On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Paul Apodaca wrote:

> A very common technique in label writing is to create levels of
> information in the organization and printing of the label. A quick ten
> second glance can give basic identification, more descriptive info such as
> measurement, materials used, etc. then follows, and a small paragraph
> giving contextual information follows that. In this way you get the ten
> second, thirty second, or one minute reader all covered in the same label.
> There is more info on how long people spend in galleries than on labels
> available. Security surveys are good for looking at audience durations in
> museums.

I suspect that self-fulfilling prophecy plays a large part in how labels
are conceived, and therefore in the way they are received. Curators, in my
experience, tend to underestimate museum patrons, particularly the younger
ones, and write down to them. Superficial information naturally receives
superficial attention.

In reviewing exhibits, one of the ways I test my own reactions is to stand
by and observe those of others. I find that a significant percentage of
patrons will spend significant amounts of time reading good labels and
relating them to the associated objects. Sesame Street level labels get
the kissoffs they deserve.

I find two main causes of bad labeling. The first is inadequate language
skills (often, I suspect, the result of overexposure to artspeak and
academicalese). The second is ignorance of the subject of the exhibition.
As a nonspecialist, I am appalