A New Authority: Relationship and Ownership Between Museum and Visitor
Mac Prensky (2001), author of âDigital Natives, Digital Immigrantsâ, highlighted how students, even a decade ago, were thinking about and processing information fundamentally differently from their predecessors as a result of being surrounded by new technology. The author compares these digital natives with older generations, who are learning and adopting new technology, naming them digital immigrants. The digital natives are those who fall within the Millennial generation and are native speakers of the digital language that âour students have changed radically. Todayâs students are no longer the people our education system was designed forâ (p. 1). These individuals are masters at multi-tasking and are accustomed to receiving information at a fast rate.
The text âDigital Natives, Digital Immigrantsâ focuses on the responsibility of teachers to keep up with their students, even though the teachers are not of the digital native generation. Digital native has become a term commonly used when discussing those who grew up in a digital age. However, this definition is limiting and can be used to enforce stereotypes of a certain generation, particularly the stereotype that if one was born into this generation then one is, therefore, comfortable with the technology as it is presented to him or her, even though a younger individual may be limited financially to the technology provided by an older individual.
In contrast to Prenskyâs correlation of technology and their participants, Danah Boyd (2012) explored the concept of individuals who are accustomed to the use of technology in âParticipating in an Always on Lifestyle.â âParticipating in the Always on Lifestyleâ explores the difference between those who would be considered always-on and those who wouldnât. Always-On is summed up as someone who is not necessarily always on or off the Internet, but is always connected to the network, meaning that when needed information is just around the corner, it can be easily accessed. Boyd explains that she is âprocontext. Different social context mean different relationships to being always-on. They are not inherently defined by space but by social construction of context in my own head⊠Iâm not interruptible because connection often means context shift, and only certain context shifts are manageableâ (p. 72). One may not be able to be reached all the time, not because of any issue of access, but because any given connection using technology requires a context shift, and only certain ones are manageable at any given time or place. To put it simply, an Always-On individual would be able to use the Internet on their mobile device to help a conversation, but at the same time would not allow an incoming message to distract them from the person they are conversing with in that moment.
This text explores what is considered on-line and how the definition has gotten broader with the expansion of technology. Boyd seriously questions how many hours of the day one spends online and wonders if sleeping next to oneâs iPhone counts as being connected since it is consciously within reach. Boyd explains her questions as âit is no longer on or off really. Itâs about living in a world where being networked to people and information wherever and whenever is just assumedâ (p. 71).
Boyd mentions the generational idea of digital natives within her text and states that the always-on is not a clean generational cut; those of a younger generation may choose not to be always connected to the network and others. It is a lifestyle based on values. These values may simply be not attractive to someone of any generation, while fascinating to those of another. She instead relates the always-on lifestyle as a subcultural practice. It is not âabout consumption and production of content but also about creating an ecosystem in which people can stay peripherally connected to one another through a variety of microdataâ (p. 73). Â It is a community that is built based on the same goals and values, one that is understood by those who participate. It is a give and take, offering opinions to continue the exchange of ideas and looking for someone else to expand the conversation.
With the rise of social media and the ability to find information immediately comes a new audience, one that is no longer passive. Mark Thompson, director of BBC, uses the term active audience within âThe People Formerly Known as the Audienceâ by Jay Rosen (2012), describing those who do not simply want to sit back and only absorb information, but seek to debate and communicate. Rosen draws attention to how media has changed from being run by an elite entity that can censor and edit to being influenced by the will of the people. Rosen points out that the audience still wants its Big Media business, but it is no longer on their time.
The concept of Big Media that Rosen describes can be related to the development of the online presence of museum institutions. This system was used in the beginning to inform individuals what the institution thought the visitor needed to know in an outwardly one-way manner.  However, with the rise of social media came hashtags, a mode of tagging that links an individual to an institution, and through its use begins a conversation. Rosen explains âWe graduate from wanting media when we want it to wanting it without the filter, to wanting media to be way better than it is, to publishing and broadcasting ourselves when it meets a need or sounds like funâ (p. 14). An individual has the ability to follow, question, and personalize their media consumption.
This new active audience questions the authority of institutions like the museum, by simply questioning the content of museums. Nina Simon, Executive Director of the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History and Author of The Participatory Museum, wrote âone of the primary fears museum professionals (and all professionals) have about entering new relationships with audiences is the fear of losing controlâ (2008, para. 2). With the use of social media, those engaged with the museum are presented with the ability to publicly ask questions that demand answers, to make statements, to rate the work, to critique what they see, and to share their experiences. Within âFuture of Authority: Platform Powerâ, Simon outlines how museums can look to companies like YouTube, or other user-generated content sites, as examples of how a set of rules allows museums to retain authority in regards to values and behavior, but also provides users with authority to ask and engage.
Museums are no longer in complete control of the visitorsâ experience. Visitors want to interpret content on their own or with others through a conversation; they want to create responses and reinterpret work. The museums have taken on a platform to harness this reality and to offer a place where they welcome the visitorsâ questions and comments. Going through galleries, one can start to notice the museum-generated hashtags and encouragements to interact through one of their social media platforms. It gives the museum an opportunity to offer a voice to a variety of staff of their institution, each offering their own expertise for discussion. For example, many museums are offering questions for a curator, or videos from preservation, or samples of gallery tours. Suddenly a museum can become personable.
These platforms have offered museums another way to connect to their audience as well market their institution, Simon states that one of the âgreatest powers retained by these platforms is the power to feature content that reflects the values of the platform...most find ways to feature the kind of content and behavior that they want to see modeled for other usersâ (Simon, 2008, para. 12). What a museum chooses to display to their audience creates a relationship, either one that is open to communication or one of an encyclopedia, with the authoritative voice of an expert. By making an impact on a visitor that encourages that visitor to follow an institution on one of the social media sites, it opens that visitor to continuously engage with any new content the institution produces.
Social media is seen as a way to keep people engaged, to include them in on the conversation by allowing visitors to see some behind-the-scenes action. It allows the institution to hold a mix of voices from educational to personal depending on the conversation. The New York Times published a story written by Carol Vogel (2011) titled âThe Spirit of Sharing,â which explores social media within museums through conversing with a variety of staff from different museums. Vogel interviewed the chief technology officer of the Brooklyn Museum, who stated:
We want people to feel ownership of this museum. We ask them to tell us what they think. They can give us a bad review; when we make a mistake they can come to our rescue. We want to engage with our community. (para. 6)
No matter the online presence, the goal of social media is to get individuals into the institution and for them to be engaged with the art in that moment. However, it is not possible for everyone to make it through the doors of a particular museum â location, free time, and finances are just a few obstacles that could keep anyone away. Vogel stated in The New York Times that in 2010 the Indianapolis Museum of Art received 430,000 visitors, however, the engagement through their website, where visitors can view the museumâs collection and interact with videos and blogs, was close to one million individuals. The online presence of museums is easily accessible, and social media has supplied more options in communicating and engaging with visitors, even those who may never set foot into the institution. Museums are under pressure to continuously supply interesting content to snag new visitors as well as keep existing ones.