Even though most news outlets have only been carrying the announcement that Google was stopping sales of Google Glass in the last few days, for some reason I have known about it for a month or two now.
When I did originally hear about the decision to review and revamp the glasses in light of problems and negative perceptions, I had a moment of schadenfreude because I bristle at the intrusiveness of Google Glass on privacy. I was pleased by the news that I wouldn’t have to contend with people either engaging with me in ways I didn’t approve of or using the technology to further disengage from their surroundings.
This being said, I will concede that wearable technology is inevitable and something the non-profit performing arts community needs to develop policies and procedures for.
There are definite benefits of this type of technology for arts organizations. Arts and Management Technology Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University put out a paper this past summer about the positive and negative implications of wearable technology in a performing arts environment.
Some applications mentioned in the paper, “Performing Arts in the Wearable Age,” are fairly obvious because they take what is already happening with handheld devices and tablet computers and move them to platforms like Google Glass. Among these are: allowing musicians to get rid of music stands and have score scroll past their eyes; providing background information about the show and performer being looked at to audience members and replacing supertitles with your choice of language translation before your eyes.
The authors also talk about providing point of view experiences to audience members, something I imagined in one of my first blog posts. Imagine being able to see what the actor sees both on stage and backstage. Even more, imagine being able to “perform” opposite your favorite actor and be kissed, slapped, slain, etc by them.
What I hadn’t envisioned was its use as an evaluation tool, allowing students to see themselves perform through the eyes of their instructors or see what their instructors see when they themselves perform.
What never occurred to me was how useful this sort of technology might be for interactions at front of house. The authors mention better fidelity of communication between different staff members versus walkie talkies. They also note that individuals would be able to provide service to customers without directing them to a house manager or the box office because information would be fed directly to their devices.
“Virgin Atlantic has been testing Glass in certain airport terminals since February 2014. Once the customer identifies themselves, gate agents and staf members can aces flight information, seat details, and personal preferences. The result is streamlined, personalized service: the customer receives individualized information suited to her particular journey and needs, with the airline employee processing check-in more quickly and efficiently.”
As soon as I read that, I envisioned a situation where a volunteer usher could do a much more effective job if a glance at a ticket immediately scanned the people as attending and coached the volunteer with directions either visually or with an in ear audio cue. (i.e. Ah, you are through the even side door on the right, go through the door marked row L-O, your seats are about 2/3 of the way toward the center.”
Not only that, I imagined late seating could be facilitated if the customer was wearing something like Google Glass. All they would need to do is glance at their tickets before they entered the theater and the glasses would cause their seats and the one at the end of the correct row to “glow” when they looked at them. Ushers wouldn’t need to try to point them out in the dark with a flash light and it would be apparent someone else was sitting in the seats before the late comers started edging down the row.
Now you may be thinking that your ushers are a bit older and might be uncomfortable with handheld scanners without trying to access information through worn technology. My thought is that each unit would be programmed for a certain task so that the ticket ripper would only check people in and get directional cues while someone else’s accessory would perform more tasks. That way you assign people with different comfort levels to specific roles or specific devices.
While this is all exciting, issues of intellectual property and privacy would need to be resolved and the authors of “Performing Arts in the Wearable Age,” acknowledge many of them. The tricky thing, of course, is that nearly every piece of technology ends up getting used in a manner the creators never envisioned so trying to anticipate all the implications for the performing arts are nearly impossible.
If a performer is transmitting what they see as they walk backstage, then obviously greater operating discipline needs to be instilled backstage (language and state of undress being only some of the issues.) But what happens when someone hacks into a piece of wearable technology that everyone thinks is off and the result appears on tabloid websites?