A study on transforming the museums through interactive exhibiting

A study on transforming the museums through interactive exhibiting

Simge Esin ORHUN
Interactive Media Design Department
Faculty of Arts and Design, Yıldız Technical University
Davutpasa Campus, Davutpasa Street
Esenler Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: 00 90 212 3835051
sesin@yildiz.edu.tr
esimge02@gmail.com

Abstract
With the advancements in networking and displaying technologies, museums
started to make use of the rich sources of interaction obtained by the
transforming modes of communication. Few of the latest interactive exhibitions
make use of these physical spaces as a mediator to connect user, technology and
data. We believe that interactive exhibiting has the potential to alter museums to
mediums through the architectural qualities of space. This research examines
conceptual interactive exhibition designs developed for different architectural
spaces in Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive Media Design
Department, Yildiz Technical University within 2009-2011 to find clues to
transform museums into communicating environments.

Introduction
The traditional forms of art has started to be replaced by process based,
participatory and interactive installations In parallel with the current networking
and dynamic technologies, which caused a change in the relationship between the
art work, the physical space and the audience (Buskirk, 2005). Driving from
these developments, museums started to make use of the rich sources of
interaction through multiple, participative and interconnected applications in
order to maintain the permanence of art, knowledge and cultural heritage,
considering the fact that the artwork is defined as the whole process that involves
the participant to interact with the art object nowadays (Bullivant, 2006). These
changes also questioned the ways and methods for displaying and exhibiting
these process-based site-specific interactive works and looked for proposals on
contemporary art exhibitions point out the relationship between the work and the
place (Greenberg, 1996). With the beginning of 2000s, the use of virtual
technologies within the installations also created another dimension in the
relationship of the artwork and the physical space. These installations not only
communicated with the audience, but also with the physical spaces and enhanced

their potential in many ways (Bullivant, 2007). These improvements in the
changing modes of communication brought alternative possibilities for the
transformation for museums and galleries that give the opportunity for the
audience to participate with the artworks in various ways.

In parallel with the recent discussions, although it is agreed that the architectural
qualities of the physical space plays an important role for the formation and
shaping of these works, the analysis of the latest interactive exhibitions and
works showed that few of them made use of the physical space as a mediator to
connect user, technology and the emotional qualities of the data and rather focus
on the design of hands-on exhibitions (Caulton, 1998; Smithsonian, 2002). This
study searches for keys to guide us for the transformation of museums into
intelligent spaces through interactive exhibiting and looks for clues that will yield
outcomes for the methods and ways to make use of architectural space for
interactive exhibiting in an efficient way.

Integration of Interactive Media to Architectural Space Through Spatial
Interaction

From the perspective of architecture, the architectural quality of the physical
space is vital to stage interactive designs in a physical medium (Ozcan, 2002),
whereas the concept of interaction sets constraints that create and shape the
user-oriented   qualities   of   design   for   moving   within   the   content   through
participation (Kolko, 2007). In the frame of the context of exhibiting, both
architectural space and interactive media focuses on displaying and preserving
and the concept of interactivity in physical space will help designing the human
behavior with the use of spatial data. So, “designing the activity” would provide
us a guidance to combine both the design of media and architectural space.

We believe that interactive exhibiting has the potential to transform museums
into communicating environments on the basis of activity, use of media and
spatial organization, respectively (Kaptelinin, Nardi, 2006). The theme guides the
exhibition, which also serves to define the constraints and the active intent of the
product (McCulloughm, 2004). As the theme of the exhibition is identified, the
activity that rules the set of actions and operations are defined. Mediation of the
tools placed in the physical space will realize the actions in the space. The
interactions that support the theme are developed by creating the best possible
combination of images, texts and sounds that form the graphic user interface in
terms of IMD (Manovich 2001), and through the proper design of the access

elements such as windows, doors, knobs, buttons, zips, handles… etc that act as
the solid user interface elements of 3D forms (Ozcan 2002). So the works have to
employ multiple narratives including a number of mediums such as text, graphics
or technology, in order to drive the theme forward. Lastly, the theme gains a
structure with the design of the sequences of experiences and behavior (Hughes,
2010). So, the users primary form of interaction becomes moving within the
content, which is composed of the organization of the spaces or the information
(Saffer, D., 2007). With all of the actions and tools arranged on a navigational
path on the basis of a theme, the architectural space is expected to transform
into a communicating agent.

