I really had an amazing time on Friday wandering around the Exploratorium. I know we're only supposed to choose two exhibits to talk about, but since the two I originally intended to talk about have already been mentioned several times I will just briefly mention those and then instead talk about a couple others that I think are worth discussing as well.
What didn't work:
I really didn't feel that the Self-Centered Mirror offered very much, and it seems like that feeling is mutual for a few others. The idea that several mirrors facing the user will create several reflections seems painfully obvious, and doesn't reveal any interesting property of mirrors or push the user to ask questions. While All Eyes On Me had a similar effect, I found it much more compelling to see a hundred of my eyes alongside one another, maybe because a head full of eyes is just a much more unusual sight than your own entire image. Anyway, since many people have already mentioned this one that's all I'll say about that.
Another exhibit that I found particularly disappointing was Look Into Infinity. This concept has so much potential but is lacking in execution. I didn't like that peepholes were drilled into the mirror because it breaks the symmetry of the reflected lights in a very unseemly way. It makes me think that here must be a more graceful way of letting the user see the many reflections... I also thought the overall aesthetic was just unattractive.
If I were to redesign an exhibit to play with light and reflection, I would prefer an aesthetic like this one. It's so much more mysterious and beautiful. I love the idea of reflecting lights to create the illusion of a tunnel or expansive space, but I also think that having to put your face up to a board somewhat spoils the illusion--by getting up close to the first mirror, the user puts him or herself in the mindset that what they are about to see has been constructed for them. If this could be avoided in some way, if the illusion could be regarded from afar and examined from all sides, I think it would make the exhibit much more exciting and prompt the user to ask questions about why the light is reflected in a certain way, to puzzle at how the mirrors had been assembled to achieve the illusion instead of just presenting an interesting idea in an obvious way.
What DID work:
One that I loved which has already been mentioned is the giant mirror. More than anything else, I think this is a wonderful exhibit because it reminded me of something Alex said earlier in the day when we were talking about what we think makes exhibits exciting. He talked about what it's like when exhibits make people interact in new and unexpected ways, which really resonated with me. I think the giant mirror accomplishes this more than any of the other exhibits we saw; unlike those which ask you to choose a partner, this mirror puts users up close and personal to one another. You might find yourself staring straight into the eyes of a stranger standing thirty feet away from you because of the mirror's enormous radius. I found that this led to many more unexpected encounters than other exhibits.
Another exhibit I really enjoyed was Your Father's Nose, which I tried out with Winnie. This slitted mirror allows you to combine slices of your own face with slices of your partner's, ultimately forming a new and surprising hybrid face. While examining the face of Wifna (Dannie?), I realized that what makes this exhibit so appealing is that it forces you to look at your features in an objective way, which is often difficult or even impossible to do. For example, I recall a middle school art teacher having me turn a photo of myself upside down before copying the image in graphite--she did this because your mental image of your face is skewed by your perceptions, so it's difficult to view elements and features objectively. It also has a playful nature--you can't help but laugh when you see your eyes paired with someone else's nose and hair.
I like your comment on how Your Father's Nose allows you to objectively look at your features. Any specific feature of our face---or body for that matter---is hard to objectively evaluate in the presence of all of our other features. We see things as a whole and sometimes glaze over details, but this exhibit accentuated each feature that was your own, or the collaborator's. I also did a similar exercise in middle school art! Drawing right-side up we already have a set mental image of what a face, an eye, an apple, or a car should look like. But upside-down we are forced to zoom in on the lines and shape rather than the object as a whole.
ReplyDelete"You might find yourself staring straight into the eyes of a stranger standing thirty feet away from you because of the mirror's enormous radius." This is what I loved about the giant mirror too. It was unexpectedly forceful in creating ad hoc interactions between strangers. The seeming randomness of the whole affair made it feel like the mirror had a mind and that its purpose was to confuse you. Great comments. I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteI have to say in defense of the self-centering mirror, there was no single mirror pointing back at you. the effect came because of the angle between each pair of mirrors. The noticeable difference here is that your image is reflected twice, in effect not being a mirror image at all. I noticed this when I saw that I could read my name tag the correct way in the exhibit rather than backwards. This phenomenon was also illustrated in rotating faces.
ReplyDeleteI liked your comment about the look into infinity exhibit that by putting their head into the peep holes people are in the mindset that what they are about to see has been constructed for them. It is definitely something to consider when creating our own exhibits.
ReplyDeleteI found what you said about the difference between the Self-Reflecting and Self-Excluding Mirrors and All Eyes on Me – that looking a place full of eyes was more interesting than a lot of you – to be an interesting observation. I wonder how much this applies to the other exhibits. Are exhibits better if they show you something odd, unexpected, and even strange and weird or choose to accomplish a phenomenon that is simple but still rarely represented?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your criticism of the infinity mirrors, which reminded me of another critique. For me putting my face to those eye holes was actually oddly uncomfortable. Your comments have made me realize this was likely due to how dirty and dark the mirrors were as well as how rather plain the external aesthetics were. I wonder how much appearance affects how willing a visitor is to not only interact with an exhibit but also become comfortable taking risks and fully engage in it.