JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  2001

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 16 Mar 2001 to 17 Mar 2001 (#2001-16)

From:

Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/

Date:

Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:37:06 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

Beryl  wrote:

>Do you think that there is an age difference in how people might
>respond to big busy spaces vs. more intimate ones? Do you think the
>NMPFTV context of also having educational hands-on exhibits in other
>parts of the building helped or hindered? Was there any confusion
>between interpretational technology and art technology? (I'm thinking
>here of Susan Collin's Audio Zone artwork in the V-Topia show in
>Glasgow, 1995; a piece using infra-red headphones which some people
>mistook for 'a guide to the exhibition' but which was a rather
>creative confusion.)
>
>You also get the CRUMB choccy biccy award for being open about
>aspects which maybe didn't work so well  - could you say a little
>more about what kind of critical feedback from which kind of
>visitors?  You can withhold names to protect the innocent.
-----
The NMPFT's main remit is to document, archive and communicate data and
artifacts concerned with moving and still image reproduction media. It has
no particular remit regarding the arts. Over the years, more as a means of
survival than due to curatorial vision, it has taken on more and more a
role in providing materials for the UK's National Curriculum. This means it
has come to regard its main audience as school kids. Half way through the
curatorial process for the digital galleries we were asked to ensure that
1. no exhibit had a dwell time of more than 3 minutes (generous in
museological terms) and 2. a target age of 12 years old.

For a more extensive discussion of this see the archives of the Museum and
the Web list between myself and Steve Dietz.

To some extent there was confusion between the interpretive and artistic
technologies in the galleries, but to a large degree this was intentional.
We did not want to create a seperation between these aspects of the
audience experience. Works were integrated, as explained in my previous
post. Of course this acted against any contemplative approach to the
projects, but then again we chose projects that demanded a more active and
playful engagement anyway.

I guess we hoped that even though this had been our primary agenda that
some people would engage with projects in a more focused and in depth
fashion...but by and large I do not think this happened, simply because of
the type of audience the museum attracts. The fact that the galleries have
thousands going through them every day, and an often pretty rowdy audience
they are, sort of works against that.

As for critical feedback...I think it is the lack of anything substantial
like that which speaks volumes. No serious arts or cultural magazine or
journal ever reviewed the show or its contents - a little surprising for a
show that cost around 1 million GB£'s to put up, although the same has
(not) happened for the Science Museum's (in London) new galleries, which
feature a number of works by artists. The NMPFT galleries were covered in
the popular press in a gee-whiz fashion and won a prize for best designed
exhibition that year...but we, as curators, had finished and gone on to
other things by then. The museums publicity machine ensured it was marketed
in a certain way. When it won a prize we were not even informed...and when
we did find out there was no offer of congratulations or thanks...the
museum Director took the credit of course. The other curator seriously
considered legal action but decided it was not worth it...an opinion I
concurred with.

I guess we were our toughest critics actually, in the absence of any other
meaningful feedback. As curators we recognised the failings of the project
and the reason why we failed...we were innocent when it came to working
with a large institution like the NMPFT and were abused by them. We were
used to get what the museum directorate wanted, and then what we did was
delivered in a tone and manner distant to our intent. Nevertheless, there
were aspects of the show I thought did succeed and even the general concept
is still sort of apparent in its realisation.

Mind you, my general experience with museums has been positive...most
curators and executives in the sector are genuinely sensitive to the
artists and other creatives and do have the interests of the arts paramount
in their thinking. I feel that the NMPFT was just an exception in this and
see that as due to particular personalities in that institution.





Simon Biggs
London GB

[log in to unmask]
http://hosted.simonbiggs.easynet.co.uk/


Research Professor
Art and Design Research Centre
School of Cultural Studies
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield, UK
http://www.shu.ac.uk/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager