- By Kikelomo Solomon-Ayeni
Abstract
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and other immersive technologies, such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have now opened a whole new realm for curatorial practice. These technologies offer the potential for more audiences, more personalized interaction, and a new form of storytelling. But when they are introduced into the use of the exhibition they pose important questions on the authenticity of art and of the contexts of the art and of the human connection that is a part of art. This article looks at ways in which curators can integrate AI audience data, immersive installations, and algorithm-based recommendations into their programming. Informed by trends in digital practices in museums, it advocates for a “human-centered” digitality, one that utilizes technology to amplify, rather than substitute, the curatorial gaze, thereby preserving the human-centered nature of art engagement.
Introduction
For centuries, the work of a curator was defined by the material nature of objects, the space of galleries, and the intangible sense that curators had of context. But information technologies are remaking that foundation anew in the 21st century. The encounters, interpretations, and interactions of audiences with art that involve artificial intelligence, data analytics, or immersive media are no longer on the margins but are increasingly becoming part of the norm. There is a real and compelling push for museums and galleries to embrace these trends, not just to “keep up” but to increase accessibility and engagement as part of a global cultural marketplace (Parry, 2010).
The problem is that technology can offer access and broaden audiences but can also turn art into content, an algorithmically determined feed or spectacle. According to Parry and Sawyer (2021), therefore, the curator should not remain a caretaker of objects, but rather become a creator of significant and hybrid experiences that respond appropriately to what technology can offer, while acknowledging our deep and innate human need for depth, context, and connection.
Technology as an Insight Engine
AI’s most immediate use for curatorial practice is in understanding audiences. Machine learning has the potential to mine visitor data on duration of stay in particular galleries and return visitation rates to discover these hidden patterns of engagement (Schroeder, 2020). Such findings can be applied to the design of exhibitions, helping curators to tailor interpretive resources, exhibit spaces, and/or exhibit themes to meet the needs of varying public audiences.
But here, AI is not valuable because it makes curatorial decisions, but because it supplements them. Audience research can help determine what types of work appeal more to visitors, or indicate demographic groups that haven’t been sufficiently tapped into, but ultimately, it is up to the curator to give meaning to these results and weave them into a meaningful story. This mixture of the two models, where data is used but does not drive, allows for maintaining the scholarly integrity and aesthetic quality of the exhibition whilst being responsive to audience dynamics.
In addition to analytics, cultural institutions are investigating the use of algorithmic recommendation systems like those employed by streaming services to match audiences with artworks they would like to experience. Although these tools can enhance discovery, they also have ethical implications. Algorithms are effective at reinforcing things people already prefer, which may limit exposure to complex or new work (Beer, 2017). Curators can counter this by creating “serendipity pathways” that integrate algorithmic recommendations with intentional curatorial disruptions, such that audiences are neither overwhelmed by all things familiar nor unable to engage with anything familiar.
Creating Immersive and Interactive Experiences
Curators can use immersive technologies, namely VR and AR, to expand the reach and access of exhibitions in new ways. In VR, viewers can step inside recreated historical spaces or virtual studios of artists without geographic or logistical limitations . Augmented reality (AR), which layers digital content atop real-world objects, can also enhance interpretation by providing animation, historical photographs, or narrative interactivity and storytelling (Champion, 2015).
The judicious application of these technologies allows them to transcend gimmickry and become authentic extensions of curatorial discourse. For instance, the Smithsonian’s digital rendering of the Apollo 11 command module invited users from all over the world to explore the interior of the module and experience a multimedia history of its significance (Smithsonian Institution, 2019). Augmented reality in African art exhibitions can similarly make links between objects held by collections in the diaspora and their original geographic locations, allowing audiences not just to see the objects’ beauty, but to understand the journeys of these objects.
The principles of interactive design can also be applied to the online world, in which online exhibitions enable audiences to engage more deeply in content that they may choose to explore non-linearly, providing a sense of agency. This shift from passive viewing to interactive engagement makes for a more personalized experience of the artwork and, as Falk and Dierking (2016) describe it, a model of “personalized museum experiences,” which focuses on the importance of personal agency in the process of making meaning.
