I’ve always been into art in the streets. There is something special about the mysterious, obscure & dangerous methods it takes to create graffiti art. Wild Style is one of my favorite movies to this date. Some call it vandalism, others call it art. True graffiti writers don’t give a sh*t what you call it, so long as they “get up”.  In this ever changing world of technology and open networks of communication, it should be no surprise that graffiti has evolved along w/ the digital revolution (known as the ever-cliche “2.0″). The world wide web and it’s army of geeks are rising to the occasion.

I’ve noticed a big surge of digital tools, and open source networks of communication for graffiti artists. Lucky for you I have dug deep into my digital crate of delicious links and have compiled them into a… you guessed it, list!

• F.A.T.
  Every techno-savvy artist cutting the edge should have this site bookmarked.  “The Free Art and Technology (F.A.T.) Lab is an organization dedicated to enriching the public domain through the research and development of creative technologies and media. Release early, often and with rap music. This is Notorious R&D.”
• EyeWriter Initiative
  It is a low-cost eye-tracking apparatus & custom software that allows graffiti writers and artists with paralysis resulting from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to draw using only their eyes.
• Hektor
  Hektor is a portable Spray-paint Output Device for laptop computers.
• ROBOTAGGER
  A labor-saving device for graffiti artists. An assistive tool or telematic proxy for taggers working in harsh environments. Long-needed relief for graffiti artists with RSI.
• Graffiti Analysis
  “A digital graffiti blackbook designed for documenting more than just ink.”
• DustTag (Graffiti Analysis iPhone Edition)
  A pocket sized digital graffiti blackbook designed for documenting more than just ink.
• LRPD Vandalsquad
  Be sure to check out the online graffiti tool, Graffiti Studio, here.
• The Exchange
  An international group of style writers trade sketches of each other’s moniker and it is documented here. Worth a look indeed.
• Stencil Revolution
  An online stencil art community resource.
• Projection Bombing
  One day, you will see this at the IMA. Mark my words, but dqmot.
• Wooster Collective
  This has been a go-to blog for the graffiti community since 2001. One of the best. “This site is dedicated to showcasing and celebrating ephemeral art placed on streets in cities around the world.”

I’d love to hear your thoughts, and as always feel free to share any good links I have left out. If you are incorporating technology in a new way into your art, please do tell!

Two things in particular which set our Dashboard effort apart from other business intelligence or executive dashboard tools are the way we engage our staff in the process, and the extended integration we’ve done with core museum systems.

In the past several weeks, we’ve spent a lot of time discussing the theory and the underpinning logic of why any museum would consider moving forward with a strategy like this.  If you’re just joining the discussion you can find the previous articles here:

1. Walking The Talk
2. Reasons for Transparency
3. Impact on Institutional Culture

This week we’ll take a detailed look at how the Indianapolis Museum of Art implemented these ideas in the IMA Dashboard.  We’ll examine how we structured the experience, what our goals were and what some of the results and unintended consequences turned out to be.

We’ve had some really great questions and points raised in the comment sections of the previous articles, and I’d really like to hear questions / thoughts from the peanut gallery as it were.  Don’t be shy!  I’ll do my best to respond to every thoughtful comment in turn.

Transparency in Practice: IMA’s Online Dashboard

As discussed in previous posts, one of the most important aspects for museums wishing to take steps to be more transparent about their successes and failures is a decision about the best way to share this information.  There are many ways museums might accomplish this. Ideally an organization’s information should be freely available to all interested parties with a very low barrier to access. Many museums have adopted the practice of making their annual reports and even tax returns available online for public access. It would be difficult to make the argument that these mechanisms provide “easy access” to this information since these documents are often lengthy, technical, and difficult to interpret.  The investment required by a member of the public must be high enough to overcome these barriers in order to develop an understanding of the museum’s performance.  While well intended, this method of presentation obfuscates the information which, if shared in a simpler more user-friendly model, might otherwise lead to valuable interactions and discussions with media, donors and the general public.

In the summer of 2007, the Indianapolis Museum of Art began to take steps to capitalize on an institution-wide effort and commitment to organizational Transparency. A team of web developers and graphics designers led by the Chief Information Officer set out to design a presentation of information and statistics about the museum which would enable an at-a-glance interaction as well support of deep-diving investigations into specific topics of interest. The team desired a system which was easy to digest and easy to navigate, and could support the wide array of information important to the mission of a diverse institution.  The project took inspiration from contemporary web design and interaction trends to create a site which would feel fresh, fun and visually engaging.  Feeling that many corporate dashboards were both intimidating and hard to understand, the team strove for a simplicity of presentation that could hook interested visitors into a deeper investigation and tracking of the museum’s performance over time. Finally, the institution needed an easy to use tool which could be integrated into the pre-existing workflows and job demands of many of the different staff around the museum.  The result was a tool called the IMA Dashboard, which was launched by the museum in September, 2007 and later released as open-source software for the benefit of the larger museum community.  Many museums and institutions have downloaded this software and expressed an interest in using it to fuel similar endeavors within their own organizations.

