Digital technologies are impacting what we do; how we work; how we collect.

Shift from collecting hero items to using material culture as a lens.

Does the object capture the experience itself? And how do you capture something immaterial, e.g.

video games?

Object technical files, archives, etc. are now mostly digital.

Since its inception, Who am I? exhibition has purported to articulate both artworks, interactives and

scientific objects to tell stories and pose questions about biotechnology/biomedicine/science/who we

are. This exhibition is situated in the Wellcome Wing of the Science Museum, which inaugurated

alongside the Making the Modern World in 2000. Allison () been suggested this configured a

separation between contemporary science and scientific objects display approaches. This meant that

the exhibition’s focus on posing questions about science and technology’s (S&T) relevance for

people’s lived experiences has remained relevant in light of the consolidation of social constructive

concerns over recent decades.

I will argue that this exhibition insightfully bridges the gap between art and S&T, foregrounding their

relationship to provide a critical understanding of how the boundaries between subjectivity and

objectivity are articulated in S&T. Approaches: objects can talk; medium as a message. Structure of

the essay.

History of scientific objects focused vs. contemporary science (interactives, artworks, objects)

approaches.

A case concentrated on the relationship between art and science/technology.

 2

Critical of science: objects that talk, idols and self-evident dimensions.

The medium is the message. Understanding the materiality beyond the “hard” sense, related to its

physical composition, and including the intangible, in the realm of subjectivity.

Experience for the audiences: who is targeted, how was it thought out, how is the message conveyed.

Is it successful? What does it tell us about the possibilities of integrating art in curatorial techniques

for science exhibitions?

“6 - Artworks
Throughout Who Am I? there are many artworks which respond
to big questions in science and society”

[Link]

Coming from the entrance, visitors are presented with…

As they move through the side…

On the other side, a yellow plaque…

[Link]

“I was reacting to the physicality and structure of Mr Chamsi-Pasha’s face, but also to a

sense of his character, his connection to Homs and Syria, and his demeanour and

intensity of gaze.” (Instagram)

= Just like farmers and cowmen, an aspect of the material culture/portrayal that is

“harder”, related to the material/the line-formations and structures of the face; but also

something underlying, cultural.

 3

“After a while I wanted to escape the artificial nature of the whole set

up, so I began drawing people on tubes, on trains, on the street and in

parks.” = Escape the artificial nature, examples of peoples’ everyday

lives, just like the aims for engaging the public.

As Thomas suggested, it’s important to consider how a simple question becomes a question of itself;

why was it what gives you an idea before, and what’s inside your head now: the former, more

unobtrusive, kids-friendly / family friendly; the latter, more provocative, alluding to the visceral

innateness of the topic, more in tune with the obstacles of talking/thinking about these intangible

subjects.

The intention was to question the relationship between art and science: “Does science or art give

us a truer picture, or do they just reveal different things?” Which is demonstrated in the juxtaposition

of artistic drawing of brain connections, on one side, and picture of a brain, on the other. But maybe

they are accomplishing a deeper feat with this exhibition. According to some authors, there is strong

evidence of the longer-term impact of museum experiences, but visitors are selective on what they

recall, things remembered morph and change over time, with some aspects growing stronger as they

are reinforced by additional experiences (Falk, 2012, p. 200 – museum experience). Furthermore, as

art brings inherently the subjective into view, maybe the notable accomplishment of this exhibition is

blending our notions of objectivity with subjectivity: the intention is a symmetrical divide between

these realms, posing the implicit question (not outlined in the plaques, but only in the digital

material?) The subjective is not just decorative, it can enhance the appreciation for objects, aid in

asking important questions, draw in attention to bigger dilemmas = There is a larger narrative

component (art/subjectivity vs. science/objectivity), plenty of specific narratives (objects, images), a

 4

gallery context (who am i? interactives, artworks and objects + questions), a museum question

(institution, SM), country (privilege, power). The art and science theme provides the stronger

connecting point of this exhibition.

“The Who Am I? gallery explores these questions and more through interactive exhibits,

artworks and over 100 intriguing objects”

“2 What’s inside your head? Brains are thinking machines, creating memories,

coordinating thoughts and actions, and helping us to navigate the world. Explore how studying

brain cells and genes can tell us about how brains work and how memories are formed. Don’t

miss: MRI helmet, c.2009 This cap detects radio signals from the brain during an MRI scan. The

information it provides can be used to construct detailed pictures of the brain to understand how

it works.”

