Comments on: Smarthistory at the Portland Art Museum http://smarthistory.org/blog/450/smarthistory-at-the-portland-art-museum/ Our Thoughts on Teaching & Technology Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:53:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Tina Olsen http://smarthistory.org/blog/450/smarthistory-at-the-portland-art-museum/comment-page-1/#comment-41844 Tina Olsen Tue, 12 May 2009 16:45:03 +0000 http://smarthistory.org/blog/?p=450#comment-41844 Great summary, Beth & Steven! I think the workshop successfully tackled the question of how technology can be used to open up interpretation to multiple voices, yes, but it also provided a model for how technology can accommodate the social and collaborative component of the museum visit. One of the most frustrating problems with audioguides has always been how isolating they can be for visitors--how much they inhibit conversation, and imply a single, or dominant, meaning for works of art. By placing a conversation in the galleries instead, between people who are named and identified (not the anonymous and institutional voice of the museum), the hope is to model critical looking and talking, rather than announcing an object's meaning, and thereby give people tools for their own experiences in museums--based on looking closely, talking about what they see, and coming to their own ideas about what the object means. But the other huge takeway for me from the workshop was how important, even therapeutic, it is to think and talk about works of art with a broad range of colleagues. I really felt like we gave each other the experience we hope our visitors might have, as a way of putting ourselves in our visitors shoes, absolutely, but also as a way of empowering more people, and more perspectives--from docents to curators to educators-- to really take on the question of how we facilitate and enable people's meaningful experiences with works of art. So, we're thinking about how we continue the effort as an internal practice as well as a means of creating interpretive modules for our publics. Great summary, Beth & Steven! I think the workshop successfully tackled the question of how technology can be used to open up interpretation to multiple voices, yes, but it also provided a model for how technology can accommodate the social and collaborative component of the museum visit. One of the most frustrating problems with audioguides has always been how isolating they can be for visitors–how much they inhibit conversation, and imply a single, or dominant, meaning for works of art. By placing a conversation in the galleries instead, between people who are named and identified (not the anonymous and institutional voice of the museum), the hope is to model critical looking and talking, rather than announcing an object’s meaning, and thereby give people tools for their own experiences in museums–based on looking closely, talking about what they see, and coming to their own ideas about what the object means.

But the other huge takeway for me from the workshop was how important, even therapeutic, it is to think and talk about works of art with a broad range of colleagues. I really felt like we gave each other the experience we hope our visitors might have, as a way of putting ourselves in our visitors shoes, absolutely, but also as a way of empowering more people, and more perspectives–from docents to curators to educators– to really take on the question of how we facilitate and enable people’s meaningful experiences with works of art. So, we’re thinking about how we continue the effort as an internal practice as well as a means of creating interpretive modules for our publics.

]]>