You wrote:
>
>On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Claudia Nicholson wrote:
>
>> However, I am wondering if it is possible that many of us have
forgotten
>> our audiences when we prepare exhibits.  Is it possible that we are
doing
>> our work to impress our colleagues? ....
>> I am worried that if we do our work to impress our colleagues
(academic
>> historians OR museum professionals) that the public gets left out of
the
>> equation and the resulting controversy, a la Enola Gay, is
inevitable....
>
>Adam Gopnik wrote an article called "The Death of an Audience" in "The
>New Yorker" (Oct. 5, 1992), where he basically accused New York City
art
>museum professionals of being so caught up in "talking" to other arts
>professionals, including critics and art historians, through their
>exhibits that they were leaving their potential audience way behind.
>Except that he concluded that the result was not controversy, but
>apathy.  I don't agree with everything he said in that piece, but he
has
>a point.  You might find it interesting reading.
>
>--Helen Glazer
>[log in to unmask]

It is very important to take a step back and view your exhibits from
the visitor's point of view. If they can't utilize the galleries, then
who are they for? Hopefully not only for other professionals, who are
the minority of the visitors. When preparing for the reinstallation of
our Oceanic galleries, I took time to sit in the galleries and note the
visitor's comments and reactions. I also asked docents, gallery
attendants, and teachers what they thought of the galleries and what
they would like to see in the new space. All of this paid off and we
have recieved many positive comments on the reinstallation. People
actually spend time in the galleries rather than rushing through.

One more point, the public supports these institutions, if they  feel
excluded from exhibitions which make little attempt to reach them; are
we cutting off future support which we will all need to survive?

J.A. Lewis-Harris St. Louis