Subscribe to Comments for this Post 
Editors Note: For the Museum Computer Network Conference in 2011 Neal Stimler, Associate Coordinator of Images at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, placed a call for a crowdsourced panel. Panelists submitted responses from an open call to the community of professionals in archives, libraries, museums and universities as they reflected on the barriers and benefits of implementing digital humanities methodologies in museums. Stimler instructed participants to make their own YouTube video answering the following three questions:
1) How can museums advance beyond the continuation of traditional practices utilizing digital tools to a new mode of interpretation that seeks to understand the meanings of collections and scholarship in a new media culture?
2) What is required of museums to establish digital humanities research centers within the framework of existing institutions?
3) Why might interdisciplinary and non-traditional scholars from outside the established professional ranks make the best leaders needed for inspired change in the philosophical directions of museums?
You can address your comments and critiques to an individual video or to the questions raised by the panel.
Name: Nik Honeysett
Title: Head of Administration
Organization: J. Paul Getty Museum
Name: Michael Edson
Title: Director of Web and New Media Strategy
Organization: Smithsonian Institution
Responses to Nik Honeysett from YouTube
- I like the international aspects, training, education. Now junior curators are teaching senior curators, so true. The hard economic times might create more innovation. Good video. I agree with the content here, with his message. (annettestr1 2 months ago)
- I love Nik’s anecdote at 2:21 about the change from senior curators teaching junior curators about centuries of tradition to junior curators teaching senior curators about “what it is to live in this world of user generated content, dialogue, interpretation and storytelling…” (mpedson 3 months ago)
Response to Michael Edson’s video:
Overall, this is a very effective approach to the questions posed by the session, in that it demonstrates, quite deftly, the ease with which new media can upend traditional thought processes. There is no small irony in the fact that a conference session which seeks to learn how museums can “advance beyond the continuation of traditional practices utilizing digital tools,” has instructed participants to do just that–a video recording of a talk, posted on YouTube. This piece both calls attention to this matter and comments on the nature of the questions being asked.
The video brings the discussion back to its roots, by taking the imposed questions from the practical to the philosophical (as per the session title, “Philosophical Leadership Needed for the Future: Digital Humanities Scholars in Museums”), and makes a compelling case for radically re-imagining museums in a digital age. In effect it answers question three by pointing out the enormous gulf between traditional (dare I say elite?) museum culture and the DIY nature of participatory culture and new media, as evidenced by the contrast between an academic discussion at a conference and someone brushing aside scattered receipts from a workspace in order to create a project. That is, museums must involve individuals outside the traditional curatorial sphere to embrace new media culture for the very fact that new media is partly defined by its participatory nature and the democratization of cultural production.
The use of analog tools (paper printouts, marker, and scissors) to re-mix the session’s original questions further suggests that digital tools in and of themselves are not enough to bridge this gap between cultures. Museums need to revisit their raison d’etre and re-evaluate their role before they can effectively address how to approach new methods of interpretation. The key question posed by the piece, then, is, “Can museums understand culture without new media?”
Despite the overall success of the format in advancing Edson’s argument, I do want to call into question one moment in the video. The transformation of “Question 2” to read simply, “What is required of museums?” is, as I understood it, to lead us to contemplate the purpose or role of museums in society. As discussed above, in order to answer whether or not there is a place for the digital humanities in museums we first need to answer what it is that we want museums to do. Yet, there is a utilitarian connotation to asking what is “required,” such that it has the potential to elicit a “Nothing!” response. Or, one might say that conservation is all that is *required*, and that interpretation is a value-added service. I wonder if this is really the question that Edson wishes to ask, or if his discourse is being limited by the constraints of his conceit. Might not a more precise question be, “What is *desired* of museums?” This could invoke viewers to imagine new possibilities (looking forward) instead of recalling core functions (looking past). It is here that one must ask whether form is dictating content, and if so, to what end?
