After a recent round of interviews for an interp developer role, I was struck by how often I was told that ‘putting things in context’ or ‘making things relevant to the audience’ was the best way to communicate difficult concepts.  I have to admit it probably is my go-to communication tool of choice, it definatley has its merits, science concepts especially lend themselves to contextualisation.  Hearing peers expound its use however set me on edge. Maybe it is my slight counter culture nature kicking in, but I wanted to rebel against this idea, that things have to be relatable for them to be understood, a mean spirited me wanted to challenge the interviewees’ reasoning.

Having thought about it a bit I think there is cause for genuine concern if we begin to rely heavily on contextualisation.  By its method we take an object or concept, take it out of its own context or value system and then place it in a modern or personal one. Arguably there is a loss of information or purpose at this point, the original value or impact of the object or concept could be lost or changed.  It is important in communication to prevent signal degradation, to ensure the message stays intact no matter what medium it travels through, by utilising conextualistion are we risking such damage?

An example in environmental science communication is the impact of climate change.  Rising sea levels for example destroy homes.  When we ask our audience to imagine what it would be like if the sea swept away their own house, are we not missing the point? The sea might have to sweep through there herbacious boarder, carry off their cars, cat and now inadequate looking water feature, before doing away with their home.  A slightly silly example, but my point remains, why is this more effective then asking people to emotionally explore what the victims are experiencing in their lives, their reality?  Are we patronising the audience, assuming they are unable to do this effectively, or indeed patronising the victim by saying the only way we can empathise is by applying their situation to our own.

Contextualisation also falls down when we want to talk about natural laws as laws and process with their own value, rather than the utility value contextualisation applies to them. The laws of thermodynamics drive nearly every physical process in the universe, why must we then humble it with talk of frying pans, hot air balloons or radiators.  The evil extension of contextualisation is of course the metaphor, default tool of the science documentary, let’s all visualise the universe expanding by inflating a blurry red balloon.  The majesty of the universe diluted to some expanding rubber, but it’s ok, because you have blown up a balloon before, you understand it all now; it’s like that balloon-cum-universe you inflated for your Mum’s birthday.

I’m sure people would argue that the audience automatically contextualises things, you can’t stop it.  To me that’s even worse, now two people are at it, one thinks the other is too stupid to do it for themselves, the other is just trying to cope with the new concept thrown at them.  Why not show the object or concept for the real, beautiful thing it is?  Let’s hear it for gravity which is just gravity, give ownership back to your concept or object, and leave those ‘just imagines’ or ‘it’s like’ alone.

Science Fiction you say?  Books you say? Exhibition you say? Yes, I too was a little more than excited to go and visit the British Library’s Sci-Fi exhibition.  I won’t go into too much detail here, other than it was a well thought out selection of classic sci-fi text, thematically arranged to explore various lofty ideas, either retrospectively bolted onto the texts or as a direct nod from the author. I want to set the scene as a classic library exhibition, books in cases, a hushed space and a very captive audience.  It was every bit a well delivered exhibition about books.

But there was a problem, a problem so fundamental that it undermines many exhibitions, but book-as-objects displays more acutely.

Books are there to be read.  Their covers have a aesthetic value which have been the subject to curatorial analysis before, the printing styles of books give a rich chronology of technology and as a culture we bestow reverence on the book as an object, and with which  we indulge in preservation and worship.  But a book is there to be read.  The words swirling and marching into statements, paragraphs, chapters and verse. The words which cut deep but leave no physical trace.  The stories which authors pour themselves into.  This exhibition was no different to others I have seen in the BL or other libraries; it was a fine example of curating cakes.

Cakes look great, they can be artisan or functional, rude or elegant.  I’m willing to bet that a lot of people would go to an exhibition where cakes are displayed in glass cabinets.  But to put a cake behind a cabinet is to miss the point entirely. Cakes are there to be eaten. Slop buckets would have to be handed out at the start of a cake exhibition as visitors dribble their way past the Battenberg Brandenburg gate, or the challenging ‘Jaffa: Cake or Biscuit?’ display.  Most people, I believe, would be thinking ‘I wonder what that tastes like’ and they would be right to, and indeed it would be a trick missed if the exhibition did not offer that opportunity.  So why don’t we have that with books?

Most of the books in this exhibition are still in print.  Why then are we forced to stare at well kept covers behind glass when at home I could arrange these books myself on my coffee table, then pick one up and read it? Yes those books are part of a collection, but their value as objectscurrently are relatively low, as they are not historical or particularly rare objects.  We are told to contextualise the story and its impact. Would the exhibit be any less relevant if it were re-imagined as an art gallery with prints of the front covers? This seems to be the level of depth the visitor gets to interrogate the text in most cases.

My rambling point is this.  Book curators; be clear as to what you are asking your audience to concentrate on, the object or the story.  If it is the story, then make that come alive – don’t just tell us why you have chosen it, or that is seminal, let us understand why.  Break out of the glass cabinet, allow us to see what you see.  Allow us to pick up a copy of ‘Brave New World’ and be challenged by the two paragraphs we have a chance to read.  Rediscover the physical pleasure of reading – so that we can begin tasting the cakes, not drooling from afar.

Recently displayed at the RS Summer Show, these penguins use biomechanical principles to move gracioiusly through the sky.

From: Tom S
Found: Festo HQ

Airspace Rebooted from ItoWorld on Vimeo.

As we have seen in the past, aircraft flight paths make for some amazing visuals.  Here is what happens when an an entire continent of aircraft is grounded, and then take of again.

Found Gizmodo

Awesome enrichment interpretation at London Zoo. Installed as part of an interpretive refresh of the big cats area. Materials; blackboard with permanent chalk marker.  Illustrations were created by Tom Sears, and the concept is based on the giant blackboards keepers use to record the diets of the cats.

I found this whilst searching for inspiration and A/V project at work.  For a student film it is just fantastic and really picks up the important aspects of old filming – trying to envoke emotion and humour with no sound or words, amazing.