Augmented Realities in Art Museums From the Written Word to the Digital Experience

(1)

Heritage Studies: Museum Studies University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bram Kempers Madeleine Elizabeth Turner

10

(2)

Technology has become part of our everyday lives and has increasingly become part of other industries. Today, technology finds itself in the heritage sector, a field that was once considered the most private of sectors. While some cultural institutions have welcomed the change and used it to their advantage, many institutions still lag behind in adapting to social needs. Augmented reality and virtual reality are technologies that are central to the discussion as they are believed to have emerged from digital

innovations in the entertainment industries. While Science museums adapted more quickly, art museums have been slower to change. This study focuses on art institutions that have incorporated these technologies as a way to teach audiences’ about Art History. Furthermore this study takes a historical point of view, looking at the development of the Museological and Art Historical fields as having already incorporated Augmented Experiences in their presentation and narration.

50

55

(5)

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Bram Kempers for his guidance and flexibility that has allowed me to gain experience in the museum field whilst finishing my thesis. His ideas and constructive feedback have been of great contribution to the writing process of this Master’s thesis. I would also like to acknowledge my second reader, dhr. Drs. D.J. Dos Elshout for taking the time to read my thesis.

I would also like to thank Joel Kremer, Museum Director, from The Kremer Museum for welcoming my interview questions and Emma Lewis, Assistant Curator to the Tate Modern’s Modigliani exhibition for inviting me to a special talk where I could gather information for my case study on The Ochre Atelier.

Finally I would like to thank my family and Matthew Vine for their support.

65

70

75

(7)

(8)

INTRODUCTION

Art museums have come a long way since their first appearance as private collections. The development of private collections into today’s art museums serving the public are linked to the developments in societies. Museums have gone from serving an elite minority within societies, to being widely accessible both geographically and

demographically. Although this shift in availability came much earlier in time, technological innovations have played a significant role in making collections more accessible to broader types of audiences.

The roots of today’s museums can be traced back to the Grecian word mouseion, which describes a place dedicated to Muses and the female personifications of dance, music and literature. The mouseion was a space reserved for learning, with books on display, categorised systematically. While the mouseion attached to the Lyceum of Aristotle in Athens could be considered the first museum, the earliest mention of a mouseion refers to the Ancient Egyptian Library of Alexandria. Overtime, museums have had to adapt to changes in societies. Today in the 21st_{century, museums are}

undergoing another key transformation through digitisation. Contemporary museums are adapting to societies’ dependency on technology. While technology is no longer a new phenomenon in museums, with technologies first making their way into

museums in the 1950s, a new technological innovation that has caused vibrant discussion in the museum field is the digital augmented experience.

Over the last few years, augmented reality and virtual reality have become an area of fascination for many industries. The technologies have been used in several

disciplines, including in gaming to heighten user experience of virtual worlds, architecture as a new method for designing, and in medicine as a method for therapy and many others. Although these technologies are regarded to have only recently made their way into museums, these concepts have existed in museology since the beginning of practices in the field. While augmented reality and virtual reality are usually regarded as technological innovations that have only recently been developed in the 21st_{century, these concepts have been around for much longer and visibly so in}

the museum field. It is their digital form however, that has received criticism in the museum world. Previously, arguments have been made that augmented reality

85 90 95 100 105 110

(9)

technologies distract and interfere with the visitor’s learning experience in museums, however augmented reality has been embedded in museum practice since its

inception.

Today, augmented reality and virtual reality are perceived as digital technologies that combine the physical and virtual worlds, by elevating one, or many, of the human senses. Visual and auditory are the two aspects of digital augmented experiences most commonly found throughout all types of museums, where digital technologies have been used to enhance the visitor’s understanding of objects. Despite the commitment of these technologies to promote a learning experience in the museum, digital

augmented experiences have been met with criticism in the museum field as they have been deemed ‘distracting’ and ‘untrustworthy’, especially in art museums. The basis for this argument however is highly outdated, viewing museums as private institutions with its only function being of pedagogic value. Art too brings in a heightened

position, as art has come to signify power, status and taste in society. Therefore, understanding and appreciating art too must be of done in a manner that reflects the above. Digital augmented experiences fall into the category of entertainment and therefore cannot, and should not, be related to the learner experience in museums. Yet augmented reality is present throughout museum practice.

While the use of digital augmented experiences in museums has gained momentum over the last few years, there are still relatively few studies that explore the history of these augmented experiences in museums. In order to understand the position of these digital augmented experiences in art museums, augmented reality must be viewed as a pre-existing notion in the museum and not solely as a product of technological

innovation. By approaching museum practice in art museums in such a manner, it becomes easier to accept the shift in museum practices towards the inclusion of digital technologies into museums’ repetoire of learning tools. Futhermore, viewing the field in this manner, digital augmented experiences can be considered to be providing visitors with real and authentic experiences.

In order to demonstrate how digital augmented experiences should be considered beneficial to the art museum experience, Chapter One gives a historical overview of museum practices. Borrowing from Kathleen Christian Wren, the beginnings of museum practice will be considered as isolated incidents. Beginning with the oldest museum, considered to be Hellenistic Egypt’s Library in Alexandria, Chapter One discusses the concepts that have been behind the shaping of collecting and displaying

115 120 125 130 135 140 145

(10)

objects. The Villa Medici, the Papal Belvedere and the Capitoline collections are also considered to be pioneering examples of the beginning practices of contemporary museums. Chapter One also discusses the changes in how meaning is made and dessiminated in museums. Focusing on what is said and how it is said, Chapter One begins by using Michel Foucault’s approach of the episteme to highlight the changes in dynamics between the visitor and the museum in the creation of knowledge in museums throughout time. Chapter One ends with how technology has been

introduced into museums to dessiminate knowledge and to create a two-way learning system.

Chapter Two introduces the first uses of technology in museums. Starting with the Dutch museum of contemporary and modern art and design, the Stedelijk Museum, Chapter Two looks at the different uses of technology in museums so far. Chapter Two specifically looks at how major art institutions across the world have used technology to engage and attract their visitors. Chapter Two then goes on to discuss the most recent developments in technology that have made their way into

institutions: digital augmented realities. Chapter Two offers an introduction to digital augmented realities by defining the terms., and continues by goes considering the evolution of digital augmented realities, in order to give contextual background of the subject.