With the steps given above, we tried to define interactive exhibiting through
spatial interaction and to make clear on what is intended for an architectural
space to be a medium of its own. On the basis of these issues, within this
research, we attempted to define an interactive exhibiting space as a dynamic
environment with a theme that involve user experiences in real time (Lorenc et
al., 2007) With the use of space supported by movement and memory, this
environment is expected to provide multilayered communication through a
balanced construction of interconnected components (Kosmann, 2009).

Using these definitions, we tried to develop conceptual interactive exhibition
designs for varying forms of architectural spaces in order to see the effects and
benefits of the qualities of different architectural space.

Different Methods For The Spatial Interaction Design Course:
In parallel with our aim, we tried to develop conceptual interactive exhibition
designs for different physical spaces with the anticipation to obtain varying
outcomes for the use of the space to act as an agent for the transforming
modes of communication in Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive
Media Design Department in Yildiz Technical University. This course was carried
out for 4 semesters in the Interactive Media Design Department of Yildiz
Technical University with an average of 15 students each semester. These
students had no prior experience of architecture but are well educated for
creating interaction designs for different mediums. Between 2009 fall and 2011
spring, in parallel with the works of the students, this course had been
implemented in 2 different versions:

1. Design brief based on a linear space

The students tried to develop projects for a linear space that has two entrances
and has a length of 35 meters, a width of 2.80 meters and a height of 6.50
meters (Figure 1). The students were encouraged to make use of the height of
the space within their projects as the space was high enough to create two floors
and most of them used this factor to enhance the quality of the space as a
medium. The choice of the audience profile was left to the students to be decided
in relation with the theme.

                         Figure 1. Plan of the linear space

Figure 2. Project named “Prehistoric Times”, by Evrim Aytemur, aimed the user to
experience the activities of early times and organized the space in sequence with
the developments of manhood by using different displaying modes.

Figure 3. Project named “My Social Exhibition”, by Ozge Caldiran, aimed the
users to build the content of the exhibition by themselves with the support from
social media. Different displaying techniques were used, where the user can
become the audience of another at the same time.
With the analysis of the works, we recognized that the linear plan of the space
limited the choice of technological tools and the navigational interactivity
maintained within the space. As the linear condition of the space was very strong,
the works did not yield many alternative solutions in terms of the use of spatial
organizational techniques. Most of the assignments were based on a linear story
and most of the students made use of screens and displays for their projects,
rather than searching for alternative modes of interactions. The projects that
were not based on a linear story were less successful in maintaining the unity of
the exhibition area. Still we obtained different alternatives for displaying
techniques, in connection with networking technologies and social media (Figures
2,3).

2. Design brief based on a multi story square shaped building
After experiencing the advantages and the disadvantages of the linear condition,
for 2010 Fall and 2011 spring, we decided to work on a different physical space.
So we chose a 3-story building with an area of 16 meters by 16 meters per floor
with a floor height of 2.50 meters for each floor, having 2 entrances from
different levels (Figure 4). The students were advised to make use of the total
floor height, including the possibility of adding or deleting a floor.

Figure 4. Plan of the 3 floors for the building

Within the works, we have seen that the students struggled with the shape and
the configuration of the building, which required for different needs other than
the linear space. The lack of architectural knowledge caused difficulty among the
students in both maintaining the theme, selecting and adapting the interactive
tools and developing the navigation within the physical space. Although we
discussed about the architectural concepts and spatial organizational solutions,
few were successful in transforming the space suitable for an interactive
exhibition.

We recognized that the projects that could be considered successful among the
rest have added a user profile or a disability and developed the design and the
choice of technological tools accordingly. These cases showed us that when the
physical space was not inspirational enough, the students needed an additional
limiting element within the brief, as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Project by Çağrı Yenen named “Labyrinth”, that focuses on the life
stages of working class, from bottom to top. The labyrinth gives choices for the
audience to make his life decisions and guides for his achievements.

With the works, we have recognized that, limiting the user profile guided the
students to draw upon some facts about the choice of interactions and the
selection of the interactive tools.    This leaded them to create encouraging
solutions both for the organization of the space and the spatial interactions
proposed through their projects. With this assignment, we can say that the
students were better in interpreting the space as a medium of its own.

Figure 6. A project by Berkin Nalbantli named “Perceive” that focuses on the
Gestalt principles of visual understanding and communication for the audience
group of autistics. Basic forms are used to explain how human buildings develop
perception from childhood to adulthood, with matching interactions for autistic
people.

