11/25/06

Boston is really beautiful. 

Stop #1           BERNARD TOALE GALLERY
I first stopped at a small art gallery called the Bernard Toale Gallery.  I mainly focused on the exhibition by Joe Fig.  Being that it was an art gallery, I refrained from taking pictures.  I certainly would have liked to, however.  The exhibition consisted of a bunch of scaled models of different artists’ studios inside of glass boxes that lined the walls of the gallery space.  Under each box was a headphone, and as I walked around the space, I could hear the voices emitting from all the headphones, and that made me want to pick one up to see what this is all about.  I am fascinated by the details of the models—one thing that caught my attention is that there is paint everywhere in every artists’ studio.  Every paintbrush, every paint tube had a label with actual words on them—it was SO intricate.

And I listened.  I listened to three displays total.  They were of the same person interviewing the different artists.  The questions were about things like “What made you become an artist?”  “What inspires you?”  There seems to be a disconnect between the models and what the artists were saying, however.  In a way, it seemed like the models were just something to look at to keep me occupied/ hoping that they would somehow connect with what the interview was about. 
I was a little disappointed that that never really happened.  Well, there was one time when one of the artists started talking about a war painting that he did, and looking at the studio, I imagined the artist working on the painting as he was describing what the painting looked like in the interview. 

I didn’t have much patience in hearing the documentaries, although because I was in the gallery space and I was going around and “trying out” different headphones, I felt obliged to stick around for at least a little bit at each box that I stopped at.  I felt kind of cheated; I feel like the artist just wanted the audience to stick around and listen to the interviews. 

One of the pieces in the gallery was a huge photograph of a scaled model that the artist did.  The model was one of an artist’s gallery—one that was very similar to the Bernard Toale Gallery itself.  Within the model was a miniature figure, a man, who was looking at a painting.  The huge blownup photograph was taken from behind the man.  Therefore, we see the man looking at the picture.  It really made me wonder what he was thinking.  The picture was so real—and if I had not seen the model, I would never have guessed that the picture was taken from a miniature model.  I was completely amazed that the little model could be examined at such great detail and still look so real.

Stop #2           ART INTERACTIVE
Although the individual pieces were interesting, the space was not very ideal for their display.  There was one piece that was particularly loud, and the noise pollution really took away from all the other pieces in the room. 

There was a lot of art at Art Interactive, but I will focus on my favorite ones.

There was one project where the artist put a paper maché doll on the streets of Boston and then put a surveillance camera nearby to find out what people are doing to it on the streets.  The brochure that described the piece suggested that this piece is supposed to epitomize men’s stupidity and the role of women in the Western society. 

In the gallery space, the doll was attached to several street signs, there were two b&w TV’s on the floor next to the doll, and a projection of the surveillance video.  The projector was placed such that the viewer would be in the way of the projection and therefore, cast a silhouette onto the screen.  Because the videotaping was done in black and white, the silhouette fit in nicely, and I felt like I was part of the scene. 

At one point, a man went up to the doll with his friend and starting touching the doll’s breasts and the two men started joking around with each other.  The friend then pulled out his camera phone, and then man #1 went to pose with the doll.  He stuck one hand down the doll’s shirt, and the other hand up her mini-skirt as he posed for the camera—and I swear they must have taken at least 8-9 pictures.  I was very angry and disturbed watching him, but as the silhouette, I felt like I couldn’t do anything.  That man was sexually harassing that woman, and I hated him as I was standing there.  What the heck would he do with a picture like that?  What an idiot.  That sense of helplessness got me thinking about my role as a woman in society. 

The ironic thing was that I was surveillanced also as I was viewing the piece.  That really made me think why they were watching me too—I actually wanted to take a picture of the doll to show the class, but then when I noticed the surveillance camera, I started wondering whether it would be right for me to take a picture of the doll.  The subtle questioning of roles was very powerful.     

Another piece that I liked was one that involved a bunch of fuzzy balls hung from the ceiling.  I was really intimidated at first, because I was afraid to touch anything (being afraid that I would break something).  Then I read the brochure and realized that the viewer is supposed to walk through and tap on the ball—and in response, the balls will whisper “I love you” as they accelerate.  So I followed the directions, closed my eyes, and started tapping on the balls.  They flew around and hit me in the head, but since they were soft, I didn’t even try to avoid them—and they really did whisper “I love you.”  Having my eyes closed and having all the balls flying around my head and saying “I love you” like little chipmunks was interesting, to say the least.  The brochure mentioned something about how this piece captures the fleeting nature of these feelings—and I agree.  All the sounds flying around my head and the occasional fur ball in the face got me in a playful mood, and I wanted to tap on them more.  What really annoyed me, however, was that a piece about Bush and the war in Iraq was playing really loudly in that room—it was so disturbing that I had to strain to hear all the “I love you”s.    

Stop #3           MIT MUSEUM OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
When I first arrived at the MIT museum, I wondered about the applicability of the displays for the context of our course—but as I looked around, I began to realize the incorporation of arts and technology.  A lot happened here—I’ll use bullets:

1. There was one piece that involved user-input of information—the sign said that the user could input any information by speaking into the telephone, and the computer would search for the desired answer—so you can ask it the weather in any city, someone’s street address, etc.  I didn’t get to interact with it firsthand, but I watched a little boy talk on the phone with the machine and it was the cutest thing ever.  He stayed for about 10 minutes (I only stood next to him for about two minutes but I stayed in the same room afterwards).  A few seconds after he got up to leave the machine, the phone rang, and the boy was caught off guard—he looked around to make sure that the call was “for him”—then he felt obligated to answer since other people were looking at him and so he went back and picked up the phone again to talk some more.  It was cute how he was so surprised that the machine called him to make him go back—and it was so interesting that the machine controlled his actions.  The design strategy was very effective. 
2. There was a room full of holograms.  I didn’t think it would be interactive at first, but then I realized that what I see really depends on the angle from which I view the piece.  The holograms reminded me of the movies when people walk through the dark hallways in haunted houses and the paintings come alive.  There was one particular piece really left an impression on me—it was of a woman blowing a kiss to the viewer as the viewer walks across in front of the hologram.  After I passed that piece, there was a woman who was looking at it while standing directly in front of it—I really had the urge to tell her to walk by it instead, but I didn’t because it would be nice for her to find out what the piece does herself—but she never ever noticed and walked on.  I was kind of disappointed that she didn’t get it, and I felt like she missed out.  That got me thinking about the essence of interactive pieces—I feel like I would have the urge to provide the viewer with more instructions. 
3. There was a room full of gear-driven objects (see videos).  At first, I thought that the room was blaring with science and technology, but then as I went around and checked out all the displays, however, the incorporation of art and technology came to mind.  I was amazed that so many gears are used to make a little thing (such as an avocado leaf or a chicken wishbone) move.  One has to wonder why it even matters that these objects move.  Because the piece is so technology-based, I had the expectation that it should be useful in some way.  Nevertheless, the pieces were very engaging.  The thing about gears is that one has the natural tendency to try to follow the different parts to see how the system works.  Therefore, the technology was very engaging as is.    

We had previously talked about how in interactive art installations, the interaction among the different people that go to the gallery is usually an ideal.  But at the MIT museum, I really felt that the interactive things got a lot of conversation going.  This could be attributed to the fact there were a lot of children there, and the parents were really eager to teach their children about the science behind what they were seeing. 

June