Monthly Archives: October 2010

The Met’s Digital Conversion

Midterms have been upon us for the last few weeks, and sometimes you just realize that your head is on backwards during those times. Two days before my 5 page comparison paper between two objects at the Metropolitan Museum, I realized that not only had none of my pictures turned out well enough to find them reliable, but my notes had mysterious vanished into the abyss of my desk.

I freaked out, much to the amusement of my roommate who decided to watch with a grin for a few minutes before asking why I didn’t just look up the objects on the Met website.

As a way of turning their collection “inside out,” the Metropolitan Museum has been working on putting objects on display virtually. Although in this way, you aren’t able to actually pick up the object and view it from all angles, it gives the general public the ability to zoom up as close as they want on the object in dramatic detail.

Although I’m not the biggest advocate of putting technology absolutely everywhere possible, and think that museums need to think long and hard about their collections and audiences before making drastic changes, I think the Met’s digital conversion is an amazing step in the right direction of intertwining the past, present and future museum experiences. Now viewers from around the world are able to connect with art in a way that they were not able to previously, all from the comforts of their own home. The objects do not risk being damaged through being viewed digitally by thousands of people. And honestly, it’s just plain fun. I can just imagine the hours that could be spent by our tech-savvy youth zooming in reallyreallyreally close and then back out again, seeing every detail in the photo.

On top of the photo aspect, each of the objects’ information, provenance and descriptions are available. That way, the viewer is able to get a full museum experience and gain deeper knowledge about the object which may not be made as available in person.

Kadie Yale

Advertisements

Xaviera Simmons: junctures

OFF/SITE: Xaviera Simmons: junctures (transmissions to) at the Goethe-Institut Wyoming Building

Although this show is now over, it was a great show to experience after our discussion on technology a couple of Mondays ago.   About being private, yet someone public.

“Over five weeks of junctures (transmissions to), Xaviera Simmons will engage invited writers, academics, musicians, astrologers and others in a series of “micro-residencies,” embracing the collaborative and multi-genre nature of the OFF/SITE project. Participants including artist Brendan Fernandes, filmmaker Sophie Hamacher, landscape architect and surfer Benjamin Landers, singer/songwriter Austin McCutchen, and historian and singer Teresa Mora will join Simmons in a closed, site-specific wooden studio structure within the Wyoming Building. The studio will be equipped with a slide projector, digital projector, microphone, amplification system and commercial-grade copy machine; the gallery will serve as home to several live finches for the duration of the project. In the gallery, the artist and her collaborators will create an ever-changing installation of photocopies, projections, staged readings, sound recordings and ephemera reflecting the conversations and activity within the studio.”

Racini A.

National Baseball Hall of Fame – Then and Now

After last week’s class discussion hearing the mixed sentiments about the move toward interactive displays and less objects in the Museum, I remembered my experience of visiting the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown a year and a half ago and my great disappointment in the renovations, “modernization” and restructuring of all their exhibition halls.  I first visited the Hall of Fame in high school, about 10 or 11 years ago and remember walking in and feeling like I was in my grandparents’ attic, seeing old relics and photos displayed with pride, but also crowded and cluttered. It felt as if I was discovering something, as you tend to feel when going through old family photo albums or clothes and jewelry boxes of past relatives.  Old lockers, some actual and some re-fabricated, were stuffed with the jerseys, gloves, cleats, baseball cards, and correspondence of famous players.  The museum really captured the essence of baseball and how it became “America’s Pastime.”

When I went to the Hall of Fame most recently, I was with a friend who had never visited and gushed over how personal and intimate the Hall of Fame was, the warm lighting, the display boxes made to feel like lockers and dug outs really indulged a baseball fan’s nostalgia.  Upon entry, everything was re-done, what used to be rows of cluttered lockers were now modern display cases with gallery lighting.  Objects, much fewer and isolated, seemed detached and inaccessible behind glass panes framed by dry wall painted in deep solid hues.  The warmth, accessibility, and feeling of discovery were gone and I felt that kids passing through the halls were really missing out on a connection that I made when I first had visited.

I’m curious to know why the Hall of Fame made the move from the dusty charm of its old displays to the sterile and impersonal.  I was surprised to see that even the Statistics Room, which used to have old score board-style listings of players’ names and stat numbers on removable hand painted wooden planks was replaced with boring white Arial font on a black background.

As I had mentioned in class, I don’t think technology and streamlining the display of objects is necessarily the right move for all Museums.  Careful attention needs to be paid to the visitor experience.  Some mediums don’t necessarily benefit from a minimalist and/or technological approach.

Megan Elevado

Technology

Do we really need objects in a gallery or museum now that we have and use the Internet in our everyday lives?  What’s the point of physically going somewhere to look at something or learn about something when we can just use google.  Yes it’s definitely not the same, and some pictures don’t do the real object justice, however a lot people these days take things for granted because of technology.  I feel that there’s no more appreciation for the world through human eyes anymore, but only through technology.

I personally prefer museums based on objects and objects alone.  No participation needed or technology to worry about.  Just me, the object, and my interpretation.  Such simplicity says way more to me and is way more interesting.

Racini A.

High Tech Versus No Tech

This weekend was a perfect time to ponder the idea of high tech versus no tech within museum walls, as I had the chance to visit two wonderful museums which represented both extremes.

The First was a trip to The Waterfront Museum in Red Hook (Brooklyn) (please watch this video, it’s adorable.) The Museum has a very unique characteristic: it is actually a floating barge, and the only one in New York to be exact. I accompanied a friend to sit in on a third grade’s class visit to the museum. 70 eight year olds filled the barge to learn about its history, as well as the history of transportation in the US and specifically in New York. There space was bare except for some paintings on the walls an old fashioned domino effect machine, and a juggling curator named David Sharps.

The children were completely engaged by his class lecture, excitedly participating with their museum educator. At one point, he used the term “obsolete” to describe the old purpose of the barge, and explain how he created a new purpose for it, (by turning it into a museum.) I started to think about the word in terms of our discussion about the ‘no tech’ museum. Are they obsolete as well or can we still find a use for them within our society? By the enthusiasm and smiles on the children’s face. I was reassured that there was still in fact a great need for a museum which focuses on the rudimentary values of social interaction and energetic education.

On the other side of the spectrum, there was the “YouTube Play” exhibit at the Guggenheim. An Asian blog described the event: “The Guggenheim Museum last week unveiled the winners of a video contest submitted via YouTube from artists around the world. The top 25 videos selected in the ‘You Tube Play’ competition were shown for the first time on a large screen at New York City’s Guggenheim. The contest, created with video-sharing web site YouTube, was aimed at showcasing innovative online video artists. The videos were projected onto the exterior of the museum’s rotunda in Manhattan.Varying from animated line drawings to cartoons, the top 25 videos were created by 39 artists from 14 countries” (NTDTV). Here’s a video of the spectacular exhibition. While I was not able to make it to the event itself, just watching the event online was a breathtaking site to see. Youtube is one of the quintessential examples of technology and when used appropriately, can create beautifully crafted artwork.

In both cases, I think that the choice to use or not use technology was done appropriately, based on the content and aesthetic that the museum wished to convey.  The Waterfront Museum proved to me that technology was not necessary in order to create an entertaining and educational exhibit, while the Guggenheim reassured me that the use of technology could be done tastefully and successfully.  The question does not seem to be “high tech versus no tech” but rather “how will this tech” bring value to the museum.

J Peterson

The Record Exhibit at The Nasher Museum

The Record: Contemporary Art and Vinyl This exhibition is, as their website states: ” a groundbreaking exhibition that explores the culture of vinyl records through 50 years of contemporary art. [It] features work by 41 artists from around the world, (including christian marclay robin rhodelaurie anderson and david byrne, to name a few) from the 1960s to the present, who use vinyl records as subject or medium. The exhibition includes sound work, sculpture, installation, drawing, painting, photography, video and performance.”

...

Besides the fact that I happen to be a fan and collector of the LP, I also find it interesting to view new ways in which artists can manipulate common goods of popular culture into a new collection of art (which ironically, tends to result in art of counter culture, or at least aspires to do so.) Whether it be kitchenware, old toys, or disposed trash (as we’ve seen and read in class), the use of everyday items can recall feelings of nostalgia for many visitors, and create a unique experience for each patron. YouTube video.

J Peterson

Yoko Ono: Voice Piece for Soprano…

Say what you will about Yoko Ono (I happen to love her).

The more I think about how there are more museums than ever, and less objects in these museums than ever; I begin to do a run through in my head of exhibitions with very few objects and how, subjectively, successful I find them.  Probably the most recent [basically] non-object piece/exhibit I’ve seen is Ono’s “Voice Piece for Soprano” at MoMA.  The piece is made of a large empty room, very little directional wall text, a microphone on a stand in the center of the room which is flanked by two speakers, and you–the participant.  I spent almost two hours on a Saturday sitting in front of the piece; watching countless elderly women hobble up to the mic and scream at the top of their lungs.  It was really intense.  I keep thinking about this piece in relation to the reading from last week, which explained the various reasons people choose to participate or not to participate.  My thought is that Ono’s piece offers an ideal model for a participatory piece because it is straightforward.  “Scream“.  It is easy to do, and not screaming makes you look like a weirdo.  Everyone is doing it (perhaps participatory museums should rely more on peer pressure).  Also, it feels amazing to get to scream at the top of your lungs.

Logan Sibrel