Chapter Three presents chosen case studies for the purpose of this paper, to illustrate the similarities between traditional and digital exhibition tools, and to highlight the pre-existing nature of augmented reality in the museum field. The Kremer Museum wil be compared to the Rijksmuseum, the Tate Modern’s The Ochre Atelier with the Francis Bacon Studio at Hugh Lane Gallery and WeARinMoMa with the art group Apostrophe’.

Chapter Four opens up the dicussion by considering museums as always having been an experience. Borrowing from concepts from the likes of Carol Duncan, Johan Idema and Stephanie Moser, the museum is discussed as an experience – and a changing one. Museums were first regarded as temple-like institutions, a place requiring a ‘white cube eitquette’, and places where authentic objects could be discovered inside. Chapter Four then discusses what theorists Pine and Gilmore call the ‘experience economy’ and what is meant by an authentic experience. Museums today are competing for visitors’ attention. However, it is the way they have been competing, by turning the museum into an attractive experience to the 21st_{century visitor that is}

150 155 160 165 170 175 180

(11)

of issue to many. Chapter Four compares the case studies in Chapter Three to demonstrate their similarities and to further show that, in fact, the museum and its objects have always been visited through augmented experiences. Chapter Four then concludes with the blurring of boundaries and shifting conceptions of museum functions.

Chapter Five offers a conclusion, having identified digital augmented realities as efficient methods of communication in creating and dessiminating knowledge in the museum. It also discusses the limitations of this study and provides areas for further enquiry.

CHAPTER 1 - MUSEUM HISTORY: COLLECTIONS AND MEANING-MAKING,

ISOLATED INCIDENTS IN TIME

Museums are often discussed in terms of their function or type. What all museums share however, is the intention to make objects fully legible to the present day

audience, with regard to how an object is experienced and understood.1_{It is important}

to note that art history as a discipline has been ancillirary to the developments in

1 Preziosi, Donald. Art, Art History and Museology. Museum Anthropology (1996), 7. 185 190 195 200 205 210

(12)

museological practices.2_{Changes to the discourse in art history have been mirrored in}

museum practice. Concepts such as art as history, aesthetics, stylistic features, anthropology, meaning-making and interpretation, authorship and identity and globalisation have led to changes in museum practice, notably in how objects are collected and presented.

Today, museums can be defined as operating in the service of society and its developments3_{. Open to the public, museums acquire, conserve, research,}

communicate and exhibit heritage for the purpose of education, study and enjoyment.4

While changes in museum practices have developed in parallel with changes to the discourse in art history, the museological field has tried to place the origin of museums. In particular, the field has been concerned with placing the first time objects were collected and presented to the public for the purpose of learning and enjoyment. One view suggests that the history of collecting should be regarded as a series of isolated incidents.5_{While the collections of the 15}th_{century cardinals and}

popes have long dominated discourse in the museum field as the first collections to be presented to the public, an institution from the ancient world suggests that the

museum can find its roots as far back as the Egyptian Hellenistic period.

The museum can be traced back to the Greek word mouseion, a “shire to the Muses, the female personifications of dance, museum and literature.”6_{The mouseion attached}

to the Lyceum of Aristotle presents itself as the beginning of museums, as it marked a major development in the ancient Greek world as a place for the Muses, teaching and debate.7_{Its successor, the Library in Alexandria in Egypt, has however been}

recognised as the first mouseion for its description in the early texts of the Roman Imperial Period by Strabo, which gives a suggestion as to function and what the mouseion might have looked like.8_{Unlike museums today, the mouseion in}

Alexandria resembled more of a library, as it was only concerned with one object: the

2 Preziosi, Donald. Art, Art History and Museology. Museum Anthropology (1996), 5-6. 3 ICOM. “Museum Definition.” Accessed November 2018.

4 Ibid.

5 Wren Christian, Kathleen. “Introduction” in Empire Without End. (2010) 2. 6 University College London.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/museum/museum3.html

7 University College London. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/museum/museum3.html

8 University College London. “Hellenistic Egypt: the Alexandria Museum.” Accessed July 2018. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/museum/museum3.html 215 220 225 230 235 240 5 10

(13)

book. Its educational value was of more importance than its public display.9_The

mouseion in Alexandria was not publicly accessible site as it was part of the Royal Quarters, it consited of a paripaton, seating chamber (exedra) and a large dining-hall for the men who participated in learning at the mouseion.10_{While there is little}

information on the mouseion, it can be deduced that its space was reserved for a special kind of education, with its content systematically organised for perusing. Museums today can be connected to the practices of the mouseion in Alexandria by its use of systematic organisation and its pedagogic functions. The mouseion in

Alexandria became an example for educational practice in institutions. Yet despite the mouseion in Alexandria being one of the earliest examples of museum practice, the lack of evidence and information on the mouseion have led many scholars to acknowledge the 15th_{century collections of cardinals and popes as the beginning of}

museological displays.

The Papal Belvedere, the bronze scupltures of the Capitoline and the 15th_century

Villa Medici, are considered to be the first known ‘museum’ collections to be publicly displayed, and from which the modern museum has grown.11_{The first public}

‘museum’ therefore considered is the collection of the ancient bronze sculptures at the Palace of the Conservators on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.12_{The collection was gifted}

to the city by pope Sixtus IV in 1471, for the general public to admire. The objects were displayed in relation to each other, designed to inspire patriotism.13_However,

despite their purpose for public display, their placement in the Papal Belvedere gardens sometimes meant access was restricted, as although the collections were owned by the city, the gardens belonged to the Church.14

Perhaps a more suitable example is the construction of the Villa Medici. The Villa Medici is considered to be one of the earliest examples of public museum practice to arise in Europe.15_{The construction of the Villa Medici arose from a major political}

decision and a new form of power.16_{The Villa Medici is comparable to modern day}

museums as it presented a combination of subjects, objects, spaces and practices that

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

12 Thomson de Grummond, Nancy. “Museum” in Encyclopedia of the History of Classical

Archeology. (1997), 781.

13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.

15Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The first museum in Europe?” in Museums and Shaping Knowledge. (1992), 23. 245 250 255 260 265 15 20

(14)

had not yet been exercised any place else.17_{Its ostentatious displays represented}

culture and connoisseurship, highlighting the economic power of the Medici family, one of the most powerful merchant families in Florence, Italy at the time.18_{The Villa}

Medici was, and still is, a collection of expensive goods and elaborate spaces, designed in such a way that made narrated subjects of the collections by organising them into displays.19_{Designed as what is now recognized as characteristics from the}

Renaissance period, its grandeur, use of exterior decorative motifs, and its richly decorated and extending galleries, encouraged contemplation and played a part in contributing to the understanding and organising of the Villa Medici’s collections.20

The Villa Medici put on display the power and wealth of the family to the rest of the world through its collections. It is believed that the Villa Medici came to be seen as a model for the future of collections and political displays of wealth.21_{While the Villa}

Medici can be considered to have originally been a way of displaying wealth and connections, it became a way of showing how knowledgeable society was at the time, displaying intellectual dominance.22_{The collection was made up of objects bought,}

exchange or won.

