Sorting out how I feel about Gallery One

I was just re-reading Micah Walter’s thoughtful summary of MW2014 this morning, and a section of it stuck out to me on this reading that hadn’t before. Micah, as is his way, says something that is simultaneously self-evident and revelatory:

On the one hand you have a room full of technology nerds—really smart people capable of building just about any technology based experience you can imagine. On the other, those same people seem to be obsessed with making tech invisible—pushing back to the point where they question using tech at every chance they get.

I left a comment there saying, in effect, that I think this might be due to years of museum technologists having their hearts broken–we almost reflexively now say that, of course, content is king and it’s not about the technology and all of that. It’s almost like we’re ashamed of technology.

Which is weird, because Gallery One exists. And it seems like all of us museum technologists are going crazy over it.

It’s so strange to me. Here’s a project that puts technology at the very top of the museum experience stack and that, in so many ways, defies everything that we otherwise say we believe about putting content before technology. Gallery One is an experience that clearly exists because of the technology. I don’t think you could make a case that anything in or about the Museum compels this particular kind of experience to exist. It exists because a particular donor wanted technology in there.

Which is kind of awesome, right? Or at least it should be? I feel that in some sense, Gallery One is the project for which I’ve been waiting–the project that really demonstrates what the museum experience could be when un-shackled from the constraints of centuries of museum tradition. I’ve been trying for a while to figure out what a so-called “authentically digital” form of curatorial work might look like, and here’s a possible example.

And yet I struggle with Gallery One. I think, even though I agree with Micah that it’s a little strange how much we try to push technology to the margins of our work, there’s a part of me that still kind of feels that’s the right perspective to take. Gallery One is such an exceptional project (in almost every conceivable definition of that term) that I struggle to learn very much from it. Its scope and scale are so huge that it almost feels avant-garde; it jumped so far ahead of the curve that most museums won’t be able to contemplate doing anything remotely like it for years.

I guess maybe this is the heart of it (forgive me; I’m trying to solve this question in my mind as I write). I often think of Miles Davis when I think about the work that technologists do in museums. Miles was always cutting-edge, but never avant-garde. He was always pushing forward, but he rarely did so without including all that had come before, and rarely did he move more than a single step ahead (shades of the adjacent possible). I think maybe this is the thing with me. I’m always looking for the thing that’s one step ahead of where we are; the thing that comes naturally and organically out of what we’re already doing, and I don’t think Gallery One does that. That’s not to say that it shouldn’t have been done; our field is so much richer now that Gallery One exists. It just might not be a thing that I ever try to do myself.

 

Obligatory sharing icons:
  • bwyman

    We push the tech to the margins in the same way that a drummer would his drumsticks. Yeah, he cares a lot about them and he’s probably obsessed sweetly over his choice, but that’s not for the rest of the world. What matters is what he plays. So it is with the use of tech and what we do with it.

  • http://themuseumofthefuture.com/ Jasper Visser

    Compelling thoughts Koven. Isn’t Gallery One like using the colour orange for your brand: it’s likely to fail unless you’re really good at it (EasyJet, the Dutch).

    I once read this research I’m now unable to Google, that had found that on a dating site the ‘good’ profiles didn’t get most messages, but those that had the greatest variation in scores (lots of 0s and 5s instead of lots of 3s and 4s). When we push technology to the margins, we’re doing what’s wisest, maybe even safest. We’re going for ‘good’ – which is OK as we need to fight for our budgets. When we place tech at the heart we’re risking a 0, but might get a 5 (if we’re really, really good at it.) Gallery One scores lots of 5s, and I’m sure some 0s as well. It’s the quirky girl/boy on Tinder.

    What surprises me most is that you say this is not a thing you would try to do yourself. You certainly could.

  • http://kovenjsmith.com Koven!

    This is really interesting, Jasper. It would be interesting to see whether the 0s and 5s ended up in sustaining, committed relationships, or whether that was reserved more for the 3s and 4s. ;) Maybe that’s what I’m interested in here. I’m not interested in pushing technology to the margins (quite the opposite, actually), but I am interested in using technology in a sustainable way that allows us to build on past successes and knowledge. Gallery One is a huge leap forward, but it’s also one that would be easy for a museum less talented/thoughtful/resourced than the Cleveland Museum of Art to totally screw up were it to attempt to replicate it. This is in contrast to something like DMA’s “Friends” program, which is certainly putting the technology right up front, but feels to me like something that another museum could attempt without an immense amount of risk. DMA Friends is a program that, in code parlance, would “degrade gracefully” when attempted by other institutions, whereas Gallery One wouldn’t.