• The stories proposed by OH and the team are good. My one consideration is whether there are other aspects/sub stories etc, which should be considered as the exhibition content progresses - particularly stories which are not well known/less obvious to the public than those that have been included in the draft workbook. One of the things about exhibitions which I as a visitor find exciting and fulfilling is when I have gone to see an exhibition about a topic I think I know, but have walked away learning more about elements which are surprising and new to me. I'd like our visitors to walk away with a richer understanding of the Press Gall outside of the stories they think they might know.

• That the intro to the PG includes content/information about pre 1930s to give context. That the exit of the exhibition also speaks to post 80s. I'm not sure how this could be done curatorially but I have great faith in Amy and Anne-Marie to resolve this.

• That one of the underlying messages throughout the exhibition is about the role of media in enabling/supporting/ensuring a strong democracy.

• That another underlying message is about women/gender (and lack thereof) in the earlier acts/time periods, so that its not just reflected in the content in the 70s/80s.

• Are there stories (and content) relating to the Press Gallery and reporting by Indigenous and multi-cultural communities/news outlets. eg in the 70s with Whitlam and Fraser's policies around migration, refugees etc.

• That the exhibition is object rich - obviously this is dependent on availability of objects and/or whether the stories lend themselves to being told via objects. At the moment the workbook is tech-heavy in terms of the medium of storytelling which I am not so keen on, e.g. the proposed cinematic approach to telling the dismissal story via screens over three rooms, with each room having only AV material. I think this is possibly wasting space if three (or two rooms) are solely dedicated to a major story told via AV.

• That the exhibition incorporates both objects and interpretation techniques in telling the story - this is OPHs'/MoAD's strength and we are a very unique museum - I'd like to see this emphasised in the PG.

• The space includes room U94, which we spoke about yesterday. That in doing so we also make the most of centralising AV/rack to make the maintenance more straightforward for Mitch and the team long term, but that the majority of the room is utilised as another story/theme/display area for the PG exhibition.

• That the team speak with Mark DR to find out where the wifi/IT rack needs to go, and consider alternative locations (such as the plant room) if this is feasible.

• That the overall design considers where groups (students or tour groups) can stand/sit together, but that a room is not solely utilised for that reason. One of the things I find an issue is when an area or room in a museum or gallery is designed for a single purpose, such as school groups, but means that when everyday visitors walk past the room looks under utilised and confusing in terms of its role in the overall exhibition structure. I'm not sure if you can recall some of the spaces at the new WAM, but the museum has lots of large spaces for groups to gather, but when there are school holidays are on, it feels inhospitable for everyday visitors and as though the visitor "shouldn't'' be there.

• Similarly, I am not too keen on reserving rooms solely for interactives. In some cases, such as recording a piece to film, it will be necessary to have an identified space to do this. However, because of the rooms and the visitor flow we are wanting to create, I think it's important to ensure that interactives do not prevent visitor flow or stop visitors entering a room because they think it's not available.

• The extent of tech proposed (as a concept at this stage) is too much and too overwhelming. Pat spoke about having the AV/tech be self generated so that visitors can control their engagement with it. This approach works if there are buttons or screens to touch by a person to activate something, but I am concerned about having media (which Pat spoke about) which is triggered when someone enters the room. This can be overwhelming though to a visitor as they are not aware that something might be triggered to start, when they walk into a room. This can be done really well and sensitively and in a non-intrusive way (such as the GPR and the radio).

• That the interactive media experiences match the diversity of our audiences to self-select. So, with the option to access a film piece someone has recorded, think about how that experience can be 'taken home' by someone in a range of ways e.g. upload, Instagram, email. Often museums and galleries have a range of experiences, but only one way to 'take them home' - can we have an experience which can be taken home in a range of ways, so we're showing visitors that they can choose rather than us appearing to force them to choose a single option that suits us.

• Related to this, anything we do/how we interact with our visitors using technology is cyber safe and meets privacy requirements.

• That the MoAD team (possibly MoAD Digital could lead this?) create a suite of principles in regard to AV/technology. Similarly, MoAD Engagement does a similar thing regarding engagement (young through to older age groups) and MoAD Learning with education. Having a suite of principles or guidelines now might help facilitate the core exhibition, curatorial and design teams in shaping how content will be presented.

• That we engage early with an access consultant on the exhibition.

• Anne-Marie mentioned in SMG briefly yesterday about whether we should engage a media historian to provide advice on the content. She wasn't able to speak at length about this, but I think its a very good idea. She will be able to provide more detail.

• I'm interested to see how the exhibition can make the most of the two Press Galleries above the HoR.

• Noting that the wall space in the PG rooms is small and narrow, I think we should consider how the wall space can be utilised too in the telling of the PG stories. There are implications in regard to readability/visitor flow/heritage considerations which need to be assessed, but I don't want to rule the walls space out yet as not usable until the exhibition content is further developed.

ANNE-MARIE CONDE

I especially appreciate the workbook being presented in the form of a website because it gives a strong indication of the dynamism and visual flair that visitors will encounter. I think the themes and stories are strong. I really like the proposed look and feel of the graphics and colour palette. The three acts - Love this concept.

• Digital vs analogue technology
  The proposal risks becoming too digital tech heavy because we want the experience to be object rich, and we know already that our visitors love analogue technology. We don’t want to efface the building itself under layers of technology given that the building itself was so influential in the work of the press gallery. Ongoing resources will be needed to maintain digital tech (and analogue tech for that matter).
  
  There are privacy and cyber concerns about any interpretation that invites people to submit an email address. That said, I acknowledge that many visitors do like a takeaway, and like to post a souvenir of their visit on social media. Maybe there are solutions that do not ask people to part with their personal info. Visitors living with neuro-diversities may not enjoy noisy bright environments and may not stay in the space very long. (My son falls into this category.) What we could do is examine the OH proposals for digital tech across the entire space to get a sense how intense it is, where peaks and troughs of intensity are, and how quickly people can exit easily if they are overwhelmed.

• Tone and historical accuracy
  Only Human’s approach quite rightly is to emphasise the uniqueness of the Australian federal parliamentary press gallery, but we need to be cautious about generalisations across the entire period from the 30s to the 80s. The PG was highly competitive but it sounds from the tiny bit of reading I’ve done that factionalism was extremely complex, and there were examples of information sharing and cooperation. Journalists’ memories are going to be influenced by what faction or group they belonged to, and they may remember an incident that at the time seemed hugely significant to them but in hindsight may not be. Perhaps I’m cautioning against an exhibition that relies too much on oral history.
  
  PG journalists were not always young, as is claimed in the workbook. And this exhibition won’t literally be ‘the first time the deeper machinations’ of the PG have been revealed.
  
  I was initially unconvinced by the three-part telling of the story of the Whitlam dismissal but I’m coming around to it! Much depends on visitors being persuaded to move patiently from one room to another, and wait their turn if necessary. If it works it could be a really clever use of an awkward space. The danger is that the presentation will reduce a series of complex interconnected events and personalities to a ‘mystery’ to be ‘solved’. The true crime genre always seeks to reduce complexity to a single ‘whodunnit’ resolution. If the Whitlam dismissal was that simple we would not still be talking about it now!

• Checking for facts and interpretive emphasis
  I hope we can find the resources to obtain some external advice where we feel it is needed. For instance (and I know we may not use this story, this is just to illustrate what I mean), I wonder about the anecdote about how Harold Cox persuaded Curtin to lift the censorship on information about the presence of the US in Australia. The significance of that is poorly explained. (The more interesting thing is how Curtin famously maintained friendly relations with the PG and gave them off-the-record info in exchange for their adherence to censorship regulations. There is a well-known photograph of JC, perhaps taken in his office, chatting to PG journalists.) JC was also the first PM to employ a full-time press secretary and I wonder if the role of press secretaries in attempting to shape their bosses’ image is important to mention? It’s not just politicians/journalists/press barons. Staffers are in the mix too.
  
  I’d also like to explore further the absence of women in the 1930s-60s era. Maybe there were literally no female journalists in the PG in those years but maybe there is more to know about this. Were there women who tried and didn’t last? Why not? What can we learn from those failures?
  
  Similarly, did the PG report on events and issues affecting minorities, First Nations people, multicultural communities? When? A deeper question, maybe not suitable for this exhibition: did they report on policy development in those areas, or is this exhibition designed to be a rapid-paced exhibition about mysteries and scoops and scandals etc? If so, will it miss important nuances? Are we okay with that?
  
  

• Concluding thoughts for visitors
  I agree with others that although the exhibition does not extend beyond the 1908s, it will be important to suggest to visitors that the role of PG journalism in an era of misinformation and eroding trust in public institutions is really important.
  
  

• Zero to five audience
  Keen to know if OH was briefed to include scope for something for the tiny visitors, or at least to keep them occupied?

KATE ARMSTRONG & AMY LAY

• Each era as an ‘act’ is clever

• ‘Behind the scenes’ and ‘if walls could talk’ approach is very good

• ‘Behind the scenes’ could be brought out even further, with the inner workings of the internal politics between publications, between journalists – what were these journalists like to work with and what was the life of the PG journalist like?

• Presentation of information in the website is great for bringing it to life

• Note where possible that other staff as well as prolific journalists will have their stories told. Worth noting the contribution of the ‘crews’ and the support staff. Elsewhere in the building we try to tell the stories of the secretaries, typists, cleaners, kitchen hands rather than always defaulting to the senior officials and the politicians. In the PG this is about the cadet reporters, sound technicians, camera crew, teleprinter operators etc.

