Immersive confusion

Brief notes on the presentation of Anne-Mette Villumsen about immersive exhibitions at the Skovgaard Museum in Denmark.

Here are the aspects of immersive experiences, which, from my point of view, are often used to demonstrate the progressiveness of a museum using the popularity and the exciting sounding of the word 'immersive'. The term 'immersive', even though it has long historical roots, just like 'multi-' or 'interdisciplinary', seems to be en vogue today without, at times, necessarily carrying its function of creating a feeling of immersion. This post displays the immersive exhibition examples of the Skovgaard Museum described in the presentation of Villumsen (video above), gives frequently used definitions of immersive and questions the use of the term 'immersive' in today's practice.

Three immersive exhibitions are presented in this video. I am pointing out their features as described by Anne-Mette Villumsen:

1. Hotel Aurelia (haunted house, peeking into the room, hidden passages, smells, sensorial theatre, projections of people)

2. Love exhibit (from discursive to sensorial, interaction and participation, creating sentences out of magnetic words on a magnetic wall is immersive)

3. Wonderworld (art+light+sound create an abstract landscape)

In the Hotel Aurelia, immersion is communicated through the dark spaces with lit up objects and a sense of peeking into a story allowing the visitor to explore the space. The Love exhibition, on the other hand, seems to present an immersive learning atmosphere rather than a theatricality of space design. The photos communicate some group activities in the exhibition. In conclusion, the Wonderworld show appears closer to an art installation in terms of its visual characteristics. On the photos, we can see some abstract wooden structures located throughout the space, the sand on the floor, the two-dimensional silhouette of the mountains on the wall and the absence of typical exhibition labels or text panels. Of course, judging the immersion based on the image seems extremely limiting, if not wrong at all, but it is still important to consider it as one of the communication tools museums use to share their practices with the others.

After showing these three exhibits, Villumsen ended her presentation with the statement: "We believe, the world of sensorial theater, with its immersive dramaturgical experiences that require the audience's active engagement, is the method that can inspire museums how to engage and activate their audience in new ways. ... give (visitors) sensorial rather than intellectual knowledge". She referenced Punchdrunk, the creator of the famous immersive play 'Sleep No More', and the local Danish theater company Carte Blanche as some of the examples and inspirations for the three aforementioned exhibitions. Throughout the presentation, Villumsen was underlining the theatrical and sensorial aspects which contribute to the sense immersive environments. However, these sensory and theatrical aspects seem to have quite a wide range of meanings. Comparing the imagery of the three exhibits, we can see that the theatricality and sensory aspects are designed differently in each of them. Evaluating the differentiating visuals and descriptions of the presented exhibits (above each image), can we agree that all three are the examples of immersive? Do participatory, engaging, theatrical and sensory necessarily make an immersive exhibition?

In fact, theoretical research also offers a wide range of characteristics which define immersion, from theatrical to participatory. Some describe immersive spaces as those which are engaging visitors on multiple levels, creating fun and unexpected experiences (Weaver, 2007) or as imaginative spaces which stimulate a desire to explore and discover (Mortensen, 2010). In addition, others propose that immersion should incorporate dramatic features (Macfayden, 2009). However, the predominantly used and cited definition suggests that immersive environments transport visitors to a different time and space (Bitgood, 1990). In a way, Bitgood described the end result, which can be reached with the tools such as dramaturgy, stimulation of curiosity and sensory design - the aspects described by Weaver, Mortensen, and Macfayden. Yet this isn't the whole range of characteristics. The body of research on immersive environments also suggests aspects such as environmental feedback through interactivity, use of object realism or authenticity, social involvement, artistic portrayal. Lankford (2002) and Csikszentmihaki (2003) include 'flow' - the theory of optimal experience. It comprises of the sense of wonder, individual interpretation, factual information, intense concentration, complex mental activity, goal-directedness, the presence of challenge, and interplay of knowledge, memory, emotion, sensation, and perception. Some researchers suggest participation as a characteristic of immersive which, however, Pierre Gander deconstructs as a false feature of immersion in 'Two Myths about Immersion'. In conclusion, the range of the term 'immersive' is quite wide, and, perhaps consequently, the exhibit approaches also result being diverse.

Is it due to the multiple understandings of 'immersive' which leads to an excessive use of the term today? Or are museum exhibitions actually becoming increasingly immersive in the 21st century? As I mentioned in the beginning, immersion is not a new concept, its roots can be found in the Ancient Greek theater, Gothic architecture, Lascaux Caves, moving panoramas (Griffiths, 2008; Christian Barthelmes and Frank den Ousten, 2011). Nevertheless, while the general museum belief identifies sensorial and theatrical exhibitions as the ones which are immersing the visitors into the narrative, one's perception still remains subjective. Let's try to imagine how a passive observation and minimal space design can also immerse one into a different time and space (using Bitgood's widely utilized definition). For example, how can the most traditionally set exhibition transfer one into the memory of visiting a museum in the childhood or how can an archeological museum with an extensive object collection become a wonder world for an archeologist whose imagination connects the observed objects with the stories he knows about them from the books? That's where make-believe (Walton, 1990) comes into play and triggers our imagination by an aspect, which has a resonance in our subjective perception. In this case, there is no need to enhance each exhibition environment with theatrical and sensorial designs working to actively engage the visitors.

So what's confusing in the museum practice is the fact that often exhibitions defined by the museum professionals as immersive may not appear as immersive for a visitor. Moreover, due to the wide range of understanding of what immersive is, on the one hand, more experimentation in temporary exhibitions is taking place, and on the other, this experimental search might increase the immersive value of very traditionally set exhibitions.

Merging the theoretical research and the presentation of practices of the Skovgaard Museum, I still have more questions about immersive environments than before:

- What, after all, do exhibit creators rely on when they aim to create an immersive experience? What are the measurement parameters?

- How will the popularity of immersive environments affect the museums?

- Is there a gap between theory and practice of immersive or is it just how immersive theory represents itself in practice?

- What type of spectator will be the main actor influencing the development of immersive environments?

- Can 'Immersive confusion' be the unscientific title of my PhD?

References:

Bitgood, S. (1990). The role of simulated immersion in exhibition. Center for Social Design.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention (Reprint ed.).

Lankford, E. L. (2002). Aesthetic experience in constructivist museums. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 36(2), 140-153.

Macfadyen, A. (2009). A Methodology for the Analysis of Interactive Narrative Environments: A Four-factor Framework (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ballarat).

Mortensen, M. F. (2010). Designing immersion exhibits as border-crossing environments. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), 323-336.

Weaver, S. (2012). Creating great visitor experiences: a guide for museums, parks, zoos, gardens & libraries. Left Coast Press.

Chicago

Additional resources:

The discourse on the 'interdisciplinarity', a short presentation of Yvat Etgar

The philosophical, anthropological and architectural aspects of immersive essential to the exploration of the notion of immersive fully in the talk by Mark Wigley, Professor and Dean Emeritus of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.