Is Museum Technology Beneficial For Visitors?

Finding the Line Between Illumination and Oversaturation

Amanda Tilden
Abstract
This paper will examine how the
wave of new technology developed over the
past decade has been taken advantage of by
museums, despite beliefs by some that
technology serves as a distraction from the
exhibits at hand. Topics discussed include
uses of technology within the past five years
in cultural, anthropological, science, and art
museums, as well as how these technologies
have enhanced both the in-person visitor
experience and the virtual visitor experience.
In doing so, this article concludes
technology can be of a great benefit to both
museums and their visitors, as long as the
technology used is only chosen for its ability
to enhance visitor understanding and not
simply for the sake of having it.
Key Words
Museums, Technology, 3D Printing,
Touchscreens, QR Codes, Virtual Visitors
Introduction
In todays society, modern
technology is, simply put, inescapable.
Whether it be cell phones, tablets, highdefinition televisions, or gaming devices,
increasingly advanced technology is seen
everywhere. As technology infiltrates every
aspect of our lives, it continues to change
the way we interact with the world around
us, our thoughts, and our perspectives.
These changes have come to be a major
source of concern for the museum industry.
How can such technology alter the way
visitors interact and interpret art and artifacts
that came into existence in some cases
centuries before smartphones were even
fantasized? Some fear the overt saturation
technology has on our existence takes away
from the personal experience of museum

viewing. While the way technology enables

us to interact with history certainly affects
museums approaches to presentation, what
is gained is far more valuable than what is
lost. Technology, more specifically
smartphones, touchscreens, and computers,
enable physical visitors to interact with art
and artifacts past just a superficial viewing.
These items provide visitors access to vast
amounts of information and an experience
catered to their needs. This technology has
also created a whole new kind of visitor: the
virtual visitor. Now, one does not even need
to be physically present in a museum to
benefit from the priceless databases of
knowledge they can provide.
Prior to the technology boom of the
past decade, museum experiences were
relatively straightforward. Objects were
presented in a gallery with little more than
captions, wall text, and pamphlets to present
as much information about the history,
conservation, and relevance of the object or
its exhibition as possible. Outside of these
sources, visitors would need to do their own
outside research. With the recent leaps in
development, this is no longer the case.
To some, the incorporation of these
new technologies by cultural institutions as
prestigious as top museums seems
unnecessary and gratuitous. How could an
iPhone help you to connect with a Monet
masterpiece? In an article for The New York
Times, Steve Lohr describes how museums
used to frown upon visitors using their cell
phones at all. Today, some, such as the
Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum in
Boston, still do, believing visitors cell
phone use cannot just interfere with their
own experience but with the experiences of
others. Yet Lohr quotes Paola Antonelli, a
curator at the Museum of Modern Art in

New York City, as explaining We live not

in the digital, not in the physical, but in the
kind of minestrone our mind makes of the
two. If museums are to serve as a
reflection of human experience, presentation
cannot stay in the time of the artifacts they
are showcasing. Museums in the modern
world need to adapt to visitor needs and
expectations, and embrace the hybrid culture
of today in a way that can assist patrons in
better engaging with exhibits.
Technology Within Museums
Many museums over the past five
years have started to make technology a
major part of the in-house museum
experience. In 2011, the National Museum
of the American Indian entirely remodeled
their exhibits to include a significant
increase in technological resources. Installed
were ten linear video stations, ten interactive
touch screen stations, and two Dell
computers; thats twenty-two new sources of
expanded content. While the video stations
expand on regional information for Native
tribes, the interactive stations are each
specifically located next to particular objects
that the station has more information about.
Using the touch screen, visitors can also use
the station to learn even more about the
culture expanding from that item. The Dell
computers enable visitors to access the
museums website for more overall
information and also for details about
specific exhibits (Liles 45).
At the Museum of Anthropology in
Vancouver, visitors have access to a
technology known as the Museum of
Anthropology Collections Access Terminal
and Digital Catalogue, also known as MOA
CAT. The MOA CAT, like the National
Museum of the American Indians
interactive stations, is a touch screen kiosk.
The kiosk makes use of every media
possible, including information about a wide

