Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

The use of interactive technology in the modern art museum has empowered the visitor,

transforming them from a mere browser and observer to an active participant. It is a mode of

viewing that is public, and sees art as an experience rather than something to look at, and in

doing so diminishes the audience's understanding and interpretation of art. 1 Moreover, digital

technology has been used very effectively to control how we interact with art through

changing the physical environment and the way in which art is 'hung'. In this essay, Gallery

One at the Cleveland Museum of Art will serve as a case study for these issues in examining

how the transition of the visitor from 'detached spectator' to active participant has changed

the way we understand and interact with art. 2

The incorporation of multi-touch interactive media and mobile applications at Gallery One

has allowed for an engaging, personalised journey into the world of art. It is a revolution in

the museum world, digitising a vast collection of art which most visitors never see, as well as

democratising access to art through a medium which most people understand or have little

difficulty in learning how it works. The principal feature within the space is a large screen

overlaid on a wall which visualises almost 4000 works of art displayed in the permanent

galleries. On this 'Collection Wall', images are organised thematically, and it is designed for

serendipitous browsing — that is, it allows for the chance discovery of related items. Pictures

float past and can be 'grabbed' and synched with the museum's ArtLens iPad app to create a

custom tour of the galleries. 3

1
Linda Candy and Sam Ferguson, 'Interactive Experience, Art and Evaluation', in Linda Candy and Sam
Ferguson, eds., Interactive Experience in the Digital Age: Evaluating A New Art Practice (Springer, 2014), p. 2.
2
Susie Scott, Tamsin Hinton-Smith, Vuokko Härmä and Karl Broome, 'Goffman in the Gallery: Interactive Art
and Visitor Shyness', Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 36, No. 4 (2013), p. 419.
3
Jane Alexander, 'Gallery One at the Cleveland Museum of Art', Digital, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 2014), pp. 351-
352.
1
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

Alongside this, six displays called Lens are placed around the gallery, and are physically

aligned in front of thematic art collections. They use facial recognition software to engage the

user who is encouraged to mimic the expression and pose of the statue or person in the

picture. 4 Both the Collection Wall and the Lens are components of the gallery's 'control'

process. The visitor is faced with the paradoxical dilemma of being overwhelmed by the

choice of what is on display, but also in having little choice but to interact with these

elements in order to interact with the art.

For example, the Collection Wall has been criticised for its lack of a search tool, which limits

the curious user. 5 It was arguably intended by the museum to prevent visitors from spending

too much time in front of the screen, but in doing so it fails to promote a deeper level of

engagement and favours a very particular type of visitor. It is also an aspect of the control

process: the user is meant to wander over to the wall with an iPad to spend a short while

selecting pictures and creating a custom tour before going into the rest of the museum. Yet

despite this intention, it has been observed that most visitors do spend too much time in

Gallery One because of the overload of digital content. 6

It is meant to be serendipitous, but this kind of aimless browsing essentially means the

technology is no more than a gimmick. Critics suggest that it is fun to use on a surface level

for a few minutes, but any attempt to engage with it more closely is generally without

success, specifically because the pool of pictures is too large and the pictures themselves too

4
Alexander, 'Gallery One at the Cleveland Museum of Art', pp. 352-353.

5
Ed Rodley, 'Review: Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part Two', Thinking About Museums,
accessed 30 May, 2015, https://exhibitdev.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/review-cleveland-museum-of-arts-
gallery-one-part-two.

6
Rodley, 'Review: Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part Two'.
2
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

small, and it restricts 'creative tunnelling' into the collection. 7 Its lack of functionality like the

aforementioned search tool is reflective of what it is meant to be: an introductory experience

to the permanent galleries. Yet this negates the mission of an art museum which is essentially

meant as an educational experience. A common way of learning is not necessarily through

serendipitous browsing but deliberately searching for things that interest you and the inability

to do this at the Collection Wall, while impressive as a display of digitised art, reduces its

value to the audience.

Likewise, much of the criticism of the gallery has centred on the Lens in that, while they

provide information and are fun to use, most visitors seem to be mesmerised by the games on

the display screens themselves, which physically block the object they interpret. 8

Furthermore, few visitors go on to look at the art which is the Lens is interpreting. 9 This

inclination to spend more time looking at a screen compared to the art is not confined to the

Lens of the CMA. For instance, in the Face-to-Face exhibition at the Children's Gallery in

the Pompidou Centre, children used on average 9 of the 14 interactive devices, but only

looked at 18 of the 63 art works on display, and spent much more time interacting with the

former. 10

This idea of art as 'fun' and interactive is reflective of a philosophy that has very little to do

with the original creator's intentions. While we should remain ever mindful of the varied
7
Jason Jay Stevens, 'Critique of Gallery One: ArtLens, Cleveland Museum of Art', Exhibitionist (2013), p. 100.
8
Jessimi Jones, 'Gallery One: A Lens for Understanding?', Exhibitionist (2013), pp. 95-96; Ed Rodley, 'Review:
Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part One', Thinking About Museums, accessed 30 May, 2015,
https://exhibitdev.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/review-cleveland-museum-of-arts-gallery-one-part-one.

