I chuckled at Pew Research’s “Three Technology Revolutions” because it is referring to a time span of less than 30 years. I would agree that Personal Computing and Mobile devices have created a Revolution, I am not sure that it is 3 “revolutions”. But the importance of the “digital transformations” in culture and thinking cannot be ignored by persons trying to communicate and/or educate a very much changed “Public”. Pew Research Center’s argument, characteristically well documented, is that these technological changes made ‘information accessible, changing the way we think about information, relate to each other and our conception and allocation of time that has had the impact of blurring traditional boundaries between private and public, home & work, consumer & producer.’ (Pew Research). Any effort to connect with this new “Public” must consider these new perspectives and methodologies.
Often, we are amazed at the rapid pace of advancement in technological gadgets, not realizing that our ‘sophistication of expertise is expanding in all areas.’ The exploration of several design, marketing, psycho-social analyses of the process of creating “personas” (prototype conglomerate people) is somewhat humanistically intimidating. These processes create artificial “people” that can be used to test consumer reactions to ideas and products with great accuracy. (Hall, Te Papa, Schlomo). However, it is not enough to have all the theories about an audience, there is nothing that impacts or results in creative conversation as talking with the individuals, who are intimately involved with the subject and those whose interest you wish to entice. Psycho-social expertise, draws its content from real people to created model people, on whom algorithms might be tested, to reach real people. This is how convoluted the world has become. It is also true that these machinations produce eerily accurate results.
A final group of articles analyzed the significance of interacting with the audience to address them and help them shape their experience in humanistic inquiry and education through exhibition (Public Humanities). The significance of this demand for lay “audience” collaboration and shared authority seems at variance with the skilled expertise required to recognize and fix the problem at a hand. Authority which was the traditional unifying power of the past – “an expert speaks and all fall in line), cannot speak to a present which is changing so fast that process can barely be documented before they are changed. By creating opportunities and space for dialog, the opportunity to create exhibitions which can last beyond the current election cycle. The “elephant in the room” can actually learn better what we thought and present an alternative perspective on how to engage audiences through the immediate transition and still speak to the rapidly changing future.
Intentionally considering these cultural shifts – which I am familiar with having lived through them, changes the way I wish to address the project. Rather than continuing to build on to an older technology, this project itself must revolutionize and connect to the rapidly changing ideas. Dialogue with the audience draws them into ideas they had not considered; but their response plays an equal role in reshaping the project to create a clearer understanding and stronger connection. Specifically, I recognized the limitations of the Cleveland Memory Platform. I also re-discovered its significance through the eyes of some of the users. Ideas that I would not have considered or would have been reluctant to implement – “limiting text” become clearer as a means of expanding the use and life of my project and the platform, because it will be engaging the audience on its terms. A “shared authority” makes the content more fluid and acceptable and augmenting it rather than threatening allowing it to become archaic. I did think that “visitors” accessed Cleveland Memory but now realize that outsiders would not have the patience to navigate its dated structural interfaces. If this project can incorporate the modalities and suggestions of the users, rather than becoming an “add on”; WAC could prove to be revolutionary.
Notes:
“Three Technology Revolutions.”Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/three-technology-revolutions/ accessed 2-13-2018.
Hall, Erika. “Interviewing Humans.” A List Apart. Published on September 10, 2013. Published in Just Enough Research. A Book Apart, (2013).
WOSP Personas. Te Papa: Digital Language System. July 2015.
Goltz, Schlomo. “A Closer Look At Personas: What They Are And How They Work (Part 1).” Smashing Magazine. August 6, 2014 and “A Closer Look At Personas: What They Are And How They Work (Part 2).” Smashing Magazine. August 13, 2014.
Kuo Wei Tchen, John. “Creating a Dialogic Museum: The Chinatown History Museum Experiment.” In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, edited by Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, 285-326. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.
Corbett, Katharine T. and Howard S. (Dick) Miller. “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry.” The Public Historian 28.1 (2006): 15-38.
Frisch, Michael. “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back.” Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, edited by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 126-137. Philadelphia: The Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, 2001.
