Technology Fatigue
in Digital Interactive
Exhibitions
Agathi Tsoroni
Visual Artist and Educator
The last two decades have seen the widespread
introduction of digital interactive exhibits in galleries
and museums. This has brought with it certain
expectations on the part of these institutions:
digital interactive exhibits are seen as being more
democratic than their analogue counterparts and
are expected to provide more open-ended
pedagogy, as they are understood to be aligned
with a postmodern understanding of the role of the
viewer/learner.1
On the other hand, some of the limitations of digital
interactive exhibits have been stressed in recent
research, including my own. These limitations
include: a repetitive visitor experience through the
use of similar interfaces for Human Computer
Interaction (HCI) – this was particularly true for
exhibits created in the first half of the 2000s; the fast
and ungraceful ageing of technological exhibits;
many operational problems, including the quality of
the screen display and the sturdiness of exhibits;
inflexibility in relation to the level of knowledge and
learning abilities of the users; and the heavy
regulation of visitor input.2 Moreover, some
researchers assert that the promise of
27
democratisation of art through the introduction
of the machine has not been fulfilled.3
However, the question of technology fatigue
is under-researched and under-theorised.
Technology fatigue occurs when visitors get so
familiar with using digital technologies in their
everyday life that the prospect of interacting with
them in the gallery ceases to be novel, interesting or
appealing. Technology fatigue can also occur when
the majority of exhibits in a gallery are computerbased.4 Technology fatigue is at least partly
responsible for the situation common in many
galleries and museums where visitors do not find
digital interactive exhibits interesting enough to
engage with. In 2004 the curator of education and
interpretation at the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham
maintained that “some people do not want to use
computers in the gallery after spending the day in
front of a computer in their office” and therefore the
Ikon did not make use of computers in its education
programmes. (Education Curator, Ikon. Personal
Interview, 7 June 2004) Research at the Science
Museum in London has also identified technology
fatigue among adult visitors.5
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions
28
The examples I have chosen to discuss are an
art institution (FACT in Liverpool) and a science
museum (Thinktank in Birmingham). I draw on data
from interviews conducted by myself with members
of staff from the education and exhibition
departments of both institutions. I also carried out
three full-day visitor observations on each site, and I
collected both internal and public documents, such
as the mission statement of the organisations, visitor
statistics, and visitor feedback. The research was
conducted between November 2006 and July 2007.
Thinktank, Birmingham
Thinktank opened in September 2001 and is
located in Birmingham’s Millennium Point. Thinktank
uses digital technologies extensively in its
exhibitions, and it is estimated by some of its staff
that up to eighty per cent of its exhibitions consist of
digital displays. However, Thinktank’s mission is not
directly connected to the use of digital technologies.
It is about ‘presenting science in context to make
sense to people… It’s for people to learn about
science in a familiar context.’ Thinktank intends to
provide a variety of visitor experiences in every
exhibition, including both digital and non-digital
exhibits. The use of digital technologies in the
exhibitions ‘is very important. It is part of providing
that range of balance of different experiences. And it
is about balance. You wouldn’t want entirely exhibits
based on multimedia and digital technologies; but
neither would we want ones that are all physically
hands-on’. (Exhibitions Manager, Thinktank.
Personal Interview, 20 March 2007).
However, Thinktank has been reducing the number
of digital interactives commissioned for each new
exhibition. In the Recycle! Exhibition, which opened
in February 2007, there was only one digital display,
called Find out More. This reduction is part of a
change in Thinktank strategy which has been
developing since it opened in 2001. The resident
scientist, who was responsible for commissioning
the Find out More exhibit, told me that more
consideration is now being given to how each
exhibit contributes to the learning aims of the
exhibition as a whole.
‘There was a phase a few years ago, when using
computers and multimedia was very fashionable.
And everyone was doing it as much as they could.
We’ve now learnt that, yes, computers and
multimedia are great, if they’re used appropriately.
They are not the solution or the answer to everything.
Some things are great when done on a computer,
but some things aren’t. So the way we prefer to do
things now is: ok, we want an exhibit to do this. We
want people to do this, we want people to learn this.
What is the best way of doing that? Is it a computer?
Is it something mechanical?…Is it something written?
Is it some role playing? We now think of that much
more. What do we want the visitor to get out of this
experience? What is the best way of us helping them
do that? So it might be a computer, and if it is a
computer it will be because we’ve decided that a
computer, or multimedia, is the best way of doing it.
