Showing posts with label @expergiscor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label @expergiscor. Show all posts

13 November 2017

A SPOONFUL OF SUGAR: EDIBLE ART HISTORY AT THE PORTLAND ART MUSEUM

A MUSE BOUCHE

BY: JENNIFER LEE

How far do the limits of interpretation stretch? In virtually every museum in the world, we see art, artifacts, and specimens interpreted into text to help the visitor understand and connect to them. Over time, and especially after the advent of digital media, interpretation has expanded; we can now expect multimedia interpretives like audio tours, videos, and apps in addition to the ubiquitous wall label. Most of these strategies are basically linguistic and visual, depending on words, images, and perhaps sounds to aid understanding.

Interpretation designed for visitors with disabilities might be experienced primarily through other senses; for example, reproductions of paintings which visitors can touch to understand the painter’s brushstrokes. These strategies also benefit visitors who can see: the more senses we can use to experience something, the better an understanding we can form.

Feeling Van Gogh, a touchable (and smellable) interpretive display designed for visitors with visual impairments, at the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. Source. 

Our senses of scent and taste, however, are underused in museum interpretation, often for perfectly good reasons. There are conservation issues involved in bringing food into museum spaces, and many visitors cannot or would prefer not to experience strong, evocative smells in the gallery. For the adventurous, though, food-as-interpretation might be the next frontier of museum experience.

Jared Goodman interprets art into ice cream sundaes as the Culinary Artist in Residence at the Portland Art Museum in Portland, Oregon, where he designs and hosts a public programming initiative titled ‘Edible Art History’. The residency grew out of the Morgan Street Theatre, the ‘dessert theatre’ ice cream pop-up he runs out of his home. At Morgan Street Theatre events, guests experience ice cream and storytelling at communal tables; the intention is to foster social connection and conversation. The menus are chosen with intent: a course at Goodman’s Dr. Seuss-themed ice cream social drew attention to foods endangered by climate change like pecans, bananas, and chocolate. His yearly Passover seder re-imagines the symbolic foods of the traditional seder as sundaes.

Goodman carried this format over to the Edible Art History programming at the Portland Art Museum. Previously, themes have included A Taste of American Art, A Taste of the 1970s, and 20th Century Abstraction. For each event, Goodman selects three pieces in the museum’s collection and creates an ice cream sundae based on each one. (The sundae form, he explains, is well-suited for the job because it allows for a combination of flavours and textures). The choice of flavours is based on the pieces’ “aesthetic, history, and social context”. At the event, Goodman and visitors are joined in conversation by a museum curator.
Left: City Perspectives (1932) by Raymond Johnson, Portland Art Museum. Right, Jared Goodman's interpretation, a sundae composed of passion fruit ice cream, salted brownie, olive oil, and raspberry shrub. Source.

The interpretations aren’t straightforward visual recreations of each work into edible form, but are inspired by single notes: an element of the work’s history, or a feeling it evokes, might determine the flavour or texture of a sundae. An ingredient local to the setting of a painting, or popular at the time of its creation, might figure into the recipe. Like label writing, tour planning, or any other kind of interpretation, this interpretive strategy must be selective: which aspects of the piece are most interesting or important? Too much information, and you risk overwhelming the visitor; too little, and they’ll walk away without an understanding of the piece.

It’s difficult to get a full sense of Goodman’s interpretive process from the limited information abut the Edible Art History program online (to my knowledge, there are no reviews available, so many of the ice cream/art pairings remain tantalizingly unavailable), but it seems to be grounded in the same principles as most other interpretation: research, critical thought, and a desire to make art personal to the visitor. In a feature by Oregon Public Broadcasting, he examines Helen Frankenthaler’s painting Spaced-Out Orbit. “So how do you get from this to ice cream? Well, the thing that I’ve been thinking about most is this idea of restraint and this idea of intention,” he explains. 

That’s a complex idea for any interpretation to express, let alone in the medium of cream and sugar. I’m struck by the subject matter of previous Edible Art History events: 1970s art and abstraction could be inaccessible and off-putting to visitors without a grounding in art history, but a three-course ice cream tasting probably makes them more palatable.

