>          I say a great Charles Adams exhibit at the New York Public
>          Library. I also must say that it was one of the most closely
>          examined exhibits I've ever been to. People were *so* into
>          it. What is it about humour that makes people become so
>          engaged. Why do museums never (almost never?) use humour in
>          their "serious" exhibits to engage people. I mean,
>          particularly kid's exhibits would benefit from the a bit of
>          levity.
>
>          There's a great new consultancy for you! Get yourself hired
>          as the part of the exhibit team responsible for injecting
>          some *humor* into the exhibit. Talk about an invaluable
>          member of the planning team...
>
>
>          Eric Siegel
>          [log in to unmask]
 
Eric,
 
Like That.
 
 
In comparison to literature and the performing arts, the fine arts have
suffered from a lack of scholarly work done on the role of humor/comedy.
There are some who would argue, in fact, that until the 20th century humor
has played a relatively insignificant role in the fine arts -- that it has
not really reached the level of genre.  Perhaps a reason for the dearth of
humor in exhibitions?
 
FYI: Am working with folks here on a visiting artists series that explores
the relationship of comedic literary devices and related areas in visual
art.
 
 
Until later,
 
Molly Callender