever their perceived drawbacks or benefits, it is worth noting that digital technologies are changing at such a rate that it may be difficult for museums, lacking in human or financial resources, to stay on top of trends and fully utilize the newest technologies available. According to UNESCO, an International cultural think tank, and leading consultant to museums around the world:
Museums foster an integrated approach to cultural heritage as well as the links of continuity between creation and heritage. They also enable various publics, notably local communities and disadvantaged groups, to rediscover their roots and approach other cultures. Nevertheless, many museum staff lacks—often severely—the technical knowledge that meets international professional standards. (UNESCO, 2011)
This illustrates the importance of strategically and creatively aligning resources for long-term benefit. Rather than focus on building expensive, temporal multi-media experiences, museums should think about uses that will facilitate the creation and maintenance of the third place. One such method is through the adoption of augmented reality, or the overlapping artificial intelligence onto the real world. With such technology, users have a visualization of dimensions of their real world encounters, so that a grocery shopper can view the cereal aisle via a mobile device, which in turn projects the image seen by the viewer’s naked eye, but incorporates visuals that indicate which cereal is the cheapest, which is the healthiest, which is on sale, if the same cereal is available at another location for a better price, etc. Extend this line method of interaction to a museum, and one might be able to use a mobile device to detect a painting, and then browse information triggered by that image such as a biography on the artist, where other works by that artist are displayed, other artists influenced by this work, and so on. Eventually, mobile devices will not be required to obtain such experiences (perhaps being replaced by lightweight LCD glasses).
Fig 6.1 – Augmented reality
In the meantime, the tech gadget in all its iterations—mobile phone, smart phone, computing tablet, etc.—reigns supreme. The public’s love affair with these inanimate objects seemed to have begun with the Sony AIBO, with accolades more recently being focused on the iPad, which to a degree, provide a certain amount of network neutrality not provided by standard mobile devices. These are objects that people cannot live without and integrate fully into their day-to-day lives, relying on them to connect with the people they care about. The MIT Media Lab calls this behavior ‘affective computing’ – “computing that can generate emotional or affective response entering the mainframe.” (Kennedy, 2010)
Set the growing popularity and ubiquity of technological gizmos and gadgets against Moore’s Law (that computing power doubles every 18 months), and you have a reality in which technology is changing culture faster than culture has a chance to affect technology. For instance, technological developments such as what is occurring in Virtual Reality (VR) are already beginning to shape the way we visualize and project culture and society. These ‘computer-created worlds,’ are currently used in a gaming capacity, but as digital photography and computer generated animation improves, we may find new museums developed to live exclusively online, with no physically corresponding site. The Guggenheim’s virtual museum may have never came to fruition, but other well-financed projects are beginning to emerge, such as the Adobe Museum of Digital Media, which promises a “unique virtual space designed to showcase and preserve groundbreaking digital work and to present expert commentary on how digital media influences culture and society.” (Adobe, 2010) These lofty claims unfortunately raise high expectations, which the site infrastructure and technology does not live up to. But it is a start, and one that I’m sure will serve as inspiration and source of imitation in the years to come. Looking even further into the future, it is predicted that nanobots will be introduced into the human blood stream, totally integrating bio with technology and completely erasing the border between media and reality, creating a permanently mediated reality. But before venturing into the realms of science fiction, it is more likely that advancements in technology over the next few decades will focus on tapping into the potential for “context-aware personal mobile technology” (Mulally, 2010) and applications dedicated to taking us across borders—socially, geographically, culturally—with the click of a mouse. The following case studies highlight ways in which advancement in new media are revolutionizing the way we experience art around the globe.
Just months after the Adobe Museum of Digital Media went public, Google launched ‘The Art Project,’ which promises visitors the opportunity to “explore museums from around the world, discover and view hundreds of artworks at incredible zoom levels, and even create and share your own collection of masterpieces.” This ‘street view-style’ inventory of some of 17 major art museums in nine countries (in Europe and the United States), grants the public access to digital replicas of gallery spaces within institutions as the Metropolitan, MoMA, Berlin's Alte National Galerie, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, the Uffizi in Florence, Madrid's Museo Reina Sofia, London's Tate Britain, and others—for free.
The site instantly brings into question the concept of reproduction. Visitors can browse through galleries, and then select one of more than 1,000 individual works by 486 artists to zoom in on and view in high-def photography. Among the remaining 983 high-resolution are such landmark paintings as van Gogh's "The Starry Night" (MoMA) and Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" (the Uffizi), showing “the most slender hair-marks of their brushstrokes, the most subtle white glimmers of their highlights reproduced for meticulous study alongside written commentary and links to external videos.” (ARTINFO, 2011) Of the thousand pieces included in the online archive, 17 (one from each participating museum) are available in super-high resolution, rendered with the "gigapixel" digitizing process, which, as ARTINFO points out, “stitches together multiple high-resolution photographs for a 7-billion-pixel product —a thousand times more detailed than the output of an average digital camera.” (ARTINFO, 2011) With this resolution, Google promises that aside from details you may not have noticed before, viewers will also be able to see things not normally visible to the human eye. (Smith, 2011)
Further differentiating this from the experience of viewing a reproduction or taking a virtual gallery tour, is the micro and macro element of the camera work. Each work is discovered within its context and the viewer has a sense of scale and placement, but then can choose to become more intimately acquainted with the work via zoom. While this is not a replacement for the actual experience of visiting a museum, it is certainly an exciting advancement in the democratization of art, creating access for new audiences, and making the public art museum, once again, ‘public’ in the true sense of the word. However, not all museums have opened their virtual doors. While many museums were approached to participate in the project (the exact number is unspecified), only 17 agreed to collaborate. Notables missing from the collection include the Louvre and the d’Orsay in Paris, the Prado in Madrid, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and the National Gallery in Washington D.C. Other museums such as MoMA only provided limited access. According to Kim Mitchell, the museum’s chief communications officer, the gallery selected feature paintings that are “among the few in our collection that do not raise the copyright-related issues that affect so many works of modern and contemporary art.” But are the cost (in time and dollars) of securing the rights to display Picasso’s “Demoiselles d’Avignon” worth the interest it would invoke in the public? Further to that, shouldn’t its importance in art history deem it worthy for public viewing? The continued success, development and use of this site will inevitably determine the answer to these questions.
Fig 6.2 – The Google Art Project
The reluctance by some institutions to participate could be because many museums have spent the better part of a decade and a lot of money developing their own Web portals to works in their collection. Even so, it would make sense for these organizations to participate and benefit from Google’s advancements. Surprisingly, however, not even participating museums feature the Google technology on their website or tout their involvement with the project. Regardless, we find an example of how cutting edge technology has been used to revolutionize our experience of art, and museums are only serving as passive participants versus active trailblazers.
Fig 6.3 – Red Bull Street Art View
At the very least, museums should use the tools made available to them to become a part of the conversation rather than witness to it, for instance, by asking curators to lead virtual tours of the online galleries. Furthermore, institutions who attribute budget restraints to their inability to develop such features, should consider creative deployment of constituents via activities such as crowd sourcing. The power of consumer-generated content is exhibited by Red Bulls Street Art Project. Using Google’s “Street View,” The brand that promises to ‘give you wings’ brings consumers its own version featuring crowd-sourced images of graffiti from all over the globe.
The concept, which originated at the Brazilian ad agency Loducca, is making a fine attempt at parlaying the ‘counterculture cache’ of graffiti. However, for fans of street art, this is exciting, as you can now zoom in on markers to see murals picked out by locals. While the photos do not exhibit the same quality of those featured in the Google Art Project, the development costs of this project were minimal as the photos featured were provided by the public, and visitors can tag images themselves to contribute to what aims to become “the biggest art collection in the world.” (ARTINFO, 2011) However, these digital reproductions of art should not be confused with art created digitally, a distinction that will be made in the next section on New Media Art.
