Rotating Faces. The exhibit looked simple enough. Six pairs of mirrors aligned at different angles from each other, two pairs on each side of the exhibit with handles for rotating. The objective of turning the mirrors was clear and evident from the beginning. As I went to turn the first pair of mirrors, I saw what I expected, the mirrors rotated, but my reflection remained fixed. Then as I went to turn the second set of mirrors I was shocked when I saw my whole reflection rotate with the mirrors as I spun them. I even spun each mirror again just to make sure I had seen it right. At this point, a fellow visitor experienced the same phenomenon and we tried to figure out why together.
 |
| "Why is my face upside down?" |
Because the exhibit was set up in the center of the room and had three different sides, it allowed multiple groups of visitors to use it at the same time without being afraid of intruding on another persons experience. Furthermore, the exhibit allowed visitors to interact with each other since the sides were close together and was low enough that they could talk over the exhibit and share thoughts. What I found really cool was that each side of the exhibit had a different set of mirrors making it almost necessary to talk with other visitors or at least look at every side of the exhibit. By making you walk around the exhibit to see the other mirrors, it was as if you were actually an explorer.
Self-Centered and Self-Excluding Mirrors. These exhibits were art installations that were comprised of a series of mirrors that showed only the visitor of showed none of the visitor. I enjoyed the concept of a mirror that showed dozens of image of only one person as well as looking at a mirror that didn't show my image at all. However, I think the exhibits could be greatly expanded upon.
 |
| "The Ultimate Selfie" |
The exhibits were almost hidden, tucked away in the West Gallery against a the side of a wall. As the mirrors look like nothing out of the ordinary, most visitors just walked by them without even glancing at them. Either the appearance of these mirrors should be changed or they should be placed in an higher traffic area. Perhaps placing them at the end of a path so that as a visitor walks towards it he or she sees his or her image. Even placing a set of footprints in front of the mirrors could create more interaction with the exhibit so users know that they are supposed to stand in front of them.
 |
| "Where'd I go?" |
Lastly, while I think the ideas of self-centered and self-excluding mirrors are very creative, I believe this project could have taken this idea much further. The mirrors were quite linear and only stood about three feet tall. Perhaps creating a set of mirrors that fully encompassed all of the visitor's field of vision would make the exhibit and idea more powerful. Also, the mirrors were only self-centered and self excluding when looking left to right. By either using curved mirrors or adding mirrors placed at different angles, the exhibit could be expanded to include a variety of dimensions. These changes would also attract more visitors as it would make the exhibit look more like something out of the ordinary.
I really liked your ideas for improving the Self-Centered and Self-Excluding Mirrors! I think placing a set of footprints in front of the mirrors would indeed create more interaction. Furthermore I think it could be used to guide the viewer to the right position. As Winnie mentioned in her blog post, the self-excluding mirrors didn't actually work if you stood too close---you still saw your own reflection. Footprints could be added further back from the mirror to guide the viewer.
ReplyDeleteI also like your second idea of a set of mirrors that fully encompasses all of the visitors field of vision -- like a small room you have to enter or duck into similar to the kaleidoscope exhibit. Indeed I imagine this could have a very powerful effect: to walk into a small room where all the mirrors exclude you, or all the mirrors reflect you as if all eyes are on you. An immersive environment like this has the potential to be very powerful and memorable, whereas the actual exhibit fell a bit flat.
I love the footprints idea. I wonder, in terms of the placement of the pieces, if we would have received these better if they'd had a better location. I'm trying to figure out whether it's correlation or causation that most of us tended to like the pieces that were in big, central gallery spaces. Were the best pieces given good locations? Or do better locations enhance the pieces enough for us to receive them well?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of the footprints-- I think that could provide visitors with interesting ideas about how to use the self-centered and self-excluding mirrors. But I wonder if adding the footprints would be incompatible with placing the exhibits in an area with higher traffic? Despite the size of the exhibits, they might work best with only a couple of people using them at a time-- in fact, I found it most interesting to see a single person walk in front of the mirrors as I observed, and don't think I would have seen the same effect if there had been heavy traffic in front of the them. It seems like the quality of exhibit placement is really determined by the compatibility between the social affordances of the exhibit and the level of traffic in the area it's placed in.
ReplyDeleteI also wrote about the rotating mirrors and you brought up the social aspect, something I didn't touch upon much in my review. It was the type of exhibit that not only made you interact with your friends, but also encouraged you to interact with strangers when you got confused. I think the biggest strength of the rotating mirrors was the fact that it actually made you feel like you were discovering and problem solving.
ReplyDeleteI also loved the idea of the self-excluding and self-centered mirrors, but agree that it could grow. I love the footprint idea and the idea of making them larger. I also think an entire room surrounded by different excluding and self-centered mirror faces could be really intriguing.