I chose to observe the behavior of visitors interacting with the “Mechanical Masterpieces” exhibit created by Neil Mendoza. These pieces incorporated well-known classical paintings to create unexpected behaviors upon physically moving pieces of the exhibit. Visitors were able to walk through a digitally displayed “art gallery” with interactive mechanical components, all of which were noted to be easily recognizable objects, such that methods of interaction seemed instinctive and did not require any further explanation. After actuating a physical object, the digitally displayed painting would be altered in humorous and whimsical ways (for example, visitors were able to use a crank to poke the mustache off of the “Laughing Cavalier,” move a pulley to create a disco scene in the dreary “American Gothic,” and pour water into the diner in “Nighthawks.”). I suspect that for most of the physical movements, there are sensors behind the painting that detect velocity or proximity to then perform actions appropriately on screen.

The visitors interacting with this exhibit appear to be parents/guardians within the ages of 30 to 50 and young children approximately between ages 3 to 6. Group sizes varied—some groups included one adult and one child, while some larger groups were observed to have three adults and one to two children. It seemed that younger children (approximately age 3) were much more engaged in the physical aspect of the visit, while older children were more appreciative of the digital aspect. Most of the children’s interactions seemed to align with the “autonomous” objective discussed in class, where they immediately took the initiative to touch any moving parts without help or prompting. Adults overall did not seem to engage in the physical mechanisms in the exhibit, but would instead encourage the children to complete the task at hand. Adults would also attempt to recognize the artist of the original paintings and tend to explain to the children that the paintings were “very famous”.

Parents and guardians were present to facilitate children’s interaction with the exhibit. For each of the exhibits, it appeared that there were levels of “completeness” one could attain for longer periods of interaction with the exhibit. While some children chose to move the physical pieces long enough to see all of the programmed behaviors in the digital output, others appeared to interact only briefly enough to see movement on the monitors, then head directly to the next painting or exhibit. Most facilitators, if the child did not “complete” the interaction, would prompt and encourage them to finish the action (Comments included “Don’t you want to finish exploding the apple? “ and “If you keep pulling, the disco ball can drop down!”).

The mechanical masterpieces were placed away from many of the more physically intensive museum exhibits such as those in the attic and the garage. In a way, this makes sense because of the need for a wall mounting system for the piece and because it further gives homage to the original paintings with the construction of an “art gallery”. Benches were placed before the pieces such that visitors could sit down and observe the art, much like in an art and history museum. It was also noted that the exhibit was lit dimly, with directed light over the individual pieces. Other pieces in the museum that related to the mechanical masterpieces included “Shy Lights” and the projected wall with raining words, which both embodied more computational designs compared to the rest of the museum.