Tearing Down the "Fourth Wall" of Design: Is this the Future of the Art Museum?

The revamped Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum in New York features a new take on museum-going: an open-ended interactive layout that lets visitors create their own experience. Is the pro-active museum experience a sign of the future or merely a passing trend?

What's the Latest?


Margaret Rhodes of Wired has an article up this morning highlighting the new features at the revamped Cooper Hewitt Design Museum in New York. Rhodes describes the goal of the museum's new layout as a sort of breaking of the fourth wall. That's because the new Cooper Hewitt strives to include visitors in the art and welcomes them to take part in the creation of design. The way they plan on doing that? By incorporating a number of new interactive technologies designed by installation experts Local Projects (who put a lot of work into the design of the 9/11 museum).

I recommend taking a look at the article and reading about the proposed exhibits before we explore the Big Idea below.

What's the Big Idea?

From Rhodes' article, a quote from Local Projects founder Jake Barton:

“We don’t want to be overly prescriptive,” Barton says. “We are playing with the capacity for visitors to design what they make, and give them scaffolding to know what to design and how to do it better.”

There's obviously an ambitious vision being put into practice here. We see a lot of interactive exhibits in museums highlighting science and/or geared toward children. But this is a relatively new concept for a museum of art/design.

Although many in the art world like to believe people visit art museums to interact with the work, is that necessarily true? Would your typical museum visitor steer more toward the words "interact with" rather than "view" or "explore" or "bear witness?" What do art museum visitors do and what does the museum do for them?

The folks at Living Design specialize in interactive exhibits that "[give] visitors agency over their own experiences." But is it naive (if not novel) to believe your typical museum visitor wants to spend their time in the building being proactive? Is the viewing of art an active or passive experience?

Barton believes it's the former:

“A lot of our insights are based on the ways in which people spend time at museums. They’re curious, open, interested, and engaging. They want to express themselves and see their own identity refracted through the museum’s.”

What do you think?

Read more at Wired

Photo credit: 360b / Shutterstock.com

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Brain study finds circuits that may help you keep your cool

Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.

Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP/ Getty Images
Mind & Brain

MIT News

The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.

Keep reading Show less

34 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
  • The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
  • According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Keep reading Show less

How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system

When these companies compete, the people lose.

Top Video Splash
  • When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
  • When this phenomenon happens in the pharmaceutical world, companies quickly apply for broad protection of their patents, which can last up to 20 years, and fence off research areas for others. The result of this? They stay at the top of the ladder, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
  • Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation the same as product invention. Companies should still receive an incentive for coming up with new products, he says, but not 20 years if the product is the result of "tweaking" an existing one.