When art museum professionals use the word interactive, I can only imagine a
learning device (such as computers w/ touch-sensitive screens, x-ray and/or
radiography revealing the true nature of a painting, etc.)  I agree with
Robin who, below, states that this must be a conservator's nightmare...but
then again, I don't think people are allowed to touch the painting.  I have
seen several museums where people are allowed to touch the sculptures!
 
Question: Did Dr. Barnes, "friend to the art world," allow people to touch
his paintings as part of their art lessons on 'facture'?  If so, were there
conservation problems with his 83 "world-class study pieces"?
 
On Jan 31,  2:53am, R. Murphy wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to what people consider interactive or (conservators
> cringe) hands-on in an art museum? Art is, by nature, interactive.
> It's up to the museum to present it in a way that brings that fact
> out rather than attempting to add another layer that alienates
> the viewer from the object. David Ross at the Whitney seems
> genuinely interested in how this can be accomplished and it seems
> to hinge on making the museum itself interactive in ways that have
> either been overlooked or are now possible. Whatever faults the
> current Whitney "Black Male" exhibit may have I think it points to
> a museum that is open to a more interactive environment.
>
>-- End of excerpt from R. Murphy
 
 
 
--
Joshua Heuman
[log in to unmask]
Art History Undergraduate