Interactive Technology in Art Museum Exhibitions

RunningHead:INTERACTIVETECHNOLOGY

InteractiveTechnologyinArtMuseumExhibitions

ACaseStudyonGiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrandTour

LauraC.Harrison

Master’sResearchCapstoneUniversityofOregon

March2011

PresentedtotheArtsAdministrationprogramattheUniversityofOregoninpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsfortheMaster'sofScienceinArtsManagement.

INTERACTIVETECHNOLOGY

2

Approvedby:__________________________________________

Dr.PhaedraLivingstoneArtsandAdministrationProgram

UniversityofOregon

Date:__________________


3

Abstract

Existingscholarshipinmuseumlearningtheoryemphasizestheimportanceofmeaning‐

makingasitrelatestolearninginthemuseumsetting.Otherliteratureadvocates

interactivityasacatalystformakingmeaning.Thisresearchinvestigatesemergent

interactivetechnologiesasviableandeffectivetoolsformakingmeaningintheart

museum,focusingontheubiquitouscomputingcomponentsoftheJordanSchnitzer

MuseumofArt’sexhibit:GiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheAgeofthe

GrandTour.

Keywords:MuseumLearning,InteractiveTechnology,MeaningMakingintheArtMuseum


4

Acknowledgements

IgratefullyacknowledgetheArtsandAdministrationfacultyfortheirexpertiseand

guidance.Warmestthankstomyresearchadvisor,Dr.PhaedraLivingstone,whohas

patientlyhelpeddirectmyeffortsforthiscapstone.

Iamdeeplygratefulformyfamily’ssupport,especiallymymother,whodefinestheword

resilientforme.ThankyoutoClayforyourgentleencouragementandlisteningear.AndI

wouldalsoliketoacknowledgemySofia,whohassacrificedmuchwhileyourmommywas

inschool.YouarethereasonItry.


5

TableofContents

IntroductionandProblemStatement 6

Definitions 7

ResearchQuestions 8

Researcher’sRoleandMethodology 10

MuseumLearningTheory 12

LearningStyles 14

ContextualModelofLearning 15

TheArtMuseumandLearningTechnologies 17

InteractiveTechnologies 18

UbiquitousComputing:ACaseStudy 20

TechnologyandExhibitComponents 23

VisitorExperience 24

Conclusion 27

Figures 29

References 35


6

Museummissionsshouldstateunequivocallythataneducationalpurposeis

imbeddedineverymuseumactivity.

‐AmericanAssociationofMuseums ExcellenceandEquityReport,1992

IntroductionandProblemStatement

Thetopicofhowvisitorslearninexhibitionsettingshasexpandedinrecentdecades

inmuseumstudiesliterature.Thisincludesinquiryregardingnewmuseumexhibition

theoriesandmethodsandinterestinidentifyingelementsofeffectiveexhibits.Current

scholarshipsupportsinteractiveexhibitsasaneffectivewaytoengageandmakemeaning

forvisitorsandenhancelearninginthesciencemuseumsetting(Muller,Edmonds,&

Connell,2006;Rahm,2003;Speaker,2001).Researchinthelastdecadehasalsofocused

onlearningintheartmuseumsetting(MacRae,2007;Danko‐McGhee,2006;Saava&

Trimis,2005),butfarlessconsiderationhasbeengiventotheinclusionofinteractive

technologyintheartmuseumsetting.Theexistingscholarshipthataddressesinteractive

technologyinartmuseumsisgenerallylimitedtotemporaryscience/arthybridexhibits

(Sassen&Zhu,2008)orinformationsystemswithintheartmuseum(Venkatachalam,

2004).

Inthecharacteristicallystaticartmuseumenvironmentwherelearningistypically

visuallybased,thispaperwillidentifyandinvestigatealternativetypesoflearning

opportunitiesthatcanbecarriedoutwithminimaldisruptionintheartmuseumsetting.

Thisassessmentwillincludeabriefoverviewofhowmuseumvisitorslearn,includinga


7

discussiononpopularmuseumlearningtheoryandlearningstylesastheyrelateto

effectivemuseumexhibittechniquesandthemuseumvisitorexperience.Whilecase

studiesonemergentexhibittechniquesusinginteractivetechnologycanbefoundinthe

currentscholarship,studiesexaminingtheirsuitabilityintheartmuseumsettingare

conspicuouslyabsent.Myresearchaddressesthisgapinthescholarshipthroughan

inquiryonthesuitabilityandlimitationsoftheubiquitouscomputingcomponentsinthe

JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt’s(JSMA)exhibit:GiuseppeVasi’sRome:Lasting

ImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrandTour.

Definitions

Cartography‐theartofmapmaking

Constructivism‐alearningtheoryinwhichthelearneruseshisorherpreviousbeliefsand

knowledgetoconstructnewmeanings

Ichnographic‐describesthedepictionofageographicalareaasagroundplan,with

topographicalfeaturesbeingrepresentedthroughoutlines

UbiquitousComputing‐(inthemuseumsetting)whencomputerelementsareembeddedin

theexhibit

Vedute‐(It.),“view,”thetermusedtodescribetheetchingsofthevedutisti

Vedutisti‐(It.),“viewmakers,”thetermusedtodescribeGuiseppeVasiandotherartists

whocreatedetchingsofRomeandothercities


8

Verstehen‐(Ger.),“tounderstand,”atermthatmeans,“empatheticunderstandingthat

interpretivesocialsciencetakesasaprimarygoalforsocialresearch’(Neuman,2006,p.

87).

Viewsheds‐ontheNollimap,pinpointsthepositionofthevedutistiandhisfieldofvision

ResearchQuestions

Howandwhatvisitorslearninthemuseumsettinghasbeenthefocusofalternative

educationresearchforthelastseveraldecades.Researchsuggeststhat“over80%of...

learningisnotdoneinatraditionaleducationalsetting”(Boram,1992,p.121).This

revelationspeakstotheimportanceofthestudyoflearningspacesthatexistoutsidethe

classroom,suchasmuseums,andhowlearningtakesplaceintheseenvironments,aswell

asimplicationsforexhibitdesignasitfacilitateslearninginthemuseumsetting.Sharon

MacDonald(2007)explains,“Thefieldofmuseumvisitorresearchisnotwellcoordinated,

largelybecauseitspanssomanydisciplines”(p.149).Thisdiversityhasledtoseveral

widelyacceptedtheoriesinthemuseumeducationfield.Itisbeyondthescopeofthis

papertoaddresseachofthesetheories;ratheritfocusesonafewimportantapproaches

thatspeaktotheinteractivetechnologyintheexhibitGuiseppeVasi’sRome:Lasting

ImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrandTour,andthroughadetailedanalysisofthisexhibit.

Inthisinvestigation,theoverarchingquestionIseektoansweris:

•IsthetechnologyusedintheVasiexhibitappropriatefortheartmuseumsetting?

Sub‐questionsIanswerthroughthisinquiryinclude:


9

•Doestheinterfacedisrupttheartmuseumenvironment?

•Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofubiquitouscomputingasusedinthe

Vasiexhibit?

•WhichmuseumlearningtheoriesaresupportedbythetechnologyusedintheVasi

exhibit?

Inaddition,thisresearchaddressesbroaderquestionsthatmayberelevanttothemuseum

profession.Thesefindingsmayhelpsupportconclusionsregardingmymainandsub‐

questions.Theseinclude:

•Whatexhibittechniquesenhancemuseumlearning?

•Howcanexhibitdesignersappealtothewidestaudiencepossible?

•Whatothertypesoftechnologyisbeingusedintheartmuseumsetting?

Thiscapstoneaddressesthesequestionsthroughresearchdrawnfromanextensive

literaturereview,aswellasadditionalcoursework.Onecoursethatcontributedtothis

researchwasanarthistorycoursethatfocusedontheGiuseppeVasiexhibitattheJordan

SchnitzerMuseumofArttaughtbyDr.JamesHarper.Thiscourseexplored18thcentury

Rome,duringthetimewhenGiuseppeVasiandhiscontemporariescreatedveduteofthe

city.Thevaryingperspectivesofthevedutisti,aswellasthedifferentrepresentational

approachesemployedbytheseartists,createacomprehensivepictureofwhatRome

lookedlikeinthe18thcentury.Thiscoursewassupplementedbytheexhibit:Giuseppe

Vasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrandTour,onviewattheJordan


10

SchnitzerMuseumofArtthroughJanuary2,2011.Theubiquitouscomputingelements

employedintheVasiexhibitbecamethefocusofmycasestudy.

AnothercoursethatsupportedthisresearchwasaSpecialProjectsExhibitscourse

taughtbyDr.PhaedraLivingstone.Exhibitiondevelopmentwasthefocusofthiscourse

andstudentsactivelyresearched,designed,andcreatedasmallexhibitionfortheKnight

LibrarybasedontheUniversityofOregon’sSpecialCollectionsarchives.Aspectsof

exhibitiondevelopment,includingeffectivedisplaytechniquesandcontentdevelopment

wereamongthetopicsthatthiscourseaddressed.Icompletedbothoftheseclassesinthe

Fall2010quarter.

Researcher’sRoleandMethodology

Iamapproachingthisresearchfromtheinterpretivesocialscienceparadigm.Iam

workingofftheassumptionsthatartmuseumswishtocultivatefutureaudiencesandour

societyseesthevalueofeducation.Furthermore,Iembracethesocialvalueargument

regardingtheartsandtheirfundamentalimportanceineducation.Inthisinquiry,I

ultimatelyseekVerstehenandamveryinterestedindeterminingwhatholdsmeaningor

relevanceforvisitorsintheartmuseumcontext(Neuman,2006).Theacknowledgement

ofmuseumvisitors’“humanagency”(Neuman,2006,p.90)makessenseinthemuseum

settingwherelearningisvisitor‐drivenandlessdirectedthantraditionaleducational

settings.Consistentwiththeinterpretivesocialscienceparadigm,theevidenceIcollect

willbeprimarilyqualitative(Neuman,2006).

Mypersonalinterestintheexplorationofinteractiveexhibits,specificallyintheart

museum,developedasaresultofaseriesoffrustratingexperiencesatanartmuseumwith


11

myyoungdaughter.Thisparticularartmuseumwas,atthistime,decidedly,andperhaps

intentionally,notfamily‐friendly.Iamapainterandsculptorandstudiedarthistoryin

college.Ialsoseeartistictendenciesinmychild,soIofcoursewishtofosterherloveof

art.However,afterseveralvisitstothisartmuseumthatendedintearsformydaughter,it

occurredtomethatbycontrast,ourtimespentatmoreinteractivemuseumswasnotonly

moreenjoyable,butalsomoreeducational.Itdisturbedmetothinkthatbyexposingherto

anaustere,authoritarianartmuseumenvironment,Icouldactuallyhavebeendiscouraging

herappreciationofart.Thisresultedinourgeneralavoidanceofartmuseumsforseveral

years,andevennowatage8,asIwritethis,sheislessthanenthusiasticaboutvisitingthe

artmuseum.

AsIwatchmychildlearnandgrow,itseemsobviousthatwhensheisplayingwith

something,interactingwithsomething,sheislearning.Thisobservationledmetowonder

howartmuseumscouldengagechildrenandfosterfutureaudienceswithoutalienating

theiradultaudiences.Ialsoaskedhowexhibittechniquesemployedintheartmuseum

couldbeimprovedtoappealtoawideraudienceandenhancetheartmuseumexperience.

ThecomputingcomponentsthatIexploreinthisresearchareofcoursejustonewayto

createengagement,butthroughouttheliteratureIreviewed,thereisageneralattitudeof

reticencetoincludecomputertechnologyintheartmuseumsetting.Iwouldarguethatthe

younggenerationisunlikeanywehaveseenbefore.Somuchofwhattheydo,andhow

theyinteract,istranslatedthroughtechnologicalinterface.“AsofMarch31,2009,thePew

InternetandAmericanLifeProjectfoundthat87percentofyouthages12‐17usethe

Internet;ofthese,75percentuseinstantmessagingand48percentofthoseIMeveryday”


12

(Stogner,2009,p.385).Thisimmersionincommunicationthroughtechnologywould

suggestthatyouthpreferitandmaypossiblydemanditaspartofelectiveactivities.

Thefuturesuccessoftheartmuseumasaninstitutionmaydependonthealteration

ofexhibittechniquestoappealtotheyoungergenerationandsecureafutureaudienceasa

result.ArecentstudyconductedbytheAmericanAssociationofMuseumsfoundthat

childrenaged5to9arethe"criticalageforconvertingchildrenintolifelongmuseum‐goers

andadvocates"(CenterfortheFutureofMuseums,2008,p.15).Andwhilethisresearch

addressesanexhibitthatistargetedtowardanadultaudience,partofmyargumentforthe

inclusionofinteractivetechnologyintheartmuseumsettingacknowledgesageneral

paradigmshifttowardsafutureaudiencethatdemandstechnologicalinteraction.One

objectiveofthisinquiryistoseehowthiscanbedonewithouteclipsingtheeducational

missionoftheartmuseumandwithoutalienatingcurrentadultaudiences.

Whilethisinquirymayhaveimplicationsfortheartmuseumfieldasawhole,the

focusislimitedtothediscussionoftheubiquitouscomputingcomponentsusedinthe

JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt’sexhibit:GiuseppeVasi:LastingImpressionsfromtheAge

oftheGrandTourandassuch,canonlybeusedtodrawconclusionsaboutthetechnology

usedinthisexhibit.ThecomplexsubjectmatteroftheVasiexhibitwascreatedforan

adultaudienceandtheevidencecollectedandobservationsmadeonlyreflectsthe

responsesofthataudience.

MuseumLearningTheory

JohnFalkandLynnDierking,(1995)inPublicInstitutionsforPersonalLearning

establishsevenmajorinfluentialfactorsinthelearningprocessastheyapplytomuseum


13

audiences.Thefirstoftheseincludestheinfluenceofpriorknowledgeandexperienceon

perception.AsJeremyRoschelle(1995)pointsout,"Thereiswidespreadagreementthat

priorknowledgeinfluenceslearningandthatlearnersconstructconceptsfromprior

knowledge"(p.37).Perceptionandmemory,FalkandDierking(1995)argue,are

inextricablylinkedtolearning.Theabilityofthemuseumvisitortoperceiveandidentify

anobjectisdirectlyinfluencedbyhisorherpastexperience.Previousknowledgeand

experiencesupportandshapenewexperiencesandadditionallycreatepersonalmeaning

formuseumvisitors.DouglasWorts(1992)advancedtheideathatanoptimalexhibit

experienceisdependentonthe“personalmeaninggeneratedbythevisitor”(p.157).

Personalmeaningmakingiscrucialtotheconstructionofavisitor’sown

understanding(Hein,1998).Thisprocessiscentraltoconstructivistpedagogy,which

postulatesthat“learningrequiresactiveparticipationofthelearnerinboththewaythat

themindisemployedandintheproductofthatactivity,theknowledgethatisacquired”

(Ibid,p.34).Prevailingalternativeeducationtheorychampionsconstructivismasoneof

themosteffectiveapproachesinmuseumlearning.GeorgeHein(1998)explains,

“Constructivismprovidesthemostcomprehensiveandeleganttheorytoconsiderhow

visitorscanbothusetheirpreviousbeliefsandknowledgetoconstructnewmeaningsand

howtheycanactivelycarryoutthisprocess”(p.154).

Applyingconstructivistprinciplestocreateeffectiveexhibitsrequireseveral

considerations.AccordingtoMelindaMayer(2005),“Twoessentialfeaturesarerequisite

toconstructivistlearning.First,theparticipantmustbeactivelyengagedinthelearning

process.Second,whatislearnedmustbeconfirmednotthroughexternalcriteriaofthe


14

discipline,suchasarthistory,butthroughthevisitor’sownsense‐makingmechanism”(p.

14).

LearningStyles

Tofulfillthesedirectives,considerationmustbegiventothemodesthroughwhich

themuseumvisitorgathersinformation,orwhatmuseumeducatorscalllearningstyles.

Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences(MI),aspresentedbyHarvardpsychologistHoward

Gardner,isatheoryoflearningstylesthatchallengesthenotionthatasinglenumber,an

intelligencequotient(I.Q.),definesanindividual’sintelligence.Gardnerarguesfor“the

existenceof...discrete‘intelligences’inhumanbeings,combinableindifferentwaysto

formanintellectualrepertoireofdifferentintelligences”(Hopper&Hurry,2000,p.26).

Theseincludelinguistic,logical‐mathematical,musical,bodilykinesthetic,spatial,

interpersonal,intrapersonal,naturalist,spiritual,andexistentialintelligences.Gardner’s

educationalapproachadvocatesthepresentationofcentralconceptsinvariouswaysthat

accommodatedifferentintelligences:“Eachstudentwillbeexposedtoarangeof

approaches/activitiesrepresentingcentraldimensionsoftheconceptortopic,because

eachmethodofrepresentationimpartsimportantanddifferentinsightsforunderstanding.

MIisanimportanttoolindesigningthesealternativemethodsofunderstanding”(Cohen,

2001,p.49).

WhileGardner’stheorywasnotdevelopedspecificallyformuseumoreducational

purposes,ithasbeenadoptedbymuseumlearningtheoriststoguideinformation

presentationinthemuseumsetting.VeteranexhibitplannerKathleenMcLean(2005)

explains,“Alimitedapproachwillappealtoonlyalimitedsegmentoftheaudience.If


15

exhibitplannersaretoprovidesomethingforthewidestpossiblerangeofmuseum

visitors,exhibitionsmustaccommodatealltypesoflearners”(p.9).Thisclearlysupports

theargumentforthenecessityofmultiplemodesofinformationretrievalinexhibition

practices.

ContextualModelofLearning

TheconsiderationofmultipleintelligenceshasbeencategorizedbyFalkand

Dierking(1992)asanimportantaspectofavisitor’spersonalcontextintheContextual

ModelofLearning(CML).Compatiblewithconstructivism,CMLisamodeloflearningthat

“framesvisitorlearningasoccurringthroughtheoverlappingandinteractingcontextsof

thepersonal,socioculturalandphysical”(Mayer,2005,p.15).Asamuseumvisitor

interactswithexhibitcomponents,eachcomponentheorshepaysattentiontobecomes

partof“thevisitor’simmediatecontext‐his[orher]constructedexperience...[It]is

filteredthroughthepersonalcontext,mediatedbythesocialcontext,andembeddedwithin

thephysicalcontext”(Falk&Dierking,1992,p.4).CMLisalensthroughwhichmuseum

educatorscanassessinternalandexternalfactorsthataffectamuseumvisitor’s

experience.Includedinthismodelarequestionsofmotivation,perception,processingand

memory,aswellasretrievalandtransfer.

Motivationaspartofthepersonalcontextisasignificantfactorintheassessmentof

exhibitefficacy.Simplyput,“...individualspaymoreattentiontothethingsinwhichthey

havemoreinterest.Interestsarepredictablybaseduponpriorexperiences,knowledge,

andfeelings‐aclassicfeedbackloop”(FalkandDierking,1995,p.11).Mihaly

CsikszentmihalyiandKimHermanson(1995)classifymotivationaseitherextrinsicallyor


16

intrinsicallyrewarding.Extrinsicmotivationisrewardedthroughexternalmeans“to

obtainpraiseortoavoidpunishment”(p.67).Museumeducationresearchismore

concernedwithpinpointingthefactorsassociatedwithintrinsicmotivation.

CsikzentmihalyiandHermanson(1995)pointtocuriosityandinterestasnatural

intrinsicmotivators.Curiosityisdefinedas“thelikelihoodofinvestingpsychicenergyin

novelstimuli”(p.68).Interest“referstoadifferentiallikelihoodofinvestingpsychic

energyinonesetofstimuliratherthananother”(Ibid,p.69).Usingthesenatural

propensities,exhibitdesignersusewhatisknownas“thehook”toincitecuriosityand/or

interestandencouragethemuseumvisitor’sinteractionwithexhibitcomponents.

Interactionisimperativeforlearning.“Byanydefinition,”explainsGeorgeHein(1998),

“therecanbenolearning(ormeaningmaking)ifthere’sbeennointeraction.Inorderfor

learningtooccurinthemuseum,thevisitorhastoattendtosomething”(p.136).

Interactivityand/orengagementbecomemoreeffectivewhenpresentedwith

“subsequent,reinforcingexperiences”thatenhancethelearner’sassimilationofexhibit

content(Falk&Dierking,1995,p.11).Theseconsiderationsinfluenceprevailingpractices

inmuseumcontentpresentation,suchasinformationlayeringandthecreationof

narrative.Inordertocreatemeaningfulexperiencesforvisitors,somepractitionershave

implementedwhatonestudycallsa“funnelapproach”toexhibitdesign(Schauble&

Bartlett,1997,p.784).Theideaistopullthemuseumvisitorinwiththeoverarchingideas

oftheexhibitandembeddeeperandmoredetailedinformationwithinlayersoftheexhibit

forthosewhoseekadeeperunderstanding.


17

Theapplicationofvariousmethodsofinteractivetechnologyisonewayexhibit

plannersandeducatorscreatemuseumexperiencesbasedonmuseumlearningtheories.

