Working at the IMA for the past few weeks has only seemed to heighten this nagging observation I noticed years ago. There are two types of people when it comes to any, but especially, an art museum visit: those willing visitors and those who would simply rather not. Each side is a simple preference, like cats over dogs, or vanilla over chocolate, Cubs or Cardinals. The preference exists in our families and friends, each side representing itself at one time or another. But this ‘preference’ to go or not go visit an art museum, seems to be a bit of an annoying, elusive thing to solve or make sense of. I have rarely heard of a middle ground on the subject, nor experienced it, and it always seems to be people either do or do not want to go to an art museum. In a recent 4th of July adventure to St. Louis I experienced the two-sided argument once again.

As it was in Indianapolis, St. Louis’s July 4th was plagued with rain. I was visiting a close friend. As a good hostess, and to silence my references to the fact neither of us had been to the Saint Louis Art Museum, my friend allowed me to drag her to the museum to enjoy the soggy morning indoors. Needless to say my friend, a nursing major, is one person that definitely falls into the category of individuals who simply tolerates a trip to the art museum. But I wouldn’t classify a high risk cardio floor as my cup of tea either.

Anyway, as my friend zipped through the Impressionist galleries, I couldn’t help but notice a little girl, maybe five or six, whining about being wet and bored. (I can’t blame her; it was, after all, the 4th of July.) In her damp pink sweatshirt she miserably meandered around, until she spotted the three foot Degas bronze sculpture of a ballerina. She was instantly dragging her mother to the piece and slowly circling it, completely blank faced with awe and deeply fascinated with the work. At the back of the statue, she grinned and as she played with her own curls, quietly pointed out that the ballerina had a satin bow in her ponytail. After that she was nothing but cooperative smiles and continued her admiration of the works in the area. I expect she now will likely fall into the category of ‘willing visitor’ to art museums.

Edgar Degas, French, 1834–1917; Little Dancer of Fourteen Years, c.1880, cast c.1920; bronze, gauze, and satin; 38 1/2 x 16 1/4 x 13 3/4 in. (97.8 x 41.3 x 34.9 cm); Saint Louis Art Museum, Funds given by Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg 135:1956

So, what is it that makes people love or dislike the art museum experience? It’s a difficult question, seeing that everyone has their own preferences, and most are probably informed ones. For the little girl in St. Louis and me, it was a single piece of art that kept us coming back. Perhaps it is an engaging docent who can personalize the experience, making it a true learning and discussion process, or the use of something familiar during the experience, say technology for the younger generations.

The issue of engagement with these two types of preferences has made my internship so interesting. With the IMA’s vast offerings that combine history, design, art and nature, how can the experience on our campus continue to be defined as something beyond that of the average art museum? The idea of participation makes the art museum much more exciting, and one the IMA has, in the past, been challenged on. Art itself can speak, but how many people can hear it, understand it, or even find the right path to relate to it? The options to engage and encourage participation are going to distinguish the boring museum of the ‘I’d simply rather nots’ with the art museum of our contemporary society. People want things tailored to them, whether that means they’re spoilt and lazy, or simply need to be taught how to understand. The IMA should continue to develop our options and teach how to employ them, in order to achieve this understanding and connection to the preferences on each side. The many things available should ensure a participatory, enlightening experience on our campus, ones that are to focus on the viewer’s eye and the teaching moment of the 500 year old painting. To connect with art and the IMA there are many available options, but the new challenge is going to be developing these as preferences.

“This is really cool,” he said timidly, referring to the space. Daniel showed him the new animated trailer for ArtBabble, to which he replied, “That was not cool…I mean that was not long enough.” 

Another visitor asked if he could take a nap in the corner because he found the furniture and atmosphere so relaxing. It was a pleasure to watch kids, teens, parents and docents use the computers and ArtBabble video Web site as tools for learning and for fun.

This leads me to a larger question I’ve been asking myself (and some of you): What are the pros and cons of interactive games in art museums, and how far should we go with the concept? The Davis LAB doesn’t include games per se, but getting on a computer and exploring ArtBabble is, like a game, a lot of fun. For the purpose of this post, I’ll classify interactivity as anything from paper scavenger hunts to computer kiosks in the galleries. All these activities turn upside down the traditional museum experience of walking through galleries and looking at the art on the walls with an element of relational interactivity between the visitor and the art.

NPR recently explored the topic in a piece called “Interactive Games Make Museums a Play to Play”, by Elizabeth Blair, which highlighted the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Luce Foundation Center for an alternative reality game they created. A teacher I know testified that interactive games in museums prompted her students to look more closely at the artwork. NPR noted happiness, clear instructions, feedback, shared experience and being part of something bigger as benefits to interactivity.

I wonder if some museum visitors find interactive games disruptive or cause them to focus less on the physical art as they attempt to check off a work they just found through the interactive game and rush off to the next masterpiece. Should museums use interactive technology like video or audio tours as a revenue generator at the risk of taking attention away from the physical piece of art? Or is it our duty as museum professionals to ensure that the technology only enhances the connection? Are games a marketing tool to woo new audiences to art, or are they the future of art? I have heard the argument that “high brow” art clashes with “low brow” games. Do we need to be entertained at an art museum by something else, or do we go to let the art entertain us?