Figure 1 - The IMA Dashboard

The selection of an initial set of statistics for the Dashboard was undertaken by the senior management team of the museum and focused on metrics which had direct impact and bearing on the mission of the museum.  Nine statistics were selected initially covering areas such as, the acquisition of art, educational tours, membership, financial performance, horticultural activities (the IMA is an accredited horticultural institution), and attendance.  Statistics are arranged by topic or by department and visitors are invited to explore related bits of information.

The automated reporting of statistics to the Dashboard was a topic of much discussion early in the development of this tool.  At first glance, the technical slickness and wizardry of an automatically updated dashboard seems to hold much promise.  In reality, several factors existed that complicated this fact and have led the IMA to a slightly different approach.  Remember first, that a key desire of pursuing a policy of institutional Transparency is not only to share that information with our external constituents, but with our internal constituencies as well.  The automation of statistics is convenient in that it saves effort and attention on the part of the museum staff, but can frequently and easily result in neglect.  This result can be attributed more to human nature than to any lack of effort.  Parents of young children can attest that we are conditioned at an early age to tune out automated processes, or expected interruptions.  This is, in fact, the opposite of what we want to encourage in our staff.  Since these are “mission critical” statistics, we want staff members to attend to and understand them each and every month.  If a small amount of data entry causes staff members to pause and internalize this data at the same time that it is deriving a benefit for the public, so much the better.  Secondly, computers are notoriously bad at predicting exceptions to the rule.  Take attendance counting for example.  Institutions can make rules about the hours the museum is open, and about when they expect certain numbers of staff to report, but museum staff cannot tell the computer how to anticipate a weather related closing, or a special event on a day the museum is normally closed.  These cases all require human intervention.  Likewise, there are many types of statistics which are important to the operation of the museum, for which no automated system currently exists.  The IMA tracks the number of hours conservators spend treating works of art in our collection.  We think it is important, that despite all their other responsibilities, conservators should continue to treat the works in our collection regularly.  While many different types of time-tracking software exist, our conservators already have a system of tracking this information that works well for them.  So instead of spending time and money purchasing, integrating and training staff so that we can automate this system, we simply ask them to cut and paste their hours into a web form once a month.

The involvement of museum staff in the selection, authoring, and maintenance of these statistics is a fundamental priority for the Dashboard tool.  As discussed earlier, utilizing members of the staff in the collection, reporting, and monitoring of key statistics is an important way to engage them with how and why certain numbers are the way they are and how the museum might improve its performance over time. Staff members from various departments were invited to submit statistics which they felt would be important to track.  The web team worked with these staff members to author, refine, and create the statistics they suggested.  Each statistic is assigned to the museum staff member most directly responsible for monitoring that information.  Ideally, updating the Dashboard will coincide with existing workflows and reporting tasks that staff members are already performing. The frequency at which each statistic is updated varies depending on how quickly that information changes, from five minute updates for automated attendance counting to twice annually for horticultural plantings on the museum’s campus.  Email reminders are sent to the assigned staff members and updates consist of a simple cut-and-paste operation taking less than one minute and very little technical knowledge. As of this writing, the IMA Dashboard maintains statistics in 6 different topic areas across 13 departments.  42 statistics are current tracked and maintained by 31 staff members. These statistics have been maintained by the staff usefully for over two years as of this writing.

Several of the statistics recorded become quite interesting and even compelling examples of improvements and challenges encountered by our museum during the past year. For example, the museum has a commitment to reducing our energy consumption.  As a result, we track the total kilowatt-hours per month we consume as stated on our gas and electric utility bills. (See Figure 2) We have been relatively successful in this endeavor and have in fact reduced our energy consumption year-over-year in 30 of the last 34 months.  In February 2009, we used 22% less energy as compared to just one year earlier, while in September 2009 we used just 2% less energy than September of 2008.

Figure 2 – The tracking of energy consumption on the IMA Dashboard

Not all statistics are so rosy however.  Financial statistics show that, as a result of the economic downturn, the value of our endowment holdings decreased by almost $100M in a six-month period between September 2008 and April 2009.  Statistics show a 46% shortfall in contributed income compared to the budgeted projections in December 2008, and an adjustment of those revenue estimates in the following month. Early in 2009 the museum went through a strategic restructuring of staff positions resulting in the elimination of several part-time and full-time staff positions – a fact which is reflected clearly on the Dashboard update of our Employee Count and distribution on March 10, 2009. While these statistics are not among the shining examples of museum performance, we are thankful for them. They have given us a chance to engage with donors, board members, funding agencies, and our local city government about the reality of the challenges the museum is facing and our plans for addressing them.  The way these “bad” statistics would be received weighed heavily on the minds of the senior management team as we discussed this series of tough decisions. The ability of the Dashboard to serve as a positive seed for discussion is explained by Anderson, “The point of the Dashboard is both to crow when we see positive trends, of course, but also to show where we have room to improve, either through our actions or as a result of the generosity and support of others.“

Overall, the Dashboard has been received very positively by the IMA staff and senior management in particular.

“The dashboard has been a persuasive tool to use with the news media. Certain journalists who we work with on a regular basis know to check the dashboard for facts and figures, though they’ll still often verify the information with our public relations staff. I believe that the transparency that the dashboard allows permits us to have additional credibility with members of the media. They know that we’re not hiding information from them.”

-Katie Zarich, Director of Public Affairs, IMA

“In my opinion, the IMA’s dashboard has served as a visible reminder of our accountability to our supporters and the communities that we serve.  It is remarkable to me that it is not the data that has gotten the most attention, but the mere act of posting the information for public view.  By openly sharing the information, it has helped to build a sense of trust with our constituencies.  Mechanically speaking, the Dashboard is so user friendly that it enables those who own the data to update it using minimal time and effort.  In order to be a sustainable tool, I think it is important to have this ability to disperse responsibility for its maintenance and to minimize the additional time burden on staff to keep it current.  The one thing I don’t think we have quite figured out is how to incorporate the Dashboard as an information source or motivational tool for staff.  It is a challenge to balance what is interesting and useful to outside users with the needs and interests from an internal management perspective.”

Anne Munsch – Chief Finance Officer, IMA

More recently, the Dashboard has been used to illustrate museum visitor demographics accomplished through the collection of zip codes from visitors to the museum’s campus. This admissions data is then correlated to demographic data about race, age, income and educational attainment in the museum’s local community.  The information is presented in a simple map interface which allows the public to explore these demographics at their leisure. (See Figure 3)  Attendance tracking software utilizes heat-sensitive cameras to detect and automatically count the visitors to the museum.  This data is automatically integrated with the Dashboard tool and drives graphs and charts allowing year-to-year comparisons and attendance projections. (See Figure 4)

Figure 3 – A demographic comparison of museum admissions by zip code

Figure 4 – A comparative graph of month to month museum attendance

Next week we’ll conclude this series of posts with a set of suggestions for museums to use when staging their own efforts online with transparency.  I’d love to hear about ways in which these articles are being discussed in your museums or particular struggles or flaws in these arguments. -Rob

Saying that transparency is a “good idea” is not enough to address concerns that many museums have about sharing  information in this way.  Today, we’ll spend some more time examining a few reasons why museum administrators should seriously consider an open approach to transparency as a strategic choice in running the museum.

Again, please chime in with thoughts / questions / analogies / etc…  Your thoughts really add to and enrich the conversation.  Do you think this would work in your museum?  What would be the biggest concerns that would arise?

Reasons for Transparency: The Internet Will Out You

Since a common counter argument to efforts for Transparency is the impact of information sharing on the museum’s brand and reputation, it is useful to explore this in the context of today’s realities. Seen initially in the rise of the blogosphere and more recently in the emergence of micro-blogging and real-time search, the pace of information creation and the ease of access to this information has changed the ways in which a museum’s brand and reputation are perceived in the media and online. The advent of the real-time web means that the invested public frequently has as much input into a museum’s online reputation as media professionals do.  An increasingly information-savvy audience is becoming more and more sophisticated in their ability to decipher fact versus spin as they surf this info-sphere. Author Clive Thompson highlights the impact of these facts on Transparency in his article for WIRED Magazine,

“But here’s the interesting paradox: The reputation economy creates an incentive to be more open, not less. Since Internet commentary is inescapable, the only way to influence it is to be part of it. Being transparent, opening up, posting interesting material frequently and often is the only way to amass positive links to yourself and thus to directly influence your Googleable reputation.”  - Clive Thompson, “The See-Through CEO”, WIRED Magazine – Issue 15.04, March, 2007.

