Tyler: Museums as “Laboratories of Change”

Museums as “Laboratories of Change” 

            Penz argues that 21st-century museums have become “laboratories of change” through their relationship with cinema. Audiovisual media and handheld devices are ubiquitous in the contemporary museum environment. This use of media not only attracts new visitors and facilitates different styles of learning/discovery, but it also points to the deep connections between museums and cinema. Both institutions developed in the Victorian era, struggled in the mid-20^th-century, and reinvented themselves in the 1980s (280). Today, museums like Louvre co-produce feature films. Such projects make museums “lively institutions” that are fully engaged in the art world (281). Through cinema, museums can maintain their relevance and encourage educational experiences, making them laboratories of creative, social change. 

            However, Penz also argues that the architecture and layout of a museum will affect the visitor’s experience, and thus the message they take away. Victorian buildings were designed to mimic theater or cinema by controlling the visitors’ gaze. This style, known as “promenade architecture,” was designed to be walked through from beginning to end, giving the viewer discreet pockets of interest (289). The art museum in my hometown of St. Louis is an excellent example of such a style, a beautiful building built for the 1904 World’s Fair. The halls are grand, wide, and marbled, designed to be walked through slowly as you admire the paintings that line the wall.

            Other museums opt for a “narrative” experience that the visitor follows from beginning to end. Although the visitors’ movements are carefully choreographed, the building is designed to give them information in increments and create affective experiences, typically through the use of audio-visual media (289). This reminds me of the Titanic Museum in Branson, Missouri (it’s delightfully tacky, yet somehow educational). Other museums are designed to encourage exploration. Rather than presenting a single narrative, small narratives are placed in discreet areas, allowing visitors to choose which parts of the museum they would like to explore. By presenting visitors with choices, such spaces create a “democratic interpretation of knowledge” (290). This type of museum reminds me of the “Pull of the Horses” exhibit at the library.

            In sum, the design and layout of an exhibit encourages viewing patterns and informs how the visitor may interpret information. However, I wonder if these styles can be combined. For example, could you create a narrative experience where there are key affective moments while also allowing for a “democratic interpretation of knowledge?” Additionally, what are the larger social/political consequences of a museum layout? For example, would a “democratically” designed layout encourage a sense of individual responsibility?