Date: Tuesday 5th october
The first objective was to observe three artefacts within the space of the Museum and try to deduce or learn as much about the community that created them as possible. Based on this knowledge, four separate technologies or ideas that would be useful to the community were suggested.
I found sketching and photography quite useful, and i took a lot of photographs of things that i was interested in. I made my selections based on things that grabbed my attention and made me want to learn more. I selected two artefacts based on ancient cultures i didn't know a lot about, and one that i felt more involved with.
I made quick line drawings which was a skill i picked up in the first year, which forced me to appreciate the shape and dimensions of the artefacts i selected.
Artefact #1
Figurative Ghanaian Coffins
This was the piece that i chose to talk about to the group during the session as it was the one object that i found beautiful yet poignant.
Essentially an elegantly crafted eagle inspired coffin, this was handmade by two brothers in 1951 for their grandmother who had always wanted to fly.
It was displayed high above my head , in a transparent case which emphasised the effect of flying. It was a beautiful sentiment, for the two brothers to wanted to represent the aspirations of their grandmother and give her a sense of flying in death.
It became very popular around this time, with many members wanting to comission their own coffins, and with people designing coffins for hteir loved ones.
What i thought about the community that made this:
-Rural/Remote/Old-Fashioned: The community had members that wanted to fly but couldn't
Sentimental: the beauty and thoughtfulness of the burial; other members wanted a similar burial
-Technically skilled: Impressive craftmanship and variety of specialised skills
- Self-sufficient: Able to create this piece using thier own (not outsourced) community members and materials.
Artefact # 2
Folding chairs
This was not an artefact on display, but i was drawn to it not only as it was clearly a design intervention to try to make peoples lives easier, but also becasue it was not being used by anyone.
I thought that my intended user base was probably: Researchers, Older people, and schoolchildren as they were the only people who would need to be in the space for long enough to need to sit down. The former would be interested in the exhibits and need to spend a long time with them much longer than the rough average 10-20 minutes most people spent in the room), and be able to move to the food hall as they needed to engage with the exhibits. Choolchildrena nd older people might be too tired to stand for the 20 minutes or so to view everything in the room.
Next to the set of 10 folding chairs was a sign reading 'Please help yourself. for use within the museum online. please return after use'. It was very inobtrusive, and when i moved closer to it, one of my fellow students said that she hadn't even noticed it.
I do wonder if the reason that nobody was using it was because they had no use for it, or if they simply hadnt noticed it. It was located tucked beside the rear entrance to the hall, and i only noticed it was i was walking out. If you enter by the back door, it is unlikely that you'd notice it as your attention would be towards the exhibits, not in the corner. I drew this rough floor plan to show what i meant.
This got me thinking; there's no point designing something useful if it is noticed too late to use, or can be easily missed. There is something to be said for the aim of making sure a design 'fits into' or 'goes with' a space (unless your intention is to be noticeable), but not to slide so well into the background that they can be very easily missed.
I deduced a few things about the community, two of which contradict eachother completely.
-Thoughtful/Considerate: Thought to consider tired users
-Unthoughtful: Made the assumption that they were needed although they may not have been. Did not place the chairs in an obvious place, or at both doors.
-The desire to want users to engage with the space for as long as possible
-Health & Safety conscious; perhaps they were following some guidelines that says that they need chairs to protect themselves legally if someone collapses. Or that they have to provide seating.
I noticed that there weren't chairs in all rooms, in fact i only noticed chairs in one place. In other museums i.e. the V&A, there is fixed, permanent seating available in various places even in exhibition areas; not just in the food hall. I wonder why. It might be becasue they thought that fixed seating would detract from the effect of the exhibitions.
I thought about who might have designed it and why:
Was it a suggestion in a suggestion box
-An ideaby the curator
I am going to go back to the museum and ask around to try to find out if this has always been a permant fixture and if not, when, why and by whom it was designed.
Artefact # 3
Roviana Skull House
The 'skull house' contains the skull of an important ancestor and it marks a claim to land and sea by the deceased.
It is a shrine, with shell valuables placed within it which represent money, or were used as ornaments or charms.
The people may have been/had;
-superstituous or spirtiual given their respect for the dead, and the suggestion of a belief in and afterlife
-they may have had a concept of ownership: making land, especially even whendead
-ancient: as there was no metal currency
-a fair skill level: constructing basic wooden structures, which the majority of modern day people can't do
-reverence for the dead
No comments:
Post a Comment