Le deuxième débat en ligne s’est centré autour des changements qui s’opèrent dans la relation entre le public et les organisations culturelles. Vincent de Keijzer, architecte de l’information au Musée municipal de la Haye, et Roel Klaassen, manager à la plateforme néerlandaise pour le design, Premsela, nous on fait part de leurs expériences avec les « amateurs » et les « experts ».
Suite aux résultats du premier débat en ligne, la discussion a montré que les changements s’effectuent des deux côtés. Tout d’abord, le public moderne, surtout les plus jeunes, ne considère plus l’autorité des institutions comme allant de soi. Ils sont désireux de s’impliquer dans un processus interactif. Deuxièmement, les organisations culturelles ont également beaucoup à gagner en invitant leurs publics à contribuer à leurs ressources de savoir : cela leur offre une meilleure visibilité (donc plus de visiteurs) et améliore le partage de savoirentre les experts et les amateurs.
Les nouvelles technologies ont aidé à effectuer un grand pas en avant en ce sens, mais les participants de la discussion étaient unanimes sur un point : le plus gros obstacle reste au sein des organisations culturelles, où les professionnels de la culture et les experts reconnus comme tels se montrent souvent sceptiques quant aux nouveautés qui apparaissent dans les manières de procéder. Vincent de Keijzer a expliqué que le meilleur moyen de les convaincre est d’instaurer de simples projets pilotes assez proches de leurs tâches quotidiennes afin de leur montrer directement la valeur ajoutée qui apparaît lorsqu’on implique le public, sans pour autant troubler l’activité principale du musée. Le projet Wiki Loves Art est considéré comme étant un bon exemple à suivre (les photographes amateurs étaient invités à prendre des photos de haute qualité d’œuvres d’art dans les musées).
One participant raised the point that giving too much power to the ‘amateurs’ can threaten the knowledge carefully built and maintained by experts. Another participant, Goran, noted that in his experience ‘amateurs’ appreciate the guidance of expert professionals. However, for the interaction to be successful, the experts need to be humble in their coaching role and open tocontributions from amateurs.
Obviously new participatory models are occurring in the cultural sector, but they need to be supported as a whole to realise their full potential.
The Hague's Municipal Museum is experimenting with new ways of relating to its audience through the project "Gemeentemuseum 2.0”, coordinated by Vincent De Keijzer. As a pilot to redefine the museum as a centre of expertise, the website http://www.delftsaardewerk.nl/ will be launched in November 2009. Enthusiasts of Delftware pottery can interact with museum experts and each other, upload information, or share pictures of privately owned pottery.
Second debate - The collective: the amateur and the expert
16:01 <@timothee> welcome to all - and thanks for joining in the debate
16:01 <@Roel> Thanks for inviting me!
16:01 <@timothee> today Lodewijk will discuss with Vincent and Roel - you are kindly invited to ask questions and participate throughout the whole debate
16:02 <@timothee> before i give the floor to Lodewijk to start the actual discussion - could each of you introduce themselves in one line?
16:03 <@Roel> All right: I'm Roel Klaassen, designer, psychologist, working at Premsela, Dutch Platform for Design and Fashion
16:03 <@Lodewijk> I am a freelance cultural consultant based in Rotterdam the Netherlands, and will moderate this discussion today
16:03 <RogierBrus> Hello I am Rogier Brussee and I am researcher at Novay, an ICT research institute in the Netherlands
16:04 <@Vincent> I work for a museum of modern art (Gemeentemuseum) in The Hague Netherlands on a project called gM2.0
16:04 <@pike> I am the technical manager of LabforCulture - if you have any problems with this chat, send me a message. Details are in the help button on the right upper corner :-)
16:04 <@timothee> (the participants are also invited to say a quick word before we start, Goran, jill, tohbbe ?)
16:05 <@Lodewijk> Let me start with a question to Vincent. Why did the Museum decide to do a 2.0 project, isn't the museum doing well as it is?
16:05 <tohbbe> Hi, I am just creative and from Sweden (Sala).
16:05 <jill> Hi, I'm Jill, I'm from London, and am interested in this debate.
16:06 <@Vincent> There are three goals the museum wants to achieve with the gM2.0 program. Presentation of 95% of the collection that is in store and rarely or never on show, addressing an audience that is not able or willing to visit the museum and experimenting with a different (more active) role of our users.
16:06 <@Vincent> These are additional goals for the museum. We keep on doing the gM1.0 things (exhibitions, publications, educational program etc.)
