Building the Museum Experience: The role of digital technologies inside art museums by Giulia Merlo

Giulia Merlo

Building the Museum Experience The Role of Digital Technologies inside Art Museums

University of Westminster MA Dissertation Architecture (History and Theory)

Academic Year 2016/2017

Building the Museum Experience

The Role of Digital Technologies inside Art Museums

Giulia Merlo University of Westminster Major Thesis Project Tutors: Dr. Davide Deriu Dr. Krystallia Kamavasinou

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements....................................................................... iii Abstract............................................................................................ v List of Figures................................................................................... vii

INTRODUCTION....................................................................1 1. THE MUSEUM SPACE AND EXPERIENCE.........................5 1.1. The Evolution of the Museum Space.........................................................6 1.2. The Museum Experience...........................................................................13

2. MUSEUM DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES...............................15 2.1. History of technology inside museums.....................................................16 2.2. The Internet..................................................................................................21 2.2.1 The Social Media Effect....................................................................23

3. THE ALTERNATIVE REALITIES...........................................25 3.1 Augmented Reality..................................................................26 3.1.1 Applications to Museums.................................................................27 3.1.2 Gallery One/ArtLens Gallery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cleveland Museum of Art...........32 3.1.3 Evaluation of the Experience...........................................................40

3.2 Virtual Reality.............................................................................44 3.2.1 Applications to Museums.................................................................44 3.2.2 Virtual Reality Weekend at the British Museum.............................47 3.1.3 Evaluation of the Experience...........................................................50

4. COMPARISON................................................................52 CONCLUSION.....................................................................56 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................59

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis tutors, Dr. Davide Deriu and Dr. Krystallia Kamvasinou, whose guidance and patience made this dissertation possible. I also must express my very profound thankfulness to my parents for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Finally, I am grateful to my friends that shared with me this unforgettable year. Thank you.

iii

ABSTRACT The dissertation investigates how digital technologies are changing the visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of artworks in a museum context. Currently, various technologies are increasingly used in museums around the world, and the debate around their implications is wide open. Therefore, the thesis project set out to explore which digital technologies are applied in different museums, and how they affect the visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interactions with display objects and spaces. Starting from the psychology of museum experience, the study shows that technology provides a new level of accessibility to museum contents that affects the experience inside and outside its space. It also interrogates the limits of what can be conveyed through specific technologies and how they can be successfully adopted without detracting attention from the artworks themselves. A case study approach has been used to analyse in more detail the applications of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality inside two different museums. While the former seems to be more adaptable to the museum experience, offering different solutions for a given space, the latter shows more limitations given the inherently subjective and individual nature of VR experience. v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Plan of the Glyptothek in Munich..................................................7 (Drawing) (by Leo von Kelze) < https://it.pinterest.com/pin/442830575831908519/>

Figure 2: Plan of the Altes Museum in Berlin.................................................8 (Drawing) (by Friedrich Schinkel) < http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Altes_Museum.html>

Figure 3: Plan of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich..........................................8 (Drawing) (by Leo von Kelze) < http://www.engramma.it/eOS2/index.php?id_articolo=2350>

Figure 4: Section of the Guggenheim Museum, New york......................10 (Drawing) (by Frank Lloyd Wright) < http://www.archdaily.com/60392/ad-classics-solomon-r-guggenheim-museum-frank-lloyd-wright>

Figure 5: Section of the Centre Pompidou, Paris.......................................10 (Drawing) (by Studio Piano and Rogers) < http://www.fondazionerenzopiano.org/project/83/centre-georges-pompidou/drawings/page/1/>

Figure 6: Gallery inside the MoMA, New York...........................................12 (Photograph) (by Matthew Septimus) < https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/arts/design/maria-lassnig-celebrates-the-artist-at-moma-ps1.html>

Figure 7: The First Hendheld Guide..............................................................16 (Photgraph) (by Unknown) < http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/visit-us/hours-and-admission/ audiotours>

Figure 8: Audio Guide with two Headphones...........................................18 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://www.slideshare.net/LoicT/00-loic-bk-extract>

Figure 9: Smart Table inside the MoMA......................................................19 (Photograph) (by MoMA Archives) < https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/192>

Figure 10: Screenshot of the Google Art Project Web Page...................23 (Screenshot) < https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/about/artproject/>

vii

Figure 11: Use of SmartPhone inside a museum........................................27 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < http://artreport.com/google-arts-and-culture-brings-hundreds-of-museums-to-your-phone/>

Figure 12: Computer based lables inside the British Galleries..................30 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/b/british-galleries/>

Figure 13: Interface of the App â&#x20AC;&#x153;Touch Van Goghâ&#x20AC;?.................................30 (Screenshot) <https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/nl/plan-je-bezoek/multimediatour>

Figure 14: The Pen..........................................................................................31 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://www.cooperhewitt.org/events/current-exhibitions/using-the-pen/>

Figure 15: iBeacon Technology....................................................................31 (Photograph) (by Brooklyn Museum) < https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-can-big-data-make-for-better-exhibitions>

Figure 16: Plan of the Artlens Gallery...........................................................33 (Drawing) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 17: Make a Face................................................................................35 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 18: Strike a Pose..................................................................................36 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 19: Artlens Studio.................................................................................36 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 20: Artlens Wall....................................................................................38 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 21: Artlens App...................................................................................38 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barriers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

viii

Figure 22: Plan of the new arrangement for the Artlens Exhibition..........45 (Drawing) (by Unknown) < https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/removing-the-barri-

ers-of-gallery-one-a-new-approach-to-integrating-art-interpretation-and-technology/>

Figure 23: Google Tilt Brush............................................................................46 (Image) <http://www.moving-picture.com/advertising/work/google-tilt-brush/>

Figure 24: VR inside the Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross Hospital.............................................46 (Photograph) (by Unknown) < http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-34934664/ kids-visit-virtual-reality-picture-gallery>

Figure 25: VR inside the British Museum........................................................48 (Photograph) (by British Museum) < http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33772694>

viv

Introduction

Building the Museum Experience

Now, more than ever before, technology allows museums to create new experiences and engage the users in an unprecedented way. The principal aim is to explore the ways in which digital technologies are used to enhance and transform the visitor’s experience.

The first chapter presents a brief and concise history of the evolution of the museum’s space, in accordance with the role of the visitors inside it. Then the issue around the museum’s experience is introduced; starting from the point that museums are a “freechoice environment” and that the experience related to it should be voluntary and not sequential. To understand why visitors go to museums, what they do there, and how they make meaning from these experiences is a significant challenge. Two psychologists, John Falk and Lynn Dierking have conceptualized the museum visit as involving an interaction among three overlapping contexts: personal, social, physical.1 The psychological theory is analysed from an architectural point of view, paying attention especially on how the physical context is affected by the technologies.

The second chapter is dedicated to the history of technology inside art museums. The first form of communication, and also the most common one even today, between the artwork-curator-and visitor has always been the written text that helps the visitor to understand the artworks on display. In 1952 when the first handheld guide appeared inside a museum many others technologies come into view inside institutions all over the world; someone with the same success, others with less. The timeline includes also the birth of the Internet a crucial event inside the technological world, to arrive at the latest form of devices present inside the museum space. If it is possible today to categorise the technologies inside the museums, the two main instances are represented by Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality.

1 Falk, J. and Dierking, L., (2013) The Museum Experience Revisited, Left Coast Press: California.

Introduction

In the third chapter the two technologies, AR and VR, are described through two different case studies. The first one is located inside the Cleveland Museum of Art in Ohio, the museum is characterized by the latest forms of technologies and their use inside the context represent an example for todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s museums. The second case study concerns the VR weekend event at the British Museum in London: this is one of the first attempts, that utilise the technology inside an art museum. Digital technologies, since from the beginning, made their appearance in order to optimise the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; previous experiences and enrich the quality of the physical context, not only the within the museum walls but also outside them. The aspect of time has inherently become an essential part in creating new level of experience, in the sense that curators wants to remove the sensation that experiences are refined within museum walls; on the contrary, exhibitors are seeking new ways to extend users visits long after they leave, thus enriching their visits and providing an unforgettable encounter.

It is not possible to exclude from the discussion the point of view of the museum as in institution. The advent of digital technologies inside the museums did not only imply changes for the users, but also for the museum itself. Technology first of all is a management tool2, and its appearance involved the birth of new department of the museum dedicated to it. From an economic point of view, this represents an additional expense for the institution, related also with the assumption of new staff members. Today technology has become an infrastructure of the museum, and even if it is in constant change, it represents a solid persistence inside the space. Stated that todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s museums have to mediate with technologies and essentially every museum has now a digital media department. As a result of this, it could be argued that we are now able to have multiple and varied levels of

experiences within museums, and one of the most visible ones is our interaction with

the artworks. 2 Tallon, L. and Walker, K., (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Altamira Press: Plymouth, 10.

Building the Museum Experience

The dissertation, supported by the theories and the two case studies along with personal experiences made on the field, intends to investigate what are the main implications (positive and negative) of this newly implemented experience inside the museums and how this affects our perception of the art.

1. The Museum Space and Experience

Building the Museum Experience

Since museums are typically free-choice settings, the experience is generally voluntary, nonsequential, and highly responsive to what the settings affords. Visitor meaning making has been shown to be strongly influenced by how successfully visitors are able to orient themselves within the space, since being able to confidentially navigate within a complex three-dimensional environment turns out to be highly correlated with what and how much a user learns. Similarly, intellectual navigation has been shown to affect visitor meaning making from museums. Research has also shown that a myriad of architectural design factors such as lighting, crowding, colour, sound and space subtly influence visitor meaning making. And not least, considerable research has focused on technology, exhibitions, objects, and labels themselves since they are designed to be the primary focus of most museums. Not surprisingly then, ample evidence exists that instructional design features influence meaning making, in particular the sequencing, positioning, and content of media.

1.1 The Evolution of the Space How can the space inside a museum change our perception of the art? The relationship between the space and visitors, and so the creation of a series of spaces able to be visited, is part of the museum experience.

Since the 19th century, we find the circulation system as a central issue inside the building. In that period in England, Germany and in the United States reference models for museumsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; architecture were defined. The first example is the Glyptothek in Munich, founded around 1815 (Fig.1). Here a system of galleries is organised around an open space, put in order to follow This one is really interesting because the spaces are organized around

The Museum Space and Experience

low a clear linear route, this path was arranged with the sequence of the objects that were presented in a chronological order, concerning art from Egypt to ancient Greece and then Rome. The purpose was to teach art to the people by the movement in this space. Another example in that period in Germany is the Altes Museum, in Berlin, designed by Schinkel (Fig.2). This one is really interesting because the spaces are organized around a central rotunda. In the Alte Pinakothek, in Munich, we find the coexistence of other spaces with different functions, as rooms used as a deposit, library and one typography, but in the design of this museum another thing was introduced: the layout was planned in three parallel strips, two sequences of galleries and a corridor (Fig.3).

Fig.1 Plan of the Glyptothek in Munich.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.2 Plan of the Altes Museum in Berlin.

Fig.3 Plan of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich.

The Museum Space and Experience

Moving towards the 20th century, we assist to a development of museums. These are no longer only spaces for collecting pieces of history, but they become also supporters of the progress. In 1929 the first part of the MoMA of New York was built, and his director, Barr, described the museum as a laboratory and invited the public to participate in it. The active participation of the visitors started to become an issue in the development of the spatial concept. An example about this issue can be the Guggenheim in New York, built in 1959, where a spiral ramp takes the place of the linear system of galleries, organised around a central space (Fig.4). These two elements together express the “theatrical” element of the contemporary museum, where “the mise en scene of visitors becomes part of the mise en exposition of the works of art”.3 At the opposite pole, to the spatial sequence, there is the open-plan layout and free circulation, as proposed by the Musée National d’Art Moderne in the Centre Pompidou, Paris, in 1977 (Fig.5). By setting no constraints on movement, it was seen as a manifestation of the “democratic museum”. The flexibility of the space in terms of routes was in agreement with the flexibility and openness of the building.

Though the display was based on chronology and works were grouped by movements and artists, the visitor did not follow a defined route but was invited to explore. The idea of the first director Hulten was to create a structure that resembled a city. It would “consist of squares, streets, dead-ends … one can move about, pause, start again. One should have the possibility of losing oneself”.4 The tension between the sequence and the flexible space, by expressing how far the curator or the visitor creates the order in which exhibits are seen, links spatial design to the choice between a more didactic and a more exploratory approach to the transmission of information through the exhibition. We can say 3 Tzortzi, K. (2015), Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology, Routledge, 20. 4 Tzortzi, K. (2014) “Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience”. Museum Management and Curatorship.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.4 Section of the Guggenheim Museum, New York.

Fig.5 Section of the Centre Pompidou, Paris.

The Museum Space and Experience

that, in general, navigation in museums is related to an intent. As Brawne says in 1965, the experience of the museum is “a series of images seen in sequence. This series can be organised and the juxtaposition of events within the sequence deliberately manipulated”, and then he adds in 1982 “But whether the path is tightly controlled or relatively undetermined our experience of an exhibition is nevertheless always some kind of mosaic built in our minds as a result of serial viewing”.5

Remaining on the twentieth century is good to spend some words on the concept of the white cube. The most powerful example is the Museum of Modern Art in New York, that I have already mentioned before, in 1929 it has given an essential model of the 20th century museum and gallery space (Fig.6). The White Cube is a representative exhibition space, it should symbolize the ideal environment for the exhibition of artworks: a white painted space, without any walls decorations, unseen sources of artificial light, elegant wooden floor or standardised carpet; a spotless and unobtrusive environment to decontextualize the artworks from the history, in order to make evident the importance of the art, and to guarantee a kind of constancy and immutability as if the artworks are disconnected from the outside reality, the historical and social context. The White Cube is not only a physical space but also a historical one and, furthermore, an ideological concept, which cannot be detached from the history, in order to make evident the importance of the art, and to guarantee a kind of constancy and immutability as if the artworks are disconnected from the outside reality, the historical and social context.

The White Cube is not only a physical space but also a historical one and, furthermore, an ideological concept, which cannot be detached from the artworks shown in it. It underlines the proper qualities of the pieces but precisely because it tries to take out itself, it also controls the works. 5 Tzortzi, K. (2014) “Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience”, Museum Management and Curatorship.

Building the Museum Experience

However at the beginning of the 21st century a line of attack says that white cube style galleries are becoming old-fashioned, often inadequate or unnecessary to satisfy the demands of contemporary art. Especially Land Art and Street art are two movements which are not able to be cut off from their changing environments, by responding to natural phenomena such as light and the seasons, or responding and contributing to the constantly changing backdrop of cities. Performance based and digital art are also not tied to a traditional white cube arrangement and nevertheless they are often displayed in a typical gallery setting, their relationship to space is not the same, not having the same upkeep or storage needs as traditional artworks.

Fig.6 Gallery inside the MoMA, New York.

The Museum Space and Experience

1.2 The Museum Experience The museum content and especially the design of the exhibitions are relevant factors to build a remarkable museum visitor experience, but it cannot be adequately described by those two factors. To get a complete answer to the questions of why people do or do not visit museums, what they do there, and what learning they derive from the experience, turns out to require a deeper explanation.

The theory of John Falk and Lynn Dierking theorized in the book: The Museums Experience Revisited draws a schematic view of the visitor’s experience, which can be synthetized and involves three different contexts: Personal, Social and Physical.

