Why are these important? Objective 2: – Conclusions: what are the main findings – Why are these important? Objective 3: – Conclusions: what are the main findings – Why are these important? Objective 4: – Conclusions: what are the main findings – Why are these important?
re whom museums are for when digital entities can spatially expand and traverse between intangible and tangible spaces. High specification audio-visual and interactive installations are now ubiquitous within museum practice, whether this is the Big Picture Show [Appendix A] at Imperial War Museum North or 360 degree cinematic experiences, such as Hemisfèric at the Park of Arts and Sciences in Valencia. Using projection mapping and speakers, these digital spaces are able to produce to the most fluid and hybridized experiences within physical spaces. Light is an attractive object; drawing in humans and animals. A museum installation creates illusions and auras, arguably digitally expanding on Walter Benjamin’s concept of the object’s ‘aura’, but simultaneously flouts this, because of how audio-visual entities exist through duplicity. Light dances and sound bleeds to swell and consume spaces, these entities take collaborative ownership of surfaces and spaces by creating more illusory dimensional planes. Sound is a space-filling entity; this unique quality means it cannot be contained as easily. Therefore during the experience of working with sound in museums, it can take on the role of a unique mediator, in that its properties influence encounters with other exhibits. These potent shape shifters transform spaces into objects and objects into spaces to provide alternate ways the collection can be accessed. Audio-visual objects (projectors, speakers etc.) create choreographed museum installations, which are deceptive, in that the digital hardware can fully recede into the darkness and becomes almost invisible to the human viewer during this spectacle and partnership between light and sound. Expanding from the earlier bot example, these nonhuman digital actors create and expand from their own spaces in that these objects have the capacity to translate digital spaces that can exist in a ‘physical’ way. This can be explained through how light and sound is projected and amplified from a object, which indicates the digital object embodies a mediator role; in affecting other spaces and encounters by changing human perception of physical space. Therefore digital entities also may appear as a producer or mediator; because despite possessing premade content, human curators can never fully predict or understand what may be thrown out into a physical space; in how digital entities may respond to the existing physical spatial materiality that it inhabits. Consequently software and hardware that intertwines to create audio-visual museum spaces have characteristics of such fluid hybrids ¬– in that they are shape shifting digital actors within museums, assuming roles of producer, mediator and participant. Therefore physical and digital museum space can be considered as being created by and for a mass of co-existing human and nonhuman bodies within posthuman museology, which goes far to challenge that museums are for humans only. The museum object can be used a vehicle to expand on ideas about who museums are for i>GET ANSWER