It sounds to me from your description that the artist created a
kinesthetic work and that the students merely experienced as it was meant
to be experienced.  Learning theory shows that many people learn by
touching- why can't someone feel the texture of a VanGogh (He asked
rhetorically, so as not to upset the conservators)?  I have stated
repeatedly that museums have to come into line with educational research
if their mission is to serve the public and not simply warehouse loot.

The science museums that you disparage are reading and understanding the
research.  Art and History museums may have to be creative- castings,
reconstructions, and copies for example.


 On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Carol
Boram-Hays wrote:

> MY favorite example of mishandling of museum objects occured at the Wexner
> Center in Columbus, Ohio.  A group of college age students couldn't resist
> the temptation provided by a large, wall mounted canvas with a 20 lb. stone
> suspended by a rope, resting in it's center.  They pulled the stone back
> and let it fall with a resounding thud and happily walked off, very pleased
> with their cleverness.
>
> One theory I've heard to explain such behavior blames the fairly recent
> invention of the touchy-feely, interactive science museum format.
>