array of pieces through text, image, audio,

and video formats (Gillette 583, 585).
While making remarkably more
information accessible, it is important for
museums to keep in mind the wide ranges of
backgrounds various visitors come from.
Not all visitors are interested in anything
more than a brief summary. A museum that
excels at this balance is the MIT Museum in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT
Museum continues to make use of
technology both old and new to involve
visitors, while also providing different levels
of engagement through these varying
technologies. As a means of including new
technology, the museum was one of the first
to include QR codes. QR codes act as a link;
when a visitor takes a picture of the code
with their cell phone, they are brought to a
certain webpage. Introduced to the museum
in 2010, QR codes were a new form of
technology, but as a leader in science and
technology MIT thought they would be
highly useful when it came to particularly
dense subject matter. The first exhibit they
decided to introduce the technology for was
an exhibit on how engineers can help the
fight against malaria. For an exhibit on
malaria, there is an incredibly deep pool of
information, but much of this material can
be incredibly overwhelming and at times
incomprehensible to the casual museum
visitor or anyone without a particular
knowledge background. By including a QR
code, visitors who did want to learn more
could easily be linked to more information,
including more details about the project,
nonprofit organizations related to the cause,
and other outside resources. Meanwhile,
visitors who did not want such information
could still enjoy the exhibit without being
bombarded by difficult details (Knott 27)
Knowing that visitors are constantly
interacting with modern technology, both in
their daily lives and in their museum
experiences, the MIT Museum also took a

rather unique approach when it came to an

exhibit on fMRIs. Researchers at MIT
studying the brain hoped that visitors would
be willing to volunteer for their fMRI study.
Instead of simply trying to hand out forms to
potential volunteers, the museum decided to
use technology in a unique way to create
interest. At the end of the exhibit they
placed a red standard telephone on a desk.
Visitors could use the phone to call the
researchers and volunteer for the study. In
todays world, cell phones have become the
predominant method of communication, so a
red, older style phone easily caught visitors
eyes and created interest. According to the
researchers the use of slightly dated
technology worked, and the researchers
received a steady flow of volunteers directly
from the red phone (26).
This unusual use of an old telephone
serves to be rather ironic in the scope of
modern museum applications of technology.
In a society where cellular phones and
tablets have become predominant, it is the
lack of modernity that makes this particular
form stand out. While surrounded by the
technology of today, visitors are seemingly
drawn to something that stands out for not
fitting into the current technological
landscape.
Technology Outside of Museums
While technology within museums
has become a great resource for physical
visitors, one of the greatest gains of modern
technology has been the ability to access a
museum from essentially wherever there is
internet access. Whether it be a website
visitors can view through a web browser or
even an app created specifically for a
museum, anyone with access to a computer
or a smartphone has the potential of
becoming a virtual visitor.
One of the greatest beneficiaries of
this feat is schools. Entrance fees and
transportation costs for large groups can

mount up for classes trying to visit a

museum. By creating a virtual presence,
museums can reach wider audiences and
help to educate students without anyone
needing to leave a classroom. One museum
that has taken advantage of this modern
connection is the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City. A wellknown institution, prior to the availability
widespread internet access, only those that
lived in proximity to or could afford to visit
New York City were able to take advantage
of their artifacts and information. Now the
museum is able to provide lessons and
programs for teachers throughout the
country, and even world.
To do so, the museum created
something called Resources for Learning,
a catalogue of free science education
materials. The lessons include subject matter
created from the museums permanent
exhibitions. Information related to every
single permanent exhibition in the museum
is accessible through the RFL. The museum
has even taken the program a step further by
creating materials specifically for online use
(Gano & Kinzler). This means that
information not present in the physical
experience of the museum is available for a
virtual audience.
Another technology museums have
made use of outside their physical space is
3-D imaging. A major proponent of this
technology has been the Smithsonian
Institute. Within their museums, particularly
the National Museum of American History,
3-D scans that are then placed online allow
viewers to see objects up close in ways they
would not be able to in person. Take, for
instance, the 1776 gunboat Philadelphia.
Through the 3-D scan, viewers can examine
the ship at angles that arent possible when
viewing the actual ship. The National
Portrait Gallery, another member of the
Smithsonian Institute, has created 3-D scans
of masks made by being placed directly on

President Abraham Lincolns face. These

scans, which have been used by schools all
across America, similarly enable viewers to
get a better understanding of these unique
objects than they would in person. While the
real masks cannot be touched by visitors for
conservation reasons, when printed using a
3-D printer students are able to physically
handle the recreations of the masks. In doing
so, they can get a feel for the wrinkles and
furrows of his face (Lohr).
These technologies being made
available for use outside the physical space
of the museums enable visitors of all
backgrounds and lifestyles to interact with
these objects in ways not previously possible
in any manner. In doing so, they expand
upon the learning experience and help
students and other virtual visitors gain a
better understanding of the topics and
conversations at hand.
Technology for Technologys Sake
The previously described
technologies all fall along a large scale of
basic to complex technologies, from dated
telephones to three-dimensional scans and
touch screen computers. It is essential to
note that all of these examples are successful
representations of technology being used as
part of the museum experience because they
are each necessary and help to expand upon
the art and artifacts themselves. They are all
well-thought out and connect to what the
museums aim to represent in a way that
enhances and illuminates while making the
museums more easily intellectually
accessible. Essentially, they are not
including technology just because it is
available and they are capable of doing so.
They are including these technologies
because they have an explicit purpose that
improves the visitor experience.
For an issue of the magazine
Dimensions, ten members of the museum
field involved in digital education were