These collections arose out of a cultural shift, redefining antiques as collectable art objects rather than just building materials. This shift in material value is known as antiquarianism.23_{The objects collected in these collections provided evidence of an}

intellectual turn towards the need to preserve and study objects.24_{Antiquities of}

considerable value were removed and replaced in a new context within elaborate displays made by collectors.25_{These collections became praised for their cultural,}

historical and aesthetic value, with their collectors honoured for their re-assembling of the objects within purposely built display spaces that made them both accessible to the wider public and protected them from further decay.26_{While preservation was the}

16 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The first museum in Europe?” in Museums and Shaping Knowledge. (1992), 24.

17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

21 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The Palace of the Prince” in Museums and Shaping Knowledge. (1992), 48.

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.

24 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “What is a Museum?” in Museums and Shaping Knowledge. (1992), 8. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 270 275 280 285 290 25 30

(15)

main effort of these collections, they showed interest, knowledge and wealth, putting a carefully constructed image of the self on display.27

Museums are also thought to find their roots in the collections of 16th_{century cabinets}

of curiosities. Some consider the French Revolution to be an isolated incident in museology, for it was during this time that major private collections of cabinets of curiosities were turned into public art museums, specifically the Louvre.28₁₆th_century

collections stemmed from a growing interest in the natural world and man made objects.29_{Species of all kinds were collected, preserved and displayed in cabinets}

around rooms of stately homes. Objects were collected and displayed so that the wealthy could show off their travels by ‘mapping the world.’ While the concept of ‘working collections’ of these cabinets of curiosities is still present in museum practice today, the move away from the personal interests of collectors of the 15th

century Italy, towards public education, marked a radical change to museum

programmes.30_{Collecting practices and subjects positions were reconsidered to show}

evidence of political virtue.31_{Public collections previously signified governments’}

power in leading citizens, however the museum of the 16th_{century indicated a change}

in the socio-political and cultural mentality of society. The museum presented an all encompassing experience of the world through its presentation of its collections, mapping objects collected from visits across the globe, presented in lavishly decorated galleries built especially for their display. Objects were arranged according to their visual factors, including by circumference, height, weight, colour and geometries.32

This method of organisation and presentation of objects provided an augmented understanding of the world, presenting them with real-life objects of places they perhaps would never visit. This organisational style of museum objects persisted until the end of the mid-ninteenth century.

At the end of the 19th_{century, during the period known as the modern period,}

museology saw another social shift in collecting and presenting.33_{Museums practice}

in the 19th_{century assumed that a “walk through the museum galleries would result in}

27 Wren Christian, Kathleen. “Introduction” in Empire without End. (2010), 5. 28 Duncan, Carol “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship,” (1991), 92.

29 Thomson de Grummond, Nancy. “Museums” in Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archeology. (1997), 781.

30 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The Disciplinary Museum” in Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. (1992), 167.

31 Duncan, Carol “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship,” (1991), 92.

32 Suderburg, Erika. “Introduction: On Installation and Site Specifity,” ed. Space, Site, Intervention.

Situating installation art (Minneapolis: University of Minnestoa Press, 2000), 7.

295 300 305 310 315 320 35 40

(16)

learning.”34_{Museum displays in the 19}th_{century focused on the concept that}

collections could “speak to the eyes”, allowing visitors to explore by looking rather than reading labels and wall texts.35_{Like the earlier collections of the 15}th_century,

aesthetics dominated the 19th_{century, however they were also concerned with}

mapping the world. Collections of the 19th_{century aimed to unify, rationalise, picture}

and present relationships by depicting reality, and showing things the way they are in a neutral way, unlike previous collections showing wealth.36₁₉th_{century museums}

aimed to merge knowledge and education in a controlled environment, and

furthermore implement a sense of governmental power.37_{Objects were therefore used}

to show governmental strength, displaying victories by mapping territories that had been conquered, as well as providing audiences with a sense of the world.38 _{Whilst this}

type of ‘top-down’ communication model remained throughout most of the twentieth century,39_{curators were recongised as the content providers in charge of}

disseminating content. 40_{Museum professionals acted as translators of myths and}

meaning that surrounded objects and collections, making them accessible to the audience by displaying them in relation to each other. Unlike earlier examples, museums now required a certain level of thinking, being able to deduce what was there and what was not. Exhibition displays became the main communication method between the museum and its audience rather than the collections and its décor.

The mid-twentieth century museum saw a change to the level of intellect attributed to the public, a shift noticable in the way museums displayed their objects.41_Described

as the post-modern museum by Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, the 20th_{century museum}

focused a lot more on what counts as knowledge and how it is known.42_{Previously, in}

33 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “Culture and meaning in the museum” in Museums and the

Interpretation of Visual Culture (2000), 16.

34 Ibid, 7. 35 Ibid, 14. 36 Ibid, 18.

37 Russo, Angelina. “The Rise of the ‘media museum’: creating interactive cultural experiences through social media” in Heritage and Social Media. (2012), 146.

38 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, “Culture and meaning in the museum” in Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. (2000), 17.

39 n.b. Claude Shannon, an engineer and mathematician and Warren Weaver, a scientist, devised a ‘one-way’ communication model which is applicable to museology. In this case the curator would be known as the sender and the audience as the receiver.

