An analysis of the Invasioni Digitali (Digital
Invasions) phenomenon ahead of the conference “Digital Think-In. The digital
voice of museums”
On the coming November the 4th, the
conference “DigitalThink-In. The digitalvoice of museums” will take place in Rome, organized by MAXXI, which announces
itself as the “first digital culture event for museums in Italy”.
Among
the participants at the conference, for whom also a #DITcall for presentation
of case studies related to the topic at hand is open, there will be James
Davis, Program Manager of Google Art Project (London), Antonella Di Lazzaro,
Director Media Twitter Italy (Milan), Conxa Rodà, Head of Strategy and
Communication - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya (Barcelona), Group MUD Museo
Digitale, MiBACT (Rome) and Prisca Cupellini, Comunicazione Online e Progetti
Digitali, MAXXI (Rome), Francesco Russo , Web Consultant and blogger, Marianna
Marcucci, Cofounder of Invasioni Digitali and Alessandro Bollo, Cofounder and
Head of Research of the Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.
The InvasioniDigitali (Digital Invasions) movement, therefore, is once again present at a
conference discussing about digital communication, but the Invasions phenomenon
has not yet been thoroughly analyzed by the experts. Are we really facing a
digital communication model? I will try to argue my personal opinion in this regard.
Traditional media and digital media
Compared
to traditional communication media, in the digital form the transition from
linear to reticular connection takes place; the message can be conveyed through
various digital environments (Web site, virtual communities), but the most
important aspect of digital communication - and that differentiate it different
from the traditional one - is primarily the presence of an interactive dialogue
between users, based on sharing and participation. If this condition does not
occur, it's not possible to perceive any real difference between the two forms
of communication.
If we
analyze the latest Digital Invasion more in detail, from the point of view of
the social communication you can notice a few interactions actually focused on
content and just a large number of images (especially the posters that
advertise the events and photos of the "Accomplished Invasion" ): so
Invasions really took place, but they haven't been sufficiently related during
their course. During some not so declaredly “digital” special events (although
still having a significant spread on social and other media) such as the
European Heritage Days or other similar activities, museums have always
promoted some interesting initiatives with great success in terms of audience;
from what should then Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) stand out compared
to these special events?
Consistency
would call for greater “social” participation to the event: this is, in fact,
the determining factor in an event that is self-defined as “digital”. In very
simple terms, each of the participants should be the eyes and ears of those who
are not present at the event, but who will be involved as if they were; they
should put online their feelings, expressing the emotions and thoughts that
emerge from his/her cultural experience and share it with other people,
building a dialogue with them. If communication instead consists of a simple
information about the place, date and time related to the event, of some brief
describing note, of a large number of images with little comment, finally, of
the notification of "Invasion accomplished", you can't speak of a
true digital communication. In most cases, in fact, as noted, the interaction
was not significant, especially in terms of content and not live storytelling
(a few cases) nor other forms of participatory communication have .
"Telling" events, therefore, is what should make a difference [1].
Tomaso Montanari writes that “Heritage is
a great repertoire, just like theater or music: if no one follows it - that is,
if no one tells it, by raising it - it remains inert, dead, lost”.
Furthermore,
the same overproduction of images produces adverse effects because it makes the
audience less sensitive and attentive to details.
Along
with the loss of attention to the pictures and the subjects of the pictures,
you risk to trivialize and to disperse into the excess of images even the
"wallpapers" of these selfies,
which are the museums and other places of historical and monumental interest.
Therefore, pictures and even more selfies, cannot be considered as real content
if inadequately captionised and commented, unless they don't own the visual
eloquence of the works by great photographers such as Robert Capa. But for most
of us, this isn't the case. One of the most famous Italian photographers,
Ferdinando Scianna, reminds us that "no one follows with interest who is
constantly posing."
A
context that does not produce content, not because the initiatives that it
advertises are not valid, but because the commitment to find adequate forms of
information transfer that go beyond the photo-sharing lacked, won't bring any
kind of benefit even to the cultural subject that it was supposed to promote.
To
this purpose, Valentina Vacca writes:
For #InvasioniDigitali (DigitalInvasion) the audience is no longer such, but it «participates to the
cultural offer. » In their manifesto they profess to believe, «in a new
relationship between the museum and the visitor based on the participation of
this latter to the production, creation and promotion of culture through the
sharing of data and images. We believe in simplifying the rules to get access
and reuse the data of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage to encourage the
digitization. We believe in new forms of conversation and spreading of the
artistic heritage which are no longer authoritarian, conservative, but open,
free, comfortable and innovative». To translate these words, it is enough to
explore the website dedicated to the #InvasioniDigitali (DigitalInvasions):
inside it you can find a series of selfies shot inside museums and cultural
sites having visitors as subjects. It's like if "invading" -as they
themselves define the visit by the audience - the museums, monuments and
cultural places in general, and then upload a photo on the internet, is
tantamount to automatically transmitting the knowledge. As if digitizing the
culture coincides with the mere, simplistic as trivial process of sharing
images of works of art, of performances, of real estate. Is it maybe just as
Baudrillard (1995) said, namely that "the silent majority looks for the
image and not for the meaning».