This reality is not restricted only to government and for-profit corporations to deal with, but in fact, has already reached deeply into the way that museums and non-profit institutions operate in modern culture. “There is no outside world anymore, just a world–one that is blogged, Facebooked, Twittered, and utterly porous. The extent to which we can control our image is directly proportionate to our honesty about ups and downs in a context that we can to some degree define” points out Maxwell Anderson, The Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

A common reaction and perhaps our gut response is to see Transparency as just another public relations tool which can be employed to enhance an institution’s brand and reputation in the public’s eye.  While efforts in Transparency can have a positive impact on a museum’s reputation, that’s not the point says Anderson, “To view a dashboard primarily as a PR tool is to miss entirely the point of Transparency, which is to influence contemporary organizations to act with greater responsibility.“ Likewise, author Thompson points out that, “Putting out more evasion or PR puffery won’t work, because people will either ignore it and not link to it – or worse, pick the spin apart and enshrine those criticisms high on your Google list of life.”

Reasons for Transparency: Impact on Mission and Performance

“I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that, at a time when new media technologies are changing the rules of journalism, companies are placing a new emphasis on Transparency. Access to, and distribution of, information is being rapidly democratized and smart companies know to get out ahead of this trend. However, as with many corporate buzzwords (e.g., “quality” and “innovation”), the concept is suffering from inflation as too many companies claim “Transparency” as part of their identity without really walking the talk.” -Mark Hannah, “Transparency as a Principle not a Tactic”, PBS.org, January 7, 2009

It is a natural tendency to promote what is good about our institutions and hide what is not. As professionals, we’ve been conditioned over many years to treat the internet as just another communications medium, but in fact it’s not.  What does it take for a museum to begin the adoption of transparent methods and attitudes without falling into thinking of Transparency as just another PR tool, and what are the advantages of this strategy that might compel institutions to make the leap?

Museums are mission-driven organizations. For a museum, success cannot be measured in financial terms alone.  Sometimes – in service to our mission – museums make decisions which would play very poorly on Wall Street. However, these very decisions are those that set us apart most clearly from the for-profit world and offer us a chance to communicate with our constituents about our mission and about the unique and important place museums hold in our communities.

It is safe to say that museums spend large amounts of time and money every year on strategic planning – and for good reason.  A healthy and vibrant strategic plan is an invaluable tool to use in divining which activities we should pursue and which we should not.  The choices we make about which activities to forgo often say more about our strategic purpose than those we choose to pursue.  A common thread among many museums seems to be an addiction to an over-abundant array of worthwhile programs and activities. Solid strategic planning helps us focus activities on those which will achieve a measurable impact for the mission of the institution and result in long-term progress towards those stated goals.

Museums face difficult challenges when trying to measure whether or not they are being successful.  Success cannot be measured solely by the size of their endowments, attendance figures, or recent coverage in the press. Unlike their for-profit counterparts – where profit/loss statements can ultimately separate the winners and losers – a museum’s success has much more to do with achieving its mission and its degree of impact within the community.  Defining what success looks like and the establishment of benchmarks for comparison is absolutely vital to achieving a continuous improvement to goals and success over the long term. In his 2004 paper entitled “Metrics of Success in Art Museums”, Maxwell Anderson points out that “The root of the problem is that there is no longer an agreed-upon method of measuring achievement” and proposes several sets of measurements by which museums might gauge their success over time. Of course, the task of defining and agreeing on common metrics to be used across institutions seems to be a daunting task, however Anderson highlights the fact that, “While many challenges beset art museum leaders today, finding a way to measure performance is accordingly among the field’s most urgent.” and, “Without generally accepted metrics, arts organizations will have more and more trouble making a case for themselves.”

Choosing such a set of primary metrics for your institution can help to clarify and codify the relationship between your organization’s mission and its strategic plan.  These conversations are perhaps the most important discussions that could possibly be had among senior management executives and board members. As Andrew Taylor points out in his blog the Artful Manager,

“Of course, such systems [dashboards] raise a rather vexing challenge: what, exactly, are the few key indicators you would need to watch to monitor your success? It’s this question that actually proves to be more effective than the dashboard tool itself. To know what you should monitor, you need to know what you’re trying to do, and you also have to define what success looks like (more people? happier people? more art? better reviews? prolific artists?).” - Andrew Taylor, “Keeping an Eye on Dashboards”, The Artful Manager Blog, October 20.

It is important to note that this is a point at which the notion of Transparency and Metrics of Success in your museum are very closely related.  Anderson’s paper makes a convincing argument regarding the measurement of those efforts which are the most important to meeting our mission objectives.  Furthermore an establishment of appropriate metrics and benchmarks can have tangible benefits for museum operation.  Author Jason Saul illustrates this point in his book on benchmarking for non-profits,

“Thus, benchmarking has many direct and indirect benefits: increasing the impact of mission-related activities, raising internal standards, improving performance, attracting more funding, uncovering (and fixing) hidden weaknesses, and overall, improving the public face of the organization.” – Jason Saul, Benchmarking for nonprofits: how to measure, manage, and improve performance (Fieldstone Alliance, 2004) pg 12.