40 Farago, Claire & Preziosi, Donald. “General Introduction: What are museums for?” (2004), 1. 41 Ibid.

42 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The rebirth of the museum” in Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. (2000), 142. 325 330 335 340 45 50 55

(17)

the information exchange between institution and audience, the institution assumed the role of content provider and the audience as content consumer, creating a teacher-learner experience. However, the 1960s marked a change in discourse. Perceptions changed, acknowledging visitors and their personal experiences as valuable context to understanding objects. Museum displays were now to include the emotions and the imaginations of visitors in the making of meaning of objects in the collections,

allowing visitors to construct and derive their own interpretations of the collections on view, shifting the ways in which objects were given augmented narratives.43_{By the}

late 1990s, the reconceptualisation of the museum-audience relationship saw a change in museum programs from primarily education to entertainment. By the end of the century, most institutions would also have institutional websites, virtual community sites, as well as interactive kiosks and research programs.44

The social shift in audience engagement in the late twentieth century paved the way for museum practice in the twenty-first century.45_{While museum practice is still}

object centred, how objects are used has been furthered. As is apparent throughout the history of museology (perhaps more so in previous centuries), the educational role of museums is a well-established concept.46_{Education in museums can be viewed as}

what is said and how it is communicated.47_{Pedagogic practices in museums were, for}

the most part, often considered as ‘one-way’ systems, with a knowledge producer and a consumer. In today’s museum practice, there has been a reconceptualisation of the institution-audience relationship, with museums expected to provide “socially

inclusive environments.”48_{In the twentieth century, exhibitions were the main tool for}

communication between producer and consumer. Today, those boundaries are blurred as institutions have incorporated several other practices that augment their audiences’ experience of what they are looking at. While exhibitions are still important and central to the museum, community and organisational partnerships, objects produced in educational programmes which in turn have made their way into the collection, access for different groups, and the ability to use the spaces for their own purposes

43 Russo, Angelina. “The Rise of the ‘media museum’: creating interactive cultural experiences through social media” in Heritage and Social Media. (2012), 146.

44 Ibid.

45 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The rebirth of the museum” in Museums and the Interpretation of

Visual Culture. (2000), 152.

46 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “Culture and meaning in the museum” in Museums and the

Interpretation of Visual Culture. (2000), 1.

47 Ibid, 3. 48 Ibid, 1. 345 350 355 360 365 370 60 65

(18)

and other events and programmes, are all part of the reconceptualisation of museum practice and the audience-museum relationship. Yet, perhaps one of the biggest changes to have occurred in the museum field until recently is the concept of

digitisation of museums. With the rise of the internet,49_{the web increasingly became a}

method for institutions to reach wider audiences, by displaying their cultural knowledge; augmenting their collection availability to anybody with an internet connection. While this turn to digitisation could have been viewed as positive, as institutions appeared to be keeping up with social changes and the increased reliability of technology, the digitisation of museums sparked a heated debate amongst

professionals. Digitisation saw the breakdown of boundaries. Debates arose around the deterritorialization of museums, as they were no longer a singular physical entity, and the dematerialization of the audience-institution relationship.50

As of recently, with the continuous development in technological innovations, museum discourse has since gone on to revisit the concept of the museum as an experience, juxtaposing the physical and ‘real’ experience of visiting museums with the ‘virtual’ experience.51_{Discussions have considered the value of display in the}

construction of virtual experiences and its effects on the ‘real’ object, the authenticity of the experience and the power-knowledge relationship between institution and visitor. 52_{Yet, the biggest concern lies with whether these ‘new’ experiences}

undermine the authority of cultural institutions.

The history of museum practice presents significant changes to the approach and function of museums. Museology was founded on the concept of power, wealth and knowledge of individuals. with education as its main purpose. Today institutions are trying to be more liberal, by blurring the lines between audience and museum. The museum has been recharacterized as an experience more in line with technological innovations and social changes, rather than an experience likened to that of

ritualisation.53_{While education is still the main purpose of museums, how information}

is disseminated has become an important factor that institutions must consider. As Eilean Hooper-Greenhill explains: “educational theorists today recognise the fact that

49 n.b. read more in: Turner, Madeleine. “Understanding the 21st century museological shift” (2016).

Universiteit van Amsterdam,14-20.

50 Russo, Angelina. “The Rise of the ‘media museum’: creating interactive cultural experiences through social media” in Heritage and Social Media. (2012), 147.

51 Ibid. 52 Ibid.

53 n.b. see Carol Duncan Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship. 375 380 385 390 395 400 70

(19)

learners need to interact in meaningful ways with new information before it can become part of their repertoire of knowledge.”54_{How meaning is made in museums}

has been a guiding element to the structuring of museum displays throughout history. Learning in museums is constructed through the narratives created by museums and the methods of displays used to communicated these narratives.55_{The display of}

collections have always been concerned with how they are perceived by the public, whether as an educational site, like the Library in Alexandria, or as a display of wealth and power in the 15th_{century. All museums provide visitors with some sort of}

new knowledge about the objects they are viewing. The creation of knowledge in museums and the changes to how knowledge is produced and dessiminated has been an area of great interest to the museological field. While there are many contributing factors to the changes in displays in museums and the message they want to

communicate, a key factor is social development. For the most part, education in museums has been a one-way system. Today, knowledge production in museums is a two-way system. However, museum displays all share one way of creating

knowledge, known as the episteme, a term coined by social theorist Michel Foucault. The episteme method of knowledge creation can be traced back to the Library in Alexandria and its systematic organisation. Foucault suggests that knowledge is constantly in flux, with knowledge being largely dependent on specific elements, including cultural, social, political and scientific discourses that define ways of knowing. Museums act similarly in augmenting knowledge by presenting objects of similitudes in order to prompt audiences to compare and contrast objects, in order to derive meaning of collections. Two key museum theorists to have mapped the

changing nature of society against museum practices are Eilean Hooper-Greenhill and Carol Duncan. The Villa Medici and the collections of the Capitoline Hill can be considered to be some of the first examples of museums to use such methods of similtude in the presentation of objects.56_{Yet, how objects are presented has changed}

over time. While earlier collections suggested that by presenting objects alongside

54 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “Culture and Meaning in the Museum” in Museums and the

55 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “Culture and Meaning in the Museum” in Museums and the

56 Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. “The first museum in Europe?” in Museums and Shaping Knowledge. (1992), 23. 405 410 415 420 425 75 80

(20)

each other, audiences can derive meaning based on their groupings, later displays suggests that audiences required more.

Museum display methods have constantly changed over time as knowledge is constantly in flux. Wall texts, labels, placards, numeration and guides have all been additional educational elements that have slowly been added to the repetoire of museum practice to support changes in commmunication and how audiences understand content. Today, museums are facing another shift, one towards technology.

Museums have turned to technology to enable visitors to interact with objects in a different way than was considered possible before. Virtual reality and augmented reality in museums has become central to the discussion, as technology has provided audiences with a different way of viewing objects by presenting augmented realities for the purpose of encouraging learning. While technology has provided audiences with a different set of tools to understand objects, these digital tools should be considered to have the same pedagogic value as traditional tools in museological practices. Museums have always provided augmented understandings of objects by presenting them in relation to each other and in relation to their surrounding contexts. Technologically created realities too provide audiences with augmented

understandings of objects. New technological innovations have enabled audiences to connect more efficiently with objects, as objects become increasingly ‘things of the past’ by using contemporary digital sources to enable audiences to make objects more relatable to their contemporary environment. 57_{Understanding the development of}

these digital tools is vital to illustrating how these digital versions of augmented realities do not differ from the augmented realities previously established in museum practices of the 15th_{century right through to today.}

57 n.b. This section on the history of museology differs signficantly from my Bachelor thesis -written on a similar topic (find in work cited list as ‘Turner, Madeleine. “Understanding the 21st century museological shift” (2016).’ Although they share similarities in structure and sources, this paper focuses on ‘augmented virtual experiences’ rather than participatory culture. Furthermore this paper does not include a section on web history.

430 435 440 445 450 455 85

(21)

CHAPTER 2 - TECHNOLOGY IN THE 21

ST

_{CENTURY MUSEUM}

Since their introduction, institutions have consistently adopted new mobile technologies. The Stedelijk Museum has been a pioneering museum in the

institutionalisation of technology for the use of presentation of museum content and objects. The Dutch modern and contemporary art institution was the first to introduce audio-tours into its museum practice in 1952. Mobile technology has since taken a great leap forward, with new innovations enabling sensors such as GPS, cameras and Wi-Fi to be integrated into museum applications with the hope of attracting more visitors and enhancing their experience.58_{Museum applications have since been}

widely invested in by major institutions. The shift has helped museums move even further away from their privatised former selves into an even more public

environment, by helping institutions cater to even greater audiences than their first developments in the 15th_{and 16}th_centuries.

The late 20th_{century saw a change in cultural institutions’ approaches to}

museum-audience relationships, with a shift in focus towards creating more engaging

experiences. This shift was a catalyst to the institutionalisation of mobile applications and other technologies. Mobile applications have since become the most innovative method museums have been using to engage visitors throughout their visit. Yet academics are skeptical of the use of technology in museum environments. Whilst technology is beneficial as it can communicate and engage audiences in different ways that before, it can also be a distracting device. There are fears that technology will distract audiences from meaningfully engaging with the objects, that technology would detract the meaning curated for the objects, undermining authority.

Today most of the major institutions boast a detailed mobile application that has been developed to enhance visitors’ experiences. Museums now give their visitors the option to personalize visits through custom tours with easy-navigation GPS systems. Social media has also become more prominent in museums, encouraging visitors to share their experiences with each other. Yet, despite the pushback that mobile applications initially received, most major museums across Europe and the United States have adopted the technology. For example, the Smithsonian Institute’s Mobile application encourages its visitors to share comments, tips and questions about exhibitions and artifacts with other users to create an inter-learning space. It also

58 Sung, Kelvin & Tsai, Henry. “Mobile Applications and Museum Visitation.” (2012), 95. 460 465 470 475 480 485 490

(22)

incorporates social media functions, enabling users to upload their experiences straight to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.59_{Another example}

as to how mobile applications have been used by institutions (and perhaps the most common) is the use of multimedia tours. The British Museum mobile application does this well. Photographs from the museum’s archive, descriptions of important works, as well as audio files that explain the museum’s key works have all been made accessible through technology. Furthermore, the application provides educational material to enable audiences to read hieroglyphs used in major artifacts of the museum. In addition, the application features a maps with highlighted places to visit in the surrounding area.60_{The content these technologies are providing can and should}

be understood as digital augmented realities.

Museum applications are still a fundamental communication tool used by institutions for the exploration of its collections. While the above examples are too digital augmented realities newer technologies can perhaps be considered more invasive as they offer viewers with enhanced sound and visual sensors. New digital augmented realities have given museums endless new possibilities to communicate information with their audiences.61_{Digital augmented realities have allowed museum visitors to}

have multilayered interactions with information through their mobile devices, by enabling museums to overlay digital content over the ‘real’ object.62_{On the other}

hand, virtual reality has enabled museums to create entire ‘virtual’ environments, creating a different type of learning experience for museum visitors. While both technologies are still relatively new to the museum field, a few institutions have begun to explore the use of digital augmented realities and their educational value. Yet, the concept still remains an area that is largely understudied and undervalued.63

DIGITAL AUGMENTEDEXPERIENCESINTHEMUSEUM

Virtual reality and augmented reality are often used as interchangeable terms that describe technologies that have the ability to change our perception of the world

59 Smithsonian Magazine. “Smithsonian Mobile.” Accessed December 4, 2017.

60 “Fine Art Museum Apps for Smart Phones” the balance, Accessed December 4, 2017. 61 Mannion, Shelley. “British Museum - Augmented Reality: Beyond the Hype.” Museum ID, accessed November 29, 2017.

62 Sung, Kelvin & Tsai, Henry. “Mobile Applications and Museum Visitation.” (2012), 95.

63 Mannion, Shelley “British Museum - Augmented Reality: Beyond the Hype.” Museum ID, accessed November 29, 2017. 495 500 505 510 515 520 90

(23)

around us. While these digital innovations are new to the field of museology, augmented experiences, as we have seen, have long been part of the museum

experience. Yet it is the digital aspect of these experiences that has caused concern in the museological field. It is important to understand the origination of these digital counterparts in order to be able to fully accept them into the museological field. Digital augmented experiences such as augmented reality and virtual reality have existed for a long time, however it is only in the last few years that they have received attention as they have become part of popular culture.64_{Both digital augmented}

experiences have thus far been understood and recognised as technological

innovations, usually as forms of entertainment in popular culture. Digital augmented experiences, such as virtual reality and augmented reality, have the ability to change the way we perceive the world around us.65_{Whilst their delivery methods differ from}

the ‘traditional’ augmented experiences recognised above in museums, digital augmented experiences are arguably the same as traditional practices.

