The center is outside the center
Reflection week 4
My first reaction after reading the first-two sentences of Structures, Signs and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences was to confusingly glare at the words that were just read out. The sentences were lengthy and entangled, however, given Derrida’s reputation in literature, every text assumes that words have meaning and that he has a purpose in mind. The first line of the essay itself prepares any reader for a self-conscious, deep abstract reading.
I must say that I have finally understood what a centre outside center really means. But I am aware that there are many gaps to my understanding as I still have not unearthed the concept of the centre philosophically deep enough. In deconstruction, any interpretation would still have voids in the text, spaces where there is much more to say on the subject. Deconstruction is a way of reflecting upon a method, it is about achieving new ways of thinking without establishing a new centred structure and system. Every system of thought has its flaws and inconsistencies. Derrida is essentially exposing weak points or highlighting the unconscious structure that lies behind any subject or concept or any work. For example, the classic example of the chicken and the egg. Here, Derrida says that words are signs and they only form a meaning in relation to each other. He established that the relationship between signified and signifier is arbitrary.
We interviewed Mr. Sajoo Bhaskaran, a senior curator at the Visvesvaraya Industrial & TechnologicalMuseum. He introduced us to the methodology with which his team approaches the planning and making of Exhibits to give us an insight on how complex systems or concepts are simplified for an audience from all walks of life. He has been practicing curation for over two decades, and I felt there was a sense to practice a human-centric process (as we know of) of usability evaluation while designing exhibits. It is something I have noticed even in the corporate companies and design studio where they often settle for “this is good enough”. There were similarities in the process we follow and it was visible when we noticed user’s interaction with the exhibits and the space. While most government museums may not have a problem getting good number of visitors, they have to focus on the quality of their experience inside the institution. The Science Museum, London had one of the most engaging, clean exhibits I have ever seen. There were probes for the audience to think about what they perceived from the exhibits around, and that improved retainability.
Interactive museums are ubiquitous for all science museums, and each of them leverages technology and ‘play’ based on a type of theme they follow. It’s simple things blown up that makes us unlearn the concept. However, the scale of the exhibit or the interaction is not a necessary factor that helps establish a better knowledge. Museums are cathedrals to science and understanding, but not all science museums are equal. Some simply excel in the grandness of the space and the quality of their exhibits.