Whenappliedinmeaningfulways,technologicalinterfaceactsasacatalystforthevisitor’s

learningexperience,helpingthevisitortoconstructpersonalmeaningandnavigate

throughlayersofinformation.

TheArtMuseumandLearningTechnologies

KurtNeugebauer,theAssociateDirectorofAdministrationandExhibitionsatthe

JSMA,predictedinalectureonNovember30,2010thattheuseofmultimediatechnology

willbecomestandardinartmuseumexhibitions.AccordingtoNeugebauer,technology,

whenappliedcorrectly,“accentuatestheartwithouttakingawayfromit.”Butsomeart

museumshavebeenslowtoembracenon‐traditionalinteractiveexhibitpractices,

especiallytechnology‐basedexhibitcomponents,foranumberofreasons.Encouraging

interactivityinanenvironmentfullofpreciousobjectsandartworksthatvisitorsare

prohibitedfromtouchingishistoricallyunconventional.Environmentdisruptionis

anotherconsideration,andcostisnearlyalwaysafactor.Onecriticofinteractive

technologieshasarguedthatwhiledigitaldevicesareveryexpensivetoimplementand

maintain,theydoverylittletobringinadditionalrevenuetoartmuseums(Schwarzer,

2001).Otherdetractorscallattentiontotheironyofthevisitor“lookingdownatcomputer

screenswhilestandinginfrontofapainting”(Ibid,n.p.).Thiswouldpointtoquestionsof

authenticityandexperience,andtheriskofleadingvisitorstorelytooheavilyonthe

technologicalinterface.AsMarjorieSchwarzer(2001)observes:


18

Indeed,manyartconnoisseursmaintainaestheticnotionsofartviewingas

transcendentandselfevident,inlittleneedofexplanation.Are[thedevices]so

distractingthattheyruinthechanceforelevatedexperienceswithart?Or,by

providingmoreinformation,dotheyactuallyincreasevisitorappreciation?”(n.p.).

Somemuseums,however,seethevalueincultivatinginterestinyounger

generationsandhaveimplementedtechnologiesthattendtoattractthem.“Thereisno

substituteforinteractionwithoriginalworksofart,"saysthedirectoroftheNational

Gallery,EarlA.PowellIII."Wehavefoundthatcarefulusesofdigitaltechnologyhavenot

diminishedtheviewingorlearningexperiencesforourvisitors...Asamatteroffact,the

technologyappearstoattractmoreoftheyoungergenerationtothegallerytoseetheart”

(CitedinPollack,1999,n.p.).

InteractiveTechnologies

Museumtechnologyfallsintoseveralcategories.Mostcurrentapplicationsof

technologyinartmuseumsinvolvethevisitor’sabilitytoretrieveadditionalinformation

fromweb‐basedinformationsystemsordatabases.Audiotours,wherethevisitorrentsa

handheldaudiodevice,havebeeninuseformanyyearsintheartmuseumsetting.More

recently,variousmuseumshavedevelopedprogramsthatusesomeformofPersonal

DigitalAssistants(PDAs).AlessexpensiveoptioninvolvesiPoddownloadsofferedon

manymuseumwebsites.Cellphonetoursarealsogainingpopularity.Andthereis

ubiquitouscomputing,inwhichthetechnologyisembeddedintheexhibit.Acasemaybe

madeforeachoftheseapplicationsastheyenhancethemuseumexperienceandcreate

learningopportunities.


19

In1997,theEuropeanUnionlaunchedastudyonwhatmightbeconsideredthe

ultimatePDA.NamedHyperInteractionwithinPhysicalSpace(HIPS),thissubjectofa

three‐yearlongstudymadeacasefortheproblemofasystemofferingtoomuch

information.TheHIPSsystemusesaglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)totrackartmuseum

visitors’positioningwithintheartmuseum,analyzesthevisitor’spreferences,andoffers

informationbasedonthatdata.Accordingtooneresearcher,“whentheviewerstandsin

frontofanartwork[thevisitor]isassailedbyaninformationoverflow”(Venkatachalam,

2004,p.183).Thisdistractsthevisitorandpreventshimorherfromengagingwiththe

artwork,accordingtoHIPScritics(Ibid).WhilethepotentialofHIPStechnologyisstill

beingconsidered,thiscostprohibitiveandsomewhatintrusivetechnologyprovidesagood

exampleoftechnologyeclipsingthemuseumlearningdirective.

iPodtoursandcellphonetoursareacomparativelyinexpensivewayvisitorsmay

nowenhancetheirartmuseumexperience.Manymuseumsoffertoursontheirwebsites

fordownloadpriortoanartmuseumvisit.Butitcouldbearguedthatthemuseum

experiencebecomesanisolatedonewhenthevisitorsarelisteningtoprerecordedaudio

andnotinteracting.Studieshaveshownthatdialogueduringamuseumvisitisan

invaluablevehicleforconstructionofmeaning(e.g.,Weier,2004).

Andfinally,scholarshiponubiquitouscomputingsuggeststhatitishighlyeffective

forcreatingmeaningandengagementforvisitorsinthemuseumsetting.Whilethereare

moreandmoreexamplesofubiquitouscomputingbeingusedintheartmuseumsetting,it

hasmostoftenandmostsuccessfullybeenusedinscienceandhistorymuseums(Hall&


20

Bannon,2006).Questionsofenvironmentdisruptionandcostareconsiderationswhen

assessingthesuitabilityofubiquitouscomputingintheartmuseumsetting.

UbiquitousComputing:ACaseStudy

Theargumentforimplementationofinteractivetechnologyasanexhibitcomponent

intheartmuseumisonlyvalidifthetechnologyisappropriateforthepresentationofthe

exhibitcontent.ThiscasestudyexaminestheexhibitpresentedattheJordanSchnitzer

MuseumofArtentitled,GiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrand

Tour.Called“themostambitiousexhibitioninthemuseum’snearlyeighty‐year

history,”(Hartz,2010,p.7)thisisthefirsttimethattheJSMAhasattemptedtouse

ubiquitouscomputingasanexhibitcomponent.Inadditiontotraditionalexhibitmethods,

Vasi’sRomeutilizesgraphicimagingtechnologytoofferthevisitorinnovativewaysto

accessandcompareinformation.Thisinquiryseekstojustifytheuseofcomputinginthis

exhibitbydescribingthedeepercontentmadeavailabletothemuseumvisitorthroughthe

useofthecomputerkiosks,identifyadvantagesandlimitationsofthistechnology,and

throughtheconsiderationofvisitorfeedback.

ThisexhibitdocumentsRomeasitappearedinthe18thcenturythroughprints,texts

andotherimagescreatedbyGiuseppeVasiandothervedutisti.Vasiandhis

contemporariesusedseveraldifferentmethodstorecordRomeandVasi’sRomecombines

thesevariousapproachestocreateacomprehensiveimageoftheEternalCity,astheGrand

Touristswouldhaveperceiveditinthe18thcentury.

