Entertainment Designer: Virtual reality and augmented reality are helping organizations do everything from memorialize and mirror deceased relatives to transform the marketing process. These technologies have made their way into the museum world in a variety of ways, from guided tours to learning aids. The Smithsonian recently released its first virtual app that offers a unique twist on the typical museum tech story.
.jpg?itok=FR0y86UH)
13 comments:
I think it is really great that museums are utilizing the digital age by making apps for people to use throughout the museum but also in their own time. It gets art and history out into the eyes of younger kids who have grown up in a world where all they see is tv and games and not much more but making it accessible to them through their phones makes them learn more than they would if just hanging at home. However, this might become a problem because then why would people leave their house to see the art when they can get it on their phone at home? It is a brand new idea and it seems to be just in it’s testing phase but it could be a really good next step for museums to have a revamp and step into the new century. I wish though that in this article they would have explained how the app worked because it just talked about how it was good and not what it actually did.
I think that virtual reality exhibitions would be great for documentation. I love when museum catalogs have photos of the works, which I wouldn’t be able to see in person. For an installation or seeing the relationship of works in an exhibition, virtual reality would give the art a better sense of the physical space than a photo. When possible, I think a work should be appreciated in its intended context. That includes both how the curator exhibited the art and, more importantly, the location the artist imagined the work would be displayed. For a modern exhibition like Wonder, the artists intended their works to be in a museum with the viewer physically there to see the pieces. I just feel that there would be something missing from the virtual reality experience. Yes, large exhibitions are expensive and complicated, but those challenges make them unusual and remarkable.
I love this! I never thought that virtual reality could be used for something like prolonging museum exhibitions. I think that using this type of technology especially for installation art is extremely effective because installation art is about the space. If you were to use virtual reality tech on still paintings hung up on a wall, I don't think it would hold the same weight. This really excites me because there are so many installation artists whom I'm a fan of but whose exhibitions I cannot see due to restrictions of travel. This would expand the audience pool greatly and I think that it could really provide an accurate experience. My one quip about this is that while taking it in VR and seeing it that way is amazing, I wonder how truly accurate it would be. There is something peculiar about knowing something is actually physically inhabiting the space in front of you versus seeing it. I also would not want this to deter people from seeing the installations in real life because c'mon-- it'll always be better in real life. Anyway, all in all I'm intrigued to see where this leads!
The first thing that comes to mind while reading this article is the fact that this is great way to bring younger people into museums to experience art. when the Dali museum had an exhibit with Disney they set a virtual reality station the submersed the viewer into the Disney world, that proved to be wildly successful at the museum and brought in a younger crowd. i can also see this as a way to archive exhibits with just a few searches you may be able to see any exhibition held in that space and that seems super neat.
When I first read this article, I thought the title meant art based entirely around virtual reality, which caught my eye. And while it did cover this, the article was mainly talking about recreating former exhibits with VR devices. I personally have mixed feelings on this. While it allows more people to experience art that may be exhibited for a limited time, I also think it definitely takes away from that art. The artist did not intend for art to be viewed through a screen, no matter how close that screen is to reality, and I think it would definitely take away from that art if it were viewed that way. However, I think the idea of using VR devices to create art unique to that platform is really cool and innovative, and I would love to see an exhibition like that one day.
This article leaves me with mixed emotions. I love the idea of allowing patrons of museums to view many exhibits and art pieces that are no longer in the museum or were never there in the first place. This could be a huge step in creating further art availability in communities that do not always receive large traveling exhibitions of work. On the other hand though I question whether this takes the physical connection and the cultural element of going to see the art in a museum away from museum patrons. If we replace everything with virtual versions of itself then what is to stop patrons from simply googling a Van Gough or watching a youtube video of The Art Institute. I am all for technology advancement in the arts but I also feel that we are walking a thin line between advancement and replacement. If virtual reality is to be integrated into museums, art galleries and other institutions it should only be as supplemental information rather than a replacement of current exhibits and art.
I have yet to have a truly exciting VR experience, but maybe I haven't really sought them out. I just can't help but wonder if VR and AR are just the next 3d TV. More manufacturers and companies thinking they know exactly what consumers want next, and coming up short. But hey, I could totally be wrong. Technology is cool!
I do think this is a great idea, allowing museum exhibits to live on after they have been struck, allowing potential audience members to bypass the physical constraints on seeing exhibits. That being said, I wonder if the artistry of some exhibits will be dampened or otherwise damaged by a digital viewing. I think there is definitely a cost to be considered when migrating an experience from reality to VR. Again great idea, but I can't help but wonder about the actual execution. I guess I should download the WONDER app before passing any more judgement on this latest stab at VR entertainment.
I wasn't really a fan of the idea of VR in museum exhibits when I saw the title of this article. I believe that VR is sort of cheating the system when bringing the impossible or the unbelievable to the people. When art pops out at you and amazes you through the skillful execution by the artist, that feeling resonates much more with you than if the artist just designed it in a computer program and put a TV monitor over your eyes for you to see his creation.
I understand the defense that museums can't afford to keep exhibits up for too long and by converting them into a digital format, they can prolong the life of the piece. However, I believe that it won't really get them that much more publicity or popularity than having the real-deal there for you to see in person. Also, these documents might come in handy at some point but they're mainly just going to be sitting in cyberspace for years and years.
Yeah, I guess by putting a VR headset over your head and flicking through different art exhibits is a pretty cool thing to be able to do but it just won't have the effect that it would when it's up live.
I I think this is really cool and not cheating the system at all. A lot of modern museums are already incorporating media in their galleries, but this could bring digital art into the next level. Also, though I agree that a VR experience might not have the same resonance as seeing the art exhibit live, I think there is something to be said about accessibility. A lot of us here have the privilege to go see these museums, hell a lot of them are free thanks to our $65000 tuition to andrew, but many don’t have that privilege. To be fair a lot of people won’t have the privilege to have a VR device, but what if like public libraries let you tour the Museum of Modern Art through Virtual Reality! I’ve never been to the Moma, and I would love to see it even if it’s fake, digital reality.
I think this is a totally great advancement in VR applicability and also brings things like museums (a dying interest among my generation) into the 21st century, which is very important to a lot of audiences. I do not personally care for Virtual Reality in a space that is meant to be enjoyed with others (unless you came alone obviously). Wearing that headset limits you so severely, because you only see what they tell you to see and discover what they want you to discover. And quite importantly, you are NOT making these discoveries with the people you came with. It is my major argument for VR in theme parks and it is now my major argument here. By removing shared experience from public places, recreational spaces, or intellectual/artistic havens, we encourage people to experience within themselves and block out the people around them. We're in a time when empathy is almost more important than ever, and when we learn that it's okay to block others out and enjoy and experience on our own in a place full of people, we start to lose touch with each other. That's why I would suggest that if a museum wanted to implement new technology, they turn instead to Augmented Reality, which allows the user to see both the prescribed images as well as the real world. It's like an overlay of images over what you would normally see. This allows you to observe and experience with others while still adding a layer of enjoyment to the exhibit.
What I gathered from this is that VR will mainly help people who can't get to the museum be able to see the exhibits via VR. And, personally, I would love that. Not everyone can always travel to DC, or The Met to see a new exhibit that's coming that they would love. I would personally love to see the Fashion institute at The Met every time it has a new exhibit, but I can't get to New York, every single time, so all these exhibits, minus the smattering of photos online, are lost to me, and I'll never be able to see them again. If this app works the way I interpreted, I'll be able to see them in VR, via my phone, without even being in the proximity of the museum? If so, that's amazing.
Of course, it would never measure up to seeing art in real life, or any exhibit, really. But, for people who can't get there, its the closest thing. And I doubt it would detract from ticket sales, for that reason. If I were in New York, I would physically go. But since I'm not, I would never get the tickets to go either way. So really what it would be doing is broadening a museum's market and approachability. That way, you can get a taste with VR, and once they're there in real life, they can see the brilliance of the museum themselves.
Museums are definitely having to step up their game to keep people interested in walking around a building staring at different pieces from years past and some more current than others. In this day and age, when everyone is glued to a phone or computer, or even in your music, museums are trying to get people out of that void of desolation and solitude, and experience a more profound feeling that someone has created. While being able to look at something in real life, and then cast a glance into a virtual reality that can somehow warp the space you are in to totally bring about a whole new life into the heart of the museum. I was raised up a little old school, without being afforded the luxury of technology going to different places. My mom still enjoys the use of living hands free. Though there is something of an intrigue as to how adequate the use of space may be in a virtual setting.
Business owners looking to wow the crowds with their tradeshow designs should include custom tradeshow exhibits and more for major impact.
Virtual Reality Exhibit
Post a Comment