On Feb 2,  2:28pm, R. Murphy wrote:
 
> From what Ralph Appelbaum says the use of interactive displays
> to entice children has more to do with how trustees and directors see
> children in the museum environment (make it a game, keep them busy)
> than how children learn to look at/with art. Children already see
> with art, it's the adults that need the education. American business
> complains that employees lack the ability to think creativly in order
> to solve problems. Art shows you how to look from multiple points of
> view, to manipulate material, to think creatively. As Nam Jun Paik
> has said, "We don't need digital art, we need art for a digital age."
> So, perhaps what we need is not interactive exhibits, but exhibits for
> an interactive environment.
 
I can understand trying to attract more adults, but how successful is such a
venture?  Is it even possible?
Take Toronto's Art Gallery of Ontario.  I don't know their numbers for the
average day when nothing special is occuring.  When the Barnes exhibit was
here though they were swamped.  Nearly 600,000 people came for the Barnes.
With each Barnes ticket ($15 Cdn. for an adult) one was entitled to see the
rest of the museum, as well.  It would certainly be interesting to know how
many took advantage of this opportunity.
I suppose my point is that adults are more suseptible to media-hype.
Children, if they are shown at an early age what to appreciate in an art
museum, will be more likely to go for the hype (special exhibitions), but
also the regular collections.  And, not to be morbid, but the people who are
now adults will most likely be dead by the time museums can put together
full-functioning interactive, multi-sensory displays to aid in the learning
process.  I know its corny, but children are the future.  To be successful,
the priority must be children.
 
 
--
Joshua Heuman
[log in to unmask]
Art History Undergraduate