Page from Keith Haring's journal NB-0 c.1971 (age 13). The Keith Haring Foundation is uploading a page a day to Tumblr.

In the exhibition there is one room towards the back of the gallery set apart as a place to draw, sketch, or doodle. The goal of this room was to allow visitors to think and respond visually to the work on the gallery walls, to experience, in a way, the artist’s process. Haring’s journals are filled not only with words but also with marks familiar to many of us, artists or not: doodles. Doodles often get a bad rap as being signs of distraction, when in fact they are often one of the best sources of creativity. In art school I was once given an assignment to doodle until something good emerged, even if that meant drawing for hours and hours. For most people in my class, the work that came out was some of the most interesting of the term. The symbols that emerge, and reemerge, when you are not trying to make a perfect drawing often tell us a lot about what’s in our heads. Think of doodling as a form of communication, as a conversation between your dreams, your thoughts, and your pencil.

Pause Play Play Prev | Next

This past Saturday I went to peek in on the people drawing. The space had a calm yet busy energy; it was quiet despite being filled with people. The drawings on these boards are temporary; they will disappear at the press of a button, so I think it’s more for the experience of drawing than the outcome that visitors spend time in this room. To me, it felt both meditative and really challenging to draw with no specific outcome in mind. I saw moments where drawings stood on their own, the spaces around them blank, and places where drawings came together, touching at points, or spread across many boards at once. I wonder if this is how Haring felt when working; I wonder if his drawings are like records of conversations he had with himself.

In the new realism that typified American art of the decade, liberated modern bodies resonate with classical ideals, the teeming modern city is rendered empty and silent, and still life is pared to an essentialized clarity.

In creating an in-gallery interactive, the challenge was finding an activity that would highlight the disparity between what we’ve come to associate with decade and the idealized vision created by its artists.

What did the Jazz Age look like? Interactive asks visitors to make their own selection from an array of popular photographs to see how it compares to the imagery created by the American artists featured in Youth and Beauty.

The resulting interactive uses the Google Images API as a way to show what’s in the popular imagination of four themes related to the show. A visitor searches for imagery on a theme and is asked to select an image from Google’s results; the selected image is displayed along side a related work from the exhibition and the interactive explores how the popular imagery delivered via Google differs from the artists’ depiction.

Youth and Beauty interactive utilizes the Google Images API and runs on iPads embedded into a popular culture timeline.

Given this is a live search, the results are not always perfectly accurate to the time period, but they are pretty close.  We’ve also tweaked it a bit to help the results gain a little more accuracy; turning on Google’s “safe search” and displaying only black and white imagery. The interactive runs on four iPads in the gallery where the devices are embedded into a popular culture timeline in the exhibition. You can also play with it on the web.

In The Moving Garden, Lee Mingwei asks visitors who take a flower to give it to a stranger.

One of the great things about working with living artists is the chance to work with them when they bring projects into the building. When I first heard about this piece, I was struck by what could happen between strangers in the exchange, so Eugenie and I asked the artist if he would let us create something that would allow visitors to document their gift giving.  He felt that the mystery of giving the gift was central to the piece, but he was also curious about exchanges and thought we could try it as long as we made it clear that the documentation was an optional step in the process, not a requirement to take part.

I gave my flower to a stranger at the corner of Washington Ave and Lincoln Place. It was an experience I'm not likely to forget.

With that, #mygardengift was born.  It’s a simple interactive that we hope extends the life of the project outside our walls.  Visitors are invited to document their exchanges by tagging on Flickr, Twitter and Instagr.am.  In addition, for the first time, we are using SMS text messaging in an interactive.  Visitors can text us about the exchange and we use the Twilio API to map their responses and bring them into the interactive. There’s a page on the website that shows all the responses and we also use an iPad to display the exchanges in the gallery.

This is really the kind of project that we want to be using social media for—working directly with an artist to show a community’s experience around a work. Given the four platforms that we are using, I’m curious to see which ones get used the most and how the information coming to us may differ on each.  Mostly, though, I’m excited to see our community participate and to watch the mystery unfold in some of the exchanges and I can’t wait to talk to the artist to see his own response to this part of the project as it grows.

If you come to Lee Mingwei: “The Moving Garden”, take a flower and then use #mygardengift to document your exchange.

Visitors using the iPads in the exhibition.

Overall, use of the iPads among visitors went pretty well.  We know from our statistics that 8,629 avatars were issued to visitors via the quiz kiosks, which means roughly 28% of the people coming to the show took part in the activity. Of those surveyed by Roslyn, 100% found the iPads inviting and easy to use; 82% felt the iPads provided the right kind of information, kept their attention and didn’t distract from the artwork; 64% felt the iPads provided the right amount of information; 73% felt the interactive made them think more about the artwork and was helpful to their experience of the art; 91% felt use of the iPads was a positive experience. Of those surveyed, visitors were slightly more likely to use the iPad kiosk if they were familiar with the device, but the data does not indicate a strong relationship between prior experience with the device and actual use or non-use of the iPad in this setting.  Interestingly, users of the iPad kiosks were likely to have also used other interpretive materials, indicating that this was a supplementary experience to our labels and didactics.

Even though those metrics give an overall picture that is pretty good, there are other findings we should talk about.

Visitors take a quiz to determine which avatar will follow them through the exhibition. Kiosks are located outside the exhibition space just off the elevators.

By design, we created a linear experience in which, ideally, visitors would take a quiz to determine which avatar should accompany them throughout the exhibition and then check in at other kiosks to either find their avatar in works of art or vote for their favorite depictions of their avatar in the show.

In early discussions, we decided to try something new and experiment by placing the quiz kiosks right outside the show so visitors would see them as they got off the elevator prior to entering the exhibition space.  The reasons for this were two-fold.  First, we wanted to see if this location would capture more people before they went in.  Second, we were conscious of the cultural issues with the subject matter and wanted to ensure this was seen as an optional path through the show, not a required one.

11% of visitors using the introductory "quiz" kiosk did so on the way out of the exhibition instead of the way in.

The reality is more than a few visitors missed the quiz kiosks in this experimental location because they were seen as outside the exhibition space and because of this, many visitors encountered the interactive at a later point having not taken the initial quiz.  While you could still take part without having taken this first step, the subsequent sets of kiosks were designed in a linear fashion assuming you had taken the quiz and you had a specific avatar you were trying to find.  We’ve learned a couple of things for the next time around:  1) Those first kiosks really need to be in the gallery, not outside of it.  2)  Even if we move the kiosks to a better location, we are never going to ensure that every visitor funnels through space the same way, so we need to design the interactive in a much less linear fashion or provide clearer instructions for visitors who missed the first set of kiosks.

Switching to a clear bezel helped expose the hardware. Compare to the images above where it's difficult to tell an iPad is contained in the case.

Another issue cropped up when we mounted the iPads.  Unlike our Wikipop iPad interactive for Seductive Subversion where the iPads were freestanding and could be picked up, this time we used LaunchPad mounts from Sprocket. Sprocket produces very elegant and sturdy mounts, but we didn’t expect that they would turn the iPad into a very normal-looking small touch screen because the iPad was so well hidden within the beautiful case.  Issues cropped up almost immediately. As visitors started interacting with the devices, they were treating them like a standard touch screen—we were seeing a lot of hard tapping, jabbing or trying to use fingernails to navigate—the iPads, which are used to a much more low-key touch experience, became unresponsive.  We worked with Sprocket to resolve this and they provided a clear bezel for the LaunchPad mounts, so visitors could see the hardware.  We’ll never forget going down to switch out the bezels and one visitor standing nearby said, “Oh, that’s an iPad!”  The switch to the clear bezel helped and now whenever we are using mounted iPads in the gallery, we’ll be using these to expose the hardware a bit better.

I’m not going to go too far into the actual findings around the content on the devices because without having taken part it’s a little hard to explain all the specifics.  That said, there’s an important statistic worth noting: only 64% felt the iPads provided the right amount of information.  These were activity based kiosks focused on helping visitors find avatars in the works of art and while visitors did report the iPad activity made them look closer at the works in question (yay, limited screen suck!), visitors still wanted more information. Interview participants showed a strong preference for content that would provide additional information and indicated they expected the iPads would contain didactic content and looked to the devices for it.  This is especially interesting given the findings on the Wikipop project—more, may indeed, be more.

There’s a lot of research that I can’t possibly fit into this post, but if you have questions ask in the comments and I’ll be happy to give you more.

iMac kiosks in The Latino List that record video reaction from visitors.

We are also super excited to see how visitors to The Latino List create their own “speaking portraits” at the exhibition’s community voice kiosk, an interactive that was such a successful part of The Black List exhibition that we knew we had to offer it again.  During The Black List visitors were invited to record on-the-spot videos of their response to the question: “How has race made an impact on your life and accomplishments?”  Videos were published to the museum’s YouTube channel and the best of them could also be viewed in the gallery during the course of the exhibition.  I was blown away by the candor, humor, pride, anger, and power in these videos.  One of the most fascinating things about the responses was their diversity and range.  Not only did each individual naturally have their own personal take on the question, but people reflected on how their own race is perceived and experienced as well as how they perceive and experience people of other races.

For The Latino List we wanted to elicit similarly inclusive and reciprocal responses, so the question we pose to visitors this time—in English and Spanish—is: “How has your culture shaped your life and accomplishments? (¿Qué impacto ha tenido su cultura en su vida y en sus logros?). The word “culture” conjures family and community traditions, and certainly one of the things that unite the stories shared by the Latino List participants is the impact and influences that family and tradition have had on their lives and identities.  The word evokes a range of concepts, from race to religion to heritage, without being  limiting or exclusionary: everyone comes from a culture of some kind, whether they abandon it or embrace it, and it shapes the way they experience the world and, to some extent, for better or worse, the way the world experiences them.

This time, we’re expanding the interactive to include not just visitors to the gallery, but anyone, anywhere, through a bilingual iPhone app.  You can record your video response directly on your iPhone, upload it to The Latino List YouTube channel, learn about the exhibition, and watch videos made by other people.

As always, we want to hear from you:  download the app, come to The Latino List, and make a video to share your thoughts about your culture and experiences.

I had mixed feelings about the article—I mostly agree that these apps all leave much to be desired, but I disagree that we shouldn’t be trying. Experimentation without perfection is a good thing.  You may remember, I have my own issues with the use of technology in museums, had a less than stellar experience using the AMNH Explorer app and we’ve had to rework our own mobile app once already.  Now is a good time to look at what the author is saying and discuss the current state of our mobile application.

One of the things Rothstein brings up is the lack of geolocation in our app.  He wants the device to automatically locate where he’s standing and magically deliver content—don’t we all?  We have GPS and AMNH’s Explorer app to thank for setting the bar so high, but in terms of what we can do here in Brooklyn, it’s just not possible yet.  While we do have a museum-wide wireless system, it was put in during 2004 and we don’t have the meshing technology required to triangulate signal (something that would require replacing the existing wireless network in its entirety), so we rely on people’s use of accession numbers to look up information about objects.  This is not perfect by any means, but it’s the simplest, clearest and most sustainable way we’ve come up with to deal with the nearly 6000 objects on view.  We tried other methods in version 1 of our app to no avail and we’ve considered switching to QR codes or short numeric codes, but that’s not realistic for this many objects.  Given every object has a unique number published on the object label and we need to develop a system that works with every object on view, accession number lookup is the way to do it…at least for now.

Rothstein makes an assumption about low usage of our app and this is true in some ways, but not true in others.  First and foremost, we don’t have a large audience for our app.  In the galleries on any given day (especially Target First Saturday), you’ll see very few visitors pulling out smartphones.  Eventually, that will change and it’s important to have a system in place as we start to see this turn around, but for now we are consistently seeing clamshell phones on cheaper monthly plans.  Beyond this, our app has suffered from poor visibility throughout the building.  I will admit that I’m really jealous of the amount of visibility the AMNH app—big signage everywhere, staff have Explorer t-shirts and ads are seemingly all over the place—as simply as I can put this:  I want.

Just recently, we managed to get directory signage better positioned and our designers are helping us by including a picture of the iphone.  We saw a slight rise in usage when the signage went in, so that’s helping a bit.

So, let’s take a look at what’s really happening when people use this.  The statistics are indicating that they are doing so for pre-visit information (directions, hours, exhibitions, calendar) and that’s something that closely mirrors our general website traffic patterns.  It’s not that visitors are trying to use BklynMuse (our collection search) and failing or trying to play Gallery Tag! (our gallery game) and giving up—they are not getting that far. This could indicate two things:  1)  that visitors want to use the application pre-visit, but they don’t want it to be part of their in-gallery experience  and/or 2)  our app’s home screen is not clear enough to explain all the choices available. For our next round of changes, we are going to concentrate on the latter and see if that changes the metrics.

What in the world do I get behind doors labeled BklynMuse and Gallery Tag?  It’s just not clear.

Where Rothstein’s assumption falls really short is what happens when people use BklynMuse.  What we are seeing in the statistics indicates that when people are using it, they are using it in an interactive way.  When you compare visitor’s use of the “Like This” feature in-gallery to the collection online, what you see is that on the whole, people in the gallery are using this feature to recommend objects to other visitors.  So, in theory, this kind of recommendation layer where we directly ask people to help guide others is working—we just need to do a better job getting people to the feature.

Low usage overall? Yes, but “Like this” feature is being utilized in the gallery more than on our website.