asked their opinion on how much

technology is too much in science centers
and museums. Each individual
acknowledged that there is a line between
technology that enhances visitor engagement
and detracts from it. Roger Highfield,
director of external affairs at the Science
Museum in London says, If you start with a
technology and try to fit a storyline around a
certain piece of equipment, the technology
can overshadow or dilute the narrative.
Eileen M. Smith, director of E21 Creative
Studio at the University of Central Florida
explains, Too much technology in a science
center occurs if the hands-on aspect
becomes lost, or when visitors can no longer
say I do and I understand (Schuster).
These responses emphasize the need
for critical planning when it comes to
incorporating technology into the museum
experience. It is crucial that those
responsible for the planning of exhibits are
always keeping the objects and educational
value of these objects at the forefront of the
presentation. If the goal is to have a
touchscreen computer in the gallery mainly
to say that there is one, the technology will
not be successful. Mediums like
touchscreens should only be included when
the designer asks, How can I better
illuminate this information? and the
resulting answer is a form of technology. As
Smith discusses, it is also crucial to consider
the level of technology compared to the
level of comprehension of visitors. If the
technology is so complex that visitors
cannot use it or are too consumed with
trying to use it that they lose sight of the
exhibit itself, the technology is detracting
from the purpose rather than expanding
upon it.
With so many possibilities and
mesmerizing capabilities of technology
today, it would be easy enough for museums
to oversaturate or include modern
technologies simply to say that they have

them. For every technological advancement,

it is crucial that those responsible take into
consideration what the technology adds to a
visitors experience and how it adheres to
their museums particular message. What
works for one museum may not work for
another. Gillette, OBrien, and Bullard
write, Museum spaces are often viewed as
places of discovery and education facilitated
by access to museum objects. Technology
designed for these spaces should ideally
reflect these values and encourage
exploration of museum artifacts (584).
When technology exists, it should enable
clearer and more confident interpretation of
artifacts as opposed to just trying to impress.
For wealthier institutions, it might be
tempting to incorporate technology
anywhere possible. However, in most cases
that would simply be a waste of finances.
Not every item needs its own personal
touchscreen computer, just as not every
gallery needs a video playing. When
technology isnt explicitly enhancing an
exhibit, it can begin to feel overwrought.
Visitors may become so distracted with
technology that they fail to pay attention to
the galleries before them, or it simply might
bother visitors who arent interested in the
technology available.
Conclusion
Museums are known for enabling
visitors to develop personal experiences and
connections with history, culture, and
science in ways most people otherwise
would not have the opportunity to.
Technology can be a great resource to help
these connections through greater
understanding. It is crucial, however, for
museums to be able to find the line between
what and how much technology is beneficial
or detrimental to the visitors experience.
Regardless of technological advances past,

present and future, objects and ideas

presented in museums are often chosen for
their relevance to the human experience.
Museums should not let their desire for
impressive technological advancements of
the time overwhelm such powerful
experiences presented to their patrons.

Works Cited
Gano, Steve and Ro Kinzler. Bringing the Museum into the Classroom. Science 331.6020
(2011): 1028-9. Web. 16 March 2015.
Gillette, Eileen, Heather L. OBrien, & Julia Bullard. Exploring Technology through the Design
Lens: A Case Study of an Interactive Museum Technology. iConference 11 (2011):
583-590. Web. 16 March 2015.
Heinze, Carolyn. High art in high-def: remote management, integrated control, and other
key trends in interactive museum technology. AV Technology 6.10 (2013): 24-26.
Web. 16 March 2015.
Knott, Laura. Red Phones and Cell Phones. Legacy (National Association for
Interpretation) 21.5 (2010): 26-27. Web. 16 March 2015.
Liles, Bennett. INTERACTIVE MUSEUM TECHNOLOGY. Sound & Video Contractor 29.9
(2011): 46-48. Web. 16 March 2015.
Lohr, Steve. "Museums Morph Digitally." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Oct.
2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
Schuster, Emily. How much is too much technology in a science center or museum, or is the
sky the limit? Does it engage or distract? Dimensions, January/February 2014. Web. 27
Mar. 2015.