Thinking about that page led me to think more broadly about IMA’s main website.  Inside the museum, the IMA site is a major topic of conversation amongst the web team.  We’re in the planning stages for a web redesign of imamuseum.org.  This will include a better calendar system, better integration of digital content, a new collection page and lots more bells and whistles I can’t mention right now.  This process has really made me consider one word and one section: Interact.

IMA's Interact Section

What is Interact?  It’s togetherness, it’s action, it’s a mutual or reciprocal action, it’s technology.  Is it?

For the past 18 months, we have placed much of our new media content in a section called Interact.  You can access it directly from the home page and find yourself immediately faced with options like ArtBabble, Facebook, Tagging, iTunes U, Blog and Dashboard.  It’s one stop shopping for those of you interested in technology at the IMA.  But I’m not convinced that Interact is the correct word for this section, or even the right approach to offering this content. Here’s a quick scan of approaches other museums have applied:

Similar to IMA but putting the active in interactive, MoMA’s new site features Multimedia (check it out below.) The cool Walker Art Center has it’s own channel.  And the ever impressive Mattress Factory Art, playfully offers Friendship Version 2.0.

MoMA Multimedia

Front and center. Brooklyn Museum is simply, brooklynmuseum.org (you have at least 10 links on the home page devoted to technology and new/social media projects) and community-based interaction is weaved throughout the site (are you really surprised?):

Brooklyn Museum

Layered within the site, The Tate Modern, has its Tate Player, TateShots and The Great Tate Mod Blog (below).  The Getty Museum has a video gallery, is getting Twitter right and does lots of other tech related projects. There’s no specific section like MoMA and others, is not fully integrated like Brooklyn, but offers superb content.

The Great Tate Mod Blog

Interact: So what to call it and where to place it?  It’s a challenge we face in the coming months to bring you a new site that is interactive, engaging, educational and focused on art.  We can create a dedicated section for technology.  We  can integrate it in all areas of the new site.  Or we can place it in various sections of the site based on a navigation structure.

We’ll be looking at lots of sites online – like the one’s mentioned above, but I would LOVE to hear your input.  What approach do you think is best? What would you do?

Recently, Bob Boilen posted an entry to NPR’s excellent All Songs Considered Blog where he provided readers with the first song of a mixtape, and asked them to add responses in the comments section, with each new post adding a new song to the mix in response to the previous post. Brilliant!

Let’s try to do something similar with works of art. I’m selecting the first piece in a kind of virtual exhibition. You pick the next one, and post a comment with information about the work, a link to an image of it, and a description of your reasons for selecting it (could be formal similarity/difference to the previous piece, subject matter, some biographical information that links the artist to the previous work, whatever…) Remember that you are responding to the last piece added in the comments section (although some larger themes might develop) and provide some description of why you are adding a particular piece to this chain o’ art.

I’ve chosen a piece from the IMA’s collection as a starting point: Kenneth Noland’s Fall Blues 1961-64.

It is a painting that I have warmed to over time, and one that I hope allows for a diverse set of responses. I’m interested to see where this game of curatorial telephone leads. Your turn…