The Pros and Cons of Participation

Michael Allen Blair/Journal Register News Service

Interactive elements are gradually becoming a major and familiar fixture in modern museums. Some institutions, mainly children’s and science museums, have incorporated interactive learning into nearly every aspect of their exhibition halls. More and more art museums are also electing to integrate these types of activities into their educational programming and exhibit construction as well. When designed and utilized properly, these features can encourage lifelong learning and promote participation and discussion among museum guests. However, when poorly developed or difficult to use, results are usually inconsistent and do not contribute to the museum or to the visitors in meaningful or valuable ways. For it to be constructive and relevant, participatory learning should ultimately benefit both the museum guests as well as the institutions in which the learning is taking place.

In her article “Principles of Participation,” Nina Simon discusses the reasons why successful participatory museum experiences are very difficult to achieve. When designing interactive elements that encourage visitor participation, an institution must be aware of a variety of factors in order to create an effective experience. Simon explains, that in order for a participatory exercise to be successful, “the institution must promise an appealing participant experience. The institution must provide access to tools for participation that are easy to understand and use. And the bargain between institution and participants—regarding management of intellectual property, outcomes of the project, and feedback to participants—should accommodate participants’ needs” (339). If these factors are not thoroughly considered, it will be extremely difficult for a museum to develop interactive projects that will be of use to the participants or support the mission of the museum.

Despite the fact it is very difficult to design effective participatory projects, some institutions have managed to do so with great success. Earlier this year, the Cleveland Museum of Art debuted its new Gallery One, which “blends art, technology, and interpretation to inspire you to explore the museum’s permanent collection.” Gallery one enables users to create their own virtual tours of the museum’s permanent collection, which are then uploaded and made available to future guests within fifteen minutes of being saved. Guests are also able to highlight their favorite pieces within the collection on the Collection Wall (the largest multi-touch screen in the United States), which directly influences what appears within this portion of the museum. According to the CMA’s website, “curators and Education & Interpretation staff members are very interested to see which artworks are popular with our visitors. Gauging visitor interest can help the plan future content for ArtLens and the website.” In these ways, Gallery One presents visitors with a rewarding participatory experience by enabling them to directly contribute to future museum programs, which ultimately asserts that the museum values their input. CMA also benefits from Gallery One by using visitor participation to improve their institution and the museum experience. 

Incorporating interactive elements into the halls of an institution is not necessarily enough to ensure that these activities will be rewarding to the participants or will beneficially contribute to the museum or its mission. However, with proper planning and consideration of goals and outcomes, participatory projects can prove to be incredibly successful to all parties involved, like the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Gallery One. 

Check out these links that helped inspire this entry in Museum Musings! 
CMA/Gallery One
The News-Herald