MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Indianapolis Art Center <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:42:59 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
1.      ALL such arrangements "have ... their own identities and meaning
>cues"; there are some that we associate as "normal" and "natural,"
>taken-for-granted for an art museum space; but that emphasizes that they
>are communicating something about expectations for what should be there.
>

True.  But try to hang an ethnographic object on a wire panel (for example),
and you can't focus on anything for long enough to learn about the object.
My point was that unintentional visual distractions interfere with the
object.  If they are INTENTIONAL, that's something else again.

>2.      What does "focused viewing" mean?  Is there a cultural message
>underlying this phrase that at least needs to be reflected upon before
>automatically assuming that the way we have always done it is not in
>itself interfering with approachability?  Perhaps this "natural" way to
>expect what a gallery should look like is part of what makes museums
>"unnatural" places for some groups of (non-)visitors.

A lot of viewers prefer the period-room way to view art objects because it
shows them in a context that is closer to their own experiences of art.
This is fine and may be appropriate for some purposes.  I think what Steve
Nowlin may have meant is that IN GENERAL, wall-hung art looks "better" on
plain, solid-colored walls.  The "cue" given by temporary arrangements is
that 1)  The work will be gone soon, so look fast, 2) the work is for sale
(i.e. at a mall show), or 3) The work is of little monetary value so
security and permanence is not an issue.  These are the cues because this
has been the past experience in similar situations.  Maybe some people do
expect their "art" (i.e., serious, high-value, important, significant,
whatever) to be on plain, light walls, and if it isn't it's not "art."  If
it's what they expect, and if we want to work with (rather than against,
which is OK too in some contexts) the expectations, then we have to provide
the "correct" cues.

I don't mean to be combative, but I agree with Steve N. on this (as with
many other things).

Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center

ATOM RSS1 RSS2