Preserving the Soul of Art in a Digital Context
The most difficult task as technology becomes part of the curatorial process is to preserve the “soul” of art, the emotional, cultural, and historical resonances that cannot be measured. This is where the curator turns into a digital genius and authenticity protector.
Digital documentation and imaging, although primarily used as a preservation methodology, can have an interpretive function as well. The documentation of transient artworks, performances, or site-specific installations provides a means of access to these works for future viewers as well as meaningful contextual metadata that assists both scholarship and public access (Gilliland, 2014). This archival role is also an equity matter because it allows more people to participate in cultural heritage beyond those who actually come to the site.
But the curator should not succumb to allowing technology to dominate the artwork. An immersive VR installation can make a viewer aware of its presence from the outside, but this may have the side effect of taking focus away from the content of the art. As Cameron (2021) states, digital interventions should be “invisible supports,” used to enhance the frame of interpretation but not necessarily to become the focus of it.
The human element cannot be replicated. Virtual exhibitions, even when completely detached from in-person experiences, attempt to maintain these ideas of dialogue and community that are behind the art experience by offering live interactions on virtual tours, “meet the artist” questions and answers sessions, or community forums. Technology may help by connecting these, but it is still the curator responsible for creating them.
Ethical Considerations and Institutional Responsibility
Issues of an ethical nature arise from the use of AI and immersive technology that are not project-specific. Data collection should be automated and follow privacy guidelines and not infringe on visitors’ rights to make their own decisions. When left unchallenged, algorithmic bias can reinforce existing inequities of access and visibility by advancing those works that fit into the majoritarian culture’s ideal (Noble, 2018).
There is institutional accountability in creating transparency around the role of AI tools in curation. This means dialoguing with audiences regarding when algorithmic recommendations are happening and creating room for feedback and critique. On top of that, ethical technology use involves matters of access; VR and AR experiences should be mindful of physical, sensory, and cognitive diversity in design as well as considerations of access to digital and physical exhibition spaces.
Conclusion
Digital curation does not mean that art’s presence and phenomenology are transformed into pixels and code. But instead, it provides curators with a broader toolkit to bring in richer, more inclusive, and more resonant stories. AI insights will allow for more tailored approaches to exhibition design; immersive technologies will create potential for new modes of interpretation and access; and digital platforms will support the extension of exhibitions beyond their physical timeframe and space.
The danger, and the challenge, is bringing these elements into the art experience without eroding the depth, context, and human connection that make it art. The best curators are going to be the ones who do not allow technology to become the spectacle, but rather, the servant to the narrative – and therefore the digital age will enhance, not replace, the soul of art. The hope for the future exists somewhere in this middle ground, where the future of art is not one where art is forgettable because of technology, but where art is not forgettable because technology has become part of its narrative.
About the Author
Kikelomo Solomon-Ayeni is a UK-based experienced visual artist, curator, and cultural entrepreneur with a strong background in photography, creative business development, and arts programming across Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
References
Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147
Cameron, F. (2021). Digital futures for the museum: A human-centered approach. Museum Management and Curatorship, 36(4), 329–348. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229756933_Digital_Futures_I_Museum_Collections_Digital_Technologies_and_the_Cultural_Construction_of_Knowledge
Champion, E. (2015). Critical gaming: Interactive history and virtual heritage. Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335029528_Critical_Gaming_Interactive_History_and_Virtual_Heritage
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315417851/museum-experience-revisited-john-falk-lynn-dierking
Gilliland, A. J. (2014). In Conceptualizing 21st-century archives (pp. 1–22). Society of American Archivists. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13550
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-08016-000
Parry, R. (2010). Museums in a digital age. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Museums-in-a-Digital-Age/Parry/p/book/9780415402620?srsltid=AfmBOoqlcLDdBbMF6E83fGhaCg4E_gjhCCaMAA-95IQa7pAoFZ5-FgCy
Schroeder, R. (2020). Digital art spaces: How online platforms and algorithms shape cultural value. Cultural Sociology, 14(4), 355–372. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schroeder,+R.+(2020).+Digital+art+spaces:+How+online+platforms+and+algorithms+shape+cultural+value.+Cultural+Sociology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Smithsonian Institution. (2019). Apollo 11 command module: VR experience. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. https://www.si.edu/object/command-module-apollo-11%3Anasm_A19700102000