16:06 <@Lodewijk> so you want to show more, and show to more people?
16:07 <@Vincent> Right, and offering a possibility to be more active as a user
16:07 <@Lodewijk> Why would you want active users though?
16:09 <@Vincent> We would like to make use of the time, enthousiasm and knowledge of the public to enrich our informations systems
16:09 <Goran> Sorry for my late answer. I´m Goran and work as Head of tour production and pedagogics at the Swedish Travelling Exhibitions.
16:10 <@Lodewijk> Can you give an example of how you try to do involve the public Vincent?
16:12 <@timothee> Vincent, are you still with us?
16:13 <@Vincent> We have a collection of 120.000 objects. We will never be able to describe all these objects ourselves. If we wait untill the descriptions are good enough to publish we'll never publiush anything. We would like to get help from anybody. The first project we will launch is a project on Delfts pottery
16:13 <@Lodewijk> that's interesting, actually quite similar to our discussion yesterday about Flickr the Commons
16:14 <@Roel> That sounds interesting Vincent. Would you say it;s a Wikipedia like solution for heritage?
16:14 <@Vincent> Yes, but there are a lot of barriers in the museum for this appraoch
16:14 <Goran> Describe the barriers?
16:15 <@Lodewijk> what is the main barrier for the museum, is it technical, organisational or mental?
16:15 <@Lodewijk> thnx Goran, my thoughts exactly ;-)
16:15 <@Roel> Like the Brittanica - Wiki discussion?
16:15 <@Vincent> My colleagues are not yet convinced they should share the poor descriptions of the objects as they are now with anybody outsie
16:16 <@Vincent> Museums are not used to present something that isn't nice and beautiful
16:16 <@Roel> Poor descriptions of the museum, or from 'amateurs' outside?
16:16 <@Lodewijk> so it is about perfectionism in a way?
16:17 <@Vincent> Just administrative stuff, old inforation, nout up to date
16:17 <@Lodewijk> bt the fact the info is not up to date is also exactly the reason why you want the audience to be involved, isn't it?
16:18 <@Vincent> It's difficult to convince my colleagues that tehy will benifit from the help of the audience
16:18 <Goran> Our experience is if a process involving the public is lead by professionals (artists, curators) it still can end up "nice and beautiful". Ypu have to trust the rpocess and people though.
16:18 <@Lodewijk> quality of) the audience might be a key thing Goran brings up there...
16:19 <@Vincent> I have trust and am convinced but that's not enough. If I won't be able to involve my colleagues in the experiments and projects I will not succeed
16:19 <@Lodewijk> Roel, you have thought a lot about the role of the outside amateur in professional processes
16:20 <@Lodewijk> Can you help Vincent how to convince his colleagues?
16:20 <@Roel> Yes, I did. And I recognise comments from collegues Vincent is describing
16:21 <@Roel> Keep on explaining why and how you involve the public. And give examples of good projects already done!
16:21 <@Vincent> I agree but also think you have to set up experiments close to the day-to day practise of the people working in the museum
16:21 <@Lodewijk> Vincent, is there already a succesful project executed in Gemeentemuseum?
16:22 <@Roel> F. E.: There's no doubt Wiki indeed produces good and valuable information. Now, The Brittannica is partlu mimicing Wiki means of gathering content
16:22 <@Roel> I agree Vincent: Demo or Die... Only pilots will convince people!
16:23 <@Lodewijk> How did your colleagues react to the recent Wiki Loves Art experiment?
16:23 <@Vincent> We work on two projects. One is the model for expert websites (Delfts). The other one an onlibne platform for the museum staff to launch and discuss ideas, pilots, experiments etc
16:24 <Goran> You could also bring on good examples, Christine Arends from the Zeeuws museum for example.
16:24 <@Roel> But also, people have to be realistic. There's no way museums are able to describe all objects in depot. So if you NOT involve 'the masses', in the end you lose valuable information.
16:25 <@Vincent> Funny you mention the Wiki project. I guess the most of my colleagues liked the idea and the fact taht we could easily realize this experiment.
16:25 <@Lodewijk> so keeping it simple is an important starting point, start with something within easy reach?
16:26 <@Roel> (simple, and stupid)
16:26 <@Vincent> WE also realized taht such an experiment , in order to be realy successful should be supported by more departments in the museum. Good lesson
16:26 <@Vincent> Let me know why you think it's studid. I love to hear some critic about it
16:27 <@Roel> Sorry: I meant, like the old design rule "Keep it simple, and stupid"
16:28 <Goran> Thanks for the link!