It is usually assumed that augmented reality and virtual reality are products of technological innovation occurring in the last decade, yet Helen Papagiannis, an academic that has worked in the field for over a decade, claims that augmented reality has existed long before. According to Papagiannis, we are now at a place in time where we can see where these digital augmented experiences, like augmented reality and virtual reality, have emerged from.66_{Helen Papagiannis uses media theorists}

David Thorburn and Henry Jenkins to discuss these digital experiences as a form of remediation, suggesting that the concept inherited its form from other sources.67

Thorburn and Jenkins’ article “Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition” the term remediation proposes that all media engage with rival media where content is “rehearsed, displayed, mimicked, extended, critiqued” thus like in the developments in the museological field over centuries.68_{Digital augmented}

64 n.b. Popular culture is defined as “culture based on the tastes of ordinary people rather than an educated elite” (OED). Usually referred to in Western culture of the early 20th century to early 21st century. The most common categories of popular culture are: entertainment, sports, news, politics, fashion, technology. Popular culture is sometimes viewed as ‘dumbed down’ in order to find acceptance throughout mass society.

65 “Augmented Reality Vs Virtual Reality- Benefits drawn from both,” Medium, accessed November 21, 2017.

66 Papagiannis, Helen, “Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality: a medium in transition” (2014), 33.

67 Ibid.

68 Thorburn & Jenkins “Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition.” (2004). qtd. in Papagiannis, Helen, “Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality: a medium in 525 530 535 540 545 95 100 105

(24)

experiences are therefore greater than their digital forms as technological innovations, stemming from ‘rival media’.

Like in the museological field, digital augmented experiences emerged out of several isolated incidents. The earliest format of these digital augmented experiences, for Papagiannis, has existed since the creation of comic strips, for Thorburn and Jenkins a medium’s earliest phase of life as pioneering artists enjoying artistic freedom to experiment and push the boundaries of artistic conventions that are already in place.69

Comic strips contain bold, surrealistic images of imaginative worlds.70_Papagiannis

likens augmented reality to comic strips as they manipulated shapes “bursting out of the frame.”71_{Augmented reality is also concerned with storytelling through a series of}

windows that push the boundaries of reality. 72

Today’s concept of digital augmented experiences is perhaps most like the concept of the ‘magic lantern’, which Papagiannis also considers as one of the medium’s

predecessors. Emerging as early as the 17th_{century, the ‘magic lantern’ enabled the}

inanimate to become animate through the use of a projector and a transition between slides to create movement.73_{Like the ‘magic lantern’, digital augmented experiences}

find their roots in the creation of illusions. The stylistic feature has become prominent in digital augmented experiences, where animations have been superimposed onto reality, which creates a heightened version of the real world.74_{Like motion pictures,}

augmented reality entices spectators by creating a spectacle, wonder, curiosity and delight.75

Comtemporary digital augmented experiences can be defined as “techologies that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user’s view of the real world, thus providing a composite view” or “the computer-generated simulation of a 3D image or

transition” (2014), 35.

69 Thorburn & Jenkins “Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition.” (2004). qtd. in Papagiannis, Helen, “Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality: a medium in transition” (2014), 35.

71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Papagiannis, Helen, “Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality: a medium in transition” (2014), 35. 550 555 560 565 570 110 115

(25)

environment that can be interacted with a seemingly real or physical way”.76_Digital

augmented realities therefore either enhance society’s experience of the real world, by adding virtual components for information, or construct ‘new’ realities. It is perhaps the later that has caused most offence to the professionals in the museological field. Yet what happens when these digital augmented realities are presenting ‘real’ environments?

It is this distinction between what is real and what is not that museums have difficulty with. Museums have long been involved with presenting the real life stories of

objects, giving them context in order to be able to tell a story. As Pine and Gilmore have stated, consumers increasingly want the real and genuine rather than the created. Until recently, museums have, and still are, considered to offer the real thing. They present real objects and they present real narratives. Yet this is increasingly being challenged. Museums have used exhibition tools such as wall texts, placards and object placements to communicate information and narrate the real objects. Today however, museums are faced with what has been coined the ‘experience economy’.77

As mentioned earlier, the reconceptualisation of the audience-museum relationship has given museum visitors more agency. This has enabled them to relate to the museum, using their own personal experiences as sources of interpretation. It is the concept of experience that has become of interest to many societies. Museums are no longer just competing with each other but also with other industries as audiences today want memorable events that they can engage with in personal ways.78_{In order}

to compete, museums have begun to collaborate with companies that allow them to bring the museum experience into the 21st_{century, usually through the help of}

technologies.

These technologies have been an issue because, while fully immersive, they require physical interactions, usually through a head-mounted or hand-held controllers, and mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones and tablets. While these technologies are used to heighten the interaction with the real world and to communicate real

information, museums have pushed back on their use in the cultural sector. The main concern has been whether these technologies offer an authentic experience of the objects, and whether they are encouraging entertainment over education. In order to

76 Oxford Dictionaries, s.v. “augmented reality.” Accessed March, 2018, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/augmented_reality

77 Pine, Joseph & Gilmore, James “Museums and Authenticity” in Museum News, (2007). 78 Pine, Joseph & Gilmore, James “Museums and Authenticity” in Museum News, (2007). 575 580 585 590 595 600 120

(26)

better understand the reception of these digital augmented realities, we must evaluate the learning environments these technologies have been able to create in the cultural sector in order to really comprehend their position within the field.

The museum field has become a hub for technological innovations, developing services for museums. While technology in the field is still a relatively new concept, there already exists many technologically driven businesses that have successfully made their way into the cultural sector. While many of these services are still considered to be in their ‘startup’ phase, their impact on the field has become great enough for these businesses to be closely monitored by the cultural sector. In June 2017 Jim Richardson, the founder of MuseumNext, an annual conference organised to discuss what the future holds for museums, published a list of “10 Startups Disrupting Museum.”79_{These startups offer museums with a plethora of services, ranging from}

augmented reality to digital tracking, each offering a unique experience of the

museum. ArtformAR, DeFrame and Locatify are some of the services that have made an impact in the field. ArtformAR provides museums with augmented reality

technology. The application is designed to enable visitors to virtually annotate

paintings by pinning comments on exact points of a painting, which can be viewed by other visitors.80_{Like many other technologies in the museum field, ArtformAR also}

provides institutions with user location-tracking abilities through GPS on

smartphones.81_{Similarly, DeFrame also uses visitor location to map out a route for}

users based on where they are in the institution.82_{DeFrame further provides museum}

visitors with the ability to scan a museum exhibit and instantly receive information on the display, as well as upcoming events in the museum.83_{Locatify too uses a}

user-based location technology, detecting where the visitor is located and displays corresponding information to the nearest exhibit.84_{Furthermore, Locatify also}

provides floor maps enabling visitors to locate themselves within the building.85

These are only three examples of businesses targeting cultural institutions. Yet while these digital services and experiences offered are new to the museum field, the way in which they are interacted with and their function is not. Augmented experiences have

79 Richardson, Jim. “10 Startups Disrupting Museums” MuseumNext, Accessed December 11, 2017. 80 Richardson, Jim. “10 Startups Disrupting Museums” MuseumNext, Accessed December 11, 2017. 81 Ibid.

