Abstract
AbstractThe paper examines the semiotic and cognitive status of interactive exhibits at science centers, taking the Copernicus Science Center in Warsaw (CSC) as an example. Such science centers support bottom-up interactions, encouraging visitors to spontaneously explore the exhibits in various ways. We analyze one distinctive way of interaction, when young visitors ignore an exhibit’s instruction and use it as if it were a kind of a toy or machine to play with (this is particularly common with exhibits that are unfamiliar “open-ended objects”). Drawing on cognitive semiotics we describe this particular way of interacting with exhibits as the reality mode of experience, in which the user ignores an intended exhibit’s representational function. We consider whether such interactive objects can be framed as cognitive artifacts, given that standard conceptualizations of artifacts emphasize their representational function. How can we convincingly describe the process by which the cognitive function of an exhibit experienced in reality mode is constituted? In this paper we apply concept of ecological cognitive artifact and the idea of the enactive signification to these questions. We argue that exhibits experienced in reality mode do indeed perform cognitive functions, even in the absence of a representational relation. Our investigation provides insights into the cognitive functions of exhibits and contributes to the conceptualization of non-representational cognitive artifacts.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference78 articles.
1. Achiam, M., May, M., & Marandino, M. (2014). Affordances and distributed cognition in museum exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 29(5), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2014.957479
2. Alač, M. (2003). Squashing, rotating, seeing, and going: On visual knowledge in fMRI research. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 25(25).
3. Alač, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3–4), 629–661.
4. Becvar, A., Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. (2005). Hands as molecules: representational gestures used for developing theory in a scientific laboratory. Semiotica, 2005(156), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.89
5. Beilock, S. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesture changes thought by grounding it in action. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1605–1610.