SPOR PÅ STEDET – A REFLECTION ON THE DESIGN FOR SPATIAL PRESENCE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION IN THE EXHIBITION SPACE. Presentation at Politics of participation 27.october 2012. Annelise Bothner-‐By, Research Fellow, Department of Design. Oslo National Academy of the Arts. For a visual presentation of the exhibition: https://vimeo.com/50705486 Summary: This presentation is a reflection on the design of the exhibition Spor på stedet. The entry question for the design was how can the spatial design mediate for spatial awareness and social relations that enhances the experience of the narrative of the exhibition? This reflection addresses the different approaches to the visitors’ involvement in the exhibition, and the power-‐relation between the designers and the visitors’ intentions. I am touching on the overreaching questions: Does architecture mediate use, or is it the use that defines architecture? How is the spatial experiences´ meaning created, is it conceived by the designer or perceived by the visitor (Psarra, 2009) The answer is debated through centuries and lies in both cases somewhere in between. I am not trying to answer these questions, but will try to concretize the designer’s considerations, and dilemmas connected to this power-‐relation through the reflection of Spor på stedet?
INTRODUCTION The travel exhibition Spor på stedet (Local Traces) (SPS) first opened at Oslo Museum, department Bymuseet in April 2012, and is presently on display in Karmsund Folkemuseum. The exhibition has a political agenda, emerging from the collaboration between eight museums that partake in Museumsnettverket for minoriteter og kulturelt mangfold (Mangfoldsnettverket). This is a support network with the objective to improve the participation and representation of minorities and cultural diversity in Norwegian museums. The exhibition project was organized and produced by Oslo Museum. The SPS design process was conducted as a design exploration in Annelise Bothner-‐By´s research fellowship, at the Faculty of Design, Oslo National Academy of the Arts. The project is connected to the National Program for Artistic Research, which is an equivalent to an academic PhD, with the specific feature that its outcome should be artistic work. The practice based research project is concerned with the design of spatial and social experiences in exhibitions. This presentation is thus of a practical rather than theoretical based reflection. It is based on the practitioners approach to continuously switch between reflection in, and on, the process (Schön, 1983). In The Participatory Museum, Nina Simon divides between two participatory exhibition strategies: Either participation in the development of an exhibition, or the participation takes place in the final exhibition. SPS includes both strategies. The exhibition portrays eight individuals with minority backgrounds that have made an impact in their local community. The eight informants had been chosen by the individual museum, and the informants themselves have in different degrees been involved in the work with their portrait presentation. This presentation will not address this participatory process, but will rather focus on the design for visitors’ participation during their visit in the final exhibition. The term politics address power-‐relations and intentions. The content of the exhibition SPS has a clear political agenda, but in this presentation I will rather discuss the powerrelation on another level then on the choice of the exhibition themes and content: The spatial structuring of the content does also have to do with power-‐ relations. As I am the spatial designer, the main focus will be on the spatial design, but the exhibition design is wider than spatial organisation of the content, it has to do with graphic design, objects and films and the organisation and framing of these. The design is a collaborative process with the exhibitions production team in Oslo Museum.
DESIGNING SOCIAL AND SPATIAL EXPERIENCE The design process of SPS started with the establishment of a production team at Oslo Museum. At this stage the network collaborations project group had decided on the content of the exhibition. To a certain extent content had been collected and developed: The exhibition was to present portrays of people with minority backgrounds that have made a difference in their local community. Some of the informants were rather well known, but most acclaimed local recognition. As the development of this content was the result of the networks collaborative process, and this was one of the objectives of this exhibition, the approach to the exhibition content was not challenged by the exhibitions production team. The exhibition material had a literary form, based on interviews, image and video documentation of the portrayed individuals activities. The material potentially held a mainly graphic output, thus there was a risk of creating a “book on wall” exhibition. The entry point of the design exploration was the question on how can the spatial design facilitate for non-‐verbal, or verbal, relations to the exhibition material, and between people, that would be coherent for the exhibitions content? The entry question is based on the understanding that the exhibition space is a public social space. Both strangers and friends populate the exhibitions. Most people visit the museum together with others. Research has shown that many remember the social occasion longer than what they saw (Falk, 2009). The entry question further treats this social space as a coherent whole; were the experience of space, exhibition content, and the fellow visitors, stands in relation to each other. The alternative approach is the classical museum display that treats the activity space for the visitor as one situation, where orientation, overview and flow are important, while the display-‐cases is treated as the exhibition spaces, were the narratives are told. The visitors’ spatial experience will then not relate to the narratives of the displays. In the article Inside the white cube Brian O’Dohrety argues that with such neutralisation of the spatial setting, is to remove a spatial context that the visitor can relate to. This renders the experience for the eye, for the intellect, rather than for the body. The visitors become spectators (39) rather than partakers. Opposed to this strategy, the holistic approach treats the visitors’ spatial engagement with the theme spatially. Such an approach to exhibition design is in the same tradition as installation art. The Austrian-‐American architect Friederick Kiesler was a pioneer within this kind of exhibition design approach. He launched the term correalism as a description of his exhibition design. His designs City in Space in Paris in 1925 og Art of This Century Gallery in New York in 1942 are examples of how the exhibition space is treated as a hole, were the audience approach towards artwork was choreographed with seating positions, viewing-‐machines, sound-‐scapes etc (Staniszewski, 2001). A holistic design includes the consideration that the framing of the exhibition content is an essential part of the reading experience. Artists like Celine Condorrelli and Marcus Degerman are emphasizing the often “invisible” framing in their work. Celine
Condorellli is especially concerned with the architectural elements in the exhibition; languaging her intention in the project support structures. Marcus Degerman has several times emphasized the impact of the spatially active, but unattended architecture, for instance in his work Correct me if I'm Critical, Berlin 2010. But spatial design is not only about the material tangible elements. Spatial design is even more concerned with the intermediate space, the activity space of the visitor (Klingenberg, 2010). Movement is central in exhibition space, as it is through movement we encounter space and the other people present. In ‘Archetypes in architecture’ Thomas Thiis-‐Evensen proclaim, with the phenomenological notion that ‘our body is our means of having a world’ (Maurice Merleau-‐Ponty), that our perception of presence in space stands in correlation to the spatial movement motifs. Our orientation is governed by gravity, thus our movement orientation is horizontal. When put in the position of having to choose between directions of movement, our awareness of spatial presence heightens. Architectural means, such as structures and light, are the elements drawing up spatial leading motifs. The spatial design elements can thus be said to work choreographically effecting the movements of the visitors. The first design exploration was accordingly to work with the perception of movement in the space. This was conducted in the spatial laboratory at Oslo National Academy of the Arts, exploring the experience of movement and meeting in different spatial structures. The starting point was based on basic spatial archetypes for spatial organization, with different leading motifs. Dance and design students were involved in moving in and reflecting on the experience of these spaces. This exploration resulted in a spatial design concept of a column structure. The decision was based on the experience that this strict and readable space actually was experienced much more interesting to move in than the encounter with an organic space. The students explanations was that the organic spaces seemed more interesting at first, looking at the space form the outside. But the initial interest was quickly quitted as one already had pre-‐experienced the space exploring it with ones eyes. Thus the space held little surprise and resistance. The simple structure on the other hand, was almost ignored from the outside, but inside, the students experienced that their bodies’ movement continuously re-‐created the perception of the space, thus keeping the attention more towards their spatial presence. Further the dimensions of the immersive spaces between the columns challenged the notion of intimacy and relations between the visitors moving in the same space (ref. the personal space E.T.Hall). The spatial experience thus address the theme that this exhibition is addressing the relation we have to other peoples ‘otherness’ and initiatives.
TO SEE YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR One can argue that the spatial solution is putting the visitors in the role of the local communities that harbour the portrayed informants. The local communities are not represented in the exhibition. The visitors are the ones experiencing the informants statements and stories. In the first sketches of a spatial solution, the column construction was even based on the traditional Norwegian stav-‐construction referring to ”stedet”/the site, however this notion is hardly traceable in the final expression. In the article Politics of display: Ann-‐Sofi Sidéns Warte Mal!, art history and social documentary the spatial structure of the art installation, at Hayward Gallery 200x, is described as essential for the perception of the content. According to anthropologist Laura Bear in this exhibit of documentary films of prostitutes the spatial structuring of the space render an additional aspect to the political agenda of the conditions of the prostitutes. The visitors spatial position of a voyager, and the spatial constructions challenging og a visitors intimacy boundaries and visibility brings in the element of their relation to this material. The visitors are not only viewing the exhibition, but also part of the exhibition. Bear argues that through making the visibility part of the experience, the artist offer more than a critique of the sex trade in the Czech republic: “She uses the public space of the gallery to make us question the nature of our relationship to the
people that we watch (reference s160).” In the final solution at SPS the notion of spatial presence is commented on by most of the visitors that enter the structure, and the effect in the final design even more effective than in the full scale models. There have been many remarks on a feeling of a mirror effect. The visitors find it confusing weather it is a oneself one is seeing, the images of the informants or other visitors through the column structures vertical displays. These comments certify a spatial presence. Even so, the relevance of this experience to the exhibitions agenda has not been commented, explicitly revealed. It seems to remain in the subconscious. The invisible role of the visitor as part of narrative
SPATIAL COMPOSITION OF THE EXHIBITION MATERIAL The next design step was to seek a way of distributing the exhibitions narrative material in the spatial structure; the images and text portraying the informants. We did tests in a structure in the spatial laboratory. The narratives were fragmented and distributed roughly in the column structure. The visitor would have to actively look for, and gather the information to a collected narrative. Narrative can be described as a representation bound with sequence, space and time, or it can be described as a structure beholding content. Any way a narrative requires a narrator and a reader, like architecture requires an architect and viewer. The museum space is unique in the fact that the architecture is both organization of space, but also the spatial organisation of artefacts, the content, is the narrative structure. The exhibition designer therefore has an authoritative role in deciding on the narrative structure of the exhibition content. In the article ‘exhibition as film’ Mieke Bal describes the exhibition Partner as beholding much of the same qualities. When she describes how one, (like the exhibition catalogue writers,) can use a narrative conception of the exhibition. She emphasises that in this exhibition the creation of the narrative is transferred to the viewer. The encounters with the heterogeneous exhibition objects are connected through the viewer movement through space. The visitor creates the connections between the content, rather than the content being organised in a readable way, which is often the practise. Bal argues that this narrative strategy is more challenging, and interesting than a presentation was the visitor consumes rather than creates the narrative. The experimentation with distributing and hiding the material in different ways in the prototypes, revealed that the curiosity to discover yourself, rather than being presented with an illustrative presentation of the material, was appreciated by the test-‐ panel/visitors. The final design resulted in all the information printed on the panels of the columns facing away from the entry point of the installation. The intention is to emphasize this task of having to look for the content for the visitor. The exhibition-‐contents “bookish” form is maintained in the exhibition design. The material is, with exception of a few curious objects, two-‐dimensional. And this form is maintained: The images and texts are printed directly on the wood panels used as building material. This avoids that the documents are perceived as objects on their own, but rather the keeping the whole structure together as a “readable” whole. The wood panel material functions as the blank canvas rather than as beholding tactile or material narratives. The diversity is emphasised graphically in the different informants individual graphic designs. The notion of atmosphere or storytelling through tactility, texture and materials is kept minimal. Even though the idea of the construction originally was based on the traditional Norwegian stav-‐construction referring to ”stedet”(the site), this notion is hardly traceable in the final expression. The anonymisation of the spatial
solution might ad to the focus on the activity space, and the activity of the visitor in this space. This two-‐dimensional expression does also have practical explanations connected to the fact that it is a travel exhibition. It needs to adapt to different sites, both the spatial diverse atmospheres and different volumes. The installation is therefore both neutral and modular. Weight, volume and the risk of high level of wear and tear, resulted in a choice of lightweight poppel-‐panels.
EXPLICIT AGENCIES Encountering artwork we are familiar with that artwork holds a reflection or reference to own agency or conditions. We are aware of the artist’s subjective agency, and prepared to activate own personal reactions to what the artwork represents. In the museum exhibition the artist is not presented, the exhibitions agent is the more objective institution. Many argue that this difference the expectation of the visitor; the visitors often expecting more neutral objective information. During the exhibition development, the production team (of which the designer is part) kept returning to questions towards the political agenda of the exhibition: Whose views on the qualities of diversity and accumulative activities are we putting on display here? The question was relevant because the theme addressed is bordering towards a moralistic agenda, and due to the diversity of the collected material. The result of this ongoing discussion was the conclusion that we needed to address this in the solution. Inspired by the ongoing exhibition Building Blocks, a project with an
equivalently political agenda, we decided to present the subjects behind the messages. Thus enabling the visitors to consider and confront these opinions, and make up their own mind. For SPS the result was that the overall intention with the exhibition was introduced and signed by the director of Oslo museum on the entry poster. The intentions of the different museums choice of informants was argued for and presented on the columns and the thematic tables. There was a discussion of weather this should be signed by the individual project member or the local museum, but due to institutional projects nature the decision is not individuals but is process based. So it was decided that the argument was signed by the individual museum. THEMATIC TOOLS The question of the overall agency of the exhibition with its diverse narratives kept returning to the production team. As the different stories had little in common besides being narratives about people with minority backgrounds, with an ill will the collection could interpreted as stigmatising in it self. At one stage the team decided to create thematic entrances to the exhibition: The different persons with their activities ”local traces” were themed in three groups; identity(identitet), dialogue (dialog) and engagement/inspiration (engasjement). Thus the exhibition offer perspectives to see the narratives through. These themes also relate the different persons stories to each other. On the other hand you could say this organisation forces a perspective on the visitor, and limits the visitors own reflections on the different personal stories. We introduced these themes on three themed worktables. Here offering two kinds of content; more in depth and gathered information about the persons portrayed (belonging to this theme) in the form of the museums reasoning for their choice og informant, documents, personal items connected to the narrative, sound-‐files or digital story telling. In addition to this the three themes were introduced with simple interactions all addressing your reflection, not explaining or offering definitions of the theme. A stack of cards introduced dilemmas, including questions directly relevant to the informants stories. These encouraged discussion, and were especially intended for the group visitors. The theme tables were designed as workstations with two considerations: the possibility to sit down and study the material, and the roundtable discussion were we can debate with fellow visitors. The spatial design is here treated completely functional, and the spatial experience is not a narrative connected to the exhibition theme, but rather an invitation to a work situation. This design is in accordance with the presentation form which is verbal and intellectual, directed towards reflection and dialogue – a direct invitation to participate with your own opinion. Thus this has little to do with a sensory and emotional spatial experience of the theme, which is what I would say is the unique quality of the exhibition space. The SPS exhibition offered the visitor two different
processes with the presented material. The theme tables were treated as separate elements from the columns were you meet the informants, the only thing connecting them was an overall colour pallet. How these elements are spatially connected will differ from location to location. In Oslo museum they were placed in the outer part of the space, but relating to the stories organised under their theme.
CONCLUDING AND ADDRESSING THE DIFFERENT POLITICS OF PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION Through this presentation of the design exploration in the development of the design of SPS I have tried to enlighten the participatory considerations in the process to address the power-‐relations between the exhibition designers intentions and the visitors perception of an exhibition: 1) In this project the designer has explored how the spatial design choreographer the visitor. At the same time the intention of the design is that the spatial distribution of the information allows the visitor them selves to discover and build together the narratives that are presented. The duality of the design intentions would be interesting to discuss. 2) In the presentation of the chosen content the intentions are made transparent with the name and argument of the museum explicitly laid out. Is this a way of empowering the visitor to relate to the material independently? 3) The final design makes use of two different participatory strategies: To put it boldly one is the reflective participation, the other an emotional participation. The first through the invitation to discuss at the theme-‐tables. The second strategy is present in the way the visitors encounter the informants’ narratives in the column structure. Here the intention with the experience of spatial presence, of having to look for information driven by your own curiosity, and react on the direct narratives is to create a situation were they for them to relate to the material here and now, more emotional. The perception of this referring to your own role in relating to others, and especially of experiencing other visitors, is not explicit. For most visitors this, if experienced, remains in the subconscious. What are the challenges with these strategies? 4) I also have a question regarding meaning: The examples would be Matts Leiderstams artwork, were the visitor is activated towards the exhibited material with viewing devices off different sorts. The artist emphasising that it is the act of seeing that is important, not trying to impose a meaning on this action. In the article about WarteMal! I refer to in the presentation, Beal argues that the visitors spatial situation adds meaning to the work presented; it makes our relation to the artworks theme; prostitution, add an extra meaning. In SPS we try to impose both, in a much more careful way. What are the dilemmas to this intentional design that puts the visitor in a performative role?
LITTERATEUR Bal. Mieke Exhibition as Film. Sharon Macdonald, Paul Basu (ed.), Exhibition Experiments, Blackwell 2007 Falk, John, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience, 2009 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Anchor Books, 1969, 1990 Kiesler, Frederick J., Selected Writings, Verlag Gerd Hatje, 1996 Klingenberg, Ellen S., Bevaring av Kulturopplevelse, Arkitektur N, 01/11 O’Dohrety, Brian, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, The Lapis Press, 1976, 1986 Pallasmaa, Juhani, The Eyes of the Skin. Architecture and the Senses, John Wiley, 2005 Schön, D, The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith, 1983. Simon, Nina, The Participatory Museum, Museum 2.0, 2010 Staniszewski, Mary Anne, The power of display. A History of Exhibition Installations at the museum of Modern Art, 2001 Sophie Psarra, Architecture and Narrative, The formation of space an cultural meaning, New York 2009 Thiis-‐Evensen, Thomas, (Archetypes in architecture) Arkitekturens uttrykksformer, Universitetsforlaget, 1987 The Politics of Display. Ann-‐Sofi Sidén’s WARTE MAL!, Art History and Social Documentary, Sharon Macdonald, Paul Basu (ed.), Exhibition Experiments, Blackwell 2007