above image: DataWall
INTERVIEW:
LUST |
above
image: DataWall
above
image: Museum patron using Data Cloud
Although this interface is technologically and conceptually challenging for most museum patrons, LUST and the Boijmans have embraced the experiment and see it as a giant leap toward what the future of exhibition design might become. The following interview with LUST focuses on their studio’s philosophy on interactive design, and the process they went through in creating the Boijmans van Bueningen Museum Digital Depot. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . |
above
image: Museum patron using Data Wall touch screen
| Why
do you choose to use common geometric shapes to visualize information in
the data cloud? By working from the basic needs of an interface, there should be no need for things like references to real life idioms. An interface is pure when it refers to itself and not some sort of analogy to worldly things. What does burnished aluminum windows have to do with interactive navigation? We try to keep navigational elements to a minimum. I find the threshold for abstraction to be so different between Holland and America. American information design often uses iconic references to “worldly things” as you said. While LUST seems perfectly content using pure geometric shapes and color to visualize information. Why is this purity more effective in your opinion? Is there any context where it falls short? Art has already moved passed the idea of figurative representation. In Holland, abstraction is a part of the cultural fabric. Mondriaan’s tree branches becoming vertical and horizontal lines is a concept the average Dutch person understands. I think that this leads to a different cultural mind set. Why are we perfectly capable of accepting “modern art” as abstract but “modern design” as not? Design is best when it doesn’t refer to anything else. It becomes its own reference. To me this represents a degree of maturity. Detractors that say, “we can’t go against things we already know” or “we can’t forget the study of semiotics: signified and signifier, etc”. “These are predetermined culturally accepted norms”. Bullshit! Take screen typography where the old established ideas of serifs fail, or typing a text message with your phone. It’s the most unnatural thing to do, but I know kids who can do it while carrying on a separate physical conversation. We adapt! Take the standard approach of a designer being asked to design an identity program for a city. First they research the city’s history. Say it was a Spanish settlement that thrived on the cultivation of oranges for agriculture. With this knowledge, they design something where sand colored paper is used to suggest the adobe stucco of the original architecture, then they sample an old engraved sign on one of the missions and turn it into a “Spanish-looking” font. Then a stylized orange is used as a logo. Every element must refer to something else. Why? To “dumb down” the concept to something people can understand? Does modern design really still need visual crutches like these? We have to strive for higher levels of conceptuality. Do you feel like people are adapting to the experience you’ve created? Surprisingly yes. Of course there are people that still don’t understand it nor have no patience for it. We didn’t expect everyone to have an affinity for the new media. What we have observed is that older visitors are more likely to approach the screens rather than a “traditional” kiosk because it doesn’t look like a computer. As for the data cloud, people are actually asking for more functionality. It was never meant to be a search engine to look up “all the paintings by Kandinsky” for example, this is what the museum library is for. The Data Cloud was only meant as a way to visualize the collection. When one contemplates 117,000 pieces of art, it remains such an abstract number. Now that people actually can SEE and FEEL what that amount is, they want to be able to do much more with the knowledge. That’s nice to hear. Now that the interface has been in the museum for a few months, what kind of responses have you received? The main response is entirely positive! People are still very amazed at what it can do. People have praised Boijmans for taking a huge step forward towards a new way of experiencing art. Of course there have been critics. We need them. We knew that the first version was going to be full of unexpected choices. We didn’t know if it would work properly or if people would understand. It was necessary to take that first step. Now we are in the middle of the revision process. Version 2 is almost ready. We tweaked things that weren’t working, and we are updating technology as it becomes better. For example, the company that made the touch screen system has released a new version that has a bit higher resolution. We are trying to get this installed in the museum. I would say that the biggest disappointment was that we could’ve pushed it further technically if budget was not an issue. We are planning the possibility of “saving your journey” so you can continue to go further from where you left the last time. We are also thinking about the possibility of taking home a hard copy (emailing your findings to yourself or printing out a map of where the paintings you just looked up are located). There are plenty of ideas for revision 3! |
above
image: Data Wall Interface
Are
mediated experiences made by designers the future of exhibition design?
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . |