© photo Canada Science and Technology Museum, Ottawa
In 2009 the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa started a programme and strategy to collect and exhibit industrial design. While the programme is still under development, some points seem to be quite clear. As far as can be learned from the considerations made by the curatorial staff, this case promise to lay a significant example for science and technology museums that will aim to engage with design. Moreover, it will certainly contribute in elaborating and spreading the culture of design among a wider public, advancing approaches and facing issues which may be rather different from those to which art museums and design museums have accustomed us.
I had the chance to interview Anna Adamek, appointed Curator of Natural Resources and Industrial Design, who shared her ideas and vision for the future of industrial design at the Canada Science and Technology Museum.
Museums of science and technology preserve and even exhibit objects of design, and they often deal with issues which are relevant for design history and practice. But cases of science and technology museums explicitly dealing with design are quite rare if not unique. Why did you decide to start a specific program for collecting and exhibiting industrial design?
One of our aim at the CSTM is to keep technology and society together in our interpretations, but that still leaves the creative process of design, a crucial element, missing. In the recent past we have been conducting sporadic research on design of technological objects for a while – for instance the design of locomotives, the design of carriages that were intended to be used by ladies or by gentlemen, the use of green colour in medicine, industrial transfers, decals placed on ships and railway to display corporate identity of the companies that owned them, etc. etc. So even though we conducted this research in unsystematic way, we did it because we felt that there was something missing in the interpretation of technologies.
Your position reads “Curator of Natural Resources and Industrial Design”. Why are these areas kept together?
We do operate in an institutional structure, and it is not easy to change jobs to incorporate a new collection area. As the former curator of the Energy and Natural Resources retired, it gave us an opportunity to redefine the job, to include ID. It was a purely organizational opportunity. Of course, the fact that ID is incorporated into one curator’s job and is juxtaposition with Natural Resources may pose some problems – for instance, the curator may not be seen as an expert on the topic (but I would never claim to be!). But I think that there are also some advantages: this merger of two subject areas represents the basic philosophical approach that we would like to take, that is to say that the creative process of ID is present in every aspect of technology, and that we will not separate it from technological artifacts; it shows that we perceive ID as more than esthetics; it allows us to be eclectic and not to fall under one “-ism”; we can form partnership with the industry and with academia to enrich our interpretation while telling a story that goes beyond design; we can cooperate with design museums and enrich our exhibits and theirs.
Because you are a science and technology museum, I guess your program will not just deal with lamps and furniture pieces, instead you will try to investigate relationships of design and technology. Can you tell me something about the approach you intend to adopt?
I absolutely agree with you that we have to move beyond “furniture.” My understanding of ID is as yours – the crossroad between technologies and society. Every technology is designed. It is quite fascinating to look at the development of mining drills from the ID point of view. It can certainly be a starting point to tell a story, and it would bring a very human element in a complicated machine that may even be considered boring by visitors. Can you imagine us inviting the visitors to: “Come and see an exhibit on drilling technologies!” We would get crowds no doubt… Yet, if you look at the fact that these machines are changing because of the enormous strain that they put on the people that use them, and some changes are actually made because of a very controversial involvement of Canadian mining companies in Africa – you get a very different story.
How will you interpret and exhibit design objects and industrial design? Will you include and integrate design objects and stories within existing exhibitions? Which kind of problems this approach can bring?
This is really difficult: there is a limit of 40-60 words per panel. Interpretative planner rewrites our texts, and public program people argue that the ideas are too difficult for our main public, families with children. Anything that is on the floor is a result of creative struggles, arguments and negotiations between museum departments. It is very important in my opinion to remember that Museums are not only about exhibiting. We collect, preserve, document, interpret and exhibit. That is really a crucial point that lots of people seem to be forgetting. It is important to ask what is the best medium to record and disseminate research on ID. It could be an exhibit floor, but it also could be an article, a conference paper, an internal research paper that is kept in the artifact file and accessible to researchers it could be element of an acquisition proposal that describe reasons behind an acquisition of an object for the collection; it could be library collection; it could be a web site. Even if these have different visibility and different audiences, all these ways of interpretation are in my opinion equal to the exhibit floor. They also do not exclude each other. In my opinion ID interpretation should be included in every step of curatorial work not only in the exhibit interpretation. Then even if we only say 40 words on design of an object in an exhibit, we still have a body of research available for the audiences interested in in-depth interpretation. Also when the data on ID is recorded in various steps that we take in the process of documentation, when the objects goes on the exhibit floor it will be much easier to apply the ID lens to its interpretation. I see a bit of challenge here though. I would not want the ID to become another box that needs to be checked, next to gender, multiculturalism, aboriginals – being very politically correct we have lots of this boxes in Canada… I am hoping to convince other curators to incorporate it to their philosophical approach rather than treat it as an element of documentation.
I want to raise one last point. Museum professionals believe that we can tell every story through an exhibit, every topic can be well expressed and explained in an exhibit. For a very long time we accepted this as true and we do not questions our assumption. But in my opinion, it is time to very seriously ask ourselves if the exhibit floor is the right medium for all topics. Perhaps some topics do not work under the limitations imposed by exhibits, or work better when expressed in a different format?
How do you plan to work in the next months or years?
I plan to be actively involved in acquisitions, but to act as a support for exhibits and research. I actually want to come up with a list of items that we should purchase because of their design. I also want to encourage other curators to incorporate the ID into their acquisition proposals. To do this, I will have to do a bulk of work, provide them with a template, and perhaps even write these parts of proposals myself, which may be time consuming, but is important. Research – I would like to set up a research plan with each curator and hire an ID student every year to conduct this research in our collections. I hope that I can convince a company to establish an internship or a scholarship. If we cannot get some funding for a student, I would suggest that each curator and assistant devotes some time in their workplan to ID research for the next 5 years until we build a body of knowledge. Exhibits – once we have research – it will be easy to incorporate it into exhibits. I cannot propose a large exhibit on ID for a good few years: we do not have the research done, we already have a very busy exhibit schedule and we do not have the money for another large exhibit (we can do 1 every 2 years).
Are you also considering to contact consultants (as design scholars or design curators) or to establish partnerships with other institutions dealing with design?
As I mentioned, partnership is very important. I would love to have design researchers here (depends on funds). I hope that in a near future we can have an ID exhibit on loan from another institution. Interpreting ID in a science and tech museum does not equal a lesser degree of understanding of ID, because ID experts will be involved alongside historians of technology.
What do you think about “boundaries” between museums and identities of museums?
I would happily argue with any curator from a design museum that we cannot separate design from technology, and that all the elements of ID are present in every pieces of technology that we have. The more public hears about design in various venues the more they learn.
