Week 11 prompted questions regarding the digging exercise of our exhibition. The ‘real world’ nature of our projected prompted the use of interactive elements to engage audiences, but further than this, we needed to understand how to make the work more appealing.

Ha and Lim speak to the idea that touch helps to build emotional connections to somewhat distant information (Ha and Lim 2021). In building upon Condie and LoBrutto in week 9, having an interactive artwork will help viewers feel a likeness towards the information, hopefully strengthening the link between the Codans and Humans. And this particular will manifest in our sandbox as it not only invites touch, but unearths the story, symbolic of the purpose of the entire exhibition.

Ha and Lim also speak to the idea that the meaning of an interactive work is only produced when the audience provides the work with movement (Ha and Lim 2021), which I found provocative and enlightening. However, it reminds me semiotics, how the meaning is solely what the audience makes, meaning we can’t totally control the outcome or the readings of the media we produce.

And in this way, moving forward I seek to create jigs (Crawford 2015), or aesthetic/physical indicators of how the work should be read/interacted with to ensure that audiences are guided towards a particular knowledge outcome. This will be the focus of week 12.

~ 229 words

References 

Condie M, 2021 ‘Between the past and the present: Museums and the construction of history’, Teaching History Journal, vol 55, iss 1, pg 15-23

Crawford, M 2015, ‘The Jig, the Nudge, and Local Ecology’, The World Beyond Your Head: How to Flourish in an Age of Distraction, St Ives, Viking, pg 31–41 and 44.

LoBrutto P, 2008, ‘Science Fiction 101: Tips on creating an alternate world’, Madavor Media LLC, Braintree.

Ha, J & Lim, Y K, 2021, ‘Touch: Interactive Exhibition Using the Biometric Information of the Audience’, Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S. (eds), Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1420.