藝術介入科學展覽的知識再製與訊息溝通－「島嶼浮塵：PM2.5視界」特展的個案研究

Knowledge Reproduction and Communication of Art Intervention in Science Exhibitions: Case Study on the Special Exhibition ＂The Island of Floating Smog: PM 2.5 Visual World＂

10.6686/MuseQ.202001_34(1).0002

張婉真(Wan-Chen Chang)

科學博物館 ； 藝術介入 ； 「島嶼浮塵：PM2.5視界」特展 ； 貝西．伯恩斯坦 ； Science museums ； art intervention ； The Island of Floating Smog: PM 2.5 Visual World ； Basil Bernstein

博物館學季刊

34卷1期（2020 / 01 / 01）

9 - 41+43

繁體中文

本文擬透過研究一個國內近年的代表性展覽「島嶼浮塵：PM2.5視界」，探討科學博物館以及科學中心作為大眾學習科學知識或機構傳播科學訊息的場域，在當前採取藝術介入策略時呈現的兩個研究課題。第一，文本探究博物館在進行跨領域合作時，其知識傳遞與權力運作的問題，亦即博物館機構如何透過跨領域展覽進行知識的篩選與再製；第二，本文也欲探討跨領域知識的結合在博物館場域如何與觀眾互動，其展覽訊息如何與觀眾溝通。本文擬將上述兩個研究問題放置於兩個面向的交點加以思考：其一為科學教育，重視博物館作為非正式教育機構的學習成效；其二為科學溝通，強調社會大眾對於科學的理解與素養。本文因而首先耙梳這兩個面向的研究發展並說明之間的匯流。其次，文章說明其如何借助韓禮德的語言學的系統功能理論，以及貝西．伯恩斯坦的教育機制理論，以分析展覽知識的傳遞者與學習者之間的權力關係，乃及於權力關係下展覽訊息的傳遞溝通模式與其內在特徵。最後，本文綜合立基的理論架構、策展人與觀眾訪談內容，分析個案如何就兩個研究問題呈現意義與啟示。研究發現，從結合科學與藝術的企圖與安排上，「島嶼浮塵：PM2.5視界」屬於弱分類的展覽。展覽的非線性論述以及開放性展區，使得展覽屬於弱架構。在作品辨識上，展覽的低成規反令觀眾不易覺察弱分類的意圖。至於博物館與觀眾的互動關係中的溝通控制方面，博物館的教導性論述是明確的，但其規約性論述與觀眾類型不同而有行為與態度上的差異。也就是說，本展的教導性論述的架構偏強，但規約性論述偏弱。由於分類強度的變化會改變辨識原則，觀眾需要一定的社會文化資本去理解，方能有利其學習，由此本文進一步分析觀眾辨識並判斷如何與展覽互動的依據。

The aim of this paper is, through a recent representative exhibition, to explore how science museums and centers serve as arenas for the study of and institutional dissemination of science, in relation to the adoption of art intervention strategies. First, knowledge dissemination and power operations in an interdisciplinary collaboration were explored, in addition to knowledge selection and reproduction. Second, the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge and the communication of exhibition messages were investigated. There were two aspects considered at their point of intersection. The first was learning outcomes of an informal educational institution and the second was communication emphasizing scientific understanding and literacy, with the results illustrating their convergence. Next, support was drawn from M.A.K. Halliday's systemic functional linguistics and Basil Bernstein's pedagogic device to analyze the power relationships between transmitters and acquirers of knowledge and the modes of transmission of exhibition messages and their intrinsic characteristics. Finally, the theoretical framework was integrated with the content of interviews with the curator and audience members to analyze the significance of this case study. As an attempt to combine science and art, The Island of Floating Smog: PM 2.5 Visual World was an example of weak classification. Its non-linear discourse and open displays led to a weak framework. As to object recognition, the low level of formality made it difficult to perceive the intention of weak classification. In regards to communication control, the museum's instructional discourse was clear-cut and strong but its regulative discourse was weak with disparities among audience members in terms of behavior and attitude. As changes in classification strength can alter identification principles, only audience members with a certain level of social or cultural capital understood the exhibition message. Therefore, further analyses were carried out on how audiences interact with exhibitions.