I found this post very interesting for several reasons. First of all, I think it’s great that the author requested that the questions should be answers with videos. Right from the beginning he made the panelists use digital tools. On the other hand I think that the 2 videos posted by the panelists reflect part of the different positions about digital humanities in museums.
Nik Honeysett started saying “We can’t fix digital problems using analog thinking…” but in a way that’s what he does in his video. His answers are based on the importance of physicality of the museum and art itself and the awareness of the relevance of the digital “stuff”. Even thought we can recognize why the physicality is such a big issue, it also reflect that the institutional priorities of those museums, are collection driven instead of audience focused. The main example of collaboration that he mentions is when he said that nowadays the senior curators of the museums are learning from junior curators. The mention of such a thing, points out the rigid structured of museums that promote single visionary leaders instead of shared vision leadership. I would have liked to hear more suggestions of possible outcomes.
The two videos have very different approaches to the questions. In the first one we can see a close up shot of the panelist. We could think that he is making an effort to do something different that just answering the questions with words, as he uses visual elements such as a very familiar logo and a picture of Einstein. Even thought we can recognize the attempt of brining different sources to the conversation, they don’t add anything.
In the second video we can see a very different approach from Michael Edson. Inside the questions he finds the answers; which in this case, are more questions. He breaks all the rules of a “question-answer” situation. He uses a bird eye shot where we only see the pieces of paper with the questions; we never see his face or hear his voice. He crosses out words of the questions as he elaborate some kind of collage with new interrogates.
It’s interesting to see how the panelists answered. The first one tried to bring outside elements such as images and a quote while the second one answered the questions from the inside of the questions themselves.
I would like to see more of these panelists’ videos because they mirror the controversy and challenges that the museums are facing in the digital humanities. Paola Antonelli says that “Many people think that technology is a problem in that it dehumanizes people. And, instead, I think it’s a great thing because it humanizes objects.” So, my question would be, how with the use of technology we can humanize museums?
I agree with my above peers, these questions and video response posts are interesting and they demonstrate the dual interpretation one might choose when using media. On one hand we see the questions being answered head on via video by Nik Honeysett and on the other hand we see the text being transformed, edited and presented before our eyes by Michael Edson. While I thoroughly enjoyed the creativity behind Edson’s version, and I certainly saw the symbolic use of his media encased speechless approach, I also felt as though I wanted some more detail in his responses beyond more questions, in this I am in full agreement with Luisina. His list of questions were as follows:
-Can museums understand new media?
-Can museums understand culture without new media?
-What is required of museums?
-Might scholars change museums?
-Who might change museums?
I want to address “Question 1” which read, “How can museums advance beyond the continuation of traditional practices utilizing digital tools to a new mode of interpretation that seeks to understand the meanings of collections and scholarship in a new media culture?” Edson’s final question was, “who might change museums?” which (while I hate to answer a question with another question) I believe is key. Opening access to contributors outside of high institutional positions will provide a fresh perspective, additionally these ‘others’ my lead them in directions that could benefit future curatorial endeavors. In this another question is posed, Can these people at the top of the curatorial throne release control from their authority-centric platform? My personal belief is yes, because the futures of their jobs depend on it.
Additionally, I am pleasantly surprised to have read an article printed a couple of years ago in the New York Times Art & Design section where the above Mr. Edson was quoted on making a mission shift, “that recognizes the importance of distributive knowledge creation.” (to read this article click Here ) He was commenting in response to the Smithsonian Commons initiative to foster new types of interactions that include their web audience and, “let[s] visitors download, share and remix the museum’s vast collection of public domain assets. Using the new tools, Web users should be able to annotate images, create personalized views of the collection and export fully licensed images for use on their own Web sites or elsewhere.”
In the end these changes should not only be trickling from the top down, it will be a collaborative effort on all sides reaching beyond the museum walls and empowering museum guests. The technological future is not the way of tomorrow it’s actually happening right now, live and direct. As Mr. Honeysett quoted from the almighty Apple, we must “think different” or as Mr. Einstein said,“we can’t solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”