Revisions are in bold for this page.

U1

U1 is a curator at WCMA who deals primarily in finding art among contemporary living artists. Unfortunately, due to time limitations, we could not do a contextual inquiry, and instead settled for a regular interview in her office at WCMA. We asked her questions such as: How do you go about choosing a piece of art? Do you have a set of qualities you look for in each piece? Also, unfortunately, we were not able to come up with any solutions to her problems. In regard to her responses, it is important to note that she said audience/visitor emotion is rarely a criterion for choosing a piece of art since it is so subjective that it is too difficult to use as a measure of art quality. However, she did say one of her goals was to find pieces that invoke intriguing ideas and unexpected discussion points. Therefore, if our design is to aid curators, emotion alone may not be the most helpful data for them. We may also consider trying to record how much discussion and debate each artwork creates. Another goal she had was to fill holes in the WCMA artwork collection. If the WCMA collection was particularly weak in regard to a certain artist or time period, then she would try to find pieces that fill this hole. However, aiding in this process is probably beyond the scope of our particular project/design. Additionally, she said WCMA occasionally does audience interviews. This is where our design and additions to the WCMA database could possibly expedite the process, giving her the outside feedback she needs without doing extra laborious work. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and could not ask her further about this topic, but we were able to continue this discussion with U2 below.

U2

U2 is a curator at WCMA who deals primarily with 18th and 19th century portraits and photographs. We did an interview with a contextual inquiry component that started in the WCMA prints collection room and ended in the WCMA artwork storage room. We started with a regular interview with questions to break the ice and get him to start talking about his work (e.g. what do you specialize in? What do you look for in a piece of art?). This was followed by a partial contextual inquiry with an example of how he chooses artwork to display, and finally, we asked follow-up questions once we had a better understanding of his job. Even though the initial questions and the CI were helpful, the final questions were probably the most insightful for our project. We primarily talked about how he receives feedback about his art selections. He first commented about how he was happy with the current system (i.e. exhibition feedback and feedback given to front-desk staff) since it was efficient and gives him direct and readable data (e.g. the number of people who commented, number of people who came in, etc.). However, he then started to address his concerns with non-response bias. Since most of his feedback was from either kids or older adults, he was worried that they weren’t representative of the teenagers/young adults that did not give him feedback. Furthermore, most of the feedback he receives is positive, which made him worry that people who are confused or frustrated aren’t expressing this information to him. He even said he wished he could get visitor questions directly sent to his phone so he could answer them (given he had the time), that way it might eliminate some frustration. Additionally, after I asked him if there was any other information he wished he had, he said would like to know which galleries people liked the most, that way he could incorporate that feedback in his choices.

U3

U3 is an art enthusiast and student at Williams. We did a contextual inquiry of how they navigate the downstairs galleries at WCMA (WCMA was closed, but they let us perform research). After I reiterated the reason for our meeting, we walked into the downstairs gallery. U3 and I started with the more classical exhibit before walking into the Object Lab. Our conversation started when U3 saw a box in a display case. I asked what drew U3 to that box, and why they stopped there. U3 said it is remniscient of what their grandparents might own. We didn’t stop to read the wall text, and I asked if that was normal U3 said they enjoy reading wall text when the exhibits change but had seen this exhibit already. The theme of family, nostalgia, and space, was woven through the entire contextual inquiry. U3 was asked why they loved art, and if they had any preferences as to timeperiod or style U3 mentioned that their relationship to art is dictated largely by space and time – they prefer certain time periods over others, and find exhibits where large or square pieces are flanked by smaller, differently-shaped art, to be unpleasant. When asked what makes art compelling, U3 said it was a mix of form, function, depiction, and signficance. I came to realize that these categories seemed to be in service of a larger motivation: connection. U3 tends to visit WCMA whenever there is time to kill, because visiting the art reminds them of their childhood trips to the NYC museums. U3 also enjoys the challenge of understanding art, and thinks the Object Lab concept (where art is grouped by theme) is fascinating. While in the Object Lab, U3 mentioned enjoying the challenge of understanding the relationship between art (the themes), and when asked about the abstract art, said they don’t understand how some people can look at a piece and think “biology.” They also stopped to point out art curated for the History course. U3 said that their family has pieces very similar to this at home, they’re family heirlooms and have been passed down. This led into a discussion of using art to fill space – U3 prefers large vintage posters and reprints, because they’re more cost-effective and impactful than smaller art. When asked about their preference, U3 said something to the effect of “surround yourself with what makes you happy.” Happy proved to be a different concept for U3 than for myself – U3 connected “happiness” to memories of family and creation of space.

U4

U4 is a former summer intern at WCMA and student at Williams. They were asked questions about relating to and understanding art, emotional reactions to art, discussions with other people, and reading wall text. U4 was also asked their thoughts on proposed solutions for data gathering. U4, Kenneth, and I went directly to the Object Lab. U4 said that without knowing that the Object Lab was themed, it would be difficult to appreciate it. They stopped in front of the Feminist Art theme, and said that no one ever reads the wall text. We wandered through the exhibit, and stopped in front of an abstract painting. U4 said that when exibits or pieces don’t make sense (like “Our Love is Bigger…), they like to make up their own story and come to their own understanding of what something means. They would enjoy a discussion but understand that it’s difficult because people have conflicting schedules. When asked what interaction could look like, U4 brought up the WALLS journal exhibit. The three of us thought for a bit and concluded that a post-it-note wall by exhibits would be an interesting way to interact with art, so that people can put their own interpretation or understanding of art. We were standing in the middle of the Object Lab, talking, when U4 exclaimed that their attention is drawn by color and detail. There was a bright piece of artwork in the MATH exhibit with the GE logo printed repeatedly, visible just out of the corner of U4’s eye. This started another conversation about what art means to U4, which brought us back to making up stories. U4 said that there was a lot to be said for having no context around art, because it requires visitors to fill in the gaps. It’s necessary to engage deeply. U4 explained this as “figuring out what the work is supposed to mean, and what does it mean to me.”