Jay,
As a museum person of 12 years, 5 of which I spent as a curator and 3 as an
art appreciation instructor in higher education, I do not think museums
impose. I love museums and all they do. My vision from the beginning of my
career has been to make art more accessible, to make museums more community
oriented, perhaps even essential to the community. I am not advocating
removal of education in art museums. I simply wish people didn't feel so
uncomfortable when they don't get an explanation or just a cryptic artist
statement. In my class I found many people were intimidated by art. I'm
frustrated by this attitude and people's dependence on someone else's
written statement. I want more art ed throughout grade school, high school,
higher ed. I believe experiencing art, either with labels or no, accepting
it with out judgment, including it in one's life broadens and enriches a
person incredibly.
You and I are not arguing different sides, but maybe I have a more
idealistic vision of what could be than you.
Janelle
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Heuman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article on labels in art museums [faked-from]
Hi Janelle,
This is a long time debate, but it's nice to deal with so everyone remains
aware that history includes interpretation.
One common thread through all the messages I've submitted is that the
reading
of labels and signage is *optional*. So art museum-goers need not feel
compelled to read anything. They can enter an art museum, circulate through
galleries whilst looking at artwork, then leave. They never have to read a
single word. (Even most bathroom signs have no words, but feature those
stylized humanoid male and femle forms.)
Additionally, I do not suggest stiffling an individual viewer's subjective
aesthetic response. (I often wonder if people realize that aesthetics is
about technical aspects, not subjective aspects. After all, there is a
difference betwen being an art critic and being an aesthetician.)
What I do support and practice is providing context: chronological and
historical reference points, quotations from the artist, sound bites of
musical styles from the time, etc.. They might be helpful to some visitors
who want more information. And there's no reason a visitor can't be
encouraged to register his/her response *and* learn how the artist him- or
herself conceived of the artwork.
But it's a disservice to generalize, as if all art is to be interpreted
subjectively. There are plenty of works of art that have defined, specific
meaning. Mythological and biblical subjects - whether medieval, modern or
contemporary. (Certainly, some are 'pro', others are 'anti' - especially
when
it comes to theological issues.) Some modern artists had defined, specific
agendas - The Futurist Manifesto, the Germans Expressionists (Der Blau
Reiter
and Die Brucke), the color symbolism of Vasily Kandinsky and Franz Marc, The
Surrealist Manifesto, Piet Mondrain's writings about Neoplasticism, Les
Automatistes' Refus Global. And most contemporary artists generate *more*
theory - documentaries, essays, interviews, talks, etc. - than actual
artwork!
To suggest a museum put works on the walls and pedestals and offer no
educational/interpretive devices whatsoever is irresponsible considering
that
most art museum-goers want information - a combination of purely visual (by
looking at artwork) and textual (reading didactic signage) information.
Some
museums can have extra layers: film/video, music, etc.
>Art does not have one meaning to understand or not understand.
As above, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
>I'm talking about aesthetic experience using your own vocabulary.
What about those visitors who are not comfortable with their own vocabulary?
>People don't have to know that the George Braque they are looking at is a
>transitional piece between Analytic and Synthetic Cubism to notice that you
>can see parts of a violin, notice that the artist was imitating texture
with
>the paint, notice that the colors are drab. Maybe the viewer will be
>reminded of his Uncle Roger who played violin and the emotions that go
along
>with that memory.
Nobody has to know about Braque, Cubism, violins, etc. But some people want
to know about Braque, Cubism, violins, etc.
>The viewer doesn't need to know about shape, color, form, line etc. to have
>an experience. There is not one way to understand art. This idea is why
>people who "don't get it", feel put off!
To bring this down to the essential, nobody *needs* museums. Though we all
know this, and it too often goes unsaid, museums are a luxury. That museums
exist and we get to work in a museum is luck - based on someone's decision
that conserving/preserving the past and making that past accessible to the
public is important.
But, as with Monticello, if there are no labels or signs which provide
historical (and other didactic) information about these objects we - as
museum
professionals - take two risks:
(1) The importance of these objects may not be understood; and,
(2) the objects can be misused but those who present artwork in
inappropriate
contexts.
I hope we, in this forum, understand the difference between history and
revisionist history? While no history is 100% "truth," there is plenty of
verifiable information in most history textbooks.
Don't we want art museums and art history textbooks to contain as much
verifiable truth as possible?
>Do you think people feel the same about instrumental music? It is the most
>abstract thing I can think of, so why doesn't that need interpretation,
>context, etc?
I think some people enjoy instrumental music and some don't. I have, in the
past, read a few articles and essays about the symbolism of Wagnerian opera
during the Third Reich. Quite interesting . . . but not at all relevant to
understanding Wagner's operas. If I took the time to read about Arnold
Schonberg's 12-tone scale, I might learn to appreciate it. If I read about
John Tesh's music . . . NAH, let's no push it!
>As I keep saying, I am all for labels and education within museums. I just
>wish people could feel that they can handle art without them once in a
>while.
This is the root cause of your frustration, Janelle. You feel that museums
impose their interpretation upon visitors. As I wrote in a post yesterday,
I've never seen museum curators and educators holding guns to visitors'
heads,
forcing them to read labels and signs.
As humans are not born with an instictive comprehension of artwork, some
will
choose to seek out information. That's why there are museum educators and
curators producing didactic labels and signs in the hopes of offering some
clue about what visitors might see.
It's a reflection of the moon, and not the moon itself . . . a reference for
those who've read some Zen literature.
Best wishes, sincerely,
Jay Heuman
Assistant Curator of Education
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
t 435 797 0165
f 435 797 3423
e [log in to unmask]
www.artmuseum.usu.edu
Education costs money, but then so does ignorance.
Sir Claus Moser (b. 1922)
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
