My own sense of museum education, at least in these fed-to-you
Nintendo-learning days, is that unless you DO take the  "with educators'
help" route, many visitors just pass straight through the exhibits (even the
hands-on ones) without gaining much from them. I think person-to-person
interpretation is irreplaceable. That's not to say that it's a waste of time
to try to present material if you can't have a human presence: there are
lots of examples of successful do-it-yourself educational exhibits - I just
believe that there's a certain percentage of visitors who will be lost
insofar as "getting the message" goes.


At 11:55 AM 13/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>well, it seems to me that the presenters' side of things is predicated on
>believing that there the ability to present infomation non-partisanly.
>but, can that really happen?  who decides what will be included, what will
>be left out, and how much certain interpretations are suggested?  i
>suppose the reason the educational side of things appeals to me is that
>it can allow more room for active learning and the viewer making their own
>meaning.  from my own observations about this, a lot of museum education
>programs seem to be based on the educational model, where the viewer
>figures things out with the help of educators who encourage divergent
>thinking, rather than presenting information, which i think may
>lead to simply digesting what it given.
>
>just some thoughts, meryl
>
>
>On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Barbara Hawkins wrote:
>
>> Well, Jane, I believe the subject being discussed (whether or not it
>> had something to do with the topic) was HOW (and WHY, I suppose)
>> museums present art works.  Some seem to believe that museums are
>> "presenters"- present the information in a clear and non-partisan way
>> and let the viewer digest it as he/she will.  And others believe that
>> museums are "educators"- institutions that are responsible for
>> assisting the viewer with digestion of works.  (Art for art sake vs.
>> art in context???)
>>
>> This discussion has come up again and again in my art and art history
>> classes, but from a professional standpoint I am wondering which stance
>> is more "popular" (for lack of a better word) among museums and museum
>> staff.  And of course anyone is welcome to jump in here.  What are the
>> pros and cons of each stance?  Are these opinions shifting as we draw
>> near to the close of the 20th century?
>>
>> Curious,
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>
>
Jane Sproull Thomson