The
fact that the appearance, the volume of participation are more prevailing than
the content, was somehow shown to me at the recent Social Media Week, by a
community manager of a museum, who, in response to my observation about the
fact that the Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) are not a true instrument
of cultural spread, replied that “for them it was enough to see the people get
inside the museum": this is equivalent to declaring that the only purpose
that you want to pursue is to “count” the number of visitors. I am convinced
that this thought is not what distinguishes all the museums that have joined
Digital Invasions in recent years, but in any case it is indicative about the
fact that this initiative has been able to generate in some people this kind of
reasoning, supported by the incorrect concept, which is too often endorsed by the
media, that it's more important to quantify the entrances rather than measuring
the effectiveness of the cultural proposals offered by the museums. It is
fundamental, then, that museums take on the role of mediators between the
manufacturers of the digital
communication and society, but to do so, they must not get themselves trapped
by the logic of the “Viral Style” and by any form of extremism in digital
communication; they must open themselves, however, to more reasoned and
original forms of content sharing and cultural participation, even through the
Web 2.0.
The communication strategy of Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions)
Initially
Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasion) had focused much of their attention on
the problem related to the prohibition on photographing in museums, which was
then overtaken by the Decree Law of 31 May 2014, n. 83. A manifesto was
created, joining different ideas
relating to the relationship between the museum and the visitor, to the use of
social media for cultural communication, to the free circulation of ideas and
so on. Carefully reading this manifesto you have the impression that it has
handled too many subjects, sometimes in a repetitive and unconnected, even
contradictory way: for example, institutions are required to be “open platforms
for the spreading, exchange and production of value, allowing an active communication with their audience”,
which implies also having a role of coordination and content control, and at
the same time we demand "non-authoritarians forms of conversation and
spreading of artistic heritage" reducing, therefore, the leading role of
the museum, determined by its scientific authority that we cannot disregard.
There is no evidence of a personal processing of the concepts displayed in the
manifesto, which are only listed but not developed and commented on.
Furthermore,
in the manifesto of Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) it is not clarified
how “the Internet can trigger new ways of management, conservation, protection,
communication and exploitation of our resources”, as if the Internet was in
itself capable of producing these changes, more than television did sixty years ago, for example, culturally
unifying Italy and fighting illiteracy. The emphasis of the Web 2.0
communication is not useful to demonstrate its effectiveness in the cultural
fields. In fact, the media - whether they are of old or new generation - are
valid only based on the way they are used, as Pier Cesare Rivoltella and Chiara
Marazzi rightly point out, according to whom “there are no first class and
second class media[2]” because the communication of the digital age will
necessarily include them all. Some changes are taking place, we are gradually
getting used to them and we can see the old and new media integrate themselves
to the point that we can speak of “mediamorphosis, remediation, of age of
complementarity”[3].
It 'also true that the access to the Internet gives us the
most simple and immediate means of individual expression, but we maybe do not
emphasize enough that there are still limitations to its use, that can be
identified with economic, cultural, anagraphical, or social reasons as well as
there are ideological positions that determine the rejection of the use of
social networks. Those involved in communication strategies, should therefore
consider the digital environment with proper balance, not enhancing it but
without neglecting it, because “not being connected” does not mean “not
existing” and therefore we must aim at reaching even those who are outside the
digital world.
However,
when you read in the manifesto of Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions):“We
believe that the Internet and social media are a great opportunity for cultural
communication, a way to involve new players, break down all kinds of barriers,
and further promote the creation, sharing , spreading and enhancement of our
artistic heritage”, this describes in a simplistic way a situation that has, as
already said, more complex aspects.
The
main strategy of Invasions Digital can then rather be equalized to the
implementation of a Brand Identification System in which you mainly emphasizes
the participation to the event and at the same time you try to give the set the
value of a “movement of thought” but with no kind of theoretical research.
Participants are always considered as a unitary body, without emphasizing the
specific personalities and individualities that constitute it: it is not the
message of individual participants to prevail, but the “brand”, almost as if it
were "viral marketing." While still bearing in mind the confrontation
with the strategies of advertising marketing, you notice, for example, a great
use of slogans ("We love this game", "We come in peace",
etc.,) that, together with the constant exposure of the Invasioni Digitali (Digital
Invasions) logo, are designed to promote the brand engagement. In addition,
amongst the guidelines for the participants of Invasioni Digitali (Digital
Invasions) it is recommended to follow some predetermined actions: I am not
referring to the rules of thumb that are necessary in any event that results in
an application process by the public, but at the request to carry out precise
actions during their own events, producing, thus, an excessive standardization
and decrease of the space for the creativity of individuals. It is required, in
fact, to use the sign "Invasion accomplished" in which the logo of
Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) must stand out and, in addition, to
print from the website of Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) a predetermined
"mask", that the Invaders will have to wear or otherwise show in
their selfies. These requirements help to "depersonalize" the
initiatives, increasing the "brand" value to the detriment of the
messages that the promoters and participants to individual events could
themselves convey in a more original and subjective way. The idea of the mask
seems to me, in this regard, all the more emblematic: a mask, the symbol of
Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions), superimposes itself to the face of the
"Invader" and to the monument itself, occupying a leading position
with respect to one another.
Because I wanted to experience the first two Invasioni Digitali (Digital Invasions) I can say with full knowledge of the facts that the feeling I had was the one of having turned into an instrument at the service of a movement that left me little room for action with my own manners. Photographing yourself with a sign in your hand bearing the logo of the organization is not really an exhilarating action from the intellectual point of view.
But it
is perhaps inevitable that in the cultural field these phenomena take place
whereas Erich Fromm, forty years ago already prophesied a society levelled and
dominated by the models of advertising [4]. The risk, though, is that you can
lose "the profound meaning of what we do because we are not doing it
ourselves; our behavior is not an expression of our true personality but is
determined by the dictates of the mass to which "we have to" listen
and to which we must sacrifice ourselves, being continuously exposed to it [5].
"
Up to
two years ago, we were still in a phase where the museums were largely
distrustful and reluctant to use means of digital communication, especially
social networks; after the first edition of the Museum Week [6], in March 2014,
we have assisted to a considerable increase of institutional accounts of the
museums, so now we have entered a second stage where the enthusiasm for a new way
of relating with the audience seems to prevail. This can certainly be a good
thing but the impression is that a distorted image of the mission of the museum
is rising, which looks like if it should build its "modernization"
only with the help of these new forms of communication, while the real modern
museum is especially the one that is able to recognizes the needs of its community,
and that is able to analyze the problems of our ages, offering to everybody a
place for the sharing and dialogue, without any kind of barrier.
The
hope is that it will be possible to conjugate in a fair and balanced way the
use of the tools of digital communication with the principles laid down by our
humanistic conscience, the one that "acts as a sentinel, call, signal,
guiding compass, guide, guardian of our true being, of our universal human
nature and of the subjectivity of the Self [7]".
_________________________________________
NOTES
[1] In a post dated April the 30th 2015 of my blog
Museums Newspaper, I cited UrbanExperience
as an excellent and evolved example of participatory spreading of the culture
using the tools of the Web 2.0
[2]
Rivoltella P. C., Marazzi C., “Le professioni della media education”, Roma
2001, p. 22
[3]
Totaro A., “Dinamiche di interrelazione tra blogosfera e mediasfera” in
C.I.R.S.D.I.G, Centro Interuniversitario per le ricerche sulla Sociologia del
Diritto e delle Istituzioni Giuridiche, Quaderni della Sezione: Diritto e
Comunicazioni Sociali, Working Paper n. 29, Dipartimento di Economia,
Statistica, Matematica e Sociologia “Pareto”, Facoltà di Scienze Politiche,
Università di Messina, 2008, p. 5
[4]
Cerracchio C., “La manipolazione. Bernays e gli psicomarchettari”, Società
& Psiche, 9 novembre 2012, http://www.psicologiaradio.it/2012/11/09/la-manipolazione-delle-masse-bernays-e-gli-psicomarchettari/
[5]
Lattanzi P., “La società malata. L’umanesimo di Erich Fromm tra Marx e Freud”,
e-book, 2015, p. 137
[6] The Museum Week was first launched in March 2014
by twelve French National Museums in collaboration with Twitter France. Later
the social initiative has spread throughout Europe, with the participation of
many museums, not only in Europe. The goal of the event is to accede though
Twitter to the cultural contents offered by museums to then interact with the
editors.
[7]
Risari G., “Coscienza umanistica, identità, ‘produttività’ e biofilia” in Erich
Fromm, Publication of the International Erich Fromm Society, Italian-English
conference “Death and the Love for Life in Psychoanalysis. In
Memoriam Romano Biancoli“ on June 5-6, Ravenna 201
