What if visitors could choose their own intellectual pathways in museum exhibitions?
This article originally appeared in Museum magazine’s July/August 2024 issue, a benefit of AAM membership.
In their book Broadcast Journalism Techniques of Radio and Television News, Peter Stewart and Robert Alexander write, “The soundbite should encapsulate the main point of the argument; the strongest opinion or reaction. Again, there is a danger of distortion by over-emphasizing the already emphatic and polarizing a point of view, and this danger can only be eliminated by carefully explaining the context in which the remarks were made.” Please indulge me in an argument against the soundbite in the museum context.
I advocate for an expanded exhibition process that emphasizes a broad field of seemingly unrelated avenues of exploration. Furthermore, I oppose simplified text (soundbites) as the only access to intellectual content.
I propose changing our standard exhibition-making policies to include access to a broad range of augmentative material presented as alternative pathways for exploration, enabling visitors to choose the depth of information and intellectual trajectory they want. AI’s new capacity makes this exhibition design direction easier than ever. However, the most significant changes still necessary for this to work involve museum policy and intention.
An Argument for More Arguments
Before I go further, it is crucial to acknowledge that past exhibitions have explored multi-vocality, access to additional information, and alternative methods of interactivity. Many of these techniques are now incorporated as a matter of policy. I propose that museums build on these trends, including changing labeling conventions so that each visitor’s interrogation of the material can differ, not as an occasional experiment but as a matter of routine exhibition design. I know it is unrealistic to expect such complexity from all exhibitions. But if a critical mass of exhibitions in each museum allowed visitors to extrapolate in this way, museum-goers could learn to do this on their own in exhibitions where unitary argument prevails.
I also recognize that implementing my proposal may lengthen exhibition development timelines and potentially increase costs. New design skills would be needed to make these alternative pathways as engaging as the current, more uniform message.
“Why do this?” you rightfully ask. My answer is philosophical. While simplification and directive points of view may facilitate better and easier understanding, they also tend to foster polarization and alienation, especially if the institution is taking a controversial position. Almost all material evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. If the information were equally presented, visitors would understand that complex issues cannot be reduced easily to single points of view. I hope that such peaceful inclusion would lead to a more developed tolerance of our fellow humans’ different interests and positions.
Allowing visitors to explore personal interests within a group setting reveals the possibility of complexity in arguments and welcomes tangential or adjacent ideas. When we take public transportation, for example, we are permissive about what our fellow seatmates choose to read or watch on their phones. Like that experience, I want to recognize and support my fellow learners without knowing what they are learning.
The Benefits and Challenges
I believe such multi-focal exhibitions would be beneficial in two ways. First, I hope visitors would understand that objects can be legitimately viewed in many ways. Second, subliminally, visitors would realize that individuals standing side by side, holding different views on the subject, pose no threat to one another. It might be an alternative to personal certainty. More importantly, museums would signal to an intellectually and politically diverse audience that they are all “seen” and valued, reinforcing that each visitor has come to the right place.
The dangers of this approach include the use of false information and unsafe affiliations. To combat this, we would need to establish internal guardrails to determine the scope of authentic, vetted, and broad content. I suspect herein lies the most challenging part of this proposal. If the museum staff deems almost everything frivolous or “low brow” as inappropriate for the public display, the resultant product may lack the engagement it should ideally foster.
Museums are not the moral police; they are expansive repositories that preserve and safeguard our collective and personal patrimony. They are responsible for presenting our interests and their contexts comprehensively, including the emotional, faith-based, and even nonrational aspects. Visitors should be allowed to contemplate their own internal modalities, ingenuity, and accomplishments as they explore museums’ holdings.
Potentially, as a result of my proposal, museums could more easily and seamlessly integrate the work of formerly marginalized people into these broadened exhibitions. In doing so, the creations of all peoples would be included in avenues of delight, concern, investigation, anger, and even adoration. And in this way, we might peacefully stand together without having to agree.
What Does This Look Like?
Upon entering the museum, visitors could encounter a decoding diagram that would help them understand how to navigate through multiple avenues of interest. Labels would have a new taxonomy indicating different paths of exploration without resorting to visual clutter. Overt text would offer entrance to a variety of contexts. For instance, visitors could study making the thing, liking the thing, supporting or hating the maker, and understanding the context in which the thing was made. Ian Wedde, a former curator at New Zealand’s national museum, Te Papa, has said, “I want to go to a museum of war to learn about bicycles.” This is a desired outcome of such exhibition changes.
If museums embraced this template alteration, they would participate in a much-needed critical change in our public dialogue—that is, citizens might begin to reject soundbites of certainty to embrace contextual ambiguity. Most issues (save those few at the extremes) contain partial truths and embedded justifications. In the current political climate, people often consume news that aligns with their beliefs, minimizing their exposure to omitted information.
With this more inclusive approach, we could help create a world in which silos were less evident, and the atmosphere inside our museums might help us feel more broadly forgiving toward one another. Our job in Museumland is to bust the door wide open so that every peaceable human feels safe entering.
Resources
Elaine Heumann Gurian, “What Is the Object of This Exercise? A Meandering Exploration of the Many Meanings of Objects in Museums,” Daedalus 128(3), 1999
Elaine Heumann Gurian, “On the Importance of ‘And’: Museums and Complexity,” The Future of Museum and Gallery Design, 2018
“Accessible Exhibition Guide: Delivering Content to All,” Cooper Hewitt Labs
labs.cooperhewitt.org/2018/accessible-exhibition-guide-delivering-content-to-all/
Zachary Small, “Museum Curators Evaluate A.I. Threat by Giving It the Reins,” New York Times, Sept. 8, 2023
nytimes.com/2023/09/08/arts/ai-chatgpt-curators-museums.html
Eric Bender, “Connecting collections through AI,” Oct. 12, 2023
ericbender.co/2023/10/12/connecting-collections-through-ai/
Comments