The new Museum of Mathematics, or MoMath, provides an interactive introduction to mathematical concepts through a series of hands-on, kinetic exhibits that draw in children and their families. The two-story museum, located on the north side of Madison Square Park, is built around a series of didactic sculptures and displays that illustrate math and physics principals. When I visited on a recent weekend, the relatively small space was brimming with children and their parents scrambling through the exhibits. Math, it seemed, had been brought to life.
Regardless of whether these children were fully internalizing the concepts illustrated, they were involved and engaged in a subject that typically conjures feelings of academic obligation, yelling in glee rather than sleeping on their desks. We might ask, then: what can art museums learn from this interactive approach?
Let’s start with the hands-on approach of the displays themselves, as they constitute the central teaching method of the museum. Almost every exhibit in the museum can be touched, altered, climbed upon, or interacted with in some way. A tricycle with square wheels, set on a large circle of undulating ground, dominates the entrance to the museum. The principle is simple: the uneven ground, which rolls in waves, combines with the square wheels to make for a ride that is nearly as smooth as one with circular wheels on a level floor.
“Coaster Roller,” a display that demonstrates principals of geometry and movement, is constructed out of a long corridor of acorn-shaped, colored objects that roll under a platform on which visitors sit and propel themselves from one end of the exhibit to the other by pulling on ropes. The reason the platform rolls smoothly on the acorns has to do with their constant diameter: though their shape is uneven, the distance from any one side to the next remains the same, so they act like spheres when rolled.
Other exhibits demonstrate phonetic principals (through colored orbs that resonate when touched), fractals (cameras subdivide the visitor that stands in front of them, making him branch out like a tree), and tessellations (in shapes that the visitor can fit together on a magnetic wall). A two-story “calculator” occupies the spiral staircase between the two floors; visitors push buttons with two numbers they wish to multiply, and the sum lights up on the corresponding intersecting solution. Though the museum is dominated by (and designed for) children, it is impossible not to touch the displays, and adults and toddlers alike can be seen demonstrating mathematical principals as they play.
In addition, the system of labeling is tailored to different types of viewers, allowing for various levels of complexity depending on the visitor’s age and comprehension. Computer screens mounted on metal platforms stand next to each exhibit, explaining its underlying principal to the visitor interested in more than just climbing on the display. Buttons in the corner of the screen allow the visitor to choose one of three degrees of complexity, ranging from basic to more nuanced. Parents can read their children a simple summary of the math behind the play and then go into greater detail themselves. It is truly an ingenious concept.
Of course, as with any newly opened museum, there are kinks that need to be worked out. The small space is overcrowded, and many displays are currently closed or out of order; the explanatory screens are off to the side, and not enough attendants stand by the exhibits to be able to properly explain how they work. It is, in the end, a children’s museum, and I was a bit disappointed by how shallow some of the exhibits seemed, craving a more complex and intellectual experience. Regardless of these failings, however, the MoMath strategy works: an attendant at the museum told me they have seen over 8,000 visitors since opening in mid-December, and the number continues to climb.
Art museums should take from this approach the idea of a more direct, interactive method of engaging viewers. Though paintings and classical statuary can hardly be touched or climbed upon, installing some sort of complementary demo that visitors can interact with may help bring the methodology or meaning behind a work to life. Employing two sets of labels in certain exhibits could allow for a better family viewing experience. Above all, striving for an experience that makes the visitor part of the exhibit itself, rather than a passive observer, will help create a more dynamic experience and, perhaps, make Rembrandt as exciting and engaging as a square-wheeled bike.
The National Museum of Mathematics is located at at 11 East 26th Street (Madison Square, Manhattan) and is open 10 am–5 pm, seven days a week.
principals, principle, principals, principals, principal
At the price some museums charge they could certainly provide a deep more interactive experience. See the Leonardo in Salt Lake City. With temporary and permanent exhibits, interactivity is the norm with plenty of support staff to facilitate the experiences. The Leonardo brings together art, science and nature for visitors of all ages.
In terms of using multiple labels to deliver different levels of content, the Detroit Institute of Arts does this brilliantly. It’s one of the very few museums of any type I’ve been to where a small child and adult can both thoroughly enjoy themselves.
Children, students and adults who wish to know more about the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Numbers, Platonic Solids and related geometric and mathematical principles, please go to: http://www.museumofthegoldenratio.org/
I’ve been working on this very question- as have some major art museums (Dallas Museum of Art, Baltimore Museum of Art, Walker Art Center) to name a few. Take a look around and you will find some interesting questions being pursued.
The Walker has a great program called “Open Field” and is also just generally welcoming of informal tours and events.
Yes, I’m quite aware of it- they published a great book on it last year!
The UCLA Hammer Museum did a year-long residency with Machine Project (which I participated in) where they explored notions around “Visitor Services.” I’d encourage you to read the report/case studies and interviews with participating artists:
As part of a panel discussing these types of projects, a group of us put together a a manifesto on developing them. You can find it in this blog post:
I just finished working on two gallery projects at the BMA which opened last fall, where we delved into this directly. I encourage you to check it out if you are there- they are in thew new Contemporary Wing.
Interactives / interpretation with art is a tricky, and while there are parallels to the interactivity in science centers, it is nuanced effort when we explore the artist’s intent and the subjectivity of art. Socially Engaged Art (such as Open Field or the Hammer/Machine residency) have offered some interesting approaches as another art form, but they are not necessarily interpretive.
What I think the desire for this type of engagement speaks to is the chasm many feel between understanding (and assuming we need to) contemporary art and the newly “ubiquitousness” of interactivity, social or otherwise.
Thanks for the great information on interaction! I am inspired by Matthew Barney’s “Drawing Restraint” as a group physical effort to experience and create collaborative art. To bend it to interpretation of existing art is an interesting challenge.
“Embrace different ways of working like improvisation, humor, serendipity and generosity. These skills will help you manage unexpected and exciting surprises and outcomes. ”
Thanks for the reminder!
I gave two “hands on” math presentations last Saturday. Giant solid dissection puzzle SOMA and 7 kids at a time trying solve it, interspersed with the mathematics to finding the number of solutions. Best math lecture (un-lecture?) ever!
Comments are closed.