We
are in the process of developing a
scent interactive for an exhibition at our
museum. It will not be ambient,
because we want visitors to distinguish
between more than one aroma. We
hadn’t considered allergies and
sensitivities until this came up in the
discussion (which we are following with
great interest!). Our question is, if
we have a capped bottle for each scent
(probably a combination of essential
oils), clearly labeled with ingredients so
that people who might be sensitive
can avoid them, will the occasional
opening of a bottle in the gallery present
an allergy hazard? The approach we’ve been
considering has the advantage
of being low cost, easily customizable,
and very low tech.
Jennifer
Archivist,
Curatorial Assistant
Jewish Museum
of Maryland
15
Lloyd Street
Baltimore,
MD 21202
410-732-6400
x213
[log in to unmask]
Hi Faye,
I think one of the inherit issues with
scents in exhibits has to do with the
execution of the scent itself. I've seen
many interactives and ambient scents
in exhibitions that use essential oils and
other natural materials to produce
the scent. These are problematic for
several reasons, one of which is allergic
reactions. Other issues are the oils tend
to dry out and other natural
materials can decompose or begin to break
down, also causing problems. I
specifically
mentioned in my prior post Larane
Wasserman at Escential Resources because
her
method uses dry media and the scents are
synthetic thus avoiding the very
issues you bring up. Another advantage to
using synthetic scents is that the
scent is designed to bring out the
essential components that a guest would
associate with that smell or environment.
By approaching the smell this way,
one does not have to rely on the notion of
using a "strong" or
overwhelming scent in order to achieve the
desired effect.
In either case, I was also trying to make
the point that introducing ambient
scents such as those suggested by Caitlyn
in her original question, are often
better introduced as a contextual
"background" scent or combination
of scents as in Caitlyn's examples (in
this case a "strong scent"
would be overpowering), instead of the
guest having to engage in a contrived
interaction. As with any "interactive" I
would ask what is the
purpose and, why am I asking the guest to
engage in this activity? If the
activity is intended to draw the guest's
attention to specific characteristics
of a scent, to compare scents, or perhaps
the scent is undesirable (like
rotting meat), then the interactive makes
sense. If the scent is there to
provide context to a scene or theme, I
would go back to having it be an ambient
experience.
Best,
Larry
On 4/11/2012 1:00 PM, Faye Goolrick wrote:
We have done scent boxes (lift the lid) for children’s
museums, and they are always popular.
Strong scents work
best. One problem with having a
motion-activated or ambient scent
all the time is that these can be a
problem for people with allergies.
I’d be careful with this approach.
fg
Listserv members,
One thing to bear in mind is whether your
use of scents should be an
"interactive" experience such as that
described by Caitlyn and Jen,
or a passive experience where the scent(s)
are part of the exhibition
environment. I've found that it is often
much more effective to introduce
scent(s) into an experience and allow the
guest to "discover" them on
their own. The magic of unexpectedly
discovering the scent is much more
memorable than being directed to lift a
lid, push a button, etc. It is the
ultimate interactive experience.
There are times where scent on demand is
appropriate, for example when
comparing scents or calling attention to
specific attributes of a scent.
However, for my two cents worth, if you
are creating a scent as part of an
environment it is better to introduce it
naturally instead of by way of some
device simply for the purpose of having
another "interactive".
If you prefer not to introduce the
scent(s) when their are no guests in the
exhibition, simply utilize a motion
detector to trigger the scent dispersal
when a guest enters the space. Combined
with a timer, this method can also
prevent "over-introduction" of the scent
during peak visitation.
Larry Fisher
Planner, Designer, Imagineer
On 4/11/2012 10:41 AM, Jennifer L. Hart
wrote:
Caitlyn,
I’ve
seen this
done with an exhibit before and people
really liked it! It has to be something
that is fairly distinct, so when you go to
smell it you know it. If it’s
a smell where the person is not sure that
it’s working, then it kinda
loses the fun. They used small scent
bottles that were housed in boxes with a
lid over it; when you lifted the lid you
could smell what was inside.
Good
luck!
Jen
Hart
From:
Museum
discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
Behalf Of Caitlyn Perry
Dial
Sent:
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
9:29 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject:
[MUSEUM-L] Creating a
smell station for an exhibit
Fellow listserv
members,
I am interested
in creating a smell station for my
museum's next exhibit and I am wondering
what your experiences are in creating
them, the costs, reactions to them from
the public, or any related words of
advice for creating this type of
interactive. Would the smells need to be
refreshed over time? This station would
include smells relating the kinds found
in a Civil War camp and possibly a dry
goods store from the 1860s.
Thank you in
advance for your replies!
Caitlyn
--
Caitlyn Perry Dial
PhD Candidate
Department of History
Western Michigan University
[log in to unmask]
To
unsubscribe from the
MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To
unsubscribe from the
MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To
unsubscribe
from the MUSEUM-L list, click the
following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
To
unsubscribe from the
MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1