9
Jones, 'Gallery One', pp. 95-96; Rodley, 'Review: Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part One'.
10
Stéphane Debenedetti, Florence Caro and Anne Krebs, '"I'd Rather Play Than Look at Statues": The
Experiences of Children with Art Works and Interactive Devices at an Art Exhibition', International Journal of
Arts Management, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Spring 2000), p. 50.
3
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

interpretations of art, the way in which people interact with the Lens shows little sense of the

art as fulfilling its traditional purpose. It is evidently an effort by the museum to make art an

engaging, entertaining experience, principally for children and families, but it is questionable

whether art that was produced to adorn the wall of a church or a palace should be

appropriated and put in the same category as other 'entertaining' mediums like computer

games. The same study at the Pompidou Centre showed parents actively participated with

their children in the use of the devices, while Adams et al have shown in their own study that

'tech-savvy' people often interact with the technology of a particular installation before

moving on to the next device, without pausing to consider the aesthetic qualities of the art. 11

Thus any suggestion that children or adults are gaining an informed, educated experience

from the gallery is largely without merit.

Furthermore, the fact that this mode of viewing is so public alienates some audience members

who are otherwise interested in art. The CMA has a very clear idea as to who their ideal

visitor is. Scott et al make an important point that this kind of technology can only effectively

be used by those who are extroverted, confident and willing to embarrass themselves in front

of an audience. 12 The Lens is a clear example of this, as users are encouraged to make faces

and perform poses, with the results on display for all to see. It is, ultimately, an

objectification of the user who through their interaction becomes part of the exhibition

display. 13 Moreover, the researchers show that shyness is not an inherent state of being,

rather a symptom that has the potential to affect everyone at anytime, particularly in the

11
Debenedetti et al, '"I'd Rather Play Than Look at Statues"', p. 50; Marianna Adams, Cynthia Moreno, Molly
Polk and Lisa Buck, 'The Dilemma of Interactive Art Museum Spaces', Art Education, Vol. 56 (2003), p. 47.
12
Scott et al, 'Goffman in the Gallery', p. 421.
13
Scott et al, 'Goffman in the Gallery', p. 419.
4
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

context of interactive art. 14 For the technology to therefore only favour a certain user severely

limits its usefulness. There is nothing forcing visitors to use the technology, or stopping them

from visiting the more traditional permanent galleries, but it is clear that the CMA regards

full use of the technology as part of having the most fulfilling experience possible.

Both the Lens and the Collection Wall are aspects of a control process that view the visitor as

an active participant rather than a spectator. The CMA has for many people created a

dependency on using technology as a medium through which to view art. Digital technology

is not the death knell of the traditional art museum, and we should not fetishise the physical

object, but these case studies strongly suggest that the way technology has been used at the

CMA has diminished the audience's understanding and interpretation of art. It has clearly

superseded any intrinsic interest in the physical artefact, with the Lens regarded by many to

just be an entertaining game and not an important interpretive intermediary which should

enhance the meaning of the object. Moreover, the Collection Wall fails as a function of the

art museum's mission as an educator in the absence of a search tool. It is an attractive display

of digitised art, but the overwhelming scale of it, and its design as a serendipitous browser

reduces its worth.

It was shown, furthermore, that this mode of viewing favours a type of casual user who is

confident enough to engage with the technology to the fullest extent. Through the

objectification of the audience it alienates and socially excludes certain visitors who are not

necessarily forced to use the technology, but the expectation is that they will and that in doing

so have a more fulfilling experience. It is a problematic use of technology. It is also a

14
Scott et al, 'Goffman in the Gallery', pp. 424-425.
5
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

prototype of the future art museum, but technology should not become the focus as it has at

the CMA, rather it should be hidden away, as secondary to the artefact it interprets.

Works Cited
Online Sources
Tninking About Museums. 'Review: Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part One'.
Accessed 30 May, 2015. https://exhibitdev.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/review-cleveland-
museum-of-arts-gallery-one-part-one.
Thinking About Museums. 'Review: Cleveland Museum of Art's Gallery One — Part Two'.
Accessed 30 May, 2015. https://exhibitdev.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/review-cleveland-
museum-of-arts-gallery-one-part-two.

Secondary Sources
Adams, M., Moreno, C., Polk, M. and Buck, L.
2003 'The Dilemma of Interactive Art Museum Spaces', Art Education, Vol. 56, pp. 42-52.
Alexander, J.
2014 'Gallery One at the Cleveland Museum of Art', Digital, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 347-362.
Candy, L. and Ferguson, S.
2013 'Interactive Experience, Art and Evaluation' in Linda Candy and Sam Ferguson, eds.,
Interactive Experience in the Digital Age: Evaluating a New Art Practice, Springer, pp. 2-10.
Debenedetti, S., Caro, F. and Krebs, A.
2000 '"I'd Rather Play Than Look at Statues": The Experiences of Children with Art Works
and Interactive Devices at an Art Exhibition', International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 46-58.
Jones, J.
2013 'Gallery One: A Lens for Understanding?', Exhibitionist, pp. 94-97.
Scott, S., Hinton-Smith, T., Härmä, V. and Broome, K.
2013 'Goffman in the Gallery: Interactive Art and Visitor Shyness', Symbolic Interaction,
Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 417-438.
Stevens, J.J.

6
Elliot Nolan Digital technology and the art museum: a case study

2013 'Critique of Gallery One: ArtLens, Cleveland Museum of Art', Exhibitionist, pp. 97-
100.