The exhibit was overall a success our project in terms of provoking conversation around the ethics of such a product and what it could mean for the pet-owner relationship. It did well at bringing several artifacts together (start-up guide, collar, app, testimonials, placards, curator's statement) to tell our story.
One conversation that we had with a visitor was about the effects of technology on creating underside space between you and your pets. This was even to the point of things like giving a dog or cat food and water every day manually. This turned into a discussion of care ethics where doing even these sorts of small trivial things by hand (i.e. without supporting technology) for your pet could be seen as a sort-of ethical duty to them and your relationship.
Another notable conversation was about how this technology seems great at first glance; however, as one digs deeper and investigates the narrative, it comes across as undesirable and fundamentally flawed in nature. This is exactly the kind of effect that we were going for with this exhibit.
Some sound bytes were overheard as people viewed and interacted with the exhibit such as "Last owner interaction 27 days ago! No wonder its health is low!" and "I wouldn't feel like a real pet owner if I had this for my dog".
One limitation of the exhibit space was the amount of background noise present. This made the collar sounds very difficult to hear, which diminished some of the experience.
Is this a good/useful/informative piece of content to include in the project? Have your say!
You must login before you can post a comment. .