I am an educator in a large art museum in Toronto. For almost 10 years I
have been experimenting with the use of audio, computer and other
technologies in exhibits. My experience ranges from the
practical(including writing communication objectives, preparing
instructional designs, writing content and developing software), to
conducting audience research in the installations, to writing about the
theoretical issues of meaning-making in museums.  Personally, I feel
excited by the possibilities of using technology to do things that museums
have not been able to do well in the past, or to do things that museums
have not been able to do at all in the past (ie. exploring new roles and
potentials of the museum).  But I am clear that technology needs to be
seen as the servant to the experiences of users.
 
In my thinking on this topic, I continue to wonder how museum
professionals decide which worthwhile goals technology (particularly
computers, multimedia and networks) can serve effectively.  The current
trend seems to be towards extending the traditional authoritarian paradigm
of museums - that of the expert/novice.  In this scenario, the expert
museum uses technology to configure its knowledge in ways that are thought
to be interesting to users who are less knowledgeable. Although there is
an important role for the thoughtful, 'authoritative' perspective of the
museum expert, recent museological thinking (eg. as expressed in the AAM's
report "Excellence and Equity") suggests that these insights are not
sufficient. Rather, the real stuff of culture lives in the dynamics of
interaction between people, things and ideas.  Although many examples of
technology that have been developed for museums often have taken some
account of the need to make the programs pallatable and engaging for
people with different learning styles and backgrounds, and are often
designed to give the user the feeling that they have some control in the
learning process, I remain skeptical that the real potential of technology
has yet been tapped.
 
For some time, I have been thinking that museums often have more than
enough knowledge, and not enough wisdom to know what to do with it or to
see its limitations.  To me, if technology offers a real opportunity for
museums to become more relevant in our society, then this goal is more
likely to be achieved through an emphasis on communication and dialogue,
rather than on the transference of 'knowledge'.  Sure, it is important to
share whatever insights specialists acquire in the course of their work.
But the public has a great deal of personal insights into cultural objects
- insights that are beyond the reach of scholars.  I would like to see
technology used to facilitate multi-directional communication between
people about the living meanings of cultural collections and other
carriers of cultural identity.
 
The purpose of this note is to make contact with others who have an
interest in talking through some of these issues about the potential of
technology, and how we as museologists can best work towards optimizing
the potential.  If you have any thoughts, concerns, or experiences that
relate to this issue, I would like to hear from you.
 
Douglas Worts
Art Gallery of Ontario
Toronto, Canada
[log in to unmask]