But at the same time, if it is a mechanical exhibit, it’s
the same reason: we’ve decided that a computer is
not appropriate to do that’. (Resident Scientist,
Thinktank. Personal Interview, 21 May 2007)
It has been pointed out that the earlier approach –
‘this amazing technology exists, what should we do
with it?’– can result in some less than exciting
displays. ‘…we’ve probably got some here [laughs]
really dull, “so what?” exhibits, where you think,
“well, I’ve pushed a few buttons and it looks very
nice on the screen, but, you know…” [laughs]. I
could have read that information on a text panel.
You haven’t really gained from it.’ (Exhibitions
Manager, Thinktank, op. cit.)
Museums would benefit
from creating exhibits
designed to be flexible in
the sense that they could
support more developed
technology when it
becomes available.
Walter Benjamin in ‘The Author as Producer’
(1983) used the term ‘modishness’ to describe
how the new technologies of his era, namely
photography and film, were seen by artists and
critics as having an intrinsic and unquestionable
value. Any new technology tends to be seen in
this way. Benjamin proposed that, instead of
relying on the ‘naïve optimism’ of much media
practice, new technologies should be seen in
terms of their ‘technical innovation and
revolutionary use value’. Thinktank’s recent
strategy, in which digital interactives are only
one of a number of ways of promoting learning,
is in keeping with Benjamin’s views.
FACT in Liverpool
The Foundation for Art and Creative Technology
(FACT) started in 1988 as Moviola, an agency
dedicated to supporting video artists and showing
video installation art works. Its Director, Eddie
Berg, organised the first UK installation-based
festivals of video works. The festivals were called
‘Video Positive’ and were held biannually at
different locations in Liverpool. Moviola was
relaunched as FACT in 1997, and in 1998 it started
29
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions
30
to secure funds to create a building dedicated
to the exhibition of new media arts. The FACT
building opened in February 2003.
FACT has arguably the best known galleries for
exhibiting digital artwork in the UK. It organises
exhibitions of interactive and media arts, but it
does not hold a permanent collection. FACT aims
to be in the forefront of technology by exhibiting
innovative, cutting edge digital works, which would
not be shown in other mainstream art galleries.
FACT, like Thinktank, exhibits a large number of
digital interactives, and like Thinktank, FACT has
reached a point where some of its audiences do
not consider digital technologies to be intrinsically
interesting. The technologies themselves may no
longer be ‘new’, as people are very accustomed to
seeing computer and television cameras in their
everyday lives. Although both institutions have
noted the waning of interest in digital interactives,
FACT and Thinktank have adopted different
strategies for combating technology fatigue.
Strategies and the need for research
In my research I have encountered two strategies
for combating technology fatigue. The first is to limit
the digital interactive offer in the galleries, and the
second is to invest in the creative use of more
cutting edge technologies. Thinktank has opted for
a strategy of reduction. Digital technologies will be
used only when they are deemed the best way of
realising the aims of an exhibition. FACT, on the
other hand, has opted for innovation, investing in
research in more cutting edge technologies, and
finding ways of being creative with them. This might
mean experimenting with different interfaces
without keyboard and screens, with biotechnologies
or other innovations which are being developed.6
Thinktank’s collection is primarily a permanent one
whilst FACT has no permanent collection. This
might affect the kind of strategies they adopt.
Another factor, which was beyond the scope of my
own research, may be the content of the exhibits –
scientific subjects as opposed to contemporary art.
This might be a fruitful area for further research.
Although technology fatigue has been observed
anecdotally by museum professionals, it has been
given very little theoretical consideration.7 For
example, more research needs to be done into
attitudes toward digital interactives in different age
groups. In 2007, an exhibition officer at Urbis in
Manchester suggested that younger visitors in
particular, coming from schools very reliant on
computers, might welcome non-digital exhibits in
the galleries. Thinktank maintains that older visitors
do not use digital interactive exhibits in the galleries
because they are not computer literate, or are afraid
of the technology. The underlying assumption is that
the more familiar they became with digital matters,
the more interested older people would be in digital
exhibits. This is at odds with the emerging research
which suggests that interest declines with greater
familiarity. It is yet to be shown whether, or to what
degree, what is being observed in the older age
group is due to unfamiliarity and fear, or to
overfamiliarity and fatigue, or to other factors as
yet unformulated.8
As technologies become more affordable,
museums will no doubt be more prepared to
replace or experiment with them. I believe that
museums would benefit from creating exhibits
designed to be flexible in the sense that they could
support more developed technology when it
becomes available. An example is the proposed
exhibition at The Public, where exhibits would
change with every visitor’s interaction.9 It is hoped
that visitors will find something new and interesting
every time they visit the gallery.