16:28 <@Lodewijk> Roel, you say there is similar hesitation to involve audiences in your field?
16:29 <@Roel> Of course! The last months I had to explain over and over again why 'amateurs' do matter.
16:29 <RogierBrus> Professionals seem to feel that as simple as possible is not always very simple
16:30 <@Roel> For instance because they're "stupid": not limited to specialist rules and ways of thought
16:30 <@Roel> So they might be better to think out of the box, just because they're not in it...
16:31 <@Roel> Of course I agree: simple is not that simple. But then again: professionals tend to make things complicated.
16:32 <@Lodewijk> but in design, the amateur is not so much audience, bur rather competing as creator
16:32 <RogierBrus> I agree, but there is also a good reason for a lot of complexity.
16:33 <@Roel> Yes! They can be both. That means in the first place professional designers have to find new business!
16:33 <@Roel> And that's good, because they have to be more inventive, creative, intelligent etc.
16:34 <@Lodewijk> but if the designers are already confronted with this competition, why do they still feel amateurs are irrelevant?
16:35 <@Roel> That's politics, I would say. But defensive: by saying amateurs are amateurs you place yourself in a special position.
16:35 <RogierBrus> The people I met don't think that they are irrelevant at all. On the other hand they don't want them to mess up what they have been carefully doing either
16:36 <@Roel> I dont believe in the OR argument. It's both. But still: amateurs confront designers with their professional development.
16:37 <Goran> One reflection is that the whole business of collections and presenting them in different ways is zoomed towards a resourceful middle class. As soon as we start to think outside that box the word "quality" comes up. To me that is offensive, what "amateurs" can offer is different not of less quality.
16:37 <@Roel> Right! I plead for different kinds of quality.
16:38 <@Lodewijk> Is that something a traditional bourgeois museum like Gemeentemuseum can work with, Vincent?
16:38 <RogierBrus> This whole debate is named expert vs amateur by the way.
16:38 <@Roel> In the Netherlands we do have a rather strong tradition in quality meaning 'good taste'. That meaning is used to exclude amateurs.
16:39 <@Vincent> Yes we can and we try in the expert websites we are developping. Not in the museum itself.
16:39 <Goran> Is it always used as a way of protecting "my" inclusion?
16:40 <@Lodewijk> interesting point Vincent: inclusion of the audience, but outside the museum...
16:40 <@Roel> Precisely Rogier! Professional designers like to think they're the only experts. I would say, that's not exactly the case.
16:40 <@Lodewijk> cvincent, can you tell me more of the expert role you want to give "amateurs" in the expert website you are developing?
16:41 <RogierBrus> Well being able to spend time as a day job certainly helps in getting expertise.
16:41 <@Vincent> The Delft pottery website starts on a very practical level. We daily get questions of people who want to know if the object they have is "real" Delfts (and thus hopefully very valuable!). It takes a lot of time to answer these questions and it's difficult to explain why our experts think it is or is not Delfts. The Delfts site will present a lot of background information on the subject but most of all will offer people the pos
16:42 <@Vincent> Usergenerated content is treated equally to the museum content. You can filter the public objects or the private ones though. Or, more interesting distinguish the real Delfts objects from the ones that are not Delfts.
16:43 <@Roel> And the curators have the final say?
16:44 <RogierBrus> I don't understand. What do you seperate, annotations by different groups of people or different groups of pottery
16:44 <@Vincent> The curators explain on the site their definition of Delfts and have the final say according to that definition. You can qeustion that definition though
16:45 <@Lodewijk> I think what was missing in Vincents story that next to images from the museum collection, people can also upload there personal possesions of Delft pottery
16:45 <@Roel> That's really interesting! Is this def. challenged by public comments?
16:45 <@Vincent> yes
16:46 <@Roel> In what way?
16:47 <@Vincent> There will be a discussion forum on this definition. All info is considered work in progress
16:48 <@Roel> Ok, so the definition 'grows into the project'?
16:48 <@Vincent> Right
16:48 <@Lodewijk> so it is possibly similar to wikipedia, that the discussion on what is "true" or "real" takes place online, and defines the outcome
16:48 <RogierBrus> But why would you want to change definitions just because non museum people participate.
16:50 <@Vincent> We'll only change the definition if somebody (museum or non museum people) comes up with a good reason to
16:51 <@timothee> I think that's where the added value is, and what we were talking at the beginning: we don't need to change the definition all the time - but if someone comes up with a good idea, it would be bad not to consider it
16:51 <Goran> One thing I think we have to bear in mind is that "amateurs" love to be guided by "experts". The big issue is to have experts who are humble in their role as coaches or pathfinders or what you may call them. Which would be the case if a museum is considering discussing a change of definitions. I think we are going the wrong way if we want to erase these roles. The Internet also opens up for experts out there who might be just collecting and very interested
16:52 <@Roel> By the way: definitions are always changing. They used to change within specialst groups, now the tend to change because of the outside worls also...
16:52 <@Vincent> The museum is reinventing its expertise / authority. The world around us is changing rapidly. Our users no longer take our claim to authority for granted. They first want to try themselves; have access to all our sources, and if they want, make use of our expertise. I guess we'll have to be prepared for that moment. Offer our public free access ánd the possibility to ask for our help when they need it.
16:52 <@Lodewijk> so following Goran: the collaboration between outsider/amateur and insider/expert is crucial?
16:53 <@Lodewijk> is such a collaboration also the central issue for design, Roel?
16:53 <@Roel> Yes, in the present world more than ever!
16:54 <@Roel> The main goals of our 'amateurism' programme is to open up the design field. Amateurs are great 'openers'...
16:54 <Goran> Isn´t it there already when we speak about function?
16:55 <@Roel> True. If you involve the audience in the design process. but that's too shallow.
16:55 <RogierBrus> The point is that it is not necessarily true that amateur == outsider and insider == expert (although there is certainly a correlation)
16:55 <@Roel> The best way to ask people what they want and need, is to have them create things themselves.
16:55 <@Lodewijk> that sounds almost 70s, Roel ;-)
16:56 <@Roel> Thank you Lodewijk! I'm from the 70ties ;-)
16:56 <@Roel> But good point. Victor Papanek suggested: everyone is a designer.
16:57 <Goran> ..... but not necessarily with a market value.
16:58 <@Roel> I partly agree. Anyone can and will design, but might not become a designer.
16:58 <koikomoru> not necessarily now, but in a time period yes
16:58 <RogierBrus> But most people are not designers and a lot of amateurs do not know what they are talking about. Therefore
16:59 <@Roel> That's right, there's much more to 'design' than just making things...
17:00 <RogierBrus> one should think how one can cherish the people that do know, and how to cope with the people who don't (or at least not there and then)
17:00 <@Roel> But still: designing starts with ideas and creative moments. I stricly believe this is not exclusive to designers of artists.
17:00 <koikomoru> it has been always the same: who holds the monney, gives the rules and chooses the objects
17:01 <@Roel> Indeed, but it's not only the 'experts' being able to get to the money...
17:01 <Goran> I can parallell this to the exhibiton media which is my homeground. If you involve what we may call "amateurs" in the process og producing an exhibition you must show respect towards the audience who is going to watch the exhibition whether it is the normative middle class, youth, children or any other target group. That´s why I think it is important for experts on the exhibtion media to waotk alongside witht he "amateurs" to produce and create the exhibiti
17:02 <Goran> The point is that it is not necessarily true that amateur == outsider and insider == expert (although there is certainly a correlation)
17:02 <Goran> To quote RogerBrus
17:03 <@Lodewijk> so Goran, you think there is not enough confrontation between the museum experts and the outside audience?
17:04 <@Roel> to start with).
17:04 <Goran> No, I think the audience is kept too passive in many respects where they could be made more active
17:04 <@Lodewijk> @Goran: so they should be made active in the real world as well, not only online?
17:05 <Goran> This especially goes for tomorrow´s audience, the young crowd, who are growing up with new values, new ways of learning and communicating
17:05 <@Roel> Do you have interesting examples within exhibition design?
17:06 <@Vincent> I don't agree that only young people demand a new relationship with the museum. The people who send us the questions about Delft pottery are the ones that found us on the internet and spend a lot of time on eBay and Marktplaats to see if the object they found on the local flee market is a masterpiece that will make them very rich. They want to do research themselves, want to have free access to all the knowledge and sources of
17:06 <Goran> Including social media is one way but I think we need to bear in mind that nothing beats the real stuff, the power of the artefact or the real peice of art
17:06 <Goran> I agree Vincent. I just picked the youth as one example ...