Rothstein goes on at length to talk about why none of these apps measure up to the experience he wants in the gallery and there’s a point to that.  Each and every visitor walking in our doors is likely to expect something different from an app and every visitor is going to respond differently to what we provide. My point is that it is our  responsibility, collectively, to try new approaches and provide as many entry points into content and the museum as possible.   In terms of Brooklyn’s people-focused mission, we believe a people-focused application is the way to go.  The curated content is already on the walls in the form of object installation, labels and didactics, in-gallery multimedia and gallery design.  The power of the device means we can provide something else, something more unique. We believe leveraging the power of our visitor’s voices  in combination with our own is a worthy goal.  Are we there yet?  No.  Should we try, discuss, learn from our visitors and continue to iterate?  Yes, yes, yes.

I’d love to discuss more via the comments.  There’s a lot to cover on this subject, that’s for sure.

Pictured above, four of the designs that Swoon’s studio will be bringing with them to Target First Saturday on January 3rd, 2009. Prints will be made live that evening for all 1stfans members!

Swoon appealed to us as an artist for many reasons. We knew we wanted to do something with an artist that fit at least one, and preferably all, of the following criteria: an artist in the Museum’s collection, someone with a connection to Brooklyn or our Museum community, and whose work has a strong following one of the social networking websites we are using. In addition to being an artist that Shelley and I both admire, Swoon fits those criteria. Her installation piece, on view in 2006 and early 2007, was a huge hit with visitors. Her work literally covers the streets of Brooklyn and the rest of NYC, and prompts art enthusiasts to spend their weekends keeping their eyes peeled. The icing on the cake was her incredible presence on Flickr (18,000 images and growing), a testament to her following and to Flickr’s utility as an art resource. With all of this in mind, we nervously approached Swoon with our idea and asked her if she’d be willing to help us out. To our incredible delight (there may have been some high-fiving involved), she said yes! And that’s how we arrived at the Swoon interactive printing event for 1stfans on Saturday, January 3rd. We should fully disclose that Swoon herself is NOT going to be here. She is traveling (far) outside of NYC, but has dutifully overseen the production of the screens you see above and she will be dispatching four of her studio assistants to do the actual printing.

Swoon’s work uses a lot of found materials and she is encouraging people to bring their own paper for their print. I may spend hours looking for the perfect piece of paper for my print, but I’m enough of a realist to realize that not every 1stfan Member will do the same. That’s where Materials for the Arts comes in. In the video below, you can watch me and Shelley take a field trip to Materials For the Arts, which is a non-profit organization, partially funded by the city, that gives away recycled supplies to other non-profit arts and education organizations. Materials for the Arts is based in Long Island City, Queens, and we had quite a trip to and from their warehouse in Shelley’s bug. There, we were able to pick up a wide variety of materials on which 1stfans get their Swoon print. Carpet and fabric samples, framing materials, poster board, all kinds of paper, signs, you name it. We’re not sure if the print will turn out well on everything we picked up, but at least we have plenty of stuff to work with!

We hope to see you on January 3, and if you have any questions please e-mail me here.

I’m happy to mention that Brooklyn-based artist Paul Notzold will be bringing TXTual Healing to our upcoming Target First Saturday on May 3rd. I’ve long been an admirer of this project and am thrilled to be able to see it live and in-person in our lobby.

TXTual Healing is an ongoing series of interactive performances that encourage the creation of dialog through text messaging from mobile phones. The project harnesses the SMS capabilities of the cell phone as a medium to interact with and explore our shared public and physical space, not as a means to escape it. TXTual Healing builds community through public story telling.

Using the speech bubble as a symbol for communication, participants send text messages to a provided phone number that automatically, anonymously, and in real time, displays these messages inside the bubbles projected onto the facade of a building. The result of projecting in shared public space give participants in the street a voice as loud as the corporate and government entities who financially predetermine the information in these spaces.

TXTual Healing encourages the public sharing of thoughts, experiences and ideas using networked mobile devices that typically support more private communications. Positioning the projections next to windows, or integrating the SMS interactivity with religious, political and socially charged graphics, invites people to share their own uncensored views of the information around them in the form of interactive theater.

For our installation, Paul has adapted the system to display images from our Utagawa exhibition and worked with our Education and Curatorial staff to give txters questions to ponder. If you are coming this Saturday, be sure to bring your cell phone and if not we will be posting photos to Flickr and hopefully a really awesome video soon after the event.

Pics in this post are from the dry run last Tuesday. While I was in Denver for AAM, Bob was having fun testing and sending me pics (see below – very funny Bob).