82 “What is DeFrame?” YouTube Video, 0:30, posted by DeFrame Art, March 27, 2017. 83 Ibid.

84 Locatify. “What is The Automatic Museum Guide?” Accessed December 11, 2017. 85 Ibid. 605 610 615 620 625 630 125

(27)

long existed in museum practice. As we have seen earlier, museum’s have always been concerned with the information their collections dessiminate and the experience of the collections. Specific examples from institutions that use traditional exhibition tools will therefore be compared with examples that offer digital augmented

experiences in order to show their similarities and the pre-exisiting nature of

augmented reality. The virtual museum The Kremer Museum will be compared to The Rijksmuseum, the Tate Modern’s Modigliani studio experience The Ochre Atelier will be compared to the Francis Bacon Studio at Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin, and finally ArtformAR will be discussed.

635 640 645 650 655 660

(28)

CHAPTER 3 - DIGITAL CASES IN MUSEUMS

A VIRTUAL MUSEUMANDA BRICKAND MORTARMUSEUM: THE KREMER MUSEUM ANDTHE RIJKSMUSEUM

The Kremer Museum and the Rijkmuseum share many similarities in their collections, organisation of objects, style and exhibition tools. Yet there is also a drastic difference between the two: one is a virtual museum and the other is built out of brick and mortar. Both have been received in extremely different ways, it is important to compare them in order to understand how they have been so differently received. THE KREMER MUSEUM

The Kremer Collection is a privately owned group of 74 works of 17th century Dutch and Flemish art. It was founded in 1994 by oil and real estate businessman George Kremer and his wife Illone.86_{Neither coming from a particularly wealthy family nor}

with a background in collecting, it was George Kremer who made the first acquisition of the collection. While only Ilone Kremer was affiliated with art, having studied it in high-school and loving the impressionists, the decision to collect Dutch Old Masters came from George Kremer.

“I was naive and had never considered the notion that one could still buy old masters” explains George Kremer in an interview with the Financial Times.87_{George Kremer’s}

interest in Dutch Old Masters’ came about whilst growing up in Amsterdam, the home to many great artists. “I remember seeing Rembrandt’s ‘Jewish Bride’ and was astonished by it” he explains.88_{It was not until 1994, when George Kremer read an}

article in the International Herald Tribune about an upcoming Dutch Old Masters auction in New York that the first purchase was made - a small sketch by Govert Flinck. “How a simple newspaper article can change one’s life” George Kremer

86 Financial Times. “Masters of their own artistic domain.” Accessed November 29, 2017. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 665 670 675 680 685 690 130

(29)

states, it was this article that proved to be the catalyst for the Kremers to become avid Old Masters collectors. 89

Today the 74 piece collection covers many schools, genres and artists, spanning from Caravaggism/Utrecht, Leiden, Delft, Amsterdam, seascapes and landscapes to

portraits and still lifes, domestic scenes and biblical subjects. Artworks by Rembrandt, Abraham Bloemaert, Frans Hals, Michael Sweerts, Gerrit van Honthorst and many other Dutch Masters can be found throughout the collection.

Due to the collection’s immensity along with the collectors’ travelling lifestyles and passion for sharing their collection with the public, the artworks have spent most of their lives on display in a variety of exhibitions and on long-term loan. Since starting the collection over two decades ago, the majority of the works were on loan to the Mauritshuis in The Hague from 2000 to 2008.90_{Pieces from the collection have since}

been on view in the National Gallery in London, the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C, the Pinacothèque de Paris and in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Today however, the collection is displayed as a whole in a similar, yet at the same time, a much different setting - in the Kremer Museum; a virtual museum.

The Kremer Museum was created by Director and Co-Founder Joel Kremer and a team of “innovative producers and developers.”91_{With the help from augmented}

reality and virtual reality developers Jaap Kooiker and Maikel Sibbald, digital content producer Guy-Georges Trigallez and architect Johan van Lierop, Joel Kremer and his team created a virtual museum. The Kremer Museum uses technology in an innovative way to present world-class masterpieces from its collection. The museum grew out of a belief that a “greater contribution [can be made] to the art world by investing in technology rather than in bricks and mortar for our collection.”92

Until recently, artworks from the Kremer Collection have been on loan across the world appearing in numerous exhibitions. While sharing the pieces from the collection with the public has been the aim of the collectors, showcasing the entire collection in its full glory has been the ultimate goal. 93_{However, due to the large size}

of the collection and the lack of space, it was not until recently that the collectors have

89 Financial Times. “Masters of their own artistic domain.” Accessed November 29, 2017. 90 Kremer, George. “The History of The Kremer Collection | The Kremer Collection” online in

Thekremercollection.com, Accessed November 29, 2017.

91 ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 ibid. 695 700 705 710 715 720 135

(30)

found a way to present its collection in its entirety to the public. While building a ‘physical’ exhibition could have been a possibility for the collection, it would have required extensive investment. Furthermore, collectors’ aim is to share the artworks with as many people as possible. In an interview with Joel Kremer, he discusses one of the reasons why they opted to invest in technology rather than brick and mortar. Using works by Rembrandt as an example “the reality is that [art]works are always far away and hardly ever together as an ‘oeuvre’ in a collection, which means you

literally have to travel the world to see all of Rembrandt’s paintings in real life.”94_In

discussing the Kremer Museum, Joel Kremer claims that their technology changes that by bringing art to the people rather than people going to the art.95

With the main aim of bringing the collection to the masses, the investment in technology was not in vain. Using a process called ‘photogrammetry’, a technique that requires photographing somewhere between 2.500-3.500 times to produce an ultra-high resolution model, the Kremer Museum was able to make details as fine as brush strokes visible to

the audience, allowing visitors to get up close to the artworks. 96_Each

high resolution model was then reproduced in a ‘virtual’ space that was designed by architect Johan van Lierop.

While it is easy to understand why academics and professionals in the museum field have been sceptical about the use digital augmented experiences, as they are usually associated with entertainment, the Kremer Museum challenges this perception. Although the Kremer Museum is a virtual experience of the Kremer Collection, the well thought-out design process showcases how Augmented Virtual Experiences can be beneficial to cultural institutions.

