I miss feeling uncomfortable in art museums. I miss examining the typeface and hierarchy of interpretive panels. I miss pasting alongside early elementary learners in a program intended for families, all the while reminding the facilitator that they've created something that all learners can and should appreciate. I miss watching young children navigate the "rules" as they explore their limits in the museum lobby.
It has been nearly nine months since I've been in a museum. During that time I have thought a lot about the role museums play in our communities. The damage they've done. The work of museum professionals (predominantly educators, in my experience) to address colonization trauma caused by these institutions. The therapeutic experience they can provide for visitors looking to recharge in their spaces. The way the can bring community together and provide a space for teens to explore. And, as always, I am brought back to the same few questions that I bring to almost every conversation:
Yes. The capitalization was necessary. This is how my brain works, and I like to share the experience. I think for most of my life I selfishly answered these questions according to my own experiences and wants, assuming that y'all are all out there living some kind of universal experience. I miss museums, but do I miss what they are or what I imagine that they could be?
0 Comments
In danah boyd's “Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?” she explores the concept of the mediated public created by social media sites, and how teens interact with this new social framework. The concept of the mediated public hooked me. My first reaction was to immediately recoil at the (perhaps extremely obvious) idea that someone in front of a computer screen, somewhere in the world, was actively mediating my online public.
SHOCKING. I thought back to the recent Facebook issues during the election about amplifying your worldviews. I thought to the Reddit controversy of the CEO altering negative comments. In short, I went down a short lived, but very intense, rabbit hole of conspiracy theory and concern. Of course the internet is a mediated public! All public spheres are mediated. That park by your house? Certain behaviors are banned there (like off leash frolicking). Intentional design was included to promote certain activities and not others. The people who utilize that public space influence who else will use that space. While boyd argues that spaces like parks, cafes, and malls are unmediated, I think that her definition can apply IRL. boyd defines mediated spaces as having four major characteristics: 1. Permanence of the interaction 2. Searchable content 3. The ability to replicate and modify 4. Invisible audiences While I too would likely argue that these characteristics are amplified on social media sites, I also think that they are present in the halls of a high school, and in the food courts at the mall (I mean, have you seen Mall Rats?). Not to go too Foucault on you, but some would argue that the whole world is mediated by power relationships evident in every action and word. Is the digital world really so different than the world that we live in everyday? Or is it that the mediation is transparent? If that's the case, which world should we really be more frightened of?
The world of 0s and 1s that come together on our computer screens has become so familiar to us that many of us feel at home online. But how familiar are we, really? There are some serious differences between the way we interact with our world, and the limitations of interacting through technology. Namely, context.
Context can be described as the conditions under which something happens. In our everyday life, face to face interaction, we are afforded the ability to interpret the context of our interactions. Who are we talking to? How are they receiving the conversation? Where and how are communicating our thoughts. As our context changes we may change our approach or even our message. To simplify this even further, you can think of this as the ability to read social cues. Michael Welch explores this in depth in his 2009 article, YOUTUBE AND YOU EXPERIENCES OF SELF-AWARENESS IN THE CONTEXT COLLAPSE OF THE RECORDING WEBCAM. More specifically, he explores the challenges of not knowing your audience because of a concept called context collapse, the idea that technology creates an infinite number of contexts. He argues that context is central to determining the "self" that you choose to present to the world, and that context collapse challenges the user to identify themselves to everyone and no one. Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd hypothesized that this collapse of context requires the user to imagine their audience. I like to imagine that my one reader hangs on my every word, and longs for the day that I post a photograph of my dog on my blog. Downside? Marwick and boyd say that our imagined audiences are just that... imagined. Our actual audience is often very different from who we imagine we are crafting our message for. So in reality, you are likely a highly critical cat person. This election cycle was filled to the brim with hashtags, from #NASTYWOMAN to #REPEALTHE19TH. These hashtags allowed people to curate their experience and find likeminded individuals in a sea of social media posts. The addition of a hashtag links thoughts to each other and has the power to start a movement. But here's the thing about those movements... the are often not inclusive, and are almost always met with criticism. In fact, hashtags (like all media) help to push an agenda. Our agenda, or propaganda, hides behind the soft title of mission. We should embolden ourselves to acknowledge the truth of our posts, exhibitions and programming. Some museums are doing this by embracing bold hashtag movements like #museumsrespondtoferguson. In being transparent about their objectives, they have empowered a community separated by city limits and state lines. The definition of community goes beyond a group that shares geographic proximity. It can be defined as a group sharing common interests. In this age of social media hashtags are the new neighborhood subdivision signs indicating our neighbors... people who are willing to hear our agenda. (Note that willing to hear is not synonymous with willing to accept). Hashtag away my dear readers (read: reader). Pound sign with intention. Make a statement. Find your neighbors. The National Arts Marketing Project defines segmentation as an attempt to "appeal to each group’s particular needs and interests." It is extremely important to group your audience based on needs and expectations, and then develop a plan that appropriately addresses those similarities. When dealing with social media you have to consider your channel, platform, and content for each segment to make sure that you are effectively reaching your audience.
