self-archive part twenty-three
Final conversation with my original proposal: I felt married to the idea of the Exploratorium because I was so frustrated by my summer of searching. I had so many interests that choosing which one to indulge was very difficult for me to navigate, I wasn't interested in dealing with it anymore. San Francisco was a place I had always wanted to visit, and I hadn't seen Blake in so long, I was beginning to forget what he looked like. This discussion of my project's evolution assumes aforeknowledge of my proposal (http://www2.evergreen.edu/wikis/museums/index.php?title=Vanessa%27s_proposal). I had completely forgotten about my scientific past, until one day at the Exploratorium. My choice making process was devoid of the concious knowledge that science used to be a passion for me. It wasn't until junior year of high school that I really started creating art and abandoning science.
In the beginning, I questioned if the new model of museums was worth pursuing. Now, that question astonishes me. Of course, the Exploratorium's model is worth agressive pursuance. My prim love of museums is not shared by everyone, and activity provides a break from oppressive forms of learning. A small break in the monotony of experience. Its engaging activities may also increase confidence. True confidence creates better citizens. This is where it touches somewhat on another prior question: What commentary on contemporary life might it offer? I didn't expect the Exploratorium, to be in any way a critique in disguise of contemporary society and its trappings, I only asked the question because I am always looking for successful social commentary. I thought perhaps, asking the question would allow me the opportunity in research to generate some new ideas, a small conversation. However, the Exploratorium, it turns out, is very wrapped up in Frank Oppenheimer. Less so now than when he was alive and running it, but continuing his legacy indeed. Frank was completely open with his constructive commentary on current societal conditions and their results. The museum comes out of Frank's personal philosophy which executive director Bartels describes as "secular humanist". This is about the "democratization of science" for empowerment. If a select few were the only ones who understood science that would be very bad for democracy. Frank spoke out with certainty that humans are inately interested in understanding their surroundings, and that "meaning making" to transform our experiences was the kingdom of the scientist and artist.
The museum is not slick, but handmade with a touch of slick. The warehouse-like quality of the place, is very unimposing its neighborhood very unimposing. Its yacht harbors, bridge access, Marina district and the Palace with its lagoon. The color scheme and text used are the same within the museum as on the website. There is a look, but it is clean, crisp and uncluttered. Simple and playfully austere. I attended three extra events: Scala media (an interactive music piece where you inserted your hand/finger/whatever into wooden containers that held water. Corresponding sounds emitted based on the touch), The Blues according to Lightnin' Hopkins , and the lecture on stem cells. They were three completely different experiences that happened in a span of two weeks in the same space. This also places credit on the Exploratorium's shoulders for manitaining a diversity of functions to stimulate conversations, learning and growth. The Exploratorium's place in San Francisco is one that evolves. In its current neighborhood, it is seen as a lesser of evils. The Marina neighborhood is very rich and quiet and they want to keep it that way, so a museum makes good sense for a neighboring tenant. However, the Exploratorium often hosts events that disturb the area like a sleep-over to watch an eclipse where a secret unauthorized rave occurred under the Palace's dome. San Francisco has so many wonderful attractions that I don't feel the museum has any dominance, but is just one more thing that San Franciscans would say 'of course my wonderful city has that wacky science museum.'
It does feel like a museum despite all of this though, because it does have signage, admissions desk, and exhibits. It doesn't feel like the future. That is a question that seems so left-field now, but I remember at the time, I was anticipating more technology being displayed. Something similar to new fantastic displays of technology was what I was expecting rather than how we discover patterns in nature and technologically mimic them for human use.
It is difficult to state whether or not something accomplishes its goal. I think goals are more fluid and ongoing rather than being something static and maintainable at an "attained" status. But yes, the Exploratorium provides a space where physics and nature become experiences that can inspire further exploration and consequent discovery. Due to the museum not promoting brand new techonologies in any over the top way, my distrust for technology was not ruffled. Except at NISE, which was a volunteered at event, and not something I would've experienced at the museum. No the Exploratorium doesn't address ecological issues, quality of life issues, or any other potentially political items. It does address global warming.
In the beginning, I questioned if the new model of museums was worth pursuing. Now, that question astonishes me. Of course, the Exploratorium's model is worth agressive pursuance. My prim love of museums is not shared by everyone, and activity provides a break from oppressive forms of learning. A small break in the monotony of experience. Its engaging activities may also increase confidence. True confidence creates better citizens. This is where it touches somewhat on another prior question: What commentary on contemporary life might it offer? I didn't expect the Exploratorium, to be in any way a critique in disguise of contemporary society and its trappings, I only asked the question because I am always looking for successful social commentary. I thought perhaps, asking the question would allow me the opportunity in research to generate some new ideas, a small conversation. However, the Exploratorium, it turns out, is very wrapped up in Frank Oppenheimer. Less so now than when he was alive and running it, but continuing his legacy indeed. Frank was completely open with his constructive commentary on current societal conditions and their results. The museum comes out of Frank's personal philosophy which executive director Bartels describes as "secular humanist". This is about the "democratization of science" for empowerment. If a select few were the only ones who understood science that would be very bad for democracy. Frank spoke out with certainty that humans are inately interested in understanding their surroundings, and that "meaning making" to transform our experiences was the kingdom of the scientist and artist.
The museum is not slick, but handmade with a touch of slick. The warehouse-like quality of the place, is very unimposing its neighborhood very unimposing. Its yacht harbors, bridge access, Marina district and the Palace with its lagoon. The color scheme and text used are the same within the museum as on the website. There is a look, but it is clean, crisp and uncluttered. Simple and playfully austere. I attended three extra events: Scala media (an interactive music piece where you inserted your hand/finger/whatever into wooden containers that held water. Corresponding sounds emitted based on the touch), The Blues according to Lightnin' Hopkins , and the lecture on stem cells. They were three completely different experiences that happened in a span of two weeks in the same space. This also places credit on the Exploratorium's shoulders for manitaining a diversity of functions to stimulate conversations, learning and growth. The Exploratorium's place in San Francisco is one that evolves. In its current neighborhood, it is seen as a lesser of evils. The Marina neighborhood is very rich and quiet and they want to keep it that way, so a museum makes good sense for a neighboring tenant. However, the Exploratorium often hosts events that disturb the area like a sleep-over to watch an eclipse where a secret unauthorized rave occurred under the Palace's dome. San Francisco has so many wonderful attractions that I don't feel the museum has any dominance, but is just one more thing that San Franciscans would say 'of course my wonderful city has that wacky science museum.'
It does feel like a museum despite all of this though, because it does have signage, admissions desk, and exhibits. It doesn't feel like the future. That is a question that seems so left-field now, but I remember at the time, I was anticipating more technology being displayed. Something similar to new fantastic displays of technology was what I was expecting rather than how we discover patterns in nature and technologically mimic them for human use.
It is difficult to state whether or not something accomplishes its goal. I think goals are more fluid and ongoing rather than being something static and maintainable at an "attained" status. But yes, the Exploratorium provides a space where physics and nature become experiences that can inspire further exploration and consequent discovery. Due to the museum not promoting brand new techonologies in any over the top way, my distrust for technology was not ruffled. Except at NISE, which was a volunteered at event, and not something I would've experienced at the museum. No the Exploratorium doesn't address ecological issues, quality of life issues, or any other potentially political items. It does address global warming.
Comments