1. 張婉真(2019)。詩意的科學─法國國立自然史博物館《隕石：天地之間》特展的藝術介入。博物館學季刊，33(1)，55-75。
   連結：
2. Yvonne Harris Consulting, 2007. Summative evaluation of the Mark Dion Systema Metropolis contemporary art exhibition. Yvonne Harris Consulting. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/mark-dion-evaluation-15926.pdf . （瀏覽日期：2019/04/08）
3. Arends, B.(2009).Contemporary arts in the Natural History Museum London: Symbiosis and disruption.Journal of Science Communication,8(2),C02.
4. Bernstein, B.(1990).The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse.London:Routledge.
5. Bernstein, B.(2000).Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity.Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield.
6. Bernstein, B.,王瑞賢（譯）(2005).教育、象徵控制與認同.臺北:學富文化事業有限公司.
7. Bernstein, B.,王瑞賢（譯）(2007).階級、符碼與控制：教育傳遞理論之建構.臺北:聯經出版事業公司.
8. Borchelt, R.,Hudson, K.(2008).Science ProgressScience Progress,未出版
9. Bourdieu, P.,Passeron , J.-C.,邢克超（譯）(2002).再生產：一種教育系統理論的要點.北京:商務印書館.
10. Burns, T. W.,O’Connor, D. J.,Stocklmayer, S. M.(2003).Science communication: A contemporary definition.Public Understanding of Science,12(2),183-202.
11. Cameron, F. R.(Ed.),Neilson, B.(Ed.)(2015).Portraying the political: Contemporary art exhibitions and their engagement with climate change politics Climate Change and Museum Futures.London:Routledge.
12. Drioli, A.(2013).The art of science communication.Journal of Science Communication,12(1),C02.
13. Falk, J. H(Ed.),Dierking, L. D.(Ed.)(1995).Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda.Washington DC:American Association of Museums.
14. Falk, J. H.,Dierking, L. D.(1992).The Museum Experience.Washington DC:Whalesback Books.
15. Falk, J. H.,Dierking, L. D.(2000).Learning form Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning.Walnut Creek, CA:Altamira Press.
16. Filippoupoliti, A.(Ed.)(2010).Science Exhibitions: Communication and Evaluation.Edinburgh:Museumsetc.
17. Fyfe, G. J.(1998).On the relevance of Basil Bernstein’s theory of codes to the sociology of art museum.Journal of Material Culture,3(3),325-354.
18. Gilbert, J. K.,Stocklmayer, S.(2001).The design of interactive exhibits to promote the making of meaning.Museum Management and Curatorship,19(1),41-50.
19. Glinkowski, P.,Bamford, A.(2009).Insight and Exchange: An Evaluation of the Wellcome Trust’s Sciart Programme.London:Wellcome Trust.
20. Halliday, M. A. K.(1978).Language as Social Semiotic.London:Edward Arnold.
21. Halliday, M. A. K.(Ed.),Martin, J. R.(Ed.)(1996).Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power.London:The Falmer Press.
22. Hein, G.(1998).Learning in the Museum.London:Routledge.
23. Henning, M.(Ed.)(2015).The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Media.Oxford and Chichester:John Wiley and Sons.
24. House of Lords(2000).Third Report of the Select Committee on Science and Society.London:House of Lords.
25. Kavanagh, G.(Ed.)(1991).Museum Languages: Objects and Texts.London:Leicester University Press.
26. Koulaidis, V.,Dimopoulos, K.(2003).Science education in primary and secondary level: An analysis of the discursive transitions across different fields of the pedagogic discourse.International Journal of Learning,10,3263-3274.
27. Kress, G.,Van Leeuwen, T.(1996).Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.London:Routledge.
28. Kress, G.,Van Leeuwen, T.(2001).Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication.London:Arnold.
29. Lave, J.,Wenger, L.(1991).Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
30. Macleod, S.(Ed.)(2005).Reshaping Museum Space: Architecture, Design, Exhibitions.London:Routledge.
31. Marshall, C. R.(Ed.)(2011).Sculpture and the Museum.London:Routledge.
32. Melton, A. W. et al., 1936. Experimental Studies of the Education of Children in a Museum of Science. Washington DC: Publications of the American Association of Museums.
33. Redler, H.(2009).From interventions to interactions: Science Museum Arts Projects’ history and the challenges of interpreting art in the Science Museum.Journal of Science Communication,8(2),C04.
34. Rennie, L.,Stocklmayer, S. M.(2003).The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas.International Journal of Science Education,25(6),759-773.
35. Schauble, L.,Leinhardt, G.,Martin, L.(1997).A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts.Journal of Museum Education,22,3-8.
36. Screven, C. G.(1984).Educational evaluation and research in museums and public exhibits: A bibliography.Curator,27,147-165.
37. Short, D. B.(2013).The public understanding of science: 30 years of the Bodmer report.School Science Review,95(350),39-44.
38. Short, D. B.,Weis, N.(2013).The role of science and discovery centres in the public understanding of science.School Science Review,95(350),27-38.
39. Sleigh, C.,Craske, S.(2017).Art and science in the UK: A brief history and critical reflection.Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,42(4),313-330.
40. Stocklmayer, S.(Ed.)(2001).Science Communication in Theory and Practice.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
41. Sturgis, P.,Allum, N.(2004).Science in society: Reevaluating the deficit model of public attitudes.Public Understanding of Science,13(1),55-74.
42. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.
43. Wynne, B.(1993).Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity.Public Understanding of Science,2(4),321-337.
44. 王瑞賢(2018)。Basil Bernstein 的教育論述及其實踐：教育機制的分析。臺灣教育社會學研究，18(1)，1-39。