I would argue that a dense text does a good job of being a ‘mothership’ or a bible to underpin research, but a bad job of catching the eye, seducing a consumer or entering the public consciousness.
As we start talking about communicating with large numbers of people we have no choice but to look outside of the museum or classroom walls and beyond the exhibition as the primary mode of presentation.
In this context a ‘tool’ is the specific vehicle employed to carry an idea to an audience. Although my attention is predominantly focused on the art world, visual culture, manufacturing and knowledge economies, a tool can be anything and come from anywhere.
There was something about recreating an observation on your own terms that seemed so new and innovative to me, but sat so conformably in the canon of art history, of memory, of perception, of how we want things to be.
It’s the number of times something is deemed profound, significant, inspiring, useful, compelling etc. in a specific text, based on ones current knowledge. This makes this number both extremely personal and potentially very telling.
When it comes to knowledge transfer, presentation and engagement it’s the translators, facilitators and organisers of the world that can provide the final pieces of the puzzle.
The prominent culture of research output is text, it exclusively takes the form of journal articles, essays and books. This doesn’t create favourable conditions for contemporary society to see, understand, engage or contribute to it.
In an academic, art or curatorial context it’s more helpful to think of ‘accessibility’ as providing a re-framing, entry point or window to the original work so that the viewer stands a chance of understanding it in a short space of time.