• Move the audience considerations to the ‘background’ section on the home page

• Add an introductory section to the exhibition near the press boxes

• We need to take a moment at the top of the stairs (UH ST2)/lift to remember that visitors are potentially arriving with no idea where they are – some might not even know what is meant by ‘the press’ (although most would understand the concept of the media) - and will need an explanation of what the term ‘press gallery’ means (ie, a place and a group). This sounds basic to us as we are so completely immersed in this material but as a visitor to a museum in a historic place the actual location needs to manifest first and the questions – where am I, who worked here and what did they do – deserve focussed attention here. If they are not addressed then all the subsequent storytelling may be too naught.

• fewer screens / screen driven interactives.

• Noting MoAD will engage both a First Nations consultant and Accessibility specialist to review, at a later stage in the project

• Add MoAD Engagement team as a consultative body for interactive elements in the exhibition, in the same way as MoAD Learning and other teams are referenced

• AL – like the way the themes are interspersed throughout the ‘acts’ - a really interesting and informative way to show how similar events recur throughout time, and to follow the way things change from one decade to another

• Need the intro panel/area noted on the map, also a finishing panel at the end – noting this can bring home democracy theme as the takeaway

• Would be good to incorporate some places to sit/rest/reflect/contemplate

• More ‘analog’ interactives e.g. phones you pick up to hear audio, typewriters, retro fitted cameras you can use to film a piece to camera

• Not too much ambient audio – can be overwhelming for visitors

• Note to remember that visitors don’t respond well to really tech heavy exhibitions like Writs to Referendums, but prefer interactives like the ‘Did you know’ wall in the Blueprint exhibition

THEMES

Proximity

• KA - A very strong theme and one that our visitors ‘get’ when they range across the building – the sheer overcrowded and close quarters nature of the building is both self-evident and worth bringing to the fore interpretively.

• AL – Interesting insight that the deeper reflection from journalists about how the proximity/intimacy shaped PG’s role as the fourth estate. Could this potentially be explored through those who had experience both in OPH and APH? Many discussed this change in the workshops.

Technology

• KA - This is a strong theme and one that complements other interpreted areas in the museum, the highlights tour and other face-to-face interpretation. We find our best interpretation in the building happens when visitors receive the message in a range of different settings and in a range of different ways – The Interpretation team refers to these as ‘repeated references’ as a shorthand. This theme will fulfil that. Given the impact of personal technology on our lives nowadays I also feel that this is an area where visitors have a useful grounding for ‘Ah Hah’ style moments – the level of scaffolding (development of foundational knowledge) that is required is less than in other areas (for example, when we are talking about parliamentary procedure).

• AL – technology is a great theme, it serves as an excellent place to encourage engagement and to understand the ‘how’ as well as the outcomes of the changing technology.

Leadership spills

• KA - This theme has relevance and potential due to the number of leadership changes that older visitors will have lived through from the Rudd era onwards. It ties in nicely with the proximity theme too – nothing was private or confidential.

• AL – Another theme that lends itself so well to comparison between the OPH experience and how things went in 2013-2019 in APH. Ken’s quote – I wonder if he has a specific experience in mind.

Gender

• KA - There is a lot of interest among our visitors in women in OPH and this will translate through to content on women in the press gallery. The women in parliament tour that we run could usefully add the press gallery to their tour route and this introduces a new exhibition space on a different floor to our visitors.

• KA - I am concerned about the choice of image above the quote from Niki Savva. When just a section of the image was revealed in the first version of the website it was recognisably Hawke’s office. I am wondering if it might be possible to use an alternative? Concerned about guilt by association here.

• RM – agree with above image/quote issue, and think a similar one might be happening with the other image in this theme – is it Grattan? With the Legge quote below it makes it seem like it’s an image of Legge.

Censorship

• KA - This theme has a lot of potential and will be a good one for the 50s-60s era re Petrov, cold war etc. It also ties in nicely with the overarching ‘history is mystery’ vibe.

• AL – also a great tie-in with TPFP.

Media proprietors

• KA - This is a really interesting theme. I don’t feel our visitors will necessarily know all that much about the proprietors and the influence that they wielded so this will need to start at first principles. That said, they may also be surprised at how the names and families are still hanging around. I also think this theme can dispel any thoughts that the press gallery was this island of independent journalists merrily filing their stories and remind us of the influence of the proprietors and instructions from headquarters from editors and the like.

• AL – Interesting to see the relationships and how/whether they’ve endured. Also could be a good place to highlight the non-Canberra bureaus, where work was going back to. Must have been hard to read the room on the media proprietor when you’re delivering content from Canberra back to Melbourne or Sydney?

ACT ONE 30s – 40s

• Introduce more tactile interactives e.g. include an interactive involving morse code, helping visitors comprehend what the “secret cables” are the first story about Joseph Lyons defection from Labor

• KA – Focussing on censorship and media proprietors in this Act makes sense but I feel that the opportunity to focus into the chamber and to the politicians of the time has the potential to be lost with the proposed technology that encourages visitors to examine a tablet and a series of sound showers/screens/holograms at eye level. Visitors have been observed just sitting up in the press gallery gazing down at the layout of the chamber and across to the other three mezzanine-level galleries and I wonder about how much this will affect that simple act of really examining the building and its very deliberate architecture and the layout of the Chamber. On a more practical level the chamber is used throughout the day for learning programs and guided tours and it sounds as if this technology would have the ability to disrupt those programs. I don’t see us being able to change the light levels in the chamber or introduce any sound. Definitely can in other areas of the press gallery however and I support that.

• KA – The two story ideas for this area are strong ones – the UAP is more well known which gives some of our audience a foundation to work from – it is also brought up elsewhere in the museum so we are getting those ‘repeated references’ that I personally find critical for interpreting effectively to visitors. Also characters like Joseph Lyons are picked up again in Democracy DNA. The war story is less well known but a strong one to cover here.

• AL – I like the two stories suggested here, too. The UAP story, as Kate said is brought up elsewhere in the museum and may be more well-known, so it acts an anchor to the visitors to then be brought along on the Munich story they don’t know as well.

ACT TWO 50s – 60s

• KA – Just a quick note that I don’t feel that we should refer to the spaces in the Press Gallery by anything other than their room numbers in this type of piece – eg, here we should just use U95 rather than the ‘old ABC Bureau’. The ABC was in this room for a period of time but by referring to one of its occupants it tends to get us stuck in a particular time and with a particular set of people. The Press Gallery precinct (other than the gallery overlooking the chamber) was a very moveable feast space-wise with many changes of occupants and numerous extensions (and later reductions). I feel strongly that we just treat it as exhibition real estate while making the most of the heritage fabric and fixtures where they suit.

• KA – Learning has expressed interest in using the press gallery for school groups so the intention here for interactives feels like a good one but I suppose it depends on how they see their typical school groups of 25 – 30 students being able to engage with these. Also just on the interactives narrative, I am concerned that they are regularly presented alongside the words ‘younger’ and ‘school aged’ and ‘youth’. This exhibition is for all visitors and I would like the interactives to appeal or at least look like they are aimed at all visitors – not have a youth-only overlay.

• KA – I think the toilets offer a lot of potential for journalist stories - the space has a great ‘concentration vibe’ but I would always steer clear of trying to tell stories about other separate places in the building – esp places on a completely different floor level – eg, the Alan Reid toilet story – it just sounds complicated to visitors – imagine …. if you were to go back out of the press gallery and down the stairs and along the corridor towards the Prime Minister’s Suite and into the toilets on the left after the Speaker’s Walk and take a seat in one of the cubicle then you would have had the chance to hear ..... I feel let the vols tell this story right where it makes sense to do so.

• KA – I think the choice of stories here is good – the Petrov affair, 1967 referendum and Holt death can be told at a ‘top level’ ie, in summary form for our visitors who move quickly through exhibition spaces (the streakers and strollers) but have plenty to unpack for those who want to immerse themselves (the studiers). I can see Learning being interested in these for civics education purposes.

• AL – Petrov – I'd love to see us lean more into Fergan O’Sullivan and Document H. It’s such an excellent example of the PG *being* the story, not just reporting on it. I wonder what the reactions were of other journalists when they found out. Also the Royal Commission, leading to the party splits – what a huge impact a journalist has had on the future of Australian politics.

ACT THREE 70s - 80s

• KA – I am not taken with the concept of U89 where visitors use their phones to engage with an experience. I am not convinced that visitors want to get out their phones, what sounds like download an application and turn on wifi just to experience something in our museum. There are just too many barriers here.

• AL – yeah, like Kate – UYOD doesn’t do it for me. Not sure what the wifi is like up there?

• KA – The key stories in this space are sound. The Dismissal is a consistently interesting story for our visitors but it has been told many times and in many ways. I feel that the strength here is to just focus on the journalists/media view rather than try somehow to sort out the truth of the matter and why it is in many senses unresolved – this may get way too complicated. (Fun fact - the Senate Press Gallery would have finally been packed with journalists when the supply bills were being rejected!) The material on the women in the press gallery is strong and as indicated previously could be incorporated into the women’s tour.

EXHIBITION DESIGN, STRUCTURE & STYLE

• RM – Overall design is good and could tie in nicely with MoAD’s brand.

AUDIENCE

• KA – I agree with comments below – information on our audience needs to be much more prominent in this presentation. That is our biz. Always, first things first – the visitors. I am not sure about even mentioning the 2004 audience research – as OH point out that is now two decades old and I am not convinced that it is still relevant enough to be included. The reality is that we only have a basic understanding of the MoAD audience overall. We just have to live with that for now.

• KA – concluding comments – overall I feel that this workbook has landed on the key themes and stories that make sense for our visitors and complement our current visitor experience. It also usefully tackles some big gaps (eg, Dismissal) and achieves the ‘repeated references’ which help to stitch together the entire visitor experience. The examples of images, audio and footage to demonstrate the rich content opportunities are great. It has considered the real estate available and has offered some innovative ideas of how we could make the ‘best’ of the quirky nature of the spaces.

• The themes and stories that have been drawn out are great, as is the ‘three act’ approach

• Would love to see more interpreted spaces for an immersive/discovery experience

• Some concerns around the idea of visitors viewing screens in U88, U90, U91 and U93 from the hallway U503. This may impact visitor flow through the hallway.

Entry Press Boxes

Pros:

• AV has a low barrier to entry for the visitor. Doesn't require complex interaction. Supports design aesthetic.

Cons:

• Heritage considerations for install of projector mount point etc.

• Sunlight in the space may wash out the projection significantly unless there are window coverings.

• Design aesthetic may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

Other comments

• What will the lighting solution be in this space. If we have a projection, suggest that we block the windows and provide a curated lighting solution to guide visitor attention and visitor flow.

• There is potential for an activated soundscape in this space. Could use lots of old media broadcast recordings/tuning between stations, not necessarily for active listening but rather for setting the stage/background aesthetics. Maybe snippets of important moments in recorded history. Could use activated soundscape to start here in this location and then draw the visitor down the hallway in the direction we want them to move?

20’s 30’s rooms

Pros

• These two spaces are pokey and have various bits of plant equipment; they present a challenge for visitor flow. Using AV in these spaces means we can make better use of them, as a traditional interpretation would be hard to fit.

Cons

• The 20s and 30s give us some really beautiful opportunities for interpretation (e.g. props, jazzy noir soundscapes, old bakerlight phones, cigars, dim lighting) It would be a shame that the only spaces that present the stories of the 20s and 30s are AV solutions only.

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• Heritage considerations for install of projector mount point etc.

• Sunlight in the space may wash out the projection significantly unless there are window coverings

Other Comments

• I reckon the suggested uses for these spaces are the best option, but I'd love to see more 20s and 30s traditional interpretation in the exhibition somewhere.

• What will the lighting solution be in this space? If we have a projection, suggest that we block out the windows and provide a curated lighting solution to guide visitor attention and visitor flow.

• Opportunity for a stellar soundscape in this space. Could be a follow on from the previous suggestion of a soundscape in the entry space. One that moves up the corridor and into these rooms.

Press Gallery Balconies

• Potential alternate location for speakers and screens

• Blue drawing reflects Press Gallery ‘lower’ level (where visitors cannot go due to stairs not meeting WHS requirements)

Pros

• This space is a thoroughfare, and the visitor flow and heritage impact of an AV experience could be minimized well. A traditional interpretation would be hard to fit, but the desktops under the Perspex panels on the desks could contain paper paraphernalia props or paper objects?

• An audio experience here could be really rich due to the story's that it could tell of the space.

• A visual storytelling experience here could also be rich if it didn't have a large impact on the heritage values/appearance of the space.

• We already use sound showers in the museum in DDNA, so people can go there to test.

Cons

• Heritage considerations. I don't think I really need to comment.

• If there were screens on stands/plinths, this would present issues for visitor flow.

• Installing anything from the gallery ceiling requires a scaffold. (Well in the past it has, such as the Wi-Fi antennas installed in the space) This is challenging and expensive.

• I believe sound showers would still present a distracting element for tour/school groups down in the lower gallery.

• It is difficult to get a rich sound from a sound shower.

Other Comments

• I'd recommend installing directional speakers/sound showers under the desks pointing diagonally up, if they are a must. The main issue speakers would present is interruption of school groups and tour groups in the chamber. Perhaps a better option would be a molitor listening device, or a phone earpiece. I understand that this removes from the original idea. The USO model of molitor has a heritage looking handset www.molitor-berlin.de/en/product-category/handsets/uso-handset/

• If speakers were a must, installing a mute button for school program leaders and tour guides in the lower gallery might help. And then providing Molitor listening devices alongside the speakers for listening, in the situation where a school group is happening.

• Using PIR detectors to activate content when people enter the space or use of content selection on the screens would be useful to minimize disruptions to the space below when there are no visitors on the balcony.

• If looping/ pir activated, we would need a way to schedule the content as this space is occasionally used for after-hours events.

• You could counterweigh a clear projection screen on the lower balcony rather than hanging above the main space to reduce heritage impact and appearance. Still a big challenge obvs.

• If you want to have a visual screen-based story telling experience, you could install screens along the entire desk.

Studio Rooms

• Love this!

Pros:

• Opportunity for visitors to look, feel and touch.

• Opportunity for visitor to encounter vintage AV equipment and learn about the technical operation of working in the press gallery (The press gallery didn't only have journalists, there were technicians also!)

• Opportunity for some fantastic traditional interpretations.

• Opportunity for some delightful low barrier to entry interaction

Cons:

• Heritage considerations for install of AV mount points etc

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• Requirements for Interactives may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• Might be a bit tight in U96.2/U96.3 as it is a bit of a thoroughfare.

Other comments

• What will the lighting solution be in this space? Can we use lighting to draw attention to interpretative elements?

• There is potential for an activated soundscape in this space.

• Maintenance of complex interactives may pose a maintenance challenge. We would need to be involved in the conceptualisation process until the finished product in order for us to build in thoughtful maintenance solutions.

ABC Studios & Toilet

Pros:

• Opportunity for larger objects to be displayed.

• Soundscapes could be funny interesting

• Incorporating new technology into old Tech seems fun and maintains our ability to have interpretative elements in the space.

Cons:

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• Potential for too much text/ wall panels. Could end up looking like a textbook on the walls.

• Interactive overwhelm.

• No/minimal interpretation

Other comments

• What will the lighting solution be in these spaces? Can we use lighting to draw attention to interpretative elements/ objects?

• There is potential for an activated soundscape in this space.

• If we do projections the sunlight in here may present challenges.

• Maintenance of complex interactives may pose a maintenance challenge. We would need to be involved in the conceptualisation process until the finished product in order for us to build in thoughtful maintenance solutions.

3 Adjoining Rooms

Pros:

• A wealth of historical media footage could be shown.

• The staged story-based approach seems fun and entertaining.

• Could be nestled amongst or be the backdrop to interpretation – I.e. You could install props and objects in the foreground of each room and have the projections sit behind it.

Cons:

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• Potential for too much visual screen-based content.

• No/minimal interpretation. The old u96 interpretation was a favorite in the old press gallery exhibition.

• The carpet in some of these spaces will need to be covered or the room will need to be barred at the doorway.

Other comments

• What will the lighting solution be in these spaces? Can we use lighting to draw attention to interpretative elements/ objects?

• There is potential for an activated soundscape in this space.

Crazy Split Flap Wall Room

• Difficult to maintain for MoAD’s limited (one person) AV team

Pros:

• Opportunity for visitors to interact with a low barrier to interactive entry.

• Gimmicky and fun. The kind of thing visitors would talk about with their friends after their visit.

• Opportunity for presenting interesting information in an interesting and unexpected way.

• Aesthetically beautiful (In my opinion)

Cons:

• What will the maintenance of this thing be like!? How reliable is the technology?! Will need support contract for the life of the exhibition. If it fails, what will we do instead?

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• No/minimal interpretation

Other comments

• What will the lighting solution be in these spaces? Can we use lighting to draw attention to interpretative elements/ objects or to the split flap machine itself?

• There is potential for an activated soundscape in this space.

• We would need to install a Perspex sheet over this so that visitors don't break it.

Belongings Interactive

* A solution like this will need a maintenance contract with the AV supplier and the content producer.

Pros:

• Opportunity for visitors to interact with a complex interactive that provides a high-risk reward.

• Gimmicky and fun. The kind of thing visitors would talk about with their friends after their visit.

• Opportunity for presenting interesting information in an interesting and unexpected way.

• Aesthetically beautiful

Cons:

• What will the maintenance be like? How reliable is the technology? Will need a support contract for the life of the exhibition. If it fails, what will we do instead?

• Design aesthetics may overpower interpretative elements/significance of the space itself.

• No/minimal interpretation

• BYOD (Bring your own device presents a wealth of maintenance challenges) - although this pitch outlines including devices in the space

Other Comments

• There are some things we can do with the tech to minimize the potential for future problems with this product arising. (Such as a dedicated air gapped router, specifically for this product.)

• We love the theme of making visitors feel behind the scenes, accessing an area rarely seen. This feels very appropriate to the contemporary use of the space pre ’88.

• We are cautious of the possible overlap in telling the story of the ’67 referendum due to resourcing constraints. Because this story is being told in the ddna/dayi/blueprint space MoAD’s collection may be stretched a bit thin, as objects have required rest time after install etc.

• We are also cautious of the use of U95 for the object showcase given the large amount of natural light in the space. (the showcase is also somewhat an area of interest for the team in terms of showcase design and fabrication.)

• There is also a large number of wall/ceiling mounted screens which is of somewhat concern.

• U93. Given the untouched nature of the space it is preferred to be kept reasonably intact as a representative sample. We would love for any works to be reversable in this space. This is in line with our retention of fabric in situ policy, point 1.4 of our conservation policy

• Consideration of costs over the life of the exhibition.