The Personal Context represents the sum total of personal and genetic history that a user carries with him into a meaning-making situation. One should expect meaning making to be highly personal and strongly influenced by an individual’s past knowledge, interest, and beliefs. Finally one should expect meaning making to be influenced by the desire to both select and control his or her own experiences in order to fulfil identity-related needs. The Sociocultural Context recognizes that humans are innately socio creatures. One should expect museum meaning making to be always socioculturally situated. Considerable research exists showing that visitors to museums are strongly influenced by the interactions and collaborations they have with an individual within their own social group. Research has also shown that the quality of interactions with others outside the visitor’s own social group, such as museum explainers, guides, demonstrators, performers or even other visitor groups, can make a profound difference in the visitor’s experience. Finally, meaning making always occurs within a physical setting; in fact, it is always a dialogue with the physical environment. Thus the third context is the Physical Context. One expects, in fact, hopes given the effort museums invest in design and architecture, that visitors to museums will notice and respond to the physical context of the museum itself:

Building the Museum Experience

both the large-scale proprieties of space, lighting as well as microscale aspects such as exhibition design. Utilizing the Contextual Model of Learning framework, technological devices represent a part of the physical context of the visitor.6

6 Tallon, L. and Walker, K., (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Altamira Press: Plymouth, 19-28.

2. Museum Digital Technologies

Building the Museum Experience

The role of technology nowadays, more than ever before, has become a crucial part in our everyday life. Some institutions, as the museums one, are still trying to find the right way to deal with it. The insertion of technological devices inside a cultural institution, has, since from the beginning, raised discussions on its purposes and the impact on the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience.

2.1 History of Technologies inside museums In 1952, the first handheld visitor technology was invented with the aim of promoting a unique, individually, controllable experience by each visitor. The handheld guide made its first appearance at the Stedelijk Museum, in Amsterdam (Fig.7). The device claimed of being personal, available at any time, and suited learning styles not assisted by catalogs, text panel or label.7

Fig.7 The First Handheld Guide.

7 Tallon, L. and Walker, K., (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Altamira Press: Plymouth, xiii.

Museum Digital Technologies

The use of this type of device was the first attempt to a new way of learning inside the museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space. The first comments around the topic are fully understandable; on one side the handheld guide was offering a free and unique experience for the visitor but on the other side was promoting the isolation of the visitors. As a response to the critics around the individual experience, tested in the Stedelijk Museum, in the 1960s there has been the attempt to develop more social audio guides that included headphones sockets for two listeners. At the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the use of this new type of guide recorded more popularity than the single-listeners counterparts (Fig.8).8 The possibility to enjoy the visit with other people was a step forward for the technology and for the museum because it showed that the visitors were not only asking for a more individual experience but were also interested in the interactivity and socialization with the other visitors. Even if the audio guides have been accused of being antisocial and of engaging passively with artworks, in the late 1980s major museums around the world started to have a handheld technology inside. Acousticguide and Antenna Audio were the first two companies competing for the same museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s structures.9

The presence of technology inside the museums started also to be a marketing matter. The museums are the clients of the companies and together are in charge of the researchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; developments inside the institutions. By financing the companies the museums are evolving and changing their aspects in accordance with technology innovations. In the 1990s the milestone in the evolution of the handheld guides included the transition from analog

to digital systems. The digital technology allowed the person-

alization of the tours, through random and free access of content.10

8 Tallon, L. and Walker, K., (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Altamira Press: Plymouth, xxvi. 9 Tallon, L. and Walker, K., (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Altamira Press: Plymouth, xix. 10 Din H., and Hecht P., (2007) The Digital Museum: A Think Guide, AAM: Washington DC, 35.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.8 Audio Guide with Two Headphones.

Museum Digital Technologies

Fig.9 Smart Table inside the MoMA. Since the advent of the digital technology and the birth of Internet, in the second half of the 20th century, most museums had a personal Website and new available digital devices. While the handheld guides were promoting the mobility inside museums, others class of interpretative technology were introduced, such as fixed-position gallery interactives and smart tables. Smart tables were used for the first time in 1999 at MoMA, in the exhibition called “Un-Private House” (Fig.9). The device was composed of a circular table with RFID11 tag, when users moved the image of one house’ project its tag was read and suddenly appeared projection of floor plans, related video commentaries and other information about the subject.12 11 Radio-frequency identification (RFID) uses electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track tags attached to objects. The tags contain electronically stored information. Passive tags collect energy from a nearby RFID reader’s interrogating radio waves. 12 Din H., and Hecht P., (2007) The Digital Museum: A Think Guide, AAM: Washington DC, 26.

Building the Museum Experience

Rapidly over the new century, interactive devices appeared in other museums, including the SFMOMA13 in San Francisco, the Churchill Museum and the Cabinet War Rooms in London. Inside the Churchill Museum, since 2005 there is the “Lifeline Table”, which is a table 15 meter long with a databased of documents, pictures, letters and all the events related to Winston Churchill’s Life.14 Between the end of the 90s and the first years of the 21st century, thanks to the digital revolution15, a list of devices, including MP3, iPod, smartphones and in 2007 the iPhone, started to replace the first handheld audio guide. The most important museums all over the world started to have a Digital department offices inside the building which is in charge of all the technologies present inside the museum. The Digital departments are collaborating with selected technology companies to build personalized products for each museum. The major companies involved in this marketing are Samsung, Google, and Apple. Each company is developing devices in order to satisfy the museums’ needs. Every museum has a different strategic approach in order also to what kind of “technology experience”, is more appropriate in relation to the museum’s collection.

Before going into more details about the technologies, another aspect of the digital world should be analysed, and it is the advent of Internet and why it becomes relevant for the museum context.

13 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art 14 Churchill Lifeline Table - London, United Kingdom, 2005, https://vimeo.com/3762526. 15 The Digital Revolution is the change from mechanical and analogue electronic technology to digital electronics which began anywhere from the late 1950s to the late 1970s with the adoption and proliferation of digital computers and digital record keeping that continues to the present day.

Museum Digital Technologies

2.2 The Internet As mentioned in the introduction, the birth of the Web in 1989 added a new kind of online experience in opposition to the onsite one. By the second half of the 20th century most museums encountered the Internet. At first, the Internet seemed in contradiction with the museum identity; while the museums are about the real, on the contrary Internet is about the virtual. How could they possibly work together?

To understand how they can work together is important to recognise that the online experience is a significant amplification of the museum’s educational content. The Web is also an opportunity, for the museum, to expand its popularity and help the visitors in the understanding of the exhibitions or in the planning of the visit. Comparing the online visitors and the onsite visitors, come out that they have similar things in common, as they can learn, teach, socialize, participate, shop, research and hopefully having fun. Today each museum has its own website, where you can do, mostly, all of the actions listed before. In addiction with their personal websites, other web institutions were born as a complementary worldwide learning platform to discuss about the museums content. Some of the major web platforms include the American Association of Museums (AAM), Museum and the Web , Museum Heritage, Museum-ID and Google Arts and Culture.

The project of Google needs to be outspread, because represents a big change for the museums’ experience. Google Arts and Culture is a project born in 2011 in cooperation with 17 international museums, including the Tate Modern, in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York City and the Uffizi, in Florence. Amit Sood, the director of Google’s Cultural Institute, he starting to work with his team to find a way on making art and culture accessible and engaging for everyone, everywhere. The project of Google 16 Din H., and Hecht P., (2007) The Digital Museum: A Think Guide, AAM: Washington DC, 67. 17 The annual Museums and the Web conference is the leading international conference in the field of museums and their websites. It has been organized by Archives & Museum Informatics each Spring in North America since 1997.

Building the Museum Experience

Arts and Culture took 18 months to be built, Sood wanted to create a virtual online tour of all the adherent museums of the project. One of the motivations about why they did this, started from his personal experience, he grow up in India and from there is not so easy to have access to a lot of these museums and artworks. With the power of technology they created a platform where it is possible to virtually enter in the museums, with a simple “Click and, bang, you’re in this museum. It doesn’t matter where you are — Bombay, Mexico, it doesn’t really matter. You move around, you have fun. You want to navigate around the museum? Open the plan up, and, in one click, jump. You’re in there, you want to go to the end of the corridor. Keep going. Have fun. Explore.”18

In the conclusion of one of his TED’s talks, Sood explains that he hopes that with this digital medium, they can do justice to the artists’ works and represent them properly online. And the biggest question that he get asked nowadays is: “Did you do this to replicate the experience of going to a museum?” And the answer is no. It is to supplement the experience.19 Google Arts and Culture is the biggest cultural platform available today on the Internet. This powerful online platform is just an example to explain how the museums are overtaking their barriers, in order to make accessible Art to everyone and with a new level of experience. As Sood answered to the question about a replicate online museum’s experience, it is clear that the intent of the Web is not to avoid the onsite museum’s experience, but on the contrary is to add something new. Something that is not mandatory, but that can be helpful for someone and a solution for whom cannot have the opportunity to go onsite (Fig.10).