It is clear that sustained and long-term research is
needed into the causes and symptoms of
technology fatigue and the strategies for combating
it. Such research would inform future exhibition
planning, by indicating not only the optimal number
of technological pieces in a given exhibition, but
also the kinds of technologies (if any) which are likely
to generate ongoing interest in the audience.
Notes
1 See Rush (1999), Graham (1997) and Tsoroni
(2008) for an account of the pedagogical
expectations for interactive exhibits.
2 Refer to Tsoroni (2008) for an analysis of the
limitations of digital interactive displays.
3 Both Grau (2003), and Meecham and Sheldon
(2005) maintain that digital interactive exhibits are
31
not more democratic than their analogue
counterparts.
4 See Gammon (1999) for an account of visitors’
technology fatigue at the London Science Museum.
5 Ibid.
6 There has been a recent increase in the exhibition
of biologic art, or bio-art, in art galleries and
museums. The forms of expression of bio-art are
many, ranging from bank notes and stamps to
works of art such as electronic games, music,
paintings, sculpture and tapestries (DaSilva 2004).
Bio-art reinforces science, helps in engendering
public awareness of biotechnologies, and is of value
in the social interpretation of the advantages and
limitations of biotechnologies. Moreover, bio-art
provides an aesthetic appreciation of scientific
research (Ibid).
7 Gammon (1999, 2002) has been, to the best of
my knowledge, the only researcher who has
theorised this notion.
engage 24 Technology Fatigue in Digital Interactive Exhibitions
32
8 Gammon (1999), discussed in Hornecker and
Bartie (2006).
9 The Public (formerly Jubilee Arts) was established
in West Bromwich, West Midlands in 1974. A
decision to create its own purpose-built building
was taken in the late nineties. A four-floor exhibition
space would show all newly-commissioned, digital
interactive exhibits in the heart of the new building.
The Public aimed to create digital interactive works
which would simultaneously be independent
artworks and would also provide visitors with active
learning opportunities (The Public, c.2004). The
Public went into administration in March 2006. Its
successor The Public Gallery opened briefly in late
June 2008.
References
Benjamin, W. (1983) ‘The Author as Producer’.
In Understanding Brecht. London: Verso.
DaSilva, E. (2004) ‘Art, Biotechnology and the
Culture of Peace’. In Electronic Journal of
Biotechnology, Vol. 7, No.2.
Gammon, B. (1999) ‘How Do Visitors Use
Computer Exhibits? http://www.big.uk.com/
knowledgebase/exhibits/computer_based_
exhibits_v1.htm (accessed 20/08/2008).
Gammon, B. (2002) ‘Advice on How to Develop
Visitor-friendly Computer Exhibits, or Seven
Gruelling Years of Watching Angry Visitors’. Visitor
Research Group: Science Museum, London.
Graham, B. (1997) ‘A Study of Audience
Relationships with Interactive Computer-based
Visual Artworks in Gallery Settings, Through
Observation, Art Practice, and Curation’. PhD
thesis: University of Sunderland.
Grau, O. (2003) Virtual Art: From Illusion to
Immersion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hornecker, E. & Bartie, P. (2006) ‘Technology in
Tourism: Handheld Guide Systems and Museum
Technologies’. http://www.hitlabnz.org/
publications/2006-TR-HandheldGuidSystemsand
MuseumTechnologies.pdf. Accessed 23/07/08.
Meecham, P. & Sheldon, J. (2005) Modern Art:
A Critical Introduction. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rush, M. (1999) New Media in Late 20th Century
Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
The Public. (c.2004) ‘The Gallery as an Alternative
Learning Environment.’ Unpublished internal
document. West Bromwich: The Public.
Tsoroni, A. (2004) ‘Constructivism in Museum and
Gallery Education.’ Unpublished MA Thesis:
Birmingham City University.
Tsoroni, A. (2008) ‘An Extended Investigation into
the Educational Offers made by Digital Interactive
Exhibits, the Sustainability of these Approaches,
and their Capacity to Provide Novel Experience.’
PhD Thesis: Birmingham City University.
Images in order of appearance
1 Installation shot from Recycle!, Thinktank,
Birmingham, 2007. The Find out More kiosks are
seen on the bottom right of the photograph.
23/05/07.
2 Screenshot of Find out More. Thinktank,
Birmingham, 23/05/07.
3 David Rokeby. Very Nervous System. 1986-2004.
Digital interactive installation, dimensions varied.
Installation image from the exhibition at FACT,
Liverpool. ©FACT