If these benchmarks or metrics are indeed the key drivers of our success, is it not also the case that these are the same facts and figures we should be making available to our constituents? By so doing, we begin to build an ongoing trust based on measurable fact and open a door to rational and informed conversations about why continued support of our museum is so vital.

Unfortunately, choosing the statistics and deciding to share them is not enough. Our museums are composed of an amalgam of individuals from many different social, educational, and professional backgrounds. Many of whom are extremely intelligent and passionate about their service to our institutions. Their daily choices, attitudes and activities are required to actually put these strategies and metrics into action and achieve the institution’s mission.  We cannot succeed in achieving our mission without the buy-in and understanding of these key staff members.

I have the distinct pleasure of being in Daniel’s class this fall, Museums and Technology.  While it is surprising for my classmates that I would take a class about something I do already, I am excited for the opportunity to explore more thoroughly the meaning of technology for the museum experience and how the visitor is affected by these changes. I see continual parallels between issues encountered with visitors in physical space and issues we are encountering all over again in our digital spaces. I’ve talked about Twitter before and I have been thinking about how it is harnessed by museums and where we are going wrong.

We were talking about Twitter again in a recent class, more specifically what we consider to be a successful museum tweet, and why. It’s very hard to nail down, and even harder to do. The main reason is because it’s so hard to avoid becoming a marketing ploy, something which happens without rapt attention. A museums use of twitter now stands as an analogy for the way the actual museum interacts with its visitors and the traditional barrier between the inner workings of an institution and the public at large. So many museums need to release their stranglehold on twitter feeds to actually let interesting information get out.

I was at the Indianapolis Greek Festival this past weekend, and I couldn’t help to think that they were doing something right.

There were throngs of people, tons of Greek food, everyone jostling and yelling and having a great time, but here’s the part that baffled me- you had to pay to get in, and the food was delicious, but quite pricey. What is the Holy Trinity parish doing that connects so much with their audience that museums cannot seem to do? I think we can be the Agora marketplace discussed by Dr. Steven Zucker (@drszucker) and Dr. Nancy Proctor (@nancyproctor) a vibrant place for community and discussion, in the same way that the Greek festival is. I think the problem is balance- how do we sell ourselves as experts in our field while maintaining that we want everyone else’s opinion, too?

Some people are getting it right, figuring out how to sift through all the noise and clutter to connect with their audience while maintaining their voice. One such person is the British musician Imogen Heap, who felt a divide between herself and her fans before she started to utilize blogs and Twitter, not dissimilar to the separation between and institution and it’s community. In a recent interview with Melissa Block on NPR, she describes the divide quite succinctly. She then discusses what it’s like to have that direct connection throughout the process of making her music.

It’s been so amazing. I’ve always struggled with this barrier that I felt like I’d had up until blogging came along. Just one comment from somebody really sparks something in me. It doesn’t need to be this huge wall between me and the listeners anymore. I really thrive on that.”

@ImogenHeap gets it- the audience has become part of the process, and there’s no going back.

So to better describe what my words can’t, here is a screen shot of the Metro Paris iPhone app.  This application provides users with the locations of the nearest subway stations in their area along with nearby businesses.

Métro Paris application

Here is a video of the application in action (its in French but shows all of the apps functionality).

For museums this technology could provide a new experience for a visitor.  Not only could they see the wonderful works of art but it would allow them to view more information about each work just by pointing their cell phone camera.  Maybe an ArtBabble video is displayed or some expanded information about the creator.  Or what if it pointed the visitor in the direction of every work by a particular artist they were interested in?

A lot of people probably are thinking, ‘I’m not going to hold up my phone and walk around like that.’ but it has to be safer than texting while walking.  Just watch out for open manholes in the street.

This technology is still very new and as our mobile devices continue to get more powerful these applications should become more powerful as well.  So keep an eye out for these applications as more are getting developed every day and developers are just starting to get acquainted with the new technology.

Moving Time

Yes that’s right, I moved here from the center of America, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  I actually am a native Hoosier but moved further out west a few years ago.  South Dakota is an interesting place, it is very flat and has a lot of wind.  There are a lot of windmill farms popping up all over the state.  We enjoyed living in South Dakota but the opportunity at the museum was a good excuse to move back.

My family freezing in South Dakota. I will not miss the long cold winters.

Enough about me, now to something interesting I found over the summer.

While browsing the web I found and became an avid watcher of a design contest called Layer Tennis.  This contest pitted designers against each other in a challenge to build off of each others work.  Here is the description from the website:

We’ll be playing matches using video, animation, sound, photos, type and lots more, but the basic idea is the same no matter what tools are in use. Two competitors will swap a file back and forth in real-time, adding to and embellishing the work. Each artist gets fifteen minutes to complete a “volley” and then we post it to the site live. A third participant, a writer, provides play-by-play commentary on the action, as it happens.