18 Sood A., (2011) “Building a museum of museums on the web”, TED talks, California. https://www.ted.com/ talks/amit_sood_building_a_museum_of_museums_on_the_web#t-308745. 19 Sood A., (2011) “Building a museum of museums on the web”, TED talks, California. https://www.ted.com/ talks/amit_sood_building_a_museum_of_museums_on_the_web#t-308745.

Museum Digital Technologies

Fig.10 Screenshot of the Google Art Project Web Page.

2.2.1 Social Media effect The Internet is a powerful platform of communication, especially for the new generations. It is a strong communication tool, where people can express and share their opinions with freedom and without any restrictions, but is wise to remember that it can be a double edged weapon.

For today’s museums, the choice of use the Internet seems to be a mandatory aspect that they cannot escape from. During a press conference, for Digital Trends in 2015, Sree Sreenivasan the chief digital officer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, said: “Our competition is Netflix and Candy Crush.” This is the reason why the Met and other museums are investing in technologies to make the museum experience more interactive, even working with the smartphones that guests carry with them. Which is why services like, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Flicker and so on, are becoming part of the museums’ institution.20 These services could, approximately, be grouped under the term Web 2.0. 20 Shue L., (2015) “Van Gogh vs Candy Crash: How Museums are fighting Tech with Tech to win your Eyes”, https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/how-museums-are-using-technology/

Building the Museum Experience

Regarding this topic, the TATE between 2011 and 2012 has started a Social Media communication strategy. Tate Online aims to help fulfil Tate’s mission to increase public understanding, enjoyment of British and modern international art and also to gain popularity amongst the younger generations. Tate Online goals are: to be one of the world’s leading Social Media platforms for culture; to distribute its content where audiences are active online to increase the interest. For example, Tate posts three times a day on Facebook, in order to receive feedbacks and to engage people for new exhibitions. Twitter, is used as an open debates platform that, allows visitors to interact with the curators with questions and also to put online their own opinion and experience about the visit.21

These new web platforms and technologies have led to greater user interaction with the web, with audiences now expecting content to be presented in a variety of digital and social media. The social web in particular offers significant opportunities for cultural institutions to open themselves up to diverse audiences by initiating conversations about art in order to increase engagement and understanding of it around the world.

21 Ringham J., (2011) “Tate Social Media Communication Strategy 2011–12”, Tate Papers, no.15, http://www. tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/15/tate-social-media-communication-strategy-2011-12.

3. The Alternative Realities

Building the Museum Experience

Thinking within a technological world, nowadays it is possible to identify two main categories in which group the technologies: • Augmented Reality (AR) • Virtual Reality (VR) These two realities are both present in the museums context. AR is more present among VR, first of all because it contains the use of different type of digital devices, secondly the AG manipulates the real world on a device screen using the camera of a smartphone or tablet. On the contrary VR is using just one sensor device which is transporting you in a completely artificial world, and the technology behind this device is more expensive.

3.1 Augmented Reality The term Augmented Reality was coined in 1990 by Boing researcher Tom Caudell, initially, it was used for military purposes. The first time that AR was used for entertainment purposes was in 1994 when Julie Martine produces the first AR theatre production: “Dancing in Cyberspace”. Fourteen years after, ARToolkit brings AR into a web browser and in 2010 the technology started to appear in the museum context.22 Today, AR is working mainly with Apps, costumed for different uses, and is applied to different contexts, including military, scientific, cultural, entertainment and research. But how are museum using AR? What does it do? The determined aim of AR is to recreate the presence of virtual objects into the real world. AR is more effective when virtual elements are added in real time. Because of this, the technology is adding 2D or 3D objects to a real digital video image. AR objects are not visible to the naked eye, to work it has to be connected with a display. The display could be a computer screen, a television, any kind of device endowed of a screen, such as smartphones or tablets.23

22 Cawood S., Fiala M., (2007) Augmented Reality: A Practical Guide, The Pragmatic Programmers: USA, 10. 23 Cawood S., Fiala M., (2007) Augmented Reality: A Practical Guide, The Pragmatic Programmers: USA, 1112.

The Alternative Realities

3.1.1 Applications to museums AR is one of the few technologies that uses all the functions available on a mobile device. Inside the museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s space, there are a lot of different methods to apply this technology. First of all, AR can add new layers of contents to the exhibitions including, video, images, audio, 3D parts. The aim of this technology is to enrich the visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience inside the museum offering a new layer of learning and engagement (Fig. 11). Starting from the point that the experience offered by the AR is a free-choice type, and a relevant amount of people is not keen on using it, most of the major museums all around the world is using AR to reach a new target audience represented by young people and kids.

Fig.11 Use of SmartPhones inside a Museum.

Building the Museum Experience

Augmented Reality inside museums is composed of all the technologies which work in order to enhance the visitors’ experience. Principally it uses mobile devices such as iPad, iPod or Smartphones or fixed kiosks. The devices, usually, are endowed of an App that offers multimedia contents, and Beacon or GPS technologies which analyse costumers habits, traffic, and act as a tour guide, that suggest you a new pathway based on your own interests.

Starting from the fact that each museum has its own collections with different narratives, there is not a standard or unique example of how Augmented Reality should work inside a museum. But, as mentioned before, even if the technologies used are mostly the same, the content could variate. The use of AR is strictly related to the work of the curators and lead the opportunity of creating new experiences in order to get people more than once, storytelling is at the heart of an engaging experience. Some of the most relevant and successful cases of applied AR, inside a museum’ space, include, among the others, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, the Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum in New York and the Brooklyn Museum, in New York. The selected museums represent different approaches of AR, but they all received positive answers from the visitors’ experiences.

The Victoria and Albert Museum in 2005 has used computer-based labels to provide a different and enriched interpretation for the collection of fine art objects, present in the British Galleries. In a follow-up study, it was found that over 90% of the visitors used at least one of the interactive exhibits in the British Galleries (Fig.12).24 In 2013, the Van Gogh Museum presented the exhibition “Van Gogh at Work”, where AR was used in order to show the work behind the paintings and get people closer to researchers labour. AR has been used with the introduction of the App “Touch Van Gogh”, it allows the visitor to view the painting in more detail and discover what information is concealed in and under the

The Alternative Realities

the painting (Fig.13). The Cooper-Hewitt Museum gives visitors access to the Pen,25 an electronic stylus that lets you remember the things you saw. Simply the user has to tap the Pen on a placard, and it will collect the information. Users can transfer the info to one of the 4K touchscreen tables26 to collect more info. After the visit, users can access a dedicated website that contains all the objects collected (Fig.14). The Brooklyn Museum is using iBeacon technology as a way for guests to interact with museum experts. Through its iOS app, visitors can ask questions about an artwork or for recommendations on what to see and get a real-time response. Although the solution is more cost-effective than hiring greeters to roam around. Museums can also use beacons to send additional info; for example, a visitor standing near a painting might receive a phone alert directing them to rich, interactive content relating to the painting (Fig.15). Major institutions like the Met, Museum of Modern Art in New York, and Guggenheim are also testing beacon-based location technology.

24 Hargreaves McIntyre M., (2003) â&#x20AC;&#x153;Engaging or Distracting: Visitor Responses to the Interactives in the V&A 25 British Galleriesâ&#x20AC;?, in www.vam.ac.uk/files/file_upload/5877_file.pdf 26 Designing the Pen, https://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/designing-pen/The New Cooper-Hewitt Experience, https://www.cooperhewitt.org/new-experience/

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.12 Computer based labels inside the British Galleries.

Fig.13 Interface of the App â&#x20AC;&#x153;Touch Van Goghâ&#x20AC;?.

The Alternative Realities

Fig.14 The Pen.

