We are talking about a work of art.  I think your interpretation of
the work is just as valid as the so called "expert".  Perhaps it is
best to use the art historical text to put the work into a historical
perspective, limiting the amount of subjective interpretation.
Therefore, the viewer (child, adult, etc.) can explore the work
without bias from subjective opinions.

I think a balance should be made between "expert" analysis and the
educators perspective for teaching a certain aspect of a work of art
(i.e. putting the work into an overall theme, pointing out specific
ideas of cultural significance, or explaining formal attributes.

Jim Olson



---Allison Pomenta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to know your opinion on the process of writing an educational
> text for art museums.
>
> I think that reading the art history books and/or curatorial texts
> first, makes it harder later on to translate those ideas, with a
> simplified language, into educational material. How about us (museum
> educators) analizing by ourselves the work of art first, jotting down
> our impressions, and trying to write meaningful and understandable
> material (be it for kids, teens or adults), and afterwards comparing
it
> with the critic's text to see if the essential ideas are the same?
>
> Do you think that as museum educators our vision and appreciation of a
> work of art would be limited in comparison with that of the expert,
and
> therefore this procedure would be counterproductive?
>
> Allison Pomenta
> Curator of Educational Exhibits
> Museo de Bellas Artes
> Caracas, Venezuela
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com