AccordingtoJohnPinto(1976),thedevelopmentofgeometricperspectivegreatly

influencedvisualrepresentationinRenaissanceartandarchitecture.Theuseofgeometric


21

perspectiveresultsintheillusionofspaceanddepthonatwodimensionalsurface.The

veduteofRomeinthe18thcentury,traditionallyrenderedingeometricperspective,suchas

Vasi’sseriesofviewsinhisDelleMagnificenzediRoma(1747‐1761)offerthearmchair

touristanimmediatevisualunderstandingofalocation’sappearanceandscale.These

images,accurateintheirdepictionofarchitecturaldetailandspecificandidentifiable

topography,alsousedvisualdevicesthatsometimesbenttherulesofgeometric

perspectivetocreateamoreeffectiveimage.Asco‐curatorandarchitectJamesTice

(2010a)explains,Vasiemployedboth“visualconventionsandinventions,allow[ing]himto

evokemanyplacesinRomemoreeffectivelythanscientificallyconstructedperspectiveor

modernphotographywould”(p.67).These“inventions”thatVasiusedtocommunicate

theessenceofplace,especiallyforsomeonewhoisnotfamiliarwiththesightsofRome,are

detectablethroughacomparisonwithotherimages.

AvariationongeometricperspectiveisusedintherenderingofVasi’spanoramic

viewaswell(fig.1).Illusionofdepthonatwodimensionalsurfacereliesonasingle

observerstationedatafixedpointinspace.Pintoacknowledgesthelimitationsofcorrect

perspectiveintherepresentationofcomplexobjectssuchasvastgeographicallocations,

whereinrealitytheobserverwouldbephysicallyunabletoseeanentireareaallatonce.

ArtistsinthetimeofVasiusedvisualdevicestocompensateforimpossibleviews.“The

depictionofcitiesinobliqueprojection,”explainsPinto(1976),“aswellasthefamiliar

bird’seyeview,permittedanillusionoftotalvision.InRenaissanceplansofthistype,”

suchasVasi’sProspettodiCittàRomavistodalMonteGianicolofrom1765,“citiesare

shownasifseenfromasingleelevatedviewpoint,fromwhichtheprojectedlineofsight

meetstheearth’ssurfaceatanobliqueangle”(p.35).


22

Thismethod,however,resultsinthedistortionofspatialrelationships.To

communicatespacebetweenobjectsmoreaccurately,artistsdevelopedtheichnographic

approachinrepresentation(fig.2).Thisapproach,typicallyusedbymodernday

cartographers,depictsageographicalareaasagroundplan,withtopographicalfeatures

beingrepresentedthroughoutlines.Theichnographicapproachplacestheviewerabove

theareawith“aninfinitenumberofviewpoints,allperpendiculartoeachtopographical

feature”(Ibid,p.35).Pintoassertsthattheichnographicplan“constitutedanew

conceptualattitudetowardtherepresentationofcities,inwhichquantitativetopographical

relationshipsweregivenvisualpriorityoverbothsymbolicvaluesandtheactual

appearanceofthecity”(Ibid,p.35).Spatialrelationshipswereconveyedwithfarmore

accuracythroughichnographicrepresentation,butsuchplanswerelesscapableof

communicatingthefeelorimpressionofacity(Ibid).GiovanniBattistaNolli’sLaPianta

Grandefrom1748isanexampleof“anichnographicplan,”asexplainedbyJimTice

(2010b),that“presentsthecitywithanexactitudethatallowsonetoimmediatelycompare

size,positionandshape”(n.p.).

MarioBevilacqua(2010)observesthatwhilecartographyandcityscapeare

decidedlydifferentapproachestovisuallyrepresentingalocation,theyareoftenusedin

conjunctionwithoneanother.Furthermore,theinclusionofindividualviewsoflandmarks

addsanadditionallayerofdepthforviewers’comprehensionofalocation.Inthecaseof

Vasi’snumerousetchingsofviewsofRome,itisverylikelythatheusedNolli’s

ichnographicplanasaguide(Ceen,2010).Allbut17ofVasi’s238viewsfromtheten

booksoftheMagnificenzecanalsobelocatedonNolli’smap.“Vasi’smethodfordepicting

hisviews,”JimTice(2010a)explains,“canbebetterunderstoodbysystematically


23

reconstructinghisstationpointsandviewshedsontheNollimapandthencomparingthe

resultantviewswithphotographstakenfromthesamevantagepoints”(p.69)(figs.3&4).

TechnologyandExhibitComponents

GiventhecomplexityofVasi’sRome’ssubjectmatter,theexhibit’scuratorsdesigned

acomparativeapproachmadepossiblethroughseveralinteractivekiosksplaced

strategicallythroughouttheexhibit(fig.5).ThekiosksconsistofAppleiPadsencasedin

protectivehousing.ThekiosksintheexhibituseGeographicInformationSystem

technology,andthisplatformwasdevelopedfortheImagoUrbiswebsiteandsubsequently

thisprojectbytheInfoGraphicsLabintheGeographyDepartmentattheUniversityof

Oregon.ThekiosksallowvisitorstoviewVasi’sviewshedspositionedonNolli’smapas

wellascurrentphotos.OtherkiosksallowvisitorstocomparevariousviewsofRomeas

interpretedbyothervedutisti,suchasPiranesi,Canaletto,WittelandPanini,andcompare

themtoVasi’sprintsfromtheMagnificenzeandcurrentphotographs(figs.6,7,&8).

Visitorsalsohaveaccesstomanyoftheactualphysicalprintsandpaintings.

Thekiosksaresilentandintuitive.SimpleinstructionsarevisiblebelowtheiPads,

andtheprogramiseasytonavigateastheinformationislayeredinalogicalmanner.As

withalltechnology,thereisthepossibilityofmalfunction.InhislectureonNovember30,

2010,KurtNeugebauermentionedthatWi‐Fistability,whichisessentialforthekiosk

function,hasalsobeenaproblemattimes.Buttheseissuesarerelativelyminorconcerns

whenoneunderstandstheadvantagesofthistechnologyandthegreatercontentmade

availablethroughitsuse.Thetechnologyismeanttoenhancetheactualartifacts,not

replacethem,andallowvisitorstoaccessdeeperlayersofinformationtocreatea


24

comprehensiveunderstandingofthesubjectmatter.AsJillHartz(2010),theexecutive

directorattheJSMAexplains,thisexhibitisa“multifacetedprojectthat,throughitsvaried

platforms,deepensourunderstandingofVasi,theartandarchitectureofhisperiod,Roman

patronage,urbandesign,andtheGrandTour,andhelpsarticulatethelessonsofRomefor

ourlivesandcitiestoday”(p.8).

VisitorExperience

Atwo‐hourfocusgroupwasheldonAugust6,2010,priortotheexhibitopening.

Thegoalofthisgroupwastogatherfeedbackandgenerateideasregardingexhibitcontent,

evaluatethetouchscreensandlabelsusedintheexhibit,aswellasdiscusstheexhibit’s

marketingstrategies.Accordingtothefocusgroupreport,“Participants[rangedinage]

fromteenagerstoseniors,andincludedhighschoolstudents,UOstudents,UOfaculty/staff,

communitymembers,museumvolunteers,K‐12teachers,andmembersoftheLatinoand

AsianAmericancommunities”(Kaplan,2010,p.1).