Fig.15 iBeacon Technology.

Building the Museum Experience

3.1.2 Gallery One/ArtLens Gallery – Cleveland Museum of Art The following case study is also going to look at Augmented Reality inside a museum, in the deepest way. The reason of this selection is its use of AR, composed by fixed kiosks endowed with iPad, the ArtLens App for iPad, iPhone and Android and the largest multitouch MicroTile screen in the United States. The complete renewal, in 2013, of the Gallery transformed the 100 years old museum into the most technologically advanced interactive art experience in the world.

Gallery One, now called ArtLens Gallery, located at the entrance of Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA), is 13.000 square foot space art gallery where art and technology are blended together, since 2013 when it reopened to the public with a completely renewed spaces and today subject of a new renovation after four years of experience and visitors’ feedbacks. The Gallery can be accessed easily at different points during the Museum visit, thanks to the entrances at both the main lobby and the museum’s atrium space.27 The space is designed for visitors of all ages, with experience or not, and it is proposed as a space that variates from close looking to active making and sharing experiences (Fig.16).

In order to make possible the combination between of art and technology, and so guarantee a new level of experience, the curators of CMA along with designers and researchers worked together for the selection of the artworks to insert inside the Gallery. The artworks present inside the space are the ones that lacked a shared art historical context or overcharging thematic concept, in this situation the technology can improve the understanding of the creations. But, because the technology could be deviant and also could distract the attention from the artworks, the team project chose pieces of the collection that possessed a strong presence in order to hold their own against the technology’s presence. These include Stephan Balkenhol’s Standing Man, Joel Shapiro’s 27 Alexander J., Barton J., Goeser C., (2013) “Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One”. In Museums and the Web 2013, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, 1.

The Alternative Realities

Fig.16 Plan of the Artlens Gallery.

Building the Museum Experience

Untiled, Massimiliano Soldani’s sculpture Apollo and Daphne and Henry Church’s painting Self-Portrait with Five Muses.

The ArtLens Gallery is now organized and divided into four components under the ArtLens brand: ArtLens Studio, ArtLens Exhibition, ArtLens Wall and the ArtLens App. After opening in 2013, the individual attendance at the museum increased by 31% and the attendance of families increased by 19%28, so why change again the Gallery after only four years?

In 2013, originally the fixed positions endowed with touchscreens were placed in front of the artworks; the presence of the devices with the games installed on them (including Make a Face, Strike a Pose or Build in Clay) in a relevant amount of cases was reported to be a distractive presence and while visitors where interacting with the digital version of an artwork often they did not notice that the actual piece was physically directly in front of them (Fig.17). It is clear that though visitors were deeply engaged with the digital interactives the connection with the artworks seems to be unclear and deviant. With the usage of the screens the Gallery engaged the visitors into an amusing experience but created a gap between the artworks and the person; the educational experience was overwhelmed by the entertaining one.

Inside the new ArtLens Exhibition the use of touchscreens is replaced with the use of barrier-free and motion activated interactive projections behind the artworks in order to create an immersive experience that allows engagement with the art on a personal, educational level (Fig.18). With this new solution, visitors approach and engage with the artwork, and then activate the interactive games in the background. The games are studied to provide an experience in which visitors can learn more about composition, gesture, expression, purpose, inspiring them to look again at the artwork with a different 27 Alexander J., Barton J., Goeser C., (2013) “Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One”. In Museums and the Web 2013, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, 1.

The Alternative Realities

Fig.17 Make a Face. and new understanding. There are different types of games that include: Gesture and Expression which mirrors the visitors’ expressions and empower them to alter works of art to understand how expression can change meaning; Symbols which requires an understanding of an artist’s secular, religious and personal beliefs; Composition which reveals the underlying structure that old an artwork together; Gaze Tracker which is an innovative eye-tracking that tells where a visitor focuses when looking at the artwork.29

The second important feature of the Gallery is the ArtLens Studio (Fig.19). This space is primarily thought for families and young visitors, and propose itself as a space that offers an introduction to the active and participatory experience inside the museum, while visitors are having fun they can also look closer, make connections and gain comprehension that will enhance their appreciation of art throughout the museum. The Studio is divided into two sections. The first one includes the Collaborative Learning Stations that include four games: Reveal and Zoom which allows visitors to use their bodies as a tool to explore masterworks; Line and Shape which makes connections between the user sketches and major works of art; The Matching Game where visitors are asked to match different piec29 Alexander J., Barton J., Goeser C., (2013) “Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One”. In Museums and the Web 2013, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, 30-34.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.18 Strike a Pose.

Fig.19 Artlens Studio.

The Alternative Realities

es of art with several themes such as “Glass”, “Work”, “Freedom”, or “Justice”, it suggests different interpretations of the artwork that might not have been previously considered; The Memory Game which suggests different interpretations of the artwork that might not have been previously considered; The Memory Game which works exactly as the famous game. The second section is composed by the Create Studio which is set up like an actual artist’s studio endowed with four creativity stations that allow you to make your own piece of art to take away with you as a memory pf your visit.

The last two features of the Gallery are not physical spaces but they are the ArtLens Wall and the ArtLens App that glue together the Gallery experience. The Wall remained untouched as it was in 2013 and it is conceived as a tool for visitors to browse CMA’s collection (Fig.20). It is designed to drive visitors into the galleries by giving them a preview of the objects and allowing them to create their own customised visit by downloading objects and tours to their mobile devices endowed with the App. The ArtLens App consist in a unique personal guide for museum visitors; loaded with videos, audio, text and images. The App contributes to customise the personal experience like any other technology presents inside the museum.; it can be used inside or outside the museums and has five main features: Near You Now, Tours, Today, Scanning and Favourites. The App implements the experience offering a digital background to the artworks and adding information about their history (Fig.21).

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.20 Artlens Wall.

Fig.21 Artlens App.

The Alternative Realities

The Near You Now feature works on site, with the museum’s Navizon service. This service, specifically installed for ArtLens, uses the nearest wireless access points to triangulate the device’s position. Using this indoor technology, the visitor is alerted of nearby artworks featured on ArtLens. These artworks have interpretive media (including film, comparative images, text, and audio) and scanning image recognition functionality, and are featured on a tour or have related artworks associated with them for additional guided looking. The Scanning feature incorporates the device’s camera and Qualcomm’s Vuforia image-recognition SDK to provide an Augmented Reality experience for users on the site. When a visitor scans artwork marked with the ArtLens icon, the app will recognize the object and provide context-sensitive content about the work. With Tours, visitors can select from both museum-curated and visitor-created thematic tours, with artwork locations specified on an interactive map that senses a visitor’s current position. Tours provide access to all informational media. Today is a modular popup which displays CMA’s daily schedule of events and exhibitions. The app ingests this content from the museum’s website via a RESTful web service. With Favourites, visitors can favourite their preferred artworks to share via social media and can also create a personalized tour for other visitors to take, which will appear on both the iPad and Collection Wall.30

30 Alexander J., Barton J., Goeser C., (2013) “Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One”. In Museums and the Web 2013, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, 17-19.

Building the Museum Experience

3.1.3 Evaluation of the Experience The combined effects of the ArtLens Gallery creates a renewed, original participatory museum experience. It has the opportunity to engage audiences before they arrive at the museum, enhance the learning opportunities at the museum, and create a remarkable impression after the visit. Even if most of the interactions require being at the space for an artistic exchange or to be in direct contact with the artwork, the ArtLens App provides suggestions and a visit’s preparation from the outside. It is important to underline that this experience opportunity does not replace the other previous opportunities such as guides or Professors led tours, lectures or any other kind of educational tours. It is just a new piece of experience added to the complicated and immense museum’s plan. The ArtLens Gallery project is not only a new art gallery for the public, from the point of view of the Museum it represents a way to reach more visitors.

