I went to part 2 of a 'Storytelling in exhibits' series at the Design Exchange on Monday night (March 29 2010).
Three speakers were there- Dave Hollands from the ROM, Pat Hanson from gh3, and Brigitte Shim from Shim Sutcliffe. Dave was the star, he really knows his stuff, is empathetic and clearly sees the future in museums and access by the public. I have to admit to disappointment with the other two speakers, they designed galleries for their first time, and it made me inpatient to see some of what they did, how they did it , and the results.
Although there doesn't seem to be a planned 'new media strategy', the ROM has certainly stepped up to the plate in its new media offer. The ROM is very aware that people are carrying technology around with them, in the form of mobile devices that have cameras, video capability and texting options. Information is being transmitted with an immediacy unanticipated even when the ROM recently renovated. They are using various photo websites, creative commons usage for photos and commentary, and uncommissioned members of the public are creating 'renegade podcasts' of things they do and see at the ROM.
This phenomenon is providing unforeseen 'partnerships' that are changing the model for museums everywhere. No longer the reserved domain for commentary by post doctoral scholarship, the pressure on the ROM is to both accept the fact of content generation by anyone who cares to spend the time, but also to provide excellence in presentation, information, access, programs and above all access to learning.
My chief area of concern for most museums is that they lack real texture in their presentation. By this I mean that they assume people will engage through a very restrictive style of access to the 'goods' on display. That is generally through a little label, often crafted by someone who has a specialized knowledge of the object, and amazingly, often without really looking at the object to unravel the mysteries of what it presents with its public face.
Objects speak - to an aesthetic, to a sociology, history, quirkiness sometimes, to its own materiality and function. The best exhibits understand that objects can stimulate curiousity and wonder. Being able to interact, even in a minimal way, allows for greater engagement, and engagement allows for additional learning.
More next time......
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Doing good deeds with design?
Last night I attended a lecture at OCAD in Toronto. Speaker Debera Johnson from Pratt spoke about the future of design education. She is grounded in her values to use her skills to help others, and to help others find skills to help others.
There is a Centre for Sustainable Design Studies at Pratt that is interdisciplinary, allowing students from arts and science backgrounds to cooperate in projects. Some are fantastic, good design, offering great options for people in the environment and health care.
It all looked good to me until one project came up. Pratt works with a local neighbourhood and has come up with some urban planning options that will allow for a safe environment, street furniture the people can make themselves (but designed by Pratt students) inexpensively etc. It is aimed at reducing truck traffic through the area, and the proliferation of prostitutes who hang out to service the truckers.
Although it seems like a good idea, and the renderings make it look like everybody's happy afterwards, it smacked of a kind of colonialism to me. The values are positive that are brought to the community - creating sustainable products, good planning (which does not appear to have been done to begin with) and potential employment.
Bu who are they - or we - to foist this on a community?
Much like early Christian missionaries, who had clear values and felt that if they brought all these good things to people in other countries, that they would have better lives, the design school seems to believe that bringing what they think is important into this community is what's best for the community. No question that most of us would agree. But most of us aren't living in that community.
I was compelled to ask what efforts Pratt makes to bring in thought and people from the ground up - in other words, have projects instigated by a community, and co-created by them.
On Pratt's site, the costs listed are about $US50,000 per year to attend school.
This appears to be a fairly select group of people who can afford to enter this program. Deb did say that they are creating some scholarships, but there was no clarity about how many or how people are recruited into the program from the 'user group' for the projects.
I fully recognize that they are doing something that's Very Good. But it seems that doing these projects may not get to the core problems. It seems a bit like more of the same, not deep diving Design Thinking, just creating new solutions for a fraction of what the problems are, and doing it top down.
There is a Centre for Sustainable Design Studies at Pratt that is interdisciplinary, allowing students from arts and science backgrounds to cooperate in projects. Some are fantastic, good design, offering great options for people in the environment and health care.
It all looked good to me until one project came up. Pratt works with a local neighbourhood and has come up with some urban planning options that will allow for a safe environment, street furniture the people can make themselves (but designed by Pratt students) inexpensively etc. It is aimed at reducing truck traffic through the area, and the proliferation of prostitutes who hang out to service the truckers.
Although it seems like a good idea, and the renderings make it look like everybody's happy afterwards, it smacked of a kind of colonialism to me. The values are positive that are brought to the community - creating sustainable products, good planning (which does not appear to have been done to begin with) and potential employment.
Bu who are they - or we - to foist this on a community?
Much like early Christian missionaries, who had clear values and felt that if they brought all these good things to people in other countries, that they would have better lives, the design school seems to believe that bringing what they think is important into this community is what's best for the community. No question that most of us would agree. But most of us aren't living in that community.
I was compelled to ask what efforts Pratt makes to bring in thought and people from the ground up - in other words, have projects instigated by a community, and co-created by them.
On Pratt's site, the costs listed are about $US50,000 per year to attend school.
This appears to be a fairly select group of people who can afford to enter this program. Deb did say that they are creating some scholarships, but there was no clarity about how many or how people are recruited into the program from the 'user group' for the projects.
I fully recognize that they are doing something that's Very Good. But it seems that doing these projects may not get to the core problems. It seems a bit like more of the same, not deep diving Design Thinking, just creating new solutions for a fraction of what the problems are, and doing it top down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)