Onthesubjectofexhibitcontent,membersofthegrouprevealedthattheabilityto

relatetheexhibitcontenttoone’sownlifewasofparticularconcern.Questionsof

alienationfromthelivesofthearistocraticGrandTouristswereraisedbyfocusgroup

members.“TheGrandTour,”explainedKaplan(2010),“wastheluxuryofaprivileged

class,morethantravelistoday.Thiscouldbebothfascinatingtosomeandalienatingto

ethnicgroupswhoserolewasmoreasaservantduringthesetimes”(p.1).Asa

participatingobserver,Iwouldarguethatthecontentbecomesmoreaccessibleand

comprehensiblethroughthetechnologicalinterface.Thecontentpresentedthroughthe

kiosksconstantlyreferredtothevisitor’sowntimeperiodviacontemporaryphotographs,


25

allowingthevisitortocompareandcontrast18thcenturyRomewiththecityofthepresent

daytocreateapersonalconnection.Visitorswereencouragedtoimaginethemselvesas

18thcenturyGrandTourists,touringtheexhibitmuchliketheGrandTouriststouredRome.

Ispeculatethatbecauseallpresent‐daymuseumvisitorswereremovedfromthetime

periodpresentedinthisexhibitionbynearlythreecenturies,itrequiredaleapofthe

imaginationforallvisitors,regardlessofethnicityorsocialstatus,toidentifywiththe

GrandTourists.Therefore,thenarrativeoftheexhibit,expressedthroughlabelsand

enhancedbyinteractivetechnology,playedacrucialroleinsupportingthegenerationof

personalmeaningforvisitors.

Otherconcernsoftheformativefocusgroupincludedthepossibilityoftheacademic

subjectmatteronlyappealingtoalimitedsegmentofthemuseumaudience.Engaging

children,membersofthefocusgrouppredicted,couldbeproblematicconsideringthe

exhibit’scomplexnature.Indeed,thisexhibitwasnotcreatedwithchildreninmind.The

abilityaffordedbythekioskstojumpbetweenimages,however,createdanengagingvisual

activitythatcouldbeenjoyedbyvisitorsofallages,eventhosewholackedtheabilityto

read.OnseveraloccasionsIobservedschool‐agedchildrenplayingwiththekiosksand

engaginginconversationwiththeiradultcounterpartsregardingtheirownobservations.

Thefocusgroup’soverallresponsetotheiPadswasfavorable.TheiPads

encouragedthevisitortoparticipateinaconstructivistlearningexperiencethroughactive

engagement.“Participantslikedthatthetechnologyprovidedadditionaldepthtotheir

looking,”accordingtothefocusgroup’sreport(Kaplan,2010,p.1).Participantsalso

commentedontheabilitytofocusonandenlargeareasofinterestasanassetofthe


26

technology.Thecarefullayeringofinformationhelpedguidethevisitorlearning

experienceasthevisitornavigatedthedifferentlevelsofcontent.Thecrossreferencingof

thevariousartists’workwitheachother,modernphotographs,andpreparatorydrawings

wasmadepossiblethroughtheinteractivekioskswhereaswithoutthem,thecomplex

subjectmatterwouldhavebeendifficulttopresent.

Commentswerealsorandomlycollectedfromahandfulofinformalinterviews

conductedaftertheexhibitopened.Again,thegeneralresponsetotheiPadcomponents

waspositive,andmanyofthevisitorsindicatedthatthetechnologywasaccessibleandthat

thetechnology“broughttheetchingstolife”(Taylor,2010,p.1).Accordingtothedatathat

hasbeencollected,visitorsacrossvariousagegroups,fromdifferenteducationlevelsand

backgroundsfoundwaystoconnectwiththeVasiexhibitexperience.Thismaybeinpart

duetothemultiplemodesofinformationpresentationthatappealtoavarietyoflearning

styles.

Andfinally,researchindicatesthatwhile“visitorswantthemuseumexperienceto

bememorable,theyalsowantittobeenjoyable”(Mayer,2005,p.16).Allinformation

collectedtodateonthevisitorexperiencewithintheVasiexhibitsuggeststhatitis

entertainingaswellaseducational.Successfulexhibitsbydefinitionmustkeepthe

audiences’attention,andclearlytheVasiexhibitaccomplishedthis,partiallyduetoits

interactiveandentertainingelements.Inaddition,asuccessfulexhibitmustappealtoa

wideaudience.JillHartz(2010),executivedirectoroftheJordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt,

describesthegoalsofthisexhibitionas,“nurturingnewscholarshipandgivingitalively

visualandpublicpresencefordiverseaudiencesintheacademy,thecommunity,and


27

beyond”(p.10).Thisisanimportantachievement,especiallyconsideringtheacademic

andcomplexnatureofthesubjectmatter.

Conclusion

Thispaperapproachesthesubjectoftechnologyintheartmuseumsettingfromthe

perspectivethatiftechnologyistobeused,itmustbeappropriatefortheexhibit.Thegoal

hereistointegrateengagingtechnologyandenhanceexhibitswithoutdisruptingtheart

museumenvironmentandalienatingtheartmuseum’spresentaudience.Whenappliedin

carefulways,theadvantagesoftheintegrationofcomputingincludetheabilitytoconvey

complexinformationlikethatfoundintheVasiexhibitinamoreconciseand

comprehensiblemanner.Alsobeneficialisthepotentialtoattractawider,morediverse

audiencethroughtheuseofvariousmodesofexhibitcontentpresentation.Theonusof

selectingexhibitcontentthatcanbesuccessfullyandappropriatelymediatedthrough

interactivetechnologylieswithartmuseums’educationandexhibitsdepartments.“Many

artmuseumshavealonghistoryofcreatinginnovativewaysofmediatingvisitor

experienceinthegalleries,”explainKarenKnutsonandKevinCrowley(2009),butthereis

muchtoconsiderintheprocessofinterpretation:“[Artmuseums]mustmakehardchoices

abouttheinformationthatistobeprovided.Eachartworkmightbeusedtoexplainissues

ofculturehistory,patronage,geography,techniques,artistintention,ortheoriesofbeauty,

amongotherthings”(p.3).Clearly,then,thediscussionofwhetherubiquitouscomputing

isappropriateforaparticularexhibitmustbeevaluatedonacase‐by‐casebasis.

Therecanbelittleargumentthattheuseofcomputertechnologyisthemedium

throughwhichthechildrenandyoungadultsofthiseracommunicateandentertain


28

themselves.Itismycontentionthatconcessionsmustbemadebyartmuseum

professionalstoembraceemergenttechnologiesiftheywanttheirmuseumstoremain

relevanttofuturegenerations.Engagement,resultinginmuseumlearning,isthenatural

resultofappropriateusesofinteractivetechnology.

BruceWyman,thedirectoroftechnologyattheDenverArtMuseumputsthe

successfulintegrationoftheartmuseumandtechnologyintoperspective:

Realandvirtualworldsshouldblendtothepointwherethey'rejustdifferentlenses

intothemuseumexperience...Theolddefinitionsdon'tapplyanymore.Moving

backandforthbetweenthesemodesissecondnatureforpeopletoday."Talking"to

someonecanmeaninperson,onthephone,byemail,orthroughsocialnetworking.

It'salljusttalking.Theprimaryfocusisontheexperience;technologyissecondary.

(CitedinFischer&Levinson,2010,n.p.)

TheVasiexhibitexemplifiesthesuccessfulintegrationofthedisplayofbeautiful,important

worksofartwithengagement‐creatingtechnologyinwhichthetechnologyisunobtrusive

buteffective.


29

Figure1.GiuseppeVasi,1765.Prospetto

dell’almacittàdiRomavistodalMonteGianicolo.PanoramaofRome.VincentJ.Buonanno.


30

Figure2.GiovanniBattistaNolli,1748.LaPianteGrandediRoma.MapofRome.VincentJ.Buonanno.


31

Figure3.Giuseppe,Vasi,1752.PiazzadellaRotonda,fromtheseriesDelleMagnificenzediRomaanticaemoderna(BookII,Plate25).Vasi’sviewofthePantheon.VincentJ.Buonanno.

Figure4.DetailofNolli’sMapofRomeshowingthePantheon,1748.VincentJ.Buonanno.


32

Figure5.KiosksintheexhibitionVasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheAgeoftheGrandTour.JonathanB.Smith.


33

Figure6.GuiseppeVasi,1754.PonteAdriano,fromtheseriesDelleMagnificenzediRomaanticaemoderna(BookV,Plate86).RobertoPiperno.

Figure7.PhotographofPonteAdriano,2009.RobertoPiperno.


34

Figure8.GasparvanWittel,1682.PonteAdriano.RobertoPiperno.


35

References

Atkins,L.,Velez,L.,Goudy,D.,&Dunbar,K.(2009).Theunintendedeffectsofinteractive

objectsandlabelsinthesciencemuseum.ScienceEducation,93(1),161‐184.

RetrievedApril24,2009,fromWileyInterSciencedatabase.

Bevilacqua,M.(2010).Plans,views,andpanoramas:ThevisionsofVasi,Nolli,and

Piranesi.InJ.TiceandJ.G.Harper(Eds.),GiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingImpressions

fromtheageoftheGrandTour(pp.37‐51).Eugene,OR:JordanSchnitzerMuseumof

Art.

Boram,R.(1992).Whatareschool‐agechildrenlearningfromhands‐onsciencecenter

exhibits?InA.Benefield,S.Bitgood,andH.Shettel(Eds.),Visitorstudies:Theory

researchandpractice(pp.121‐30).Jacksonville,AL:CenterforSocialDesign.

Ceen,A.(2010).UnaRomavisuale:VasiandNolli.InJ.TiceandJ.G.Harper(Eds.),

GiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingImpressionsfromtheageoftheGrandTour(pp.31‐6).

Eugene,OR:JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt.

CenterfortheFutureofMuseums.2008.Museums&society2034:Trendsandpotential

futures.PreparedfortheAmericanAssociationforMuseumsbyReachAdvisors.

RetrievedJune2009fromwww.futureofmuseums.org/reading/publications/.

Cohen,E.G.(2010).ReviewofIntelligencereframed:Multipleintelligencesforthe21st

centurybyHowardGardner,TeachersCollegeRecord103,47‐9.


36

Crowley,K.,Callanan,M.A.,Jipson,J.L.,Galco,J.,Topping,K.,&Shrager,J.(2001).Shared

scientificthinkingineverydayparent‐childactivity.ScienceEducation,85(6),712‐

732.RetrievedApril13,2009,fromWileyInterSciencedatabase.

Csikszentmihalyi,M.&Hermanson,K.(1995).Intrinsicmotivationinmuseums:Whydoes

onewanttolearn?InJ.H.Falk&L.D.Dierking(Eds.),Publicinstitutionsforpersonal

learning:Establishingaresearchagenda(pp.67‐77).Washington,D.C.:American

AssociationofMuseums,TechnicalInformationService.

D’Agostino,J.V.,Loomis,R.J.,&Webb,B.(1992).Attitudes,beliefs,intendedbehaviors,and

exhibitevaluation.InVisitorstudies:Theoryresearchandpractice.Jacksonville,AL:

CenterforSocialDesign.

Danko‐McGhee,K.(2006).Nurturingaestheticawarenessinyoungchildren:

Developmentallyappropriateartviewingexperiences.ArtEducation,59(3).

RetrievedMay26,2009fromFactivaDatabase.

Excellenceandequity:Educationandthepublicdimensionofmuseums.(1992).

Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationofMuseums.

Falk,J.H.&Dierking,L.D.(1995).Introduction:Acaseforconductinglong‐termlearning

researchinmuseums.InJ.H.Falk&L.D.Dierking(Eds.),Publicinstitutionsfor

personallearning:Establishingaresearchagenda(pp.9‐14).Washington,D.C.:

AmericanAssociationofMuseums,TechnicalInformationService.

Falk,J.H.&Dierking.,L.D.(1992).Themuseumexperience.Washington,D.C.:Whalesback

Books,1992.


37

Fischer,D.,&Levinson,L.(2010).Redefiningsuccessfulinterpretationinartmuseums.

Curator,53(3),299‐323.RetrievedMarch10,2011fromArtFullTextdatabase.

Hall,T.&Bannon,L.(2006).Designingubiquitouscomputingtoenhancechildren’s

learninginmuseums.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,(22),231‐243.

RetrievedApril13,2009,fromWileyInterSciencedatabase.

Hartz,J.(2010).Forewardandacknowlegements.InJ.TiceandJ.G.Harper(Eds.),Giuseppe

Vasi’sRome:LastingimpressionsfromtheageoftheGrandTour(pp.7‐16).Eugene,

OR:JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt.

Hein,G.E.(1998).Learninginthemuseum.NewYork:Routledge.

Hopper,B.,&Hurry,P.(2000).LearningtheMIway:Theeffectsonstudents’learningof

usingthetheoryofMultipleIntelligences.PastoralCare,26‐32.

Kaplan,S.(2010).Summaryreport:GiuseppeVasi’sRomefocusgroup.JordanSchnitzer

MuseumofArt.

Knutson,K.&Crowley,K.(2009).Connectingwithart:Howfamiliestalkaboutartina

museumsetting.InM.K.Stein&L.Kucan(Eds.),InstructionalExplanationsinthe

Disciplines.NewYork:Springer.

MacDonald,S.(2007).Interconnecting:Museumvisitingandexhibitiondesign.CoDesign,

3(1),149‐162.

MacRae,C.(2007).Usingsensetomakesenseofart:Youngchildreninartgalleries.Early

Years,27(2),159‐170.RetrievedMay26,2009fromhttp://0‐


38

web.ebscohost.com.janus.uoregon.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=6&sid=38c92a75‐

9dc8‐4257‐ae83‐459a7a384508%40sessionmgr2

Mayer,M.(2005).Bridgingthetheory‐practicedivideincontemporaryartmuseum

education.ArtEducation58(2),13‐17.

McLean,K.(2005).Planningforpeopleinmuseumexhibitions(4thed.).Washington,D.C.:

AssociationofScience‐TechnologyCenters.

Muller,L.,Edmonds,E.,&Connell,M.(2006).Livinglaboratoriesforinteractiveart.

CoDesign,2(4),195‐207.

Neuman,W.L.(2006).Socialresearchmethods:Qualitativeandquantitativeapproaches

(6thed.).NewDelhi,India:DorlingKindersley(India)Pvt.Ltd.