There were a lot of interesting designs that came out of this contest.  I thought it was really exciting to see how each designer was able to take a quick 15 minutes and really add their own style to the work.

One of my favorite series of images came from this ‘volley‘ where Chris Glass and Aaron Draplin ended in a draw.  This fall they will be having another challenge so keep an eye on the the site if you liked what you saw from this series.

What most disturbs me about Nina’s argument is the clear lack of background work she put into crafting what amounts to a pretty scathing opinion of the IMA.  It seems from Nina’s comments that she is basing her views on a single visit to our galleries during a conference reception. I have no way of knowing how many of those 3 hours Nina spent in our exhibitions and galleries, but it seems that she didn’t bother to ask any staff members of the IMA about efforts we might be making to engage our visitors on-site and around the city.  Aside from a brief two minute encounter in the conference hall after her comments, Nina failed to probe in any depth about what (if any) strategy their might be behind our efforts on-site.

Experience and Engagement

In case you haven’t noticed, Art Museums are frequently considered to be the “stuffier”, less “engaging” older brothers to our sibling science, technology, and “experience” museums.  Nina draws at least some of her professional experience from this field, so perhaps we should cut her a little slack for missing a crucial challenge faced by art museums.

Here's one kiosk I'd love to see in our Museum

Many experiences in art museums can tend to be more subjective… more personal… deeply moving but indeed sometimes less factual than in other types of museums.  This isn’t denying that an understanding of the underlying contexts and histories of these works is important.  Just that this knowledge is a means to an end. Facilitating and encouraging these types of experiences is a primary challenge in creating engaging experiences inside art museums.  Balancing engaging exhibits with a gallery aesthetic which still supports and encourages individual interpretation is not an easy problem to solve.

Perhaps the lack of 10 year old kiosks and flashy interpretive signage makes it appear that we are not attempting to engage our audiences?

There still remains an outstanding debate in my mind regarding whether or not even well designed “experiences” in art museums offer an appreciably better connection to works of art than more unobtrusive offerings of information which allow audiences to pick-and-choose their own experiences with works of art.  Apart from leading audiences by a nose-ring through what they should think/experience there must be a place for a clean, open and personal interpretation of our collections.  These are questions we’re wrestling with here at the IMA as I’m sure many of you are in your own institutions.  Why rush to an answer before we’ve studied our own audiences and local needs?

Missing the Mark

Maybe Nina missed the chance to talk to Tiffany Leason – who was also at the conference reception – about the Viewing Project .  A three year grant funded initiative, the Viewing Project is designed to experiment with ways of engaging visitors with works from the IMA’s permanent collection.  In addition, this project seeks to measure and evaluate this visitor engagement in ways that can lead to concrete answers about these issues.  Rather than guessing haphazardly about what kinds of exhibits might make a difference, we’re attempting to really study our particular circumstance and unique audience here in Indianapolis.

The Viewing Project in-gallery interface

I would have loved to point Nina towards some of our New Media team (most of whom are named Daniel) who could share about some pretty innovative ways we are engaging audiences in ways that allow them to self select their participation.

One of the Dans could have shared about project we did in association with an Egyptian Art exhibit which made use of Flickr both in the galleries and on the streets of Indy.  The project, called “Your Afterlife”, asked scads of people from around the museum and city about what they would take with them into the happily-ever-after which resulted in some really funny, interesting, and touching results.

What would you take with you into the Afterlife?

Or Dan might have shared some of the work we did creating visualizations from CAT scan data of one of the mummies in the show. Visitors could take a peak under the wraps both in the galleries near the display or online at home.

Meet Demetrious the Mummy

Yet another Dan might have talk to Nina about “Project IMA” a project we hosted featuring 16 local designers, which engaged the designers and the community in fashion designs presented in conjunction with an exhibition called “Breaking The Mode”.  The project culminated in a runway show inside the museum and some awesome video which is still really popular on ArtBabble.

Our last Dan may have taken Nina over to the Davis LAB where for over three years now we’ve been experimenting with bringing our online-efforts into the galleries for guests to experience and engage with.  Sponsored by several donors who really care about how technology can be used to enhance the museum experience, the Davis LAB has hosted a wide array of experiences.  In 2006, I built a multi-user physical interface for visitors to explore the IMA’s collection using camera tracking and advanced computer graphics algorithms.  This experience ran in the space for over two years and we tracked hundreds of thousands of users using  the interface to explore art from our collection.

ETX - Multi-User Collection Browsing with Physical User Interface

The LAB has also hosted virtual reality displays, a variety of interactive kiosks, a recreation of ancient Rome which allowed users to navigate through a unique system of interlinked panoramas in addition to many other efforts.  All of these experiences are always available to visitors in the museum and online and are designed to leverage their experiences here at the IMA.

Explore Virtual Rome through Linked Panoramas

Now the Davis LAB plays host to ArtBabble and encourages connections with the IMA’s blogs and online communities.  We find that users engage with the content in new and different ways in the galleries and that we receive a large number of comments from physical visitors from within the space.  Mind you, we are encouraging this online/onsite engagement while preserving – for the moment – an open, clean interpretive experience in many of the galleries.

Visitor Experiences in the Davis LAB

I do think that mobile content deployments offer some intriguing options for user experiences in our galleries.  These platforms can preserve an aesthetic which supports personal connection, while offering unobtrusive ways for visitors to explore deeper connections to works of art on their own devices and at their own pace.  As such, we’ve started work on a new software system for mobile tours which can connect to our back-end content management practices and drive experiences on multiple content platforms including kiosks, phones, and web-browsers.

The project is called TAP and you can expect to see it “in the wild” sometime this fall in connection with our Sacred Spain exhibition.  Beyond serving just ourselves in this endeavor, we’ve been working with a collaboration of like-minded folks on some possible meta-data standards for mobile tours and platform architectures that can work for lots of different museums.  An early version of this spec (TourML – pronounced turmoil) can be seen in action in the Dallas Museum of Art’s new mobile tour.  You can read more about our progress on the Museum Mobile Wiki,  follow the effort on twitter (#mtogo) or watch this space for more info.

Innovation

It’s worth taking a bit of time to talk about how innovation happens within museums.  This is a question I get asked a lot these days and, as such, I’ve thought a good bit about it.  I think it’s fair to say that we all seek after innovation in what we do.  At times it seems to be ephemeral… a gossamer to be grasped at.  Other times, you find yourself standing right in the middle of it without knowing how you arrived.  I can honestly say that during the last three years, the IMA has truly been the most innovative organization I’ve ever been a part of.  (This includes several major research universities, and the supercomputing center that invented the first web browser.)  If there’s one thing I’ve learned about innovation, it’s that it never occurs in a vacuum.  Certainly Max Anderson’s strong leadership and risk-tolerant style play a significant role here, and I’d like to think that our web team has had some pretty interesting ideas over the years.  The truth, however, is that the innovation others have identified in the IMA’s technology and online efforts is only a leading indicator of true institutional innovation and change happening just under the surface.

Those of you working in larger organizations know how difficult it is to push forward initiatives without comprehensive and wide ranging support from your colleagues.  Likewise, almost everything you see online has its roots in the support, efforts and beliefs of dozens of professionals from every department around the IMA.  Who is it, do you think, that populates the Dashboard with statistics?  Who’s responsible for the underpinnings of deaccessioning on the web?  Who is it that co-creates, consults, connects and supports the videos on ArtBabble?  Many of these folks have worked in art museums for decades and have devoted significant portions of their careers to advancing the arts in a non-profit setting.  To have their support and collaboration has truly been one of the great honors of coming to the IMA.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that the first-fruits of innovation can most easily be seen online.  Bricks, mortar and people’s opinions take significantly longer to change than our websites do.  We plan our exhibitions years into the future. Planning for a building expansion can approach the decade mark. Even our educational programs are planned at least a year out.

There are very few efforts in museums which move at the pace and timescale of the internet and social media. But like the buds on a tree, the innovation you see online is propped up by an ecosystem of support throughout the IMA which allows it to succeed at all.  I wish each of you could take the time to understand the institutional change we have been experiencing here at the IMA.  As it stands however, the most evident and easily accessible proof of this transformation is visible online.  Over the coming years, I’m extremely confident that this change will pay ongoing dividends for our visitors.

In Conclusion

Finally, I don’t mean to be overly harsh with Nina.  She is a brilliant professional who brings a lot of value to our profession in her writing and contributions to the field.  I do take exception, in this case, to a poorly informed series of articles.

Nina says on her blog that, “I believe that every museum can grow its audience as long as it is willing to grow with that audience by taking risks, trying new things, and communicating openly.”  In my opinion, I think that the IMA has been an example of these very things over the past few years and has contributed significantly to the community of museums.  I’m not asking for any special treatment or exemption from criticism.  On the contrary, what I’d like most is the chance for a little conversation on the topic.  So… if something we’re doing strikes you wrong or seems out of place…  all you’ve got to do is ask a few questions.  You can find me most easily here on the blog, or on twitter (@rjstein)

Thanks,

Rob

In the recent days, I have watched and listened as social media innovates political process in Iran. Twitter has been a powerful forum for a newsfeed out of the country, allowing people to photograph, video and blog about events in real time, even as more traditional journalists are being asked to leave.

Listening to a segment about it on the radio, I couldn’t help but think about the massive change to how news is found and the way crowdsourcing of information has so drastically changed the source of the news we get, and for museums, how closely this is tied to the changing face of visitor interactions through the web. Nina Simon, in this article at Museum2.0, writes,

For people who are deeply immersed in social media, social networks are already a much heavier influence on personal choices–where to visit, what concert to attend–than traditional advertising. Which means that your organization’s website–a brochure out in the wilderness of the Web–is only going to remain relevant and useful as a marketing piece if it is being referenced in the social context of your users’ lives.

Different people and institutions have found vastly different approaches to garnering information from their audiences.

Some museums have decided to use crowdsourcing, which can be appealing to visitors, in a way that is helpful to what the museum wants to accomplish. The Brooklyn Museum’s Shelley Bernstein wrote about a new project called Freeze Tag! where Brooklyn decided to utilize their loyal taggers to help control errant or incorrect information. Putting control back in the hands of the visitor can be risky, but, like Wikipedia, ultimately a project where passionate people and the wisdom of crowds wins out in the end. Brooklyn is a leader in integrating the visitor into the museums practice in innovative ways. With or without social media, how can other museums use this model to further their own goals?

Certainly, insta-media has increased the demand for transparency. Last week, Tyler Green and Christopher Knight tweeted and blogged about the dubious ethics in a private sale of works of art at the Orange County Museum of Art. These exchanges led to a heated discussion of the readers of the respected entries, including people representing both sides of the argument, and lots of scrutiny at the museum. Did the museum miss a chance to lead these discussions in the first place?

The problems start when the institution places itself on these social media sites, but don’t seem ready to hear what their devoted fan have to say. Douglas McLennan, of  Diacritical says,

…traditional PR notices are not only ineffective in this new era of many-to-many communication, but can make things worse. And what might have been a real opportunity to meaningfully engage this community has been lost.

Can a museum be listening all the time? In the world of public relations and standards, the casual conversation style of the Facebook world must seem completely alien.

The voice of the audience has never been as available to museums as it is now. Museums small and large have been all over Facebook and Twitter, my social media outlets of choice, trying to add fans and establish a voice that is cohesive with the museum’s image. Let’s imagine there is a museum out there doing it all perfectly. They generate lots of discussion and suggestions from their core audience of loyal visitors and donors…. What now? This next step is crucial and the point of getting involved in social media in the first place, and it is up to each museum.  How and when is that museum going to listen?

It’s my hope that we will continue to see the flowering of visitors being welcomed into the museum conversation, worldwide, with social media just being an example of ways to welcome them into the rest of the practices in the institution. If we want the community to value our institutions, we can strengthen the relationship by showing how much we value them.

It had always been our goal to create a website that we could share. One that would bring Art content from different places and perspectives together, easily accessed and found. We’ve been lucky enough to work with the New York Public Library, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and Art21, with the promise of more content contributors & videos and a continued strive to improve the user experience by adding a slew of features over time.

The team that worked on ArtBabble spans many departments and areas of expertise, and external collaborators & partners. It’d be hard for me to articulate all aspects of this project. On ArtBabble, we pay a lot of attention to quotes and interaction. So I thought it’d be fitting to ask the crack team of art techies who have been working on this website what babbles they’d like to share. I’m not of fan of comment begging, but please leave your interesting tidbits here. Please, feel free to ask questions… we’ll answer them here as well.

Photo by gullevek via Flickr

Coincidentally, I also recently came across the USA National Phenology Network. Phenology (not to be confused with phrenology), is the study of phenophases (recurring plant and animal life cycle events). Whereas Weathernews was running the “My Sakura” project to collect data from citizen scientists, the NPN collects data from the public on a variety of species through the “My NPN” project. They do have a preferred set of “calibration species”, but their database includes dozens of species that can be tracked using the system. Because phenophases are sensitive to changes in climate, recording and studying phenological observations can reveal the ways in which our ecosystems change in response to global warming.

In addition to creating a massive dataset, this project is great for another reason. Maybe it’s just the scientist in me, but I get excited about going out and making the observations. I have two of the calibration species in my yard, and I’m starting to think of them as amazing organic instruments. In addition to the foliage and blossoms, there is a beauty to the unfolding growth process that I’m appreciating more by learning about the phenophases and making observations over the long term.

The convergence of nature, technology, and research in these projects is really quite remarkable. I hope that we see many similar efforts in the future.