well, it seems to me that the presenters' side of things is predicated on
believing that there the ability to present infomation non-partisanly.
but, can that really happen?  who decides what will be included, what will
be left out, and how much certain interpretations are suggested?  i
suppose the reason the educational side of things appeals to me is that
it can allow more room for active learning and the viewer making their own
meaning.  from my own observations about this, a lot of museum education
programs seem to be based on the educational model, where the viewer
figures things out with the help of educators who encourage divergent
thinking, rather than presenting information, which i think may
lead to simply digesting what it given.

just some thoughts, meryl


On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Barbara Hawkins wrote:

> Well, Jane, I believe the subject being discussed (whether or not it
> had something to do with the topic) was HOW (and WHY, I suppose)
> museums present art works.  Some seem to believe that museums are
> "presenters"- present the information in a clear and non-partisan way
> and let the viewer digest it as he/she will.  And others believe that
> museums are "educators"- institutions that are responsible for
> assisting the viewer with digestion of works.  (Art for art sake vs.
> art in context???)
>
> This discussion has come up again and again in my art and art history
> classes, but from a professional standpoint I am wondering which stance
> is more "popular" (for lack of a better word) among museums and museum
> staff.  And of course anyone is welcome to jump in here.  What are the
> pros and cons of each stance?  Are these opinions shifting as we draw
> near to the close of the 20th century?
>
> Curious,
>
> Barbara
>