“The resolution of the problem, bridging the gap between hard and
soft material culturists, may lie in the mutual realization that reality
probably resides neither solely in the artifact and its contextual data as
the farmers would have it nor only in the culturally conditioned mind of
the perceiver as the cowmen are inclined to but in the relationship
between perceiver, whether farmer or cowman, and artifact. “ (p. 26)

Lisbon toolkit: A ‘toolkit’ comprising multiple tools to be applied simultaneously at

collection and individual object levels was developed for this purpose. At collection level, the
toolkit comprises the identification of parameters that characterise a collection at a given point
(purpose, use and development, people and institutions, objects, physical location) and the
association of critical points in the collection biography, including creation and dismantling. At
object level, an exploratory model was developed to organise and analyse data according to the
dimensions of time (chronological dichotomy) and similarity (classification dichotomy). The
toolkit can be used as a conceptual framework in collections-based history of science and in
museum documentation. It has been successfully used both ways in Lisbon, with minor
adaptations. P. 742. Lourenço & Gessner.
“museums with beautiful objects with historical depth and significance.”

“approach the study of collections through the trajectories

of specific items and the relationships they form with people and other objects. Material
culture is thus afforded a metaphorical “life” or “career.” Study object biographies:
provenance, life in the museum, viewing the object. Latter: How visitors behaved and
interacted with objects in a collection.
 5

EXTEND THE EXPERIENCE Help people continue making science connections in their
everyday lives.

Why is it so close to the entrance? More important, people see it at the beginning
and/or end?
There are arguable two ways of approaching this exhibtion: from the entrance,
and from the adjacent exhibition. Norm of this exhibition: interactives, many
questions. Distinctiveness of this encasing: stimulating, gore, visceral, artistic.
From the entrance, the painting leads you through the small pictures into the part
with the scientific instruments. From adjacent enclosings, the focus is the brain
image, so vibrant, and the scientific instruments, definitely the main event of a
science museum: so many objects concentrated here. Assymetrical distribution:
art supporting science, drawing attention, inviting audiences in: more time is
meant to be spent on the instruments’ side – more objects, cards, things to look
at (artworks, mri digital images etc.)
There is an inherent assymetry due to the wider contexts (adjacent exhibitions,
gallery theme, museum), but attempts to solve this assymetry from dividing
artwork and picture of the brain include another Goodwin picture on the brain
side (is it enough? It certainly implies that curators/interpretators thought about
the disconnect between sides, and the ephemeral experience for museum
visitors, that don’t have time for everything = the art is a crucial part of it, by
design and evidenced in its ammends).

Anderson, p. 86-87 = 1980s, 1990s:

“Visitors and audiences were now to be understood as
more than passive receivers of texts and information provided by the museum, but
rather as active”
participants in the construction of knowledge. “These authors examined the visitor
experience before, during and following the visit to
explore the range of situational and contextual influences on a visitor’s experience with
the [Link] proposed that visitor experiences can only be understood by
studying the connection between three contexts – being the personal, social and
physical”
Falk has described five categories of visitors based on their identity needs and
motivations when attending museums: Explorers, who are motivated by curiosity;
Facilitators, who seek to enable learning and enjoyment in others; Experience Seekers,
who want to see and experience a place, often looking for the known and iconic;
Professionals and Hobbyists, in which the visit helps meet a professional goal or
purpose; and Rechargers, for whom the museum is a place of respite.

= It is curious that, while the exhibition is clearly dedicated to families and

children (actual audience), there is a little bit of everything is this exhibit:
experience seekers (the iconic object in all the material is the MRI helmet),
explorers, facilitators, hobbyists, even rechargers (if the noise from the children
is lower that day). My argument should relate this multiple applicability to the
 6

artistic alliance with scientific instruments = it is an accessible language,

beautiful, eye-catching, colorful, awe-striking, but also gory, visceral (brain, on
the other side).

The brain size comparisons are great illustrations of the controversial use of this
science and these technologies in sexist, racist ways. But is that clear enough?
Would a layperson get that? What is the role of controversy in this exhibition?
And what about no mention of IQ (so widespread) and all that?
Stories not told in this exhibit: the myth of IQ tests and measurements; widespread and

lacking any rigorous scientific evidence and peer-proof research; how they have been used to justify

a perpetuation of eugenicist claims.

Museum as method: if turning the over lights off was intentional, why are they above the

enclosing in the first place; did they account for the adjacent exhibitions being engulfed in darkness.

Nicholas Thomas: it is appreciated when museums “offer their audiences problems rather

than solutions.”

Boyle, p.42-43: science museum differs from art museum; objects/instruments described by

their general usefulness; special fitness for purpose. Pure science next to industry to demonstrate

their applications, artifacts shown chronologically: this education of science through its history was

the goal. / Best of Both Worlds: In recent years the Science Museum has sought to blend the best of

the two polar approaches, developing object-led galleries with a strong narrative, using a range of

display techniques to support the objects rather than compete with them.

-What stories are being told through these objects with artistic dimensions, and is it

adding to or limited to decorative aspects? Look at why artistic objects could be of interest to

scientific exhibitions: a divide between a focus on decorative features, turned into a collaborative

practice that highlights also the social and domestic factors, e.g. “one can situate historic sundials and

other pocket instruments as primarily personal accessories or luxury commodities.”. (p. 75).

“Meanwhile, the Wellcome Wing’s Who

am I? gallery, with its focus on contemporary genetics and brain science, was
found to be a highly effective learning environment, but not wholly successful
in engaging visitors with artefacts: the interactive displays and object show-
 7

cases were separately situated and the interactives tended to dominate visitor
attention.”

Since the 1990s, both Museum divisions have pursued dual, or

even divergent, approaches to representing their subjects.11 The

collections have been displayed in traditional object-rich galleries

like Making the Modern World. Contemporary science has been

interpreted using more dialogic, interactive techniques as seen in

the Museum's Wellcome Wing galleries. There has been relatively

little cross-over between the two approaches. This divergence

seems somewhat arbitrary when both are simply different parts of

the same continuum of development. And it makes even less

sense when, in terms of social context, both approaches share at

least some common ground (Russell, mind the gap, p. 18)

=It does seem to present some of the same issues: interactive separated from objects, and drawing

more attention; and some of the strengths: more prone to engage, offer problems instead of give

answers (and, consequently, highlight/reinforce specific questions as the right ones).

=The history of the separation between Wellcome Wing and MMW is still haunting both of these; an

articulation of techniques has been suggested as the way forward, but why has its implementation

given raise to such slow transformations (if I’m able to see the same scenario today, 25 years later);

when were the arts introduced? Recently? Change of techniques?

“Blob Dylan, a silicon character, stood at the bottom of each case, putting

questions to younger visitors.”

=On second inspection, definitely seems like there is light on the lamps above, gotta go back to

check.
 8

= Showcase 14: Whatever gave you that idea? = Yellow plaque, changed to what is inside of

you? A reframing that deals in very accessible language (audiences, not just children, but

generally easy to understand), but conveys a more visceral image, which highlights the

importance of contrasting gore with art. Provocative, invokes the innate visceral quality of these

topics, but softens the blow with the artistic approach.

=Showcase 15: Update (lower priority might explain why the cutting of the lights is prejudicial

to this exhibit).

[Link]

imparting-history-intangible-things-mai-sugimoto?context=ubx&refId=552c07e4-5228-450e-b34b-

6aa3455bb757

For scholars of the history of computing, countering the prevailing historical perspective of

‘exceptional geniuses’ can often be arduous. These issues may not be resolved solely within a single

exhibition or item of teaching mate-rial. Instead, a more comprehensive approach, which considers

the history of museums and current museum practice, as well as the history of science and

technology education, could provide an understanding of the various aspects and complexities of

scientific and technological developments, raise aware-ness of these problems, and hopefully lead to

potential solutions.

- Use the tools to criticize it, saying that curators have a personal, non-objective

relationship with objects, and that some stories that aren’t told or that go against the “objectivity”

that they’re reinforcing are worth foregrounding, and deserve to be included in the discussion

alongside which curatorial techniques are better suited.

 9

Industry partnership = British product/model, can be exhibited intercalated with the

“evolved” camera and microscope versions; it brings a powerful message of simpler ideas

turning into very advanced technology, and these are interpreted related to observants’

perspectives.

Overall narrative logic.

Display techniques

Thematic storytelling

Ordering the visit, rather than being optional add-ons for the showcase display.

Both guides a narrative, and has a narrative imposed on them.

“For the social order to be maintained there has to be some measure of agreement as to

what is of value. People in different cultures may value different things, and they may value the

same things differently, but all cultures insist upon some distinction between the valued and the

valueless.” Rubbish theory, p.20.

Two ways objects can be seen, relating to our worldview (perception of the physical and

social environment): transient, durable. Regions of fixed assumptions: Worldview determines

actions. Region of flexibility: Actions determine worldview.

By relating these differences in the breadth of the region of flexibility to the various social levels,
we can uncover the control mechanism within the system: the manner in which durability and transience
are imposed upon the world of objects. This is perhaps the first stumbling block in presenting rubbish
theory, for we all tend to think that objects are the way they are as a result of their intrinsic physical
properties. The belief that nature is what is there when you check in is reassuring but false: the belief that
it is made anew each afternoon is alarming but true. We have to recognize that the qualities objects have
are conferred upon them by society itself and that nature (as opposed to our idea of nature) plays only the
supporting and negative role of rejecting those qualities that happen to be physically impossible. The
operation of this control mechanism would seem inevitably to give rise to a self-perpetuating system.
 10

Briefly: it is decidedly advantageous to own durable objects (since they increase in value over time whilst
transient objects decrease in value). Those people near the top have the power to make things durable and
to make things transient, so they can ensure that their own objects are always durable and that those of
others are always transient.
“But it is worth considering how the histories of particular objects and of particular
collections, and those of the institution as a whole could become lenses through which to view
much larger questions of cross-cultural and colonial history.” Museum as method.
“At its most basic, the object biography provides an appealing narrative hook. Used well,
however, there are a number of further insights that can be gleaned from such an
approach
that are particularly relevant to historians of science. Things collected in the field can be
firmly connected to institutions and practices in metropolitan centers via the identity and
meaning they accreted during their trajectory. By studying what curators then did with
objects in their collections, this approach contributes to constructivist histories of science
by embedding the study of scientific practice in material culture. Exploring the status and
personnel involved in this museum work provides insights into the role of museums in
scientific and civic culture. Finally, I argue that a museum object can be a prism through
which to view various publics’ experience of science”
[Link]

Museums have moved on from linear display to capturing different narrative

perspectives.
From object-based approach to an experience-based approach. Letting people experience
it themselves.

We can piece together that the different variations of this object categorized as Camera
Lucida were acquired by the Wellcome Trust between 1927-1935 (mid 1920s until mid 1930s).
Why? According to Science Museum’s site, on (long-term) loan from the Wellcome
Trust. The dates of acquisition in the technical files align with the dates of publication/creation of
 11

pictures and diagrams of camera lucida in the Wellcome Trust’s website. (Acquired but not held
by WT [Link] )
Some detective work is required. No information in the technical files about the
Wellcome Trust. Institutional practices, organizational clashes observed in the classification of
the object: microscopy (WT, strikethrough), optics (SM). Date of the files: around 1979. Object
reference number: 1981, the year when it was most likely incorporated to the SM collection. Last
information: 1998, conservation report.
Went from a good to a fair state. Out of all 23 different objects, only two have any
indication of ever being displayed. Both times by borrowing.
Industry partnerships are important. Celebrating science is outlined as the vision for
2022-2030 priorities. This can be achieved with a contiguously higher degree of critical
interpretation of the material culture of the object.
Overarching lack of appreciation.
The materiality – specific stories related to its composition. Overwhelmingly, this is what
the object technical file reports on.

Reasons for choosing this object: celebrate the sense of wonder; industry partnerships and
ties to national innovation. That being said, all major museums have it, but none display it.
In our object file, 23 different entries categorized under camera lucida.
Timeline: acquisition (a bit of detective work, dates align with Wellcome acquisitions,
site info).
Move from WT to SM around 1979 (file records, file code 1981 indicates that’s when it
was effectively accessed by the SM). A change of practices, reflected in the microscopy/optics
change. (Prior: WT, current life: loan, SM, or borrowed).
Latest update which as far as we can tell includes conservation reports,
displays/exhibitions, loans/transfers was 27 years ago.
Neglect: Good to fair (cause for concern). The ways in which it has been displayed
(laying down, in a box, not dynamic or eye-catching at all). The scarcity of records that it has
 12

been displayed at all, apart from 2 instances of loans/borrowing from other institutions (1993,
1998). Not just the Science Museum, but all other major museums in town.
The technical file focuses on the materiality and the conservation. Definitely interesting
dimension, in an object that both reflects artistic/material trends and serves as an
artistic/scientific instrument. But what other stories? (fish skin, me or jess?)

Segway: limiting ourselves to the object’s constitution when there are such interesting
stories about it that might relate to the materiality but extrapolate from that.
Object-based approach to Experience-based approach.
Museum as method. Value culturally and socially imposed on the object. Staff/curators.
Audiences.
 13

First Slide:
Title: Object 1981-268/6
Pictures: (I’ve cropped these from the pictures you took, but if this would look too low-
quality, then we can show the whole thing).
14
 15

Second Slide:
Title: Provenance, Prior Life and Life in the Museum(s)
Text and “Pictures”:
Timeline (you can draw this yourself on the slide, or can I give you an image if you’d
prefer; nothing fancy, only a line with dots demarcating: 1925-1935, 1978-1979, 1981, 1998.
 16

Under/over the first should read: Acquisition – Wellcome Trust; the second: Curator Reports; the
third: Accession – Science Museum; and the fourth: Loaned to the University of East Anglia).

Third Slide:
Title: Divergent Institutional Practices
Pictures: (Side to side, with a colorful circle around “microscopy” in the first, and
“optics” in the second)
 17

Fourth Slide:
Title: Conservation and Materiality
Pictures:
(An arrow from this one to the next one, horizontally)
 18

Fifth Slide:
No title
Pictures: (Several pictures of our object and other objects, to emphasize that it hasn’t been
displayed in a dynamic or eye-catching way, always in a box and/or laying down etc.)
(First 3, horizontally)
19
20
 21

(Next 3, horizontally)
22
23
24