Helen Frankenthaler, Spaced Out Orbit (1973). Acrylic on canvas. Portland Art Museum. Source.

It’s easy to imagine this idea – local man makes art into ice cream! – as a gimmick designed purely to attract visitors and media attention, where interpretive practice is sacrificed for feel-good, Instagrammable novelty. I’ve suspended my cynicism in this case (besides, this man has my dream job). Goodman and his surprisingly complex sundaes evoke Tilden’s fifth principle of interpretation: “Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts…” When rigorously and thoughtfully applied, the culinary arts can be as provocative and revelatory as in-person or written interpretation, if not more so.

Perhaps, to paraphrase the famous maxim, writing about making ice cream about art is like dancing about architecture, but I put it to you that an interpretive dance about architecture would be amazing, and I have similarly warm feelings about responsible ice-cream based interpretation.

16 October 2017

THE SMITHSONIAN REALLY WANTS YOU TO THINK ABOUT FOOD

A MUSE BOUCHE

BY: JENNIFER LEE

How much time do you spend thinking about your food? The everyday business of shopping for, buying, cooking, and eating food consumes enough attention that we can miss opportunities to consider the cultural, economic, and historical processes that shape our diets. If you’ve ever wondered why nutrition labels look the way they do, or who decided that carbs were bad for you anyway - or if this is the first time you’ve pondered this - the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History might be able to help you out.


Take a moment to stop and think about food. Source. 

From Oct 26 to 28, the Smithsonian Institution will host the third annual Smithsonian Food History Weekend under the theme ‘Many Flavors, One Nation’. The weekend brings researchers, culinary practitioners, writers, and the general public to the National Museum of American History to discuss and understand the history and role of food in America. The meat of the weekend lies in the moderated roundtable discussions (free to attend and streamed online) and Saturday’s Food History Festival, a day stuffed full of food-related public programming.

Commendably, the SI keeps its yearly weekends topical; last year’s theme was ‘Politics on Your Plate’, in keeping with the end of the 2016 election campaign season. Each Food History Weekend wrestles with big and often difficult questions and themes, including identity and the politics of farm labour, nutrition, and health. In 2016, participants and attendees asked, “Whose voices are influencing food policy today? What are the critical issues, and what role does democracy play in the future of food in America?” This year, the weekend will centre on stories of migration, cultural exchange, tradition, and identity. The theme suggests that the weekend will embrace pluralism and emphasize the diversity of American food history: the ways in which all of our foodways and traditions influence each other. A public discussion on culinary diplomacy (“A new soft power, culinary diplomacy has the ability to bridge conflicts in situations where traditional forms of diplomacy have been ineffective”) seems almost comically well-timed for the current political climate.

The Food History Weekend is only one pea in a pod full of food-history initiatives at the Smithsonian. The NMAH boasts a full slate (or perhaps a full plate?) of exhibitions and programming that examine why and how Americans eat the way they do. Most famously, the museum houses Julia Child’s kitchen, which was featured in her later cooking shows and relocated from her home in Massachusetts, complete with her signature copper pans.

Julia Child's iconic kitchen, preserved at the NMAH. Try to resist doing the Voice. Source. 

Child’s kitchen serves as the gateway to the ongoing exhibition FOOD: Transforming the American Table 1950-2000, which examines the changes wrought by innovation, industry, and cultural change on American diets. A demonstration kitchen hosts regular historically-inspired demos hosted by Smithsonian staff and guest chefs, and the museum runs programming outdoors in its gardens, including a recreated wartime Victory Garden. 

The Smithsonian’s commitment extends into the history of beverages. In January of this year, it hired Theresa McCulla as overseer of its American Brewing History Initiative (described by more than one media outlet as ‘the best job ever’). McCulla, a Harvard scholar whose background is in social history and food literacy, began by surveying the museum’s beer-related collections. She stated in January that she especially hopes to illuminate the overlooked role of women, immigrants, and enslaved people in the early history of American brewing.


Cheers to that. Source. 

Why this commitment to food history, and why does it matter?

