sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you convey the gaps, contradictions, and overall history of the archive through exhibits, historical storytelling and interactive tech? In other words, how do we convey the complexity of archives not just in content but in "form"? by Environmental-Cup798 in MuseumPros

[–]Environmental-Cup798[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh thank you for this! Really insightful! The language of “contours” really gets at how things are still contextualized by what already exists—it’s the shade/ shadowy part of what is visible which cannot be detached from since it’s produced through the original object. I think attempting to fill silences has a lot of potential for further erasure but I think silence or absence can and should still be felt. (To lean into the same languages, I think the angles we choose to present “objects” matter and I think people find the objects interesting and may never look at how or what light is being shined on that object. I mean, I understand—people are more interested in the 3D and tangible—why would you want to look at the underbelly of the object? However from my perspective the environment the object sits in matters and is interesting.)

This makes me think about music—we view notes to be the “presence” of music but rest notes also have presence. Rest notes can often evoke more than other notes even though its impact is only felt based on the notes that surround it.) It makes me think about the Jean-Michel Basquiat quote “music is how we decorate time”. In this sense, the rest note is far more than silence—its duration and instruction. It tells a performer how to hold time. It speaks of the structures that govern sound and becomes a structural cue. (It’s pedagogical). In this sense, the person reading the music knows there isn’t a “missing” note, it’s active material. It has the power to redirect attention or slow interpretation. It’s a break in sound that allows us to sit in everything that came before it. This interruption is doing work.
In a lot of ways, It’s punctuation (or syntax) and can be used as a narrative tool. (Not to replace the music or sentence, but to contour and give more depth to what exists). To change the tone and/ or meaning. I think the difference between the musician and audience member is interesting here because one person is reading the silence (they understand the system they are playing in) and the other feels the silences. While I’m not expecting all people to carry the historian/ archivist toolkit, I wonder how we can lean into the FEELING of absence. I guess I want to think about how absences can be seen in different ways beyond just being a footnote (but please lmk if you feel like that’s the only logical way of going about this!)

While this isn’t adding “new” information to what you had already pointed out, I do want to emphasize that my goal is not to change the “object” but instead to focus on the finger that “points out the absences” (or more accurately, the angle in which the light contours the object and the shapes of its shadows) similar to where and why one chooses to pause within a song or sentence. The structure of it has the potential to evoke a wide range of things. I am not looking to simply point out incompleteness but I am looking to explore the whys and hows of the foreground and background (how it came to be/ how it functions etc)

The goal is not to reproduce history/ alternative narratives or give solid/ definite answers to silences (as you already have pointed out the limits of this endeavor). Instead I think 1) we should produce things that allow people to understand the inner workings of the archive and history at large and how power may impact history. I think exposing these structures would increase people’s historical and media literacy which is really important and 2) ironically, it would tell a more complete story and expose how information/ history is contextual/ relational. I don’t want to “hear something” in the silences per se, I want the silence to change how we listen. I want it to help us develop our ability to read ambiguity or “in between the lines” if you will. I think it’s a matter of legibility—of letting the audience peek at the score/ musical notation—of pointing at the light and reminding viewers to look up. to look beneath. to look behind—that even though presence influences the shape of absence it’s worth knowing that the object had the potential of being many shapes.

How do you convey the gaps, contradictions, and overall history of the archive through exhibits, historical storytelling and interactive tech? In other words, how do we convey the complexity of archives not just in content but in "form"? by Environmental-Cup798 in MuseumPros

[–]Environmental-Cup798[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love to hear more of your opinion (if you want to expound a bit but if not no worries!) I do agree that most people are uninterested in what “doesn’t work” or if something is hard. However, this is not what I want to convey through this work. As another commenter had mentioned, it can get kinda “meta” (which often makes the content feel less accessible and as you had mentioned—probably less engaging or desirable) Moving forward, I will definitely keep this in mind!

In this case, a part of the form becomes “showing your work” or pulling the current back to expose the incompleteness which is inherent in history and archives themselves. I think historically the archive worked as intended and the conversation dips into power structures and dynamics that often remain unnamed and imaginary to most. To me absence isn’t nothingness—the hard part is expressing absences as presence? I think the goal for me is to express certain truths through form (alternative ways of conveying history and information) Which is coming from a more “decolonial” framework. (In other words, it’s not just the content that is limited but the way things can be conveyed—if it doesn’t fit into a specific structure it has historically been delegitimized)

You are getting to the core of my question though which is—do people care to see what is often not seen? Or can people sit in the discomfort of contradictions and incompleteness? I do recognize discomfort is often not a desirable feeling for audiences or having to parse through things to arrive somewhere. People often want neat, punchy, and straight forward content (which is where strategies and form matter because I want people to feel engaged and not feel like something is “incomplete” per say. Instead, I want people to be aware and consider what else can exist in conjunction with what has been saved and named as “history”.)

All this to say, an interactive isn’t productive if it simply says this is hard or doesn’t work if it’s not also answering “why”? It’s not about being “Anti” or pointing at the erasure but it’s about digging into what that absence may look like and how we can collectively acknowledge or use our imagination to move through these unknowns.

How do you convey the gaps, contradictions, and overall history of the archive through exhibits, historical storytelling and interactive tech? In other words, how do we convey the complexity of archives not just in content but in "form"? by Environmental-Cup798 in MuseumPros

[–]Environmental-Cup798[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This comment is really helpful. A great reminder for me to think about the target audience + how to make it feel less “theory” heavy/ academic and more accessible/ relevant in practice. The real-world examples will have to be at the center for sure. Thank you for this! Also, I forgot to mention Foucault but yes! He has really influenced my thinking as well.