17:07 <@Vincent> I agree with Goran : Ultimate goal of the museum is getting real people to real art. The physical encounter with the object is considered unreplaceable. People want to see the real Mona Lisa! We at least want to create the desire to come and see the works of art.
17:08 <Goran> I think there are a lot happening in this respect around Europe though there is no collective picture
17:08 <@timothee> Goran, Vincent: do you think such an interactive process can be built outside the online world, for instance?
17:09 <Goran> Yes, but it calls fo going outside the museum to build contacts and networks and in the process pull this group into the museum.
17:10 <Goran> Pull is maybe not the right word but I think you get my meaning
17:10 <@timothee> yes :) - something like a working group
17:10 <@Vincent> That's the regular stuff my collegues work on all the time, especialy the educaation dept.
17:11 <@Vincent> It's on a different scale and with more practical problems
17:12 <Goran> It is a different scale but aren´t the practical problems others....not more?
17:12 <@Vincent> you're right!
17:13 <@Lodewijk> so we need to create platforms where audience and professional, museum, designer or otherwise, get together and work together...
17:14 <Goran> Yes and I think that the museum could work as a very good platform for this. We just havce to expand our thoughts of what the museum is and not being limitid by the 4 walls and the roof.
17:15 <@Roel> Yes! I feel innovation breeds on edges of disciplines, professions and hobbies.
17:15 <@Lodewijk> What do you consider good examples, best practices of such platforms, internationally?
17:16 <Goran> We need to search those edges of what a museum is in the 21st century and the role it shall play
17:17 <@Roel> I haven't found lots of them. But a really nice one is Nasa organising contests to solve difficult problems.
17:17 <Goran> I think it is interesting when an institution like Tate starts to fiddle around with how it is percieved, like in some of the projects Young Tate have done.
17:18 <@Roel> And of course: game design, where groups of pro's and am's together develop game engines and levels.
17:19 <@Lodewijk> and soon the gemeentemuseum with its innovative Delft Pottery expertise platform of course... ;-)
17:20 <@Vincent> of course. just wait and see!!!!
17:21 <@Vincent> It's actualy just starting in the museum world and we need to do a lot more experiments to find the right way to do it
17:21 <@Roel> I'm really curious. Also because Premsela has a legal task t be involved in design heritage...
17:21 <Goran> Malmo museum has an interesting program called Hot Spot where the audience can communicate through SMS or e-mail and suggest topics for programmes and seminars and such thing in the museum
17:22 <circodian> The rebirth of the party is one of the endings of contemporary art, whether it is the visual arts' scope or the ambit of musical and verbal creativity: dissolving the artistic thing into the time stream, crystallizing the historic time in a closed chamber. The party suppress, for a while, the opposing points between presene and representation, the timelessness and the historic thing, the sign and the represented object.? Octavio Paz 1967
17:24 <@Lodewijk> as we are coming to the end of our timewindow, I'll try to make a few summarizing remarks
17:25 <@Lodewijk> it seems the audience is ready, we need to find ways to include the experts
17:25 <@Lodewijk> technology is not always the carrier for new collaborations between experts and audiences
17:25 <@Vincent> hear hear
17:25 <Goran> some of them are there
17:26 <@Lodewijk> And of course, the actual object, designed or museum, is the ultimate goal
17:27 <@Lodewijk> And finally: there are some really interesting examples of ways in which audience and experts are already interacting!
17:27 <@Lodewijk> we will try and post some of them on the Labforculture website, including Goran's blog
17:28 <@Lodewijk> are there any last remarks from our expert audience ;-)
17:28 <Goran> Thanks for an interesting conversation
17:28 <@Vincent> Thanks for the invitation. Very interesting
17:29 <@Roel> Thank you all, and Vincent: Let's meet IRL?
17:29 <@timothee> thanks all for your involvement!
17:30 <@Lodewijk> yes, thanks everybody, it was very rich!
17:30 <@Vincent> Great idea Roel!
17:30 <@timothee> the debate with the invited guests is over - but the audience members can continue to discuss and debate here if they want to
17:30 <@Roel> Ok, I'll be in touch...
17:35 <circodian> I think this would be a starting point for an open forum in labforculture, thanks
17:37 <@timothee> circodian: very nice suggestion. We had this in mind as well.
18:17 <@timothee> see you later all!
LabforCulture est une initiative partenaire de la Fondation européenne de la Culture.
LabforCulture aimerait remercier ses investisseurs pour leur soutien.