Since submitting my questionnaire from my virtual exhibition, I began to collate and reflect on my responses. From the background information of the visitors, the majority of people had prior knowledge of art and science exhibitions and were regular gallery visitors. This indicates possibly how closed my sample was, but also due to the nature of the exhibition, it garnered an audience with specific interest into my theme.
Due to the nature of the exhibition being virtual, the main motivation for my visitors was the accessibility of the exhibition, along with an interest to learn about the brain tumour. This interest was due to the majority of visitors’ prior knowledge of Glioblastoma, thus indicating to me how many visitors, could be suffers of the condition or know people who suffer from this tumour.
This made be consider a stronger focus on my own background of Glioblastoma and my experience with my mother from Glioblastoma. Some visitors mentioned wanting to know more about the effects of GBM on the patient, treatments currently used, details of how many people have GBM and how the Bacopa Monnieri plant is a better treatment.
I found this to be an important aspect to consider that I had been missing. Why was I creating this exhibition? And what symptoms or effects do people suffer from based on my experience. I considered creating this through an audio format, as a visitor suggested it could be useful to have a voice over for further context. Perhaps I could construct a poem to go along with my pieces or my time lapse video?
Another key point that indicated issues with the exhibition, is the virtual aspect. Despite its accessibility, the software was quite glitch-y to use and made it challenging to operate. Perhaps this was due to the type of software that I was using, which was free and thus didn’t allow a lot of high processing data.
I found one key point in relation to the content of the exhibition was the lack of medical information. When creating the exhibition, I reframed from using too much text heavy words that would make it more confusing. However, some comments conflicted with the lack of medical information, suggested that it was too text heavy.
This conflict in response, caused me to question how I relayed information to my audience. Trying to strike a balance between providing enough medical context without overwhelming the audience. I also became aware that my audience may know a lot about this condition, so I would need to ensure that I got all my facts correct surrounding the medical information that I provided.
In addition to the artworks, there were some key comments around the soundtrack element. There were some valid comments around the overwhelming nature of the soundtrack that actually made it somewhat haunting. The volume was quite loud and I think the audio quality was quite poor also due to the high processing power needed to run a high-quality audio.
This made me re-think the use of a soundscape and instead consider doing a voiceover that provides further context to the exhibition.
Overall, I came to the conclusion that based on these feedback responses, I would create this exhibition in a physical space, and provide a sense of interactivity and digital nature through the process of augmented reality. I also feel that I need to ensure that my intent of the exhibition comes across clearly, through relating back to my personal experience.
Comentarios