Nolli,G.B.(1748).MapofRome[Figure].RetrievedMarch17,2011from

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nolli.uoregon.edu/attributes/image

s/printmapsmall.jpg&imgrefurl=http://nolli.uoregon.edu/forsale.html&usg=__bgW

9V‐

WWa8RfgqO7nztMkfyW9qU=&h=474&w=540&sz=101&hl=en&start=0&sig2=w70s

HuLS75jx2CrSjqKvlw&zoom=1&tbnid=xL3jTa5vg5YLCM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=202&e

i=‐

uyCTdvzFou4sQPJuvT8AQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNolli%2BMap%26um%3D1%

26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4RNWM_enUS311%26biw%3D1381%26bi

h%3D840%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1115&vpy=104&dur=23


39

4&hovh=210&hovw=240&tx=124&ty=92&oei=‐

uyCTdvzFou4sQPJuvT8AQ&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

Nolli,G.(1748).DetailofNolli’sMapofRomeshowingthePantheon[Figure].Retrieved

March17,2011from

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nolli.uoregon.edu/attributes/image

s/printmapsmall.jpg&imgrefurl=http://nolli.uoregon.edu/forsale.html&usg=__bgW

9V‐

WWa8RfgqO7nztMkfyW9qU=&h=474&w=540&sz=101&hl=en&start=0&sig2=w70s

HuLS75jx2CrSjqKvlw&zoom=1&tbnid=xL3jTa5vg5YLCM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=202&e

i=‐

uyCTdvzFou4sQPJuvT8AQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNolli%2BMap%26um%3D1%

26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4RNWM_enUS311%26biw%3D1381%26bi

h%3D840%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1115&vpy=104&dur=23

4&hovh=210&hovw=240&tx=124&ty=92&oei=‐

uyCTdvzFou4sQPJuvT8AQ&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

Pinto,J.A.(1976).Originsanddevelopmentoftheichnographiccityplan.Journalofthe

SocietyofArchitecturalHistorians,35(1).RetrievedNovember10,2010.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/988969

Piperno,R.(2009).PhotographofPonteAdriano[Figure].RetrievedMarch17,2011from

http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Vasi86.html


40

Pollack,B.(1999).Who’safraidofthebigbadmouse?ARTnews,98(9).RetrievedMay26,

2009,fromFactivaDatabase.

Rahm,J.(2004).Multiplemodesofmeaning‐makinginasciencecenter.ScienceEducation

88(2).RetrievedMay16,2009fromhttp://0‐www3.interscience.wiley.com.

janus.uoregon.edu/cgi‐bin/fulltext/107602054/PDFSTART

Roschelle,J.(1995).Learningininteractiveenvironments:Priorknowledgeandnew

experience.InJ.H.Falk&L.D.Dierking(Eds.),Publicinstitutionsforpersonal

learning:Establishingaresearchagenda(pp.37‐51).Washington,D.C.:American

AssociationofMuseums,TechnicalInformationService.

Savva,A.&Trimis,E.(2005).Responsesofyoungchildrentocontemporaryartexhibits:

Theroleofartisticexperiences.InternationalJournalofEducationandtheArts,

6(13).RetrievedMay16,2009fromhttp://ijea.asu.edu/v6n13/.

Sassen,K.&Zhu,J.,(2008).Therainbowasinteractiveart:modelingtheElaissonBeauty

installationatSFMOMA.AppliedOptics,47,H171‐H175.RetrievedMay26,2009

fromhttp://0‐www.opticsinfobase.org.janus.uoregon.edu/abstract.cfm?URI

=ao‐47‐34‐H171

Schauble,L.&Bartlett,K.(1997).Constructingasciencegalleryforchildrenandfamilies:

Theroleofresearchinaninnovativedesignprocess.ScienceEducation,81(6),781‐

793.RetrievedApril13,2009,fromWileyInterSciencedatabase.


41

Schwarzer,M.(2001).Artandgadgetry:Thefutureofthemuseumvisit.MuseumNews.

RetrievedDecember6,2010fromhttp://www.aam‐us.org/pubs/mn/MN_JA01

_ArtGadgetry.cfm.

Speaker,K.M.(2001).Interactiveexhibittheory:Hintsforimplementinglearner‐centered

activitiesinelementaryclassrooms.Education,121(3),610‐614.

Smith,J.B.(2010).PhotographofkiosksintheexhibitionGiuseppeVasi’sRome:Lasting

impressionsfromtheageoftheGrandTour[Figure].JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt.

Stogner,M.(2009).TheMedia‐enhancedmuseumexperience:Debatingtheuseofmedia

technologyinculturalexhibitions.Curator,52(4),385‐97.doi:10.1111/j.2151‐

6952.2009.tb00360.x

Taylor,A.(2010).Vasiexhibitinformalinterviews.JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt.

Tice,J.T.(2010a).Vasi’smethod.InJ.Tice&J.G.Harper(Eds.),GiuseppeVasi’sRome:

LastingimpressionsfromtheageoftheGrandTour(pp.67‐76).Eugene,OR:Jordan

SchnitzerMuseumofArt.

Tice,J.T.(2010b).TheNollimapandurbantheory.TheinteractiveNollimapwebsite.

Retrievedfromhttp://nolli.uoregon.edu/urbanTheory.htmlonNovember10,2010.

Vasi,G.(1752).PiazzadellaRotonda,fromtheseriesDelleMagnificenzediRomaanticae

moderna(BookII,Plate25)[Figure].PhotographbyV.J.Buonanno.InJ.TiceandJ.

G.Harper(Eds.),GiuseppeVasi’sRome:LastingimpressionsfromtheageoftheGrand

Tour(pp.118).Eugene,OR:JordanSchnitzerMuseumofArt.


42

Vasi,G.(1754).PonteAdriano[Figure].PhotographbyR.Piperno.RetrievedMarch17,

2011fromhttp://romeartlover.tripod.com/Vasi86.html

Vasi,G.(1765).Prospettodell’almacittàdiRomavistodalMonteGianicolo[Figure].

PhotographbyV.J.Buonanno.RetrievedMarch17,2011from

http://vasi.uoregon.edu/works_panorama.html

Ventkatachalam,S.(2004).Technologyandthecontemplationofart:Contemplatingthe

workofartusingtheHIPStechnology.JournalofVisualArtPractice,3(3),179‐194.

Weier,K.(2004).Empoweringyoungchildreninartmuseums:Lettingthemtakethelead.

ContemporaryIssuesinEarlyChildhood,5(1),106‐116.RetrievedMay30,2009

fromhttp://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=5&issue=1&year

=2004&article=10_Weier_CIEC_5_1_web

Wittel,G.V.(1682).PonteAdriano[Figure].PhotographbyR.Piperno.RetrievedMarch

17,2011fromhttp://romeartlover.tripod.com/Vasi86.html

Worts,D.(1992).Visitor‐centeredexperiences.InA.Benefield,S.Bitgood,&H.Shettel

(Eds.),Visitorstudies:Theory,research,andpractice,4(pp.156‐161).Jacksonville,

AL:CenterforSocialDesign.

Interactive Technology in Art Museum Exhibitions

Documents

Transcript of Interactive Technology in Art Museum Exhibitions