Jay,
Jay,
Historic sites are different. If there is nothing to communicate
Monticello's importance, there is no point (other than being a nice example
of Neoclassical architecture).
But art is expressive; the experience can be aesthetic, rather than solely
didactic, as in your history example. I'm not advocating for the doing away
with labels or other educational devices. I believe they are very
important. But what if someone is confronted with a totally
non-representational sculpture on the street? Or in a sales gallery or in
their dentist's office? Why does it have to be a frustrating, head-shaking
experience? What is so threatening? I think work like this is rejected by
the general public because they feel like they need to have some inside
knowledge, some interpretive gene or something that they don't have and thus
they feel dumb. Where does this feeling that they lack some knowledge or
talent that is necessary to look at, see and experience art come from? I
think that we, as art professionals, surely don't help.
I'm obviously not providing any answers to this problem. I'm sure a greater
commitment to art throughout education and would help. I guess I'm
idealistic.
Just by coincidence, yesterday evening I found a section on the San Jose
Museum of Art's website which is an introduction on how to look at art. Go
SJMA!
Janelle Aieta
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Heuman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article on labels in art museums [faked-from]
Hi Janelle et al.:
Do you share this same view about historic sites? At Monticello: No point
having signageabout who lived there, right? At the Vietnam War Memorial in
Washington: No point having a directory so that visitors can find a specific
name buried amongst the thousands? At Gettysburg: Just a big open field . .
.
no need for a sign, so people might just drive on by without knowing to
stop?
This notion of 'intuitive learning' is a grand fantasy, as if the AVERAGE
art
museum visitor experiences something more profound than utter frustration
when
looking at much art without 'educational' devices. Yes, one can enjoy a
Realist landscape (circa 1850s) without additional educational devices . . .
but what about multi-hued, abstract Tahitian landscapes by Gauguin (circa
1890s)? Yes, portraits by Piero della Francesca are beautiful, luxurious
things . . . but isn't it nice to know who you're looking at? And isn't it
nice to have an explanation of why Cubist portraits by Goerges Braque or
abstract portraits by Pablo Picasso feature misplaced eyes and noses? Just
watch an audience with starry expressions when looking at glass by Dale
Chihuly, but total confusion when looking at minimal sculpture by Robert
Morris, and absolute disgust when looking at sculpture by Damian Hirst.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that people - adults and chilren
alike - expect instant gratification . . . that the AVERAGE art museum
visitor
looks at a painting or sculpture about 5 seconds? (Is this the latest
statistic?) The only way to get people to LOOK longer - so taht they do
learn
something - is to provide MORE information, which is to say something
comprehensible to aid deeper understanding.
Educational devices can, for those who choose to read them, add to the
experience. After all, it's not like curators and museum educators hold
guns
to the visitors' heads and make them read labels and signs! LOL!
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)
>I'm not poo-pooing educational devices, but maybe we should also be
>teaching/showing our patrons how to have an aesthetic experience without
>needing to have a label. My theory is that anyone can have an experience
>with any art, even if they have no background information: how does the
work
>make them feel, does it remind them of something, what thoughts are they
>thinking while looking and why? I sometimes feel that art makes them feel
>stupid because they "don't get it". What's to get? Can't it just be a
>personal experience? Who says there is something to get? Us? I realize
>background info can give a deeper learning experience, but sometimes we
>forget about the simpler experiences we can have with art.
>Janelle Aieta
>Admin. Asst.
>Collections Management
>LACMA
=========================================================
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).
|