After this week's election results I am at a loss. We, as a country, do not know our audience. The best pollsters, the most up to date data, didn't provide an accurate description. I wonder then, if given this revelation, it would be prudent to assume that we don't know our audience either. How do you predict what your audience will respond to if you don't know who your audience is? Do we ignore nearly half of our audience because we don't know how to address their needs? Let's take it a step further... How do we serve our entire audience when it is so partisan? I am struggling this week. I know that museums have the power to enact change, and foster dialogue. We can do this outside of our wall through digital media outreach, but what do you do when you are left feeling that that power is only serving half of your audience? It has become clear that there are a lot of people (who make up the audience for national museums) that do not want to engage in meaningful dialogue, and that would rather the world stay as it is (or change back to an earlier time). By promoting change and dialogue are we becoming partisan? Are we allowed to be? I know my answer, but is it the institutional answer? Twitter. You send a short tweet to share a view, promote a concept, propel GIFS into internet stardom. Should you use it to craft your professional voice? Your professional identity? I struggle with this daily. I type the letters, I contemplate the use of the hashtag, and then I pause.
The permanence of the internet is something that terrifies me. In class this week we were asked to consider social media crisis management in the museum. See, there's the thing... my post, my tweet, has the potential to be a crisis. Every word, every playful meme is a potential risk to be managed. DRAMATIC, I know, but Accenture Consulting identifies the potential risk the public release of damaging information both true and false. That means that perception is part of equation. I can control my words, but how can I be sure how they are being perceived? Unless followers are commented and engaging there is no way to know how you are being perceived. I... choose... each... word... with... thoughtful... consideration. Hopefully they string together in a way that promotes the best of me. This week I was lucky enough to attend the Dialogic Interpretation meeting, hosted by GWU Museum Studies, and developed and lead by International Coalition of Sites of Conscience's Braden Paynter. Initially, the concept seems simple: talk to your audience, and involve them in the process of learning. It always shocks me to realize how much of a disconnect there is between educational theory and museum practice. The idea of talking to your audience, engaging their entrance narrative, is often discussed- but rarely practiced. This meeting helped me realize why that is. It is because we theorize and pontificate without verifying that everyone in the room knows what the word dialogue means. The Four Modes of Communication (as defined by ICSOC) Conversation: Expressing one's own views without intended impact Discussion: sharing information to meet a goal Debate: sharing information as a means to change someone's mind Dialogue: sharing ideas for the purpose of personal and collective learning SHUT THE FRONT DOOR. How often have you seen an outcome goal that includes the words conversation, discussion or debate? If we are truly inviting our audience to engage in their own learning then we should leave those words at the door (which you previously shut, at my instruction). In embracing a new vocabulary we can change the framework that we have all been working from. This is scary. It requires us to share authority. But, Anna, if I share the authority how do I insure that they will take away the right information? If you're worried about that question, then you may not be ready to engage your audience in dialogue, because the answer is... you don't. In inviting your visitors into dialogue you are legitimizing multiple 'ways of knowing' that go beyond your academic expertise. What's exciting about this? YOU GET TO LEARN. Not only do you facilitate collective education, you step out from behind the didactic panel and become part of the education. This all sounds great. How do I do this? Ask open ended questions that don't require specialized knowledge, and then listen to the answers. Those answers will change your program and your interpretation. Let's practice.... Imagine if you will that your artifact is a high school yearbook. Your goal is to talk about the significance of the brilliant mind pictured to the left. You need a hook to start the dialogue. What do you do? If you ask a specific question, and your audience doesn't know the answer you've lost them. So what could you ask that they are experts in? ASK THEM A QUESTION ABOUT THEMSELVES WHICH RELATES TO YOUR GOAL. Example: Photographs capture the image that people want to present to the world. If you were being photographed, what objects would you include to highlight your interests? Everyone can answer that question, and now you have an entry way to discussing the subject of this image, and a route towards discussing symbolic imagery. I invite you to answer this question. I'd love to hear your responses, and then I would challenge you to go one step further. Why would you choose those objects? Today I participated in a mini forum, in which classmates evaluated the visitor experiences at 11 different historic home museums. An unacknowledged thread ran throughout these presentations: beyond the website, tech was NOT an expectation. With smaller budgets and staffs, it is perhaps beneficial that the audience does not expect tech as a central interpretive technique. However, my site (Carlyle House in Alexandria) had an app.
An app! I was shocked, and pleasantly surprised. But then I started to consider the downside of the app platform. Storage. If you have figured out the magic that is required to have extra space on your phone, well then... you're likely a genius. Approximately once a month a lovely alert pops up on my phone, alerting me to the fact that I need to manage my storage. A classmate asked if I downloaded and used the app. The short answer is no. The somewhat longer answer is that I needed to take pictures at the site, and therefore needed what little storage my iPhone SE has to offer. How many apps are successful? How is that measured, and is there any transparency? I know that many museums have moved away from the app platform due to cost, and others have began to use it as merely an alternative to printed material (regurgitating the same information from pamphlets and maps). Where do you stand? Should tech be an expectation on site? Is it meaningful if it is not offering something your print media/program can't offer? I am currently researching the idea of institutional voice across platforms, and several questions come to mind.
I would love to say that I answer these questions in this post. The truth is, I will attempt to explore them, which will likely lead to more questions, suggesting that this is a complicated beast that requires continual consideration. The Language of Social Media Posts can range from limited text, to video, to photos, to gifs, to filters, to bitmojis. Which platforms rely the most on each of these? The Meyer Foundation, which is an organization in Greater Washington dedicated to the support and sustainability of equitable communities, has put together a a quick reference guide for social media platform comparison. While useful in our quest to make sure we aren't using a square language for a round platform (I've created an analogy, and as you can see, I'm invested in its use), it doesn't reflect the quickly evolving language that exists in the digital world. It does, however, reflect the comfortable realm of digital communication, and therefore is a sound resource for identifying what most museums are currently doing. But what about the gif, the filter, and the adorable range of emojis and bitmojis that now exist? A Brief Comparison of 3 Platforms of Communication Facebook: You can use Facebook to share almost every form of digital expression. You can even stream live video to your audience. But what do they expect? Real estate on Facebook is valuable and visual. While many people have grown comfortable with long informative text posts, the competition for your audience's attention is so great that there has to be a visual lure. The use of photographs and video have become not only popular, but necessary on this platform. However, the use of filters and gifs are often abandoned for the classic meme. Instagram: Instagram is a primarily a photo based platform. Your audience expects "Insta-worthy" shots, with great lighting and a trendy filter to highlight why they need you on their feed. However, with the constant additions of app friendly apps like Boomerang the expectations for this platform are rising. DOWNSIDE: SEE LINK IN BIO... no one is about that life. Snapchat: This is the platform for the institutions that don't shy away from #yass. This platform thrives on filters, quick videos, and text framed photography reminiscent of memes. Snapchat channels are few and far between, but businesses and media groups can create multimedia scrapbooks for the "swipe left generation." Currently, institutions use this platform as account holders, but the limited search ability of this platform makes connecting with these accounts difficult. So what do you think? Which platform is appropriate for cultural institutions? Can they all be used to promote the mission? And if so, can they be used in the same way with the same message? How do you maintain consistency in your message, but still deliver engaging content to the audiences using each platform? I know, I know... I didn't answer the questions I posed. I gave you fair warning. If you haven't had the opportunity to read, browse, and get lost in Nina Simon's Museum 2.0 blog I implore you to take at least 30 minutes of your day to do so. While eagerly awaiting my purchase of her newest book, I found myself digging through her archived blog posts. I stumbled, quite easily, onto one of her most popular posts, "How I Got Here," which details the three parts to her case.
What do I want? As an Archeological (sans the traditional a to save ink during printing) Technician for the National Park Service I wanted to share freshly unearthed knowledge with the public that happened upon our site. As a high school teacher I wanted to spark transformational change in my students, creating life long learners. Now, as a museum professional I want to merge those two aspirations by developing engaging programming that invites our audience to develop their own passion for history, culture, and science. Let's take the static information of the textbook and create dynamic, exciting opportunities that stick with us past that pesky unit test. How aggressive am I? That's a great question. After the Park Service I wanted nothing more than to work at the Orlando Science Center. They told me I needed education experience. I became a teacher. I worked for four years to study pedagogy, curriculum development, and data driven classrooms founded in a supportive classroom culture. I chaired my department, created District Curriculum, and trained new teachers. While in Washington, DC I've secured a full time museum job, while taking a full course load of graduate classes in Museum Studies at GW. I've attended conferences, and worked hard to push business cards and pleasant small talk. But what's the next step? I want to learn as much as I can from colleagues in the field. I want to challenge myself by taking on unfamiliar topics, and new audiences. The ideas I can offer... I have seen the spark in the eyes of students labeled under-performing, at risk, below grade level. I have seen the interest a member of the public can give a seemingly unimpressive piece of earthenware. I offer a truth that not everyone is willing to accept: People don't just want to learn, they yearn for it. The entrance narrative our audience brings is of value, and holds the power to give our collections meaning beyond a text panel or catalog description. It is important to consider the connections and stories that they bring into our institutions. We don't have to work towards having relevance. Its there. We just have to pay attention. |
AuthorTeacher. Student. Passionate museum goer with a fancy for history, architecture and artifacts that were once blanketed in meters of dirt. Archives
November 2016
Categories |