In article <[log in to unmask]>,
   Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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.

Perhaps, but it is just as possible that the work was not intended as such.
It does raise the issue of the artist's intended intended level of interaction
between the work and the visitor, but this assumption completely neglects a
variety of primary collections care issues that cannot be discarded if one
intends to maintain art objects for any length of time.

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.

I don't think that theory would apply in all cases - in another arena, would
touching the spines of a lionfish serve to demonstrate the poisonous qualities
of its defense?  Just as someone would not want to touch such a creature for
fear of harm (to themself, that is), one of roles of the museum professional
must be to serve as a "voice of protection" for these many silent objects that
will be damaged by such seemingly harmless - however educational - touches.

>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.

Give some credit where it is due - art museums have used "hands-on" learning
techniques with these types of objects for decades.  Unfortunately, many have
not introduced this material into the gallery for a variety of reasons, and
have instead limited its use to educational tours and special galleries or
exhibitions.  Even so, many visitors seem to be attracted to the lure of the
original - "I touched a Van Gogh!!" - rather than "I touched the impasto of a
simulated Van Gogh!!"  The thrill is not there - the connection to the
world-famous, often long-dead hero/artist is denied.

Kevin
[log in to unmask]