Page 103 - Museums, Media and Cultural Theory In Cultural and Media Studies

MEDIA || 87

Not only does this suggest that science is something ordinary and accessible, it
draws attention to the ‘fallibility and incompleteness’ of the Exploratorium
(and of science) and, according to Hein, it implies that change, disorder and
uncertainty are ‘not intolerable’ (1986: xxi).
Another founding principle of the Exploratorium was a kind of techno-
logical transparency. The processes by which display devices worked should be
something that visitors could work out (with help) and the manufacture of
exhibits was also considered a process that should be open and visible to
the public (Hein 1986). Hein claims that Frank Oppenheimer became resolutely
opposed to the use of computers as display devices and as a means to construct
the Exploratorium’s exhibits because of the impenetrability of computer
processes to the user. The operation of computers is invisible, and watching
someone use one makes for dull viewing (Hein 1986). Moreover, computers as
display devices tend to conceal rather than reveal scientific processes. In science
centres today they are used to calculate and display things such as visitors’
physiological responses to certain stimuli, reaction times and so on, but the
processes by which the computer calculates these things and represents them
back to the visitor are hidden processes. Computers in this context appear as
almost magical technologies. Oppenheimer was committed to demystifying
science and technology – computers seemed to confound this project.
Another distinctive aspect of the Exploratorium, which has not always been
emulated by other science centres, was its mix of art and science. The Explora-
torium found its feet with the inclusion of the British exhibition, Cybernetic
Serendipity – The Computer and the Arts. This was an exhibition curated by
Jasia Reichardt at the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in London. It
travelled to the US, and was shown in the Corcoran Art Gallery in Washington,
but did not continue to tour, apparently because art museums and galleries
found it prohibitively expensive and dauntingly hi-tech (Hein 1986: 35). Accord-
ing to Hein, the arrival of Cybernetic Serendipity at the Exploratorium was ‘a
turning point for the museum’ and was celebrated as the official opening of the
Exploratorium. Cybernetic Serendipity had opened at the ICA in the summer
of 1968. Funded by a combination of corporate sponsorship (from IBM) and
Arts Council funding, the exhibition was about the relationships between the
animal/human and the machine and between technology and creativity. The
exhibition included the products of corporations, research labs, computer art-
ists and contemporary artists who worked with other forms of technology (e.g.
Nam June Paik’s TV sculptures) or whose work was not machine-generated but
which was associated with a digital or machine aesthetic (e.g. Bridget Riley’s
geometric paintings). Avant-garde music, film and poetry were also included. A
1968 newspaper article described Cybernetic Serendipity at the ICA as ‘a verit-
able Luna Park of sideshows, display booths, and fun-houses, inviting visitors