As already mentioned earlier in this chapter, according to the Museums and the Web 2014 report, in the first year of the Gallery opening, the museum attendance increased by 39%, groups with children increased by 25%, and during the first half of the fiscal year, donations increased by 80%.31 The numbers do show that the museum’s combined experience among art and technology, reached new audiences. This is especially important since museums, specifically art museums, have seen a negative turn in attendance between 2008 and 2012. In 2013 the NEA report “How a Nation Engages with Art” showed a disconcerting perspective about how museums are or are not serving the public. The NEA report highlights attendance data from 2008 and 2012, showing a decrease in almost every measurement. Audience trends are showing that visitors do not enjoy some of the traditional experiences as much as they used to. Specifically, the participation of museum tours has been on a decline since 2008 when IMPACT, a predictive research company, started surveying individuals. According to their findings, more than half of 31 Alexander J., (2014) “Gallery One: the First Year: Sustainability, Evaluation Process, and a New Smartphone App”. In Museums and the Web 2014, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web, 5-6.

The Alternative Realities

visitors do not find tours fun.

Before the introduction of technology, visitors were forced to tour route, imposed by the curators and exhibition designers. Regarding this, the tours offered on the ArtLens app provide a different solution on the museum tour experience.

The need of being an active part, inside a museum context, for the visitors can be connected also with the theory of Johnathan Hill on the creative users; in this case, with the introduction of technology, the barrier between the work of the curators and the users seems to be thin and less relevant. The main work for the curators, today, is not focused on trying to find a coherent storytelling, nevertheless is to find an intelligible connection between the artwork and the technology. This fact is clear from the choice of the artworks present in the ArtLens Gallery. As specified in the conference at the Museum and Web 2017, the first goal of the curatorial team was to find the artworks, present in the main collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art, which were more suitable for a technological configuration and interaction. Apparently, there is no chronological or thematic coherence inside the Gallery. It is important to underline that the Gallery is not all the CMA but just a space inside it, where visitors can participate in a completely active and free-way. The physical context, or rather the exhibition design, plays a key role in the museum experience. How is technology placed and thought in accordance to this?

Inside the Gallery, the physical design of the original interactives in 2013 caused unexpected difficulties; they were located in the centre of the space with all the artworks distributed around the perimeter, several meters away. It is clear that the connection between the fixed kiosk and the respective artwork was absent, this is also an example of how technology can dissuade our attention from the real museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s objects. This physical arrangement, as discussed before, has been resolved with the abolition of the fixed kiosk

Building the Museum Experience

and the insertion of projecting interactive images onto the walls of the Gallery. This new spatial solution put the artworks into the centre of the Gallery and the digital representation on the background, and because there is no more a one to one relationship with the artworks this allows also the designers to arrange artworks in a flexible and unlimited configurations (Fig.22). The absence of an imposed pathway to the benefit of a personalized tour, with the new arrangement of the space and technology, should help visitors to build a more coherent experience based on their interests. In addition to the design of the physical context, the location-based technology built into the application can collect data about how audiences move through the galleries and how long they spend in different locations, this should help the museum to organize the exhibitions in relation to the visitors’ movements inside the space. This shows also that the ArtLens Gallery is constantly recording information about the museum experience to analyse and create a technologically advanced cultural institution, and this can also explain the renewal after only three years of practice.

The case study is only one example of how technology could fit inside a museum space and the ArtLens Gallery is just a space within the museum context, the addition of technology should not avoid the previous typologies of experience, there will always be someone attached to the “old school”. The success of the CMA is not given by the introduction of the technology at the expense of old tours, but primarily it changed the delivery system to offer numerous customizations that will suit a larger population. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the Cleveland Museum of Art took the initiative to reinvent the museum experience through the support of technology.

The Alternative Realities

Fig.22 Plan of the new arrangement for the Artlens Exhibition.

Building the Museum Experience

3.2 Virtual Reality Virtual reality (VR) is an artificial, computer-generated simulation or recreation of a real life environment or situation. It immerses the user by making them feel like they are experiencing the simulated, fake reality, primarily by stimulating their vision and hearing. VR is typically achieved by wearing a headset32 equipped with the technology, and is used prominently in two different ways: • To create and enhance an imaginary reality for gaming, entertainment, and play (Such as video and computer games, or 3D movies, head mounted display). • To enhance training for real life environments by creating a simulation of reality where people can practice beforehand, such as flight simulators for pilots. VR is possible through a coding language known as VRML33, which can be used to create a series of images, and specify what types of interactions are possible for them.34 Two adjectives seem to be a key points to understand how VR works: interactive and immersive. Later, we will see how these aspects are relevant for a museum’s experience.

3.2.1 Applications to Museums Although many people view virtual reality as totally new phenomenon, it has its foundations in an unrecognized history of immersive images. In fact the research for illusionary space can be tracked back to antiquity. Each epoch used the technical tools available to produce illusionistic spaces. Panoramas during the Renaissance and Baroque where the most developed form of illusion, reached through traditional method of painting before the introduction of the film. To arrive in 1950s where the first Sensorama cabinet was invented, since than the world of cinema invested a lot money into the VR technology, today we have 3D cinemas and the IMAX, but it has to be said that the first head-mounted display has military origins.35 What about Virtual Reality inside a cultural context, espe32 HTC, Sony PlayStation VR, Oculus Rift, Samsung Gear VR, Google Daydream View, etc.. 33 Virtual Reality Modelling Language. 34 “What is Virtual Reality?”, https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/what-is-virtual-reality.html 35 Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion To Immersion, The MIT Press: USA.

The Alternative Realities

cially inside an art museum?

There are different use of Virtual Reality inside a museum context, as already discuss before, some of the most important museums around the world dispose of an online Virtual Tour thanks to the Google Art platform and not only. But VR is becoming also a form of art, some artist are starting to experiment with VR technology, especially since in late August 2016 Google lanced the Tilt Brush, a tool that allows the artist to create paintings in a 3D space (Fig.23). Virtual Reality in the heritage sector has been also focused on utilising the technology as a tool to provide greater access provision to remote visitors; for example the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London has worked with provision to remote visitors; for example the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London has worked with the Google Cultural Institute to create a virtual tour of its rooms for use with a smartphone and the Google Cardboard VR headset, as an offer for children at Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross Hospital, users that are unable to visit the galleries (Fig.24). While online virtual tour can be watched without a headset, virtual art and virtual spaces endowed with 3D objects are not visible to the naked eye.

The following case study describes the Virtual Reality Weekend inside the British Gallery, here the VR is used to recreate an ancient environment in order to engage people inside it.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.23 Google Tilt Brush.

Fig.24 VR inside Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross Hospital.

The Alternative Realities

3.2.2 Virtual Reality Weekend at the British Museum As part of the learning programme at the British Museum, the Samsung Digital Discovery Centre provides family, teen and school visitors with technological activities. On August 8-9 2015, in occasion of the Virtual Reality Weekend held in the Museum, was the first time VR devices had been used to engage families with a permanent collection.

The site chosen to be explored in a Virtual Reality experience was a Bronze Age one, where visitors saw three-dimensional scans objects placed in their original setting. Inside the experience the users were able to explore multiple interpretations of how the object could have been used in the past across three digital platforms: Samsung Gear VR headsets, Samsung Galaxy tablets and an immersive dome. The fulldome and tablets made the experience accessible to the SDDC’s family visitors, who were able to explore the virtual world as a group, whilst the Samsung Gear VR headsets allowed for an individual experience. The scale of the weekend’s activities, which welcomed over 1,200 visitors, enabled the SDDC team to refine effective delivery techniques directly with the family visitors, providing a set of transferable learnings for facilitating similar activities at other museums and galleries. Plans for explaining the virtual reality experience to visitors were developed prior to the VR weekend; they were tested directly with the users over the weekend (Fig.25)36.

Although the user experience was designed to last around five minutes, its non-linear nature meant that users didn’t reach a specific end point. In addition, the Virtual Reality Weekend demonstrated the importance of having an additional member of the staff in charge of “hot-swaps.” With constant use, the Samsung Note4 mobile phones retained battery for roughly three hours. The Samsung Gear VR headsets demonstrated to be incredibly strong and well survived the heavy usage over the weekend. To enhance visi36 Juno R., Edwards L., (2016) “Virtual reality at the British Museum: What is the value of virtual reality environments for learning by children and young people, schools, and families?” MW2016, 1-2.

Building the Museum Experience

Fig.25 VR at the British Museum. tors’ experience at the Virtual Reality Weekend, the VR experiences were supported by correspondent activities. Visitors were invited to write or draw what they thought the three Museum objects encountered in the roundhouse were used for. They also had the opportunity to see a replica of the bronze Sussex loop and a 3D printed version of the Beaune dirk.37

These activities suggested the visitors with a lasting impression that their own ideas about the function of objects from the past can be equally valid to those of museum curators, this can be considered an important additional learning outcome of the weekend experience. A crucial part during the event was dictated by the presence of a qualified staff, this organizational part is a central point in order to the deliver a good experience to the visitors. When technology, and in this particular case when VR is used inside very popular museums, the management of the devices should be driven with awareness because 37 Juno R., Edwards L., (2016) “Virtual reality at the British Museum: What is the value of virtual reality environments for learning by children and young people, schools, and families?” MW2016, 4-5.

The Alternative Realities

without them the experience is not possible. The introduction of a new staff in charge of the technology devices is something added to the museums too, not only the technologies, but also someone that can introduce the user to new experience. Even if the Virtual Reality experience is considered an individual tour inside a recreated space, the presence of a staff that leads you inside the technological world could not be considered an evolution of the old guided tour? In order to understand better the interaction between the visitor and the artwork it is central to know how the VR experience is composed and how it was created.

When users first put on the Samsung Gear VR headsets, they are virtually transported to roughly 3500 B.C., to a rural landscape. The experience starts with the users standing in the open air, facing a Bronze Age roundhouse with an open door. To intensify the sense of immersion, the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; visual sense of an active environment is supported through a soundscape of birds tweeting close to a fire. In order for users to walk around the landscape, the navigation was designed to be as intuitive and non-invasive as possible. Users navigate within the experience by using a touchpad on the right-hand side of their Gear VR headsets or by moving their heads to look around. Using the built-in touchpad of the Gear VR for navigation was favoured over using a games controller, because this enhanced the immersion of the environment. It also allowed for a smoother, and therefore more realistic, experience. When users enter the roundhouse, they are presented with an interior intended to demonstrate the domestic experience of the middle Bronze Age. The sense is of a space in use. It is cosy and lived in, and it feels as if the inhabitants could come back at any time. An important feature of the round house was that it is a clean living space. The three scanned Bronze Age objects glow slightly blue within the roundhouse to distinguish them from the other domestic objects that are included, and to give a visual clue to users that these objects can be interacted with. As part of the experience, a reticule blue dot tracks where users are looking, which helps to stabilise the experience

Building the Museum Experience

for users and allows them to select the object when they encounter it by tapping the touchpad. The users are then presented with a closer view of the objects they have selected, which they can rotate. Whilst a user is looking at the object, a twenty-second audio plays of Wilkin describing it. The restriction on time limited the content that could be included. Edwards and Wilkin worked collaboratively through many versions to ensure that the messages that were communicated were the most engaging and significant, and that they were relayed in a manner that was suitable for a family audience.37

3.2.3 Evaluation of the Experience The experience is non-linear, with no beginning and end point, so users can interact with the objects many times and explore the landscape freely. When users are outside of the roundhouse, the limits of the landscape are marked by a woven fence, with a wooded landscape in the distance. The evaluation was developed for and conducted over the days of the Virtual Reality Weekend to establish the value of VR environments for learning by visitors. As the pilot use of this technology for learning purposes inside the British Museum, this evaluation provided a key opportunity to establish whether VR was of value before taking the use of the technology any further. The conclusion showed that 80% of visitors responded that the activity was “Very good” or “Good”. The high rating level given by visitors is often reflected in their accompanying comments; for example, one visitor noted that it was “fun to walk around in 3D. Read a lot about VR—so interesting to try it. Very impressed!” while another thought “the total immersive experience with the headset was fantastic.”39

38 Juno R., Edwards L., (2016) “Virtual reality at the British Museum: What is the value of virtual reality environments for learning by children and young people, schools, and families?” MW2016, 4. 39 Juno R., Edwards L., (2016) “Virtual reality at the British Museum: What is the value of virtual reality environments for learning by children and young people, schools, and families?” MW2016, 8-9.

The Alternative Realities

The evaluation was developed for and conducted over the days of the Virtual Reality The most important evaluation is that, at the end of the experience, visitors showed their enjoyment of using Virtual Reality in a museum space. Visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; feedbacks remark the potentiality of the technology of being enjoyable and highly educational. The reproduction of the space allows visitors to be immersed in another environment and not just see objects but also what should be around them, in other words their original context. One visitor remarked that the VR helped him to feel like a more normal interaction than just seeing the items in display cases. On review, the evaluation from the Virtual Reality Weekend suggests a VR environment helped the audience to understand the Bronze Age, a complex part of the British Museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collection.

4. Comparison

Comparison

The two case studies, based on two art museums, show how extremely complex the museum experience is and offer insights into why and in what ways digital media tools have the potential to enhance the meaning made of and from these experiences. Going back to the Falkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory on the museum experience, the physical context, such as the design of media tools and the organisation and navigation of the content showed by these tools are central, but also the personal and sociocultural contexts are still part of the museum experience.

The visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personal context is highly influenced by the use of technologies, or rather technologies could influence our personal context. Starting from the remote experience that we can have from home, through the Internet and the Museums App, visitors can prepare their visit and arrive with more knowledge inside the museums. Does the technology work for all in the same way? The use of digital technology, as already said in the introduction, is a free choice, but as the two case study shows also how much important is to know how to use it and understand if it can be helpful for your experience. AR and VR are used to give visitors more information and offer an easier and more stimulating way of learning. The youngest generations are more suitable for this types of experience and this is clear; for example referring back to the first case study, from the presence of the ArtLens Studio inside the CMA, that is a space created for children and families as the VR experience inside the British Museum was particularly orientated to families and school groups. It is not possible to say if the technology works for all the visitors it does or it does not, especially if we are talking about art museums, the understanding of art is something personal that cannot be resumed in an empirical diagram, but can be assumed that digital technologies are a new method of learning inside a museum space and it works good for young learners.

Building the Museum Experience

While for the personal context technology is more a free choice, for the social context is slightly different. Considerable research exists showing that visitors to museums are strongly influenced by the interactions and collaborations they have with an individual within their own group, or even from other external groups. How AR and VR positioned around this argument? AR, as showed inside the ArtLens Exhibition, can create social moments throughout the use of learning games related to the artwork. Is this adding something to the experience? The issue here is, again, the different type of museums: while a science museum can be more advantaged by the use of technology to explain something that is demonstrated, art museums have to rethink about the uniqueness of the artworks and how they can be reproduced and reinterpreted through a digital device. As shown in the first case study AR can propose arguments to talk about in a social group, or it can offer social moments by the use of engaging tools, such as games. On the other hand the experience offered by VR technology is a completely alone experience, while using the headset the visitor is immersed in an alone experience that cannot be social until the end of the virtual tour, when then is possible to share comments with other visitors, but again the discussion is possible only if the other visitor enjoyed the experience.

Finally, the physical context is the case of the other two contexts. Museums, and especially art museums have to find the coherent way to insert the technology into their spaces and linked it with the artworks. The work of the exhibition designers is strictly connected to the curatorial one and they have to collaborate in order to find a solution capable of fulfilling the gap between the technology and the artwork. As shown for the AR technology, the position and the choice of the devices should be thought and designed with knowledge and strategy in order to secure the importance of the artwork on the technology. For sure, AR has given more freedom to the visitors to create their own tour and their own movements inside a museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s space, allowing them to have a more broad idea of them inside the museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s storytelling and experience. The challenge for architects and

Comparison

designers is to create a space capable of been readapted and changed frequently in line also with the surprisingly fast evolution of the technology, considering that the artworks should always be the core of the museum. Regarding VR inside museums, the issue around the physical context is completely different. Virtual Reality experience is like walking inside a virtual space, reproduced by the headset, but in the real physical environment; with this technology does not matter where we are physically located as long that we can walk around to explore the digital environment. As the case study shows, people were walking freely inside the British Museums but with the risk of overpassing the restriction barriers. It is important to underline that, even if VR technology could be used everywhere, the artworks, as long as they are not available online, belong to the institution and people will always be required to go to a museum in order to watch them. Remaining inside the museum space, how should the architect think about spaces that hold virtual art? Is still the white box the right solution? Surely an empty container is a solution that gives more freedom to the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s movements; but sometimes is possible that an artwork requires touching surfaces or objects in the real environment, so the exhibition design will have to be developed alongside with the artwork.

AR and VR are both affecting, in different ways the visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience, inside the museum context, and giving to the art world a more wide range of followers, indeed with technologies museums are not only attracting people passionate about art because they are offering an entertainment method to approach people to art. The virtual tour is also making art accessible to everyone, especially to the people that cannot visit a museum.

Conclusion

The dissertation, helped by the theory on the contextual model of learning and with the analysis of the two case studies shows how complex the museum experience is and proposes insights into how many ways technologies have the potential to affect and create a new visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience. Evidently, the design of the devices and the organization and navigation in the physical context are really important as the personal and sociocultural contexts are too. Because is important to underline that an effective digital media experiences need to be organised within an expanded context of the lives and the society in which people live and co-operate.

When technologies are well designed and positioned inside the museum context, they have the opportunity to provide a positive effect upon the visitors essentially allowing the user to customise their experiences in order to meet their personal needs and interests; extending the experience to a new level beyond the physical and temporal limits of the museum visit; and finally, layering additional multisensory elements to augment the quality of the physical context. It seems fair to say that a full understanding of how digital technologies support the museum experience lies more in the future than in the present, predominantly due to the fact that technology can be increasingly unpredictable and has proven how fast it can evolve, thus making an existing purpose redundant.

As final considerations and hint for further research, the connection between the user and the artworks will never change, technology is a personal choice (at the moment) inside the museums, is something that acts as a mediator as a reflection of our society needs. In the imminent future, inside museums, we will find real artworks made with VR technology; so what will happen to space when technology is not only a mediator between the visitor and the artwork, but is the artwork itself? Especially virtual art is going to need a different physical museum space, how will designers respond to a no static form of art?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiello, C. “Re-Imagining the Contemporary Museum, Exhibition & Performance Space,” Evolo, Summer 2012. Alexander, J. Barton, J. and Goeser, C. “Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One”. Museums and the Web 2013, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Alexander, J. “Gallery One: the First Year: Sustainability, Evaluation Process, and a New Smartphone App”. Museums and the Web 2014, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Alexander, J. Wienke, L. and Tiongson, P. “Removing the barriers of Gallery One: a new approach to integrating art, interpretation, and technologies”. Museums and the Web 2017, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Basso Peressut, L. (1999) Musei, architetture 1990-2000, Milan: Federico Motta. Black, G. (2005). The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. New York: Routledge. Brooks, K. “9 things museums can do to improve the way we experience art”. Huffpost, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-things-museums-can_us_56f05e90e4b09bf44a9e2806. Caines, M. “Museums of the future: providing the personal, collaborating with the crowd,” The Guardian, 2012 http://guardian.co.uk/cultureprofessionalsnetwork/cultureprofessionalsblog/2012/may/17/museum-development-future-debate. 59

Cawood, S. and Fiala, M. (2007) Augmented Reality: A Practical Guide, The Pragmatic Programmers: USA. Darragh, J. (1993), Museum Design: Planning and Building for Art, Oxford: University Press. Din, H. (2007), The digital museum: a think guide, American Alliance of Museums Press: Washington DC. Eid, H. “The Museum Innovation Model: A museum perspective on innovation.” MW2016: Museums and the Web, 2016 http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/the-museum-innovation-model-a-museum-perspective-to-innovation/. Fisher, M. and Twiss-Garrity, B.A. “Remixing Exhibits: Constructing Participatory Narratives With On-Line Tools To Augment Museum Experiences”. Museums and the Web, 2015 http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/fisher/fisher.html. Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L. (2000) Learning from Museums. Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York and Oxford: Alta Mira Press. Falk, J. and Dierking, L., (2013) The Museum Experience Revisited, Left Coast Press: California. Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion To Immersion, The MIT Press: USA. Hargreaves McIntyre, M. “Engaging or Distracting: Visitor Responses to the Interactives in the V&A British Galleries”. Victoria and Albert Museum, 2013 www.vam.ac.uk/files/file_upload/5877_file.pdf. Harmer, S. “Architectural Concepts: Circulation”, 2012 http://portico.space/journal//architectural-concepts-circulation.

Hill, J. (2003) Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users, London: Routledge. Kaung C., “Local Projects and the Cleveland Museum of Art use new tech to connect the classics”. Fast Company, 2013 http://fastcompany.com/3005150/clevelandmuseum-of-art-interactive-galleries. Kidd, J. (2014) Museums in the New Mediascape: Transmedia, Participation, Ethics. Surrey, Burlington: Ashgate. Krauel, J. (2013) New Concepts in Museum Architecture, Barcelona: Links International. Lowdermilk, T. (2013).User-Centered Design: A Developer’s Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications. O’Reilly Media, Inc, Sebastopol, California. MacLeod, S. (2013), Museum Architecture: A New Biography, USA: Routledge. Mannion, S., Sabiescu, A. and Robinson, W. “An audio state of mind: Understanding behaviour around audio guides and visitor media.” MW2015: Museums and the Web, 2015. http://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/an-audio-state-ofmind-understanding-behviour-around-audio-guides-and-visitor-media/. Murphy, A. “Technology in Museums: making the latest advances work for our cultural institutions”. Museums+Heritage, 2015 http://advisor.museumsandheritage.com/features/technology-in-museums-making-the-latest-advances-work-for-our-cultural-institutions/. Newhouse, V. (1998) Towards a New Museum, New York: The Monacelli Press.

Price, K. “How can technology improve the museum experience?”. Victoria and Albert Museum, 2014 http://www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital-media/how-can-technology-improve-the-museum-experience. Rae J., Edwards L., “Virtual Reality at the British Museum: What is the value of Virtual Reality environments for learning by children and young people, schools and families?”. In Museums and the Web 2016, Proctor & Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Rengel, R. (2003), Shaping Interior Space, New York: Fairchild Publications. Ringham, J. “Tate Social Media Communication Strategy 2011–12”, Tate Papers, 2011 http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/15/tate-social-media-communication-strategy-2011-12. Shu, L. “Van Gogh vs. Candy Crush: How museums are fighting tech with tech to win your eyes”. Digital Trends, 2015 https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/how-museums-are-using-technology/. Shusterman, R. and Tomlind A. (2008) Aesthetic Experience, New York: Routledge. Sood, A. “Building a museum of museums on the web”. TED talks, California, 2011 https://www.ted.com/talks/amit_sood_building_a_museum_of_ museums_on_the_web#t-308745. Sully, A. (2015) Interior Design: Conceptual Basis, Springer. Tallon, L. (2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media, Rowman Altamira. Tzortzi, K. (2015) Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology, Routledge. 62

Tzortzi, K., “Movement in museums: mediating between museum intent and visitor experience”. Museum Management and Curatorship, 2014. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09647775.2014.939844. Van Der Vaart, M. “Using augmented reality in the museum”. Mesch Project, 2014 https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/how-museums-are-using-technology/. Vijayakumar, V. “The New Virtual Reality: A Tool for Social Change”. MoMA, 2016 https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2016/08/30/the-new-virtualreality-a-tool-for-social-change/. Villaespesa, E. “An evaluation framework for success: Capture and measure your social-media strategy using the Balanced Scorecard.” MW2015: Museums and the Web, 2015. http://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/an-evaluation-framework-for-success-capture-and-measure-your-social-media-strategy-usingthe-balanced-scorecard/. Ziamou, L. “Creating Engaging Museum Online Experiences: MoMA’s Digital Lounge”. Huffpost, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lilia-ziamou/creating-engaging-museum-_b_2808331.html.