94 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 95 Ibid.

96 Kremer, George. “The History of The Kremer Collection | The Kremer Collection” online in

Thekremercollection.com, Accessed November 29, 2017.

FIGURE 1: INSIDE THE KREMER MUSEUM. IMAGE COURTESY OF THE KREMER COLLECTION. 725 730 735 740 745 750 140

(31)

The design team have created an exceptional space for the Kremer Museum, the design of which salutes the Dutch Golden Age with its grandeur. The cavernous design of the virtual museum gives the audience a sense of floating in outer space, yet at the same time, bridges sprouting from the centre of the virtual room ground the visitor, enabling them to move around the space and be fully immersed at the same time. Whilst talking about the design of the Kremer Museum, Joel Kremer states that “a lot of museums are housed in iconic buildings, which is an experience in and of itself. ”97_{The Kremer Museum too is an experience of a museum space, and}

encapsulates the process of visiting a collection. Each design element has been specifically crafted. For example, the dark lighting in the museum galleries has been chosen specifically to enable for light optimization (figure 1). Joel Kremer explains that lighting can be adjusted according to the individual’s height, eradicating backlight from natural light sources and providing better viewing conditions of the artworks.

Narratives and exhibition tools have also been carefully selected in the presenting of the collection. The Kremer Museum presents its artworks thematically. Although the ‘virtuality’ of the museum enables the easy change of curated narratives,98_{there are}

five main narratives to the presentation of the collection: ‘Rembrandt and His World’, ‘Utrecht and Caravaggism’, ‘Frans Hals and Portraits’, ‘Landscapes and Marines’ and ‘Sweerts and De Hooch’. 99_{These narratives provide the Kremer Museum with the}

opportunity to display its entire collection, fulfilling the main aim of the project. Furthermore, in order to understand the themes and the artworks, the Kremer Museum provides its viewer with exhibition tools. Text, audio files and holograms are used to present the audience with information about the artworks on display. Whilst

discussing the chosen exhibition tools, Joel Kremer states that they “did not want to move too far away from the traditional museum model”.100_{Textual information has}

long been a traditional exhibition tool institutions have used in presenting information, and so the Kremer Museum enables its viewer to access textual

information by ‘clicking’ on the artwork. In addition, like most museums today, the Kremer Museum also uses audio as a way to communicate information with its audience. Audio clips of George Kremer, a founder of the collection, can be heard

97 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 98 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 99 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 100 Ibid. 755 760 765 770 775 780 145

(32)

explaining the paintings whilst giving his personal opinion on the work’s importance. The third exhibitive tool used in the Kremer Museum alludes to the endless

possibilities of new technologies. The viewer is presented with holographs that are used to present information. Although more closely affiliated to audio files, the holograms ‘physically’ receive information from George and Ilone Kremer, who appear next to the paintings. The attentively designed and specifically chosen

narratives and exhibition tools enable the museum to also be valued for its pedagogic usefulness.

The virtual performance of the Kremer Museum holds educational benefits. The Kremer Museum is accessible 24/7 every day of the year, all that one needs is a headset and the software. The Kremer Museum was created with new generations in mind. Joel Kremer explains “Art History is a topic which is taught in schools around the world”,101_{yet he rightly points out that until recently artworks were only presented}

in 2D format, as print or digital projections, or students had to travel to see the artworks in a museum. The Kremer Museum enables students to view a collection of artworks in a museum setting from anywhere in the world. Joel Kremer suggests ways in which the ‘virtual’ museum can be used: “think about multiplayer concepts where your professor could walk through the museums with your class, teaching their curriculum at the museum!”102_{Furthermore, Joel Kremer also explains the creation of}

the The Kremer Collection Mighty Masters Program, a program dedicated to accessibility and education targeted at the ‘new generation.’ The program was developed to provide schools around the world with the necessary tools to access the museum, encouraging the upkeep in the teaching of art as a school subject.

Additionally, Joel Kremer gives insight into why the Kremer Museum’s design has been so well received by younger generations: “they kept referring to it as a

‘game’...This museum people understand because currently it is difficult for [museums] to attract new generations.”103

The educational value, accessibility and cost efficiency of the museum are not the only advantages of a virtual museum. Joel Kremer discloses the many advantages of the Kremer Museum and how he sees the concept going forward in the future.

“Technology is here to stay and will only develop further”104_{he states. Adapting to an}

101 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 102 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 103 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 104 Ibid. 785 790 795 800 805 810 815 150

(33)

age of technological innovation appears to be crucial for institutions as they will become the leading modes of communication. Using Virtual Reality as the main mode in the Kremer Museum, the Kremer Collection presents itself as a contemporary institution, open to the endless opportunities technology has to offer. Furthermore, Joel Kremer explains the benefits of the technology for institutions in the future. Today, when an artwork is on loan, institutions also exchange information on the object such as context, provenance and high-resolution images that the hosting institution can use in their catalogues. With the aid of technology however, Joel Kremer also sees institutions exchanging augmented reality layers which institutions can implement into their mobile applications, “imagine walking past a work at an exhibition, holding up your [device] and being able to see an x-ray or infrared image of that work, as well as a hologram of the restorer explaining what the underlying painting is about.”105_{Augmented reality and virtual reality have provided a foundation}

for content rich environments to flourish. The technology also has preservation benefits. Joel Kremer states that “by digitising [the] collection this way, future generations of art enthusiasts will always be able to enjoy the paintings, even if something would happen to it.”106_{While digitisation of collections is not entirely new}

to the museum world, digitising in the form of virtual reality is. By preserving

artworks in this way, the Kremer Museum enables future generations to view artworks that are too delicate to be on a public display in the museum context. The final benefit of a virtual museum Joel Kremer points to is the ability of the institution to collect analytical data on their audiences, an area institutions today still struggle to produce.

While there are many benefits to a ‘virtual’ museum, Joel Kremer also presents the challenges the Kremer Museum has faced. “I would have expected more pushback” he states, whilst discussing the reception of the museum. Joel Kremer points to two challenges the museum is facing. The main concern is getting the art market to follow the Kremer Museum’s example, “technology adoption has generally been quite slow in the ‘fine’ arts world.”107_{Art and technology have long been considered of different}

value, while art represents refinement and elitism, technology has long been

associated with popular culture. Yet, Joel Kremer states that “overall I believe people,

105 Ibid. 106 Ibid.

107 See interview with Joel Kremer in Appendix A. 820 825 830 835 840 845