The final project consists of four parts. Each student will be responsible for his/her own submission. Projects are due for presentation at the final class session. This session may run longer than the usual 2.5 hours to allow each student adequate time to present.
The final submission will consist of four parts:
3 axis IED chart1: Construct a graph among three axes.
- Vertical axis has art at the top and science at the bottom. This indicates the degree of each in the exhibition’s content, in your view.
- Horizontal axis has white box at left and back box at right. This represents the style of presentation.
- The second horizontal axis, at 90 degrees to the first horizontal axis shows less Contemplative on the left and engaging/participatory on the right. This reflects the nature of the visitor experience.
2. Schematic submission 2: Populate two graphs
- Plot onto this three-dimensional graph the loci for each of the exhibitions we have visited during the semester.
- Do a second graph and plot the loci for twelve additional temporary exhibitions. Four exhibits—temporary or permanent– from three museums. You also may substitute for some of these, exhibitions you have seen on your own during this academic year. (Do note that you are evaluating each exhibition only for where they fall on the three scales of the graph).
3. Write a Proposal:
Create an exhibition proposal, as if you are submitting it to a museum (identify a museum and the reason it is your target venue)
You are hoping it will be green lighted!
The format is a report that will also contain sketches, images, quotes, research and any supporting materials that may enhance the submission.
Be sure to show where this exhibition falls on the type of graph you have just created.
Write a detailed description for each aspect of your exhibition. The list below contains a series of suggestions, (and referring back to Hughes will be helpful).
▪ The Brief for your project. Topic, main idea, content description, outline?
▪ The visitor: What visitors targeted and how?
▪ The site: What is the venue? Open? Closed? Architecture of the exhibition and the space? Challenges?
▪ Exhibition interpretation strategy? Desired visitor experiences?
▪ Exhibition design strategy?
▪ 3-D design: What is needed? Circulation plan?
▪ 2-D design: Role of environmental graphic inspiration? Approach?
▪ Lighting: Purpose? Environmental? Feature? Special effects?
▪ Interaction: Design: Visitor experience intended? Interactivity—where and how to be effective vis a vis the information and interpretation?
▪ Sound and Film: Benefit? Distraction? Soundscape contribution to the experience?
4. Class presentation:
Your presentation will be ten minutes. You will use projection and will submit your presentation (please bring it also on a flash drive so it can be easily downloaded).
Final Project Grading:
You will be judged on quality of thought, appropriate level of challenge you have taken on, thoroughness in covering the range of bullet points listed above, clarity and quality of your presentation.
AMNH: Hall of Meteorites and Hall of Human Origins
Seeing the film “Journey to the Stars” framed the narrative for my visit to the American Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Meteorites and Beyond Planet Earth exhibits.
After “Journey to the Stars” I began my morning at the Hall of Meteorites. The exhibit possesses enormous potential for the interpretative designers who wish to employ interactive exhibits to further enhance the viewer experience.
The current exhibit was a very positive experience because the objects and dioramas placed in a circle led me toward an engaging narrative about the creation of meteorites and how their presence contributed to the earth’s landscape.
I enjoyed the process of exploring how meteorites came to be with the current dioramas. When I consider the subject of meteorites in science, I am reminded of the words that were employed throughout the exhibit: gas, liquid, minerals, and high temperatures. All of these concepts may be further explored in a series of interactive exhibits for the visitor that stimulates the senses.
For a moment, consider the portion of Beyond Planet Earth’s exhibit where there is an information panel that allows the viewer to smell moon rocks. The description was compared to spent gunpowder. As a firearm enthusiast, I appreciate the description; however, my experience would have been enhanced in the Hall of Meteorites if I may have engaged with my senses more consistently with the concepts being explored.
The Hall of Human Origins offers a lovely counter point how an exhibit may be constructed for a cross-section of visitors, considering so many of them will be inclined toward experiencing the concepts interactively. I appreciate how there was less physical and perhaps psychological proximity between the visitor and the objects. Objects were showcased with glass on three and four sides, which encourages the viewer to circle the display and explore at ease. I was also taken with the touch screens placed at different points and at a level accessible to younger visitors participating in the exhibition narrative. I absolutely loved the laboratory component that allowed visitors to have a hands-on experience with the concepts articulated. I would have liked to engage with a laboratory component in all of the exhibits because at some point I wanted to position myself in the place of student scholar/student scientist and there is no better setting than a lab that encourages this degree of proximity.
Upon my exit of both halls, I began to consider how a series of interactive exhibits could be constructed to convey the notion of gas, liquid, minerals, and high temperature to the viewer that provides a more tactile entrance into the Hall of Meteorites narrative. This is complicated because I would not feel comfortable with the visitor having a Walt Disney style experience. Engaging should have a higher premium than entertaining; however, entertainment possesses value in our culture. Perhaps by the end of this course, I may be in a more informed position to fully articulate a response in proposal form for the AMNH.
Exhibitions that make you think–as these did–are of value in communicating science and creating a venue for curiosity. In addition to that level, you are thinking creatively about hoe to approach interpreting content to create the venue for curiosity. The Sackler lab is the first permanent hall at AMNH to have a lab purpose designed within it. It is based on the lab w created for the Genomic Revolution in about 2000-2001.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/0_home/lab.html
Frankly we did not think so much about the senses when we were designing the Meteorites Hall, beyond the physical space, motor involvement in creating levels, and in the theater. Most important sensorially was being able to touch the meteorites.
Regarding your suggestion: gas, liquid, minerals, and high temperatures….may be further explored in a series of interactive exhibits for the visitor that stimulates the senses. Sounds like a worthwhile effort, and one that science centers do tackle head-on. -D