Evaluation of the Works:
As we examined the project briefs and the student works in the previous section,
we reached conclusions in terms of the use of spatial solution methods and
understanding spatial data for interactive exhibiting. First of all, we can say that

the configuration of the working site for design was recognized to be an
important issue in dealing with the design of the exhibition. In the first year, the
spatial interaction design projects were %80 based on displaying technologies
and the multiple ways of using the displays and surfaces, which brought a variety
of applicable designs. Also a theme to adapt the linear space in terms of
exhibiting space was recognized to be difficult to transform the physical space
into a media space. The design projects of the second year were able to reflect
spatial interaction on a much better level as they introduced the component of
limiting the user profile and this fact provided solutions closer to the idea of
interpreting the space as a medium of its own. When the audience profile was not
limited, the projects designed were less successful than the previous year.
Overall, we can say that, the theme of exhibiting was achieved with the 90% of
the projects.

In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, we believe that the following
issues needs attention in order to create interactive exhibitions:
 i. It is understood that spatial interaction is beyond placing interactive tools or
technologies in the spaces. The transformation of an architectural space to a
medium involves the spatial arrangement of the interactive tools on the basis of a
theme.
ii. In terms of the choice of architectural space, an interactive exhibition would
benefit more from a nonlinear condition, as the linear spaces may not go beyond
storytelling and may not yield philosophical interactive spatial solutions.
iii. Defining a user profile helps to limit the theme and the possible interactions,
which brings more control to the exhibition design and yield compact spatial
solutions.

Conclusion
Interactive exhibitions give the opportunity for the audience to connect with the
physical space, and they provide environments for different readings of the
meanings of the artworks. However, making use of the architectural quality of
these physical spaces to create the multi dimensional layers of varying modes of
communications will provide an efficient way for developing these exhibitions.
This paper looked for clues that will guide the design of interactive exhibitions
that will transform the architectural space into a dynamic medium. Spatial
interaction offers the integration of physical space with interactive media on the
basis of activity, interactive tools and the spatial organization of the place. Within
Spatial Interaction Design Course in Interactive Media Design Department in

Yildiz Technical University, we studied interactive exhibiting for a linear space and
a multi story square planned space within 2009-2011. While the organization of
the square planned spaces seemed vague, it yielded successful works when a
user profile is added to the design brief. With the analysis of 42 projects, we
recognized that successful designs approached the design problem strategically
by, (i) making use of the architectural space as guidance for the selection of the
theme, (ii) defining a user profile to select and limit the interactions. We observed
that squared planned spaces designed for a specific user profile served best for
the transformation of these spaces into communicating mediums. As digital
technologies gain more power, the architectural spaces will be converted into
media spaces, which will increase and enhance the function of museums in
society.

REFERENCES

Buskirk, M. (2005) The contingent object of Contemporary Art. The MIT Press
Caulton, T. (1998). Hands On Exhibitions: Managing Interactive Museums and
Science Centers. London; New York: Routledge
Caroline A. J. (2006). Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and
Contemporary Art. MIT Press

Greenberg, R. (1996). The exhibited and distributed. In R.Greenber,
B.W.Ferguson & S.Nairne (Eds.) Thinking Exhibitions (pp.349-367). London:
Routledge

Bullivant, L., (2007). Interactive Architecture 4D Social: Interactive Design
Environments AD. Wiley and Sons, Vol.77, No.4.

Bullivant, L., (2006). Responsive Environments: Architecture AD. London: Victoria
and Albert Museum,
	
  
Hughes, P. (2010). Exhibition Design. Laurence King Publishers, London

Kolko, J. (2007). Thoughts on Interaction Design. Brown Bear publication,
Georgia

Lorenc, J., Skolnick, L., Berger, C. (2007). What is Exhibition Design. Rotovision,
Switzerland

Kaptelenin, V., Nardi B.A. (2006). Acting with Technology, Activity Theory and
Interaction Design. Cambridge: MIT Press

Kossman.dejong (2009). Engaging Spaces: Exhibition Design Explored. Frame
Publishers

Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press

McCulloughm, M. (2004). Digital Ground. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ozcan, O. (2002), Cultures, The Traditional Shadow Play and Interactive Media
Design, Design Issues, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 18-26, MIT Press

Saffer, D. (2007). Designing for Interaction. Berkeley: New Riders

Smithsonian, Institiution (2002). Developing Interactive Exhibitions at the
Smithsonian,
www.si.edu/Content/opanda/Reports/BackgroundPapers/Exhibitions/
EXInteractives.pdf. Accesses on: 15.Feb.2012