Food history as demonstrated in museums (one of the most publicly accessible media through which people can learn about food) often takes the shape of demonstrating pre-industrial processes and recipes from the history of white settlement in North America: this is how pioneers made bread and brewed beer. Less frequently, museums and heritage sites may expose visitors to Indigenous foodways, usually also rooted in the distant past. These approaches are limited in time and scope: food history isn’t just about what white pioneers ate, but how all people have fed and continue to feed ourselves. What’s missing is a discussion of how we got from breadmaking in the eighteenth century to Yelp reviews of sushi in 2017, how culinary traditions have been adapted to meet the needs of the recent past and the present, and a critical look at how we think about food, including diet culture, food labour, and food literacy.

Food is both universal and highly specific. The ways in which we eat and think about eating are determined by and reflect our time, place, class, ethnicity, and gender. The universality of food as an experience makes it an ideal starting point for education: visitors already have a strong personal connection to the subject.

It’s loaded with meaning, and that means it’s well worth talking about everywhere in the public sphere, but especially in museums. At the same time, food can act as a gateway to topics we need to address more than ever: health, politics, labour, the environment, and racial and cultural difference. The Smithsonian’s food history programming recognizes that we are what we eat, and if what we eat isn’t ideal, that’s an interesting avenue to discuss, too. 

Can food history programming tell me why millennials are obsessed with pizza? Actually, yes, it probably can. Source. 

The Food History Weekend programming champions diversity, research, and critical thinking, which will be increasingly important as we face a changing intellectual landscape, in which there are facts, "facts", and Twitter. 

As stewards of material culture and historical record, heritage institutions are well-placed to help people think through historical processes and current events, and institutions like the NMAH have the resources to do this in a big way. The museum was the third most-visited Smithsonian institution last year, after the Air and Space and Natural History Museums, and welcomed 3.6 million visitors. Even without the impact of online content such as podcasts, blog posts, and the streamable Food History Weekend roundtables, that’s a pretty impressive reach, and it represents 3.6 million opportunities to get people thinking critically about their food.

If you’re interested in food history at the Smithsonian, I suggest checking out the NMAH blog's food history tag and the Food History Weekend page for videos of past roundtable events. If you're podcast-inclined, there's an interview with beer historian Teresa McCulla on the Smithsonian podcast, Sidedoor.

25 July 2017

TALKING TO ROBOTS ABOUT ART: A VISITOR RESEARCH ROUND-UP

RESEARCH COLUMN

BY: JENNIFER LEE

As summer internships wrap up and August approaches, you may already be itching to get back to class. Fear not: it’s not too early to start hitting the academic journals again! My own summer internship has involved some visitor research projects, and it’s fascinating to see what kinds of information we can miss about our publics until we think to ask. In the spirit of inquiry, here are some recent developments in visitor-centred research to get us thinking about museum users in the wild.

"There's one! Crikey." Source. 

Our first stop is Pittsburgh, where staff at the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh are currently developing a mobile experience (working title MUSE) which they describe as “a friendly, knowledgeable and charming chatbot extension”. MUSE would use native systems on users’ mobile phones, including cameras and SMS/messaging clients, as a platform to answer questions and make conversation about museum objects and facilities. The idea is reminiscent of Brooklyn Museum’s ASK system, but would use artificial intelligence rather than real-time human expertise.

This strategy removes a substantial obstacle to getting users to engage with museum apps, i.e. that very few living humans have ever intentionally downloaded a museum app. The Carnegie Museums found that 93% of the visitors they surveyed were carrying a mobile device, and virtually all of them had Facebook Messenger, iMessage, or both. If they can leverage those numbers to provide as frictionless an experience as possible, there’s reason to be optimistic about MUSE’s success. The recent popularity of SFMOMA’s ‘Send Me SFMOMA’ service, which texted artwork in response to user requests and emojis, proves that there’s quite a niche for whimsical digital experiences with museum collections.

Art on demand from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (Send Me SFMOMA). The future has arrived, and it is *heart eyes emoji*. Source. 

After an intensive visitor study, CMP have kindly made their visitor research data, methodology, and infographics available on GitHub, where they might be useful for other museums looking to develop similar programs (and they’re an interesting read for the inquisitive – the incidence of selfies will surprise you).

Next we move to New York and this month’s issue of the Journal of Museum Education (vol. 42, July 2017), centred on the theme ‘Does Museum Education Have a Canon?’ In the article “Well-Chosen Objects Support Well-Being for People with Dementia and Their Care Partners”, Carolyn Halpin Healey of Arts and Minds, a non-profit which works with people with dementia and their caregivers in New York museums, explains staff concerns in selecting artworks for these programs.

In keeping with the issue’s theme, much of the article’s focus is the tension between the canonical objects of a museum’s collection and the need for an accessible and enjoyable experience for participants, ultimately the more important factor. The most famous, visible, and ‘important’ objects in a museum are there for all visitors to enjoy; visitors with cognitive impairments are often unable to access them for physical reasons or because of fear and stigma associated with their impairments. While it’s important to push back against this stigma and increase access to the canon, there is also much to be gained from looking outside the canon and with specific groups’ histories and personalities in mind. 

An Arts and Minds program at the New York Historical Society. Successful programs for visitors with cognitive impairment have tangible benefits for all participants, including caregivers, but what makes a successful program, and how does the choice of art factor in? Source. 

My main takeaway came from the author’s testament to the importance of thoughtfulness: “While the “wrong” choice will certainly not cause harm, the “right” choice has the potential to catalyze self-exploration as well as provide the opportunity to reflect on the past, to empathically connect with others, and to imagine new ways of being as one ages, particularly in the face of life-altering cognitive impairment.” Even when the risks of curation are low, the payoffs may be substantial; all museum visitors deserve the best we can give them. The article draws usefully on existing education, visitor and neurological research, and is a neat example of how theory can be used to guide and bolster practice.

On our final stop, we move from understanding and shaping visitor experience to directly influencing visitor behaviour. In “Fostering customers’ pro-environmental behaviour at a museum” (Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25.9), Heesup Han and Sunghyup Sean Hyun explore the factors which predict pro-environmental decisions like recycling, water conservation, waste reduction and transport choice while visitors are in the museum.

The authors identified five cognitive dimensions (environmental value, concern, awareness, knowledge, and self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s own ability to act toward goals) and two affective dimensions (the expectation of positive versus negative feelings after completing actions) which impact eco-friendly intentions and behaviour, as well as two additional factors, willingness to sacrifice and interconnectedness to nature. Using survey results from several South Korean museums, they produced a model which showed the relationships between all these factors in visitor decision-making.

A young visitor acts on the expectation of positive affect at the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum in Chicago, IL. Source. 

It turned out that the factor with the largest impact on pro-environmental behaviour was negative anticipated affect, or the expectation of feeling guilty, remorseful, and bad after they took action or failed to take action. The second most important factor was positive anticipated affect: visitors were motivated to recycle or reduce waste because they knew they would feel good afterward. The cognitive dimensions were also crucial. An effective strategy might be to let visitors know that recycling, creating less waste, and choosing friendly transport options is the decent and worthwhile thing to do, while making other choices has adverse consequences. As we have always secretly suspected, the best way to make sure visitors act ecologically in the museum might be with some gentle shaming. Perhaps someone could develop an ecologically-minded chatbot to remind them to recycle?


SUGGESTED READING 

Halpin-Healy, Carolyn. "Well-Chosen Objects Support Well-Being for People with Dementia and Their Care Partners." Journal of Museum Education 42, no. 3 (July 14, 2017): 224-35. doi:10.1080/10598650.2017.1342189.

Han, Heesup, and Sunghyup Sean Hyun. "Fostering customers' pro-environmental behavior at a museum." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25, no. 9 (November 25, 2016): 1240-256. doi:10.1080/09669582.2016.1259318.

Inscho, Jeffrey. "No App Required: Toward a Utilitarian Museum Mobile Experience." The Studio. May 18, 2017. Accessed July 23, 2017. https://studio.carnegiemuseums.org/introducing-muse-20a6f11c7c35.

Inscho, Jeffrey. "Field Study: Benchmarking Visitor Behaviors and Mobile Device Usage in the Museum." The Studio. July 18, 2017. Accessed July 23, 2017. https://studio.carnegiemuseums.org/chatbot-field-study-91fcbb1d4875.