• In the background notes it was raised that over time the exhibition: Leaks, Scoops and Scandals, became dated and that it had a high changeover rate, which eventually eroded the central narrative of the exhibition. Exhibition lasted over 17 years (2006 – 2023).

• What is the life expectancy of the new gallery/exhibition?

• Costs will continue to occur over the life and maintenance of the gallery/exhibition.

• Costs relate to: staff time in developing content, preparing objects for display, de-install and returning to storage (Curatorial, Collections and Exhibition staff),

• Continuous external contractor costs related to fabrication of mounts and conservation treatment of objects.

• Management of loan objects: Institutions often charge fees for loans, as well as charge for preparation of objects, conservation treatment and transport.

• Institutional lenders often require 12 months’ notice via formal request for objects.

• Staff time in negotiating and managing loans.

• What showcases will be used in the new display area? Will these be existing showcases or new showcases?

• If new showcases: Exhibition and Collections staff are key stakeholders in showcase decisions, as they will be the end users of the case. They will be accessing (install and uninstall) in cases. They need to be ergonomic and safe for staff to work in and for display of collection.

• Showcase needs to meet Museum standards. Have secure locks and keys, seals to maintain environmental conditions and adjustable lighting.

• Maintenance costs for the life of the showcases.

• If existing showcases: Do we have adequate stock available which will work in space. If possible to get cases up to space, as only accessible by small lift.

• Will showcase and plinth need painting.

• Maintenance costs for the life of the showcases.

• Soundscapes and light scapes could be overwhelming for some visitors, will there be times of low sensory for visitors who might find display overwhelming.

LIKES:

PROXIMITY

• Interesting & exciting content development & marketing opportunities – Board member Niki Savva had interesting recollection of breaking a story on Lionel Murphy appointment

• Contemporary audiences will have good recollection of leaks of 70s/80s era

• Aligns well with If Walls Could Talk

GENDER

• Gender disparity in OPH is a story that will need to be addressed in the lead up to the Centenary, this could be the opportunity to do it

TECHNOLOGY

• Opportunities for imagery/digital MarComms content

• Audiences like things they can touch – is there old equipment available for use in the space?

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY WITH AAP

• Only Human notes in feedback from the workshops how AAP did a lot of the “heavy lifting” up until the 1960s.

• May be the foundation for a media partnership for this project

• National wire so great for sharing stories with audiences across the country

• AAP produced a big coffee table book for its 75th birthday in 2010 and invested a lot of resources in the research. They might have content relevant to the OPH Bureau. Also had quite strong archives from memory.

DISLIKES:

LEADERSHIP SPILLS/MEDIA PROPRIETORS

• From a risk and reputation standpoint, this theme could be risky in how the public and contemporary political players read MoAD’s interpretation – will it be seen as partisan, or boring compared with what they can see on TV or twitter.

• Also given the up-close view of the leadership dramas contemporary Australians have witnessed, audiences may be a little dismissive/over this theme.

• If the parts of the exhibition are seen as ‘attacking’ the media could impact stakeholder relationships, partnership/sponsorship opportunities

EXHIBITION STRUCTURE

• Feels a little over worked

• Will audiences have to approach space in chronological order to understand the ‘acts’ – what happens if the space is crowded (easily so because of size)

• Will it be difficult for students/children to understand

The stories featured in the workbook are great, and the approach of moving through each era as an “Act” is a clever and useful approach, particularly for helping visitors comprehend changing political landscapes and technologies.

Tactile interactives featured in each act: There is not a lot for young visitors to engage with in Act I and III. The Engagement team would recommend less screen driven interactives in these spaces, and rather re-orient the approach to include more tactile interactives that speak more to the technologies of each era. For example, Act I could include an interactive involving morse code, helping visitors comprehend what the “secret cables” are the first story about Joseph Lyons defection from Labor. This adjustment would make the exhibition more inclusive and could help contextualise stories told in each Act. Technological shifts, as identified in the workbook, are crucial to understanding the way journalists were involved in these stories. We can better tell these stories through clever, tactile interactives. In addition, these interactives could be featured across all three Acts as opposed to just Act II. It is also worth noting that the technology wall pitched in Act II looks like the technology wall display currently featured in Truth, Power, and a Free Press.

Accessibility concerns: Regarding the amount of screen-based audio/visual content throughout the exhibition, and inclusion of app software and “closed door” room in Act III. Perhaps we consider onboarding an accessibility advisor? This might already be part of the considered approach – we are just flagging this anyway just in case.

Engagement consultation: There is mention of Education (Learning) and Curatorial consultation in Act II for interactive elements. We would also request that Engagement are added as a consultative body for interactive elements in the exhibition.

JANE SAKER

Going through the mock-ups, I can see that the Press Galleries will be completely transformed from the state it is in now. As you have been on the Press Gallery refurbishment journey from the beginning alongside the Capital Projects team, I know you are understanding of the processes we have and are still working through for the base build to bring the switch-boards, electrical and comms cabling/rack + cooling, lighting, painting and render etc. up to 2024 standards while still complying with our Heritage guidelines. That said, the new exhibition in this iteration is very heavy (pretty much 95%) on the AV and digital side of things.

Regarding the Press Gallery (Gallery 4) from a Capital Projects point of view, there have been potential known unknown issues that we have been working through such as ACM cleaning. This is a WHS requirement so we can have a clear and safe path for laying electrical and comms cables to feed each room so upcoming exhibitions can be accommodated in an appropriate manner. Keeping this in mind, we are still requiring more accurate locations from the Exhibitions team for cabling and power outlets (GPO's) for a more precise fit of cables within each room.

Looking at the Work Book, and seeing the amount of AV in each room:

• How long is this exhibition slated to run for? - the last exhibition was open for almost 17 years and I can only assume that technology will develop and change if this upcoming exhibition has a similar lifespan. This would result in changes to equipment and therefore potential changes to sizes, locations and electrical requirements.

• Will future proofing be considered if this exhibition runs for an extended time? - Do we have the ability to purchase the most current and up to date AV and tech equipment, ensuring that (at least for a short while) there wouldn't be a need for updates and the potential for alterations in render, ceilings, cabling or cooling requirements?

Another big point of discussion has been the location and usage/cooling of the new Comms Rack ((H x W x D) 1955 x 750 x 1030, and is 42 RU).

• Will such a large AV and Tech heavy exhibition require an even larger comms rack than is already designated for this space? Or will this size rack be appropriate?

• As in the Gallery 4 Action Proposal: To accommodate the unknowns while still allowing the necessary upgrades, the cabling in the base build will include sufficient cabling for the maximum requirements but will only be taken up to the spaces through existing pathways.

• Are we sure that we are currently putting in enough cabling?

• Do you know the size of the UPS required for this rack, as that will determine the cooling capabilities needed.

• In reality, there is no other space within those galleries that can house the new comms rack and it does make sense that the new rack should go where the old (tiny) rack currently resides in U94, this would make running of the new cables to the new rack less invasive to the building.

• After many conversations with stakeholders over the last few months it was decided that the Comms Rack would sit in front of the existing comms cabinet, as it is too large to fit into the existing cupboard. I believe the decision to make the whole of room U94 into a Comms Room was made closer to the initial start of the base build (please see attached email).

• Finally, while looking at the Work Book there seems to be missed opportunities for room interpretations.

• One such room is U93 with its desk, shelving, intercom speakers and pin board still intact. I believe a conversation with the Heritage team would be needed regarding this room.

• Other overlooked points are the newly working Press Release bell and the soon to be working On Air lights in U96.

• An opportunity for opening up another room would be if the comms rack was housed in the alcove, behind the door of U94 (see highlighted map below). To house the comms rack in this part of U94 we would need to add vented doors and cooling. Discussions with Heritage would be needed as there would potentially be further penetrations in either the floor, ceiling and walls (possibly all three).

• We pulled power & data outlets from the eastern press gallery on an early set of electrical drawings as it was doubtful that any installation there would be approved by the Actions Committee. Similarly, there are no power or data provisions planned for U92 (bathroom). We will need to know asap if any additional power and data is required.

• Just checking that the team are keeping in mind constraints & opportunities within the spaces - eg. circulation in the eastern press gallery, the grid ceiling lights in U95.

• We will discuss the U94 comms room and power / data fit off in our internal meetings

• The three acts I think work well and visitors do generally respond well to being able to follow a timeline.

• I do think a more pared back approach will be best as the space is already small and it’s good for people to be able to have a feel of the space without too much text or tech.

• Some of the rooms rely very heavily on AV. I think those look neat but rooms without any other panels or objects then have the risk of not having anything or the story missing important aspects if the AV stops working.

• The various videos, particularly in act 3, seems like it may be a lot of competing sound and for tours and for groups of self-guiding visitors it would be great to have plenty of stopping points without AV for them to talk in.

• How do we make sure any tech/digi/AV elements are incorporated in a way that enhances but doesn’t overwhelm in such a small space

• Love the act structure, but will be interested to see how we can do this a way that doesn’t lock everything into a time period if that makes sense – the themes that have been identified are relevant and fascinating and come up now as much as they did in previous time periods, so incorporating contemporary stories/focus alongside the important historic stories would be ideal (I know this is something the MoAD and Only Human teams excel at!)

• Developing online and outreach content alongside the onsite experience would be ideal, so I’m just keen to make sure that’s a consideration through the process

• A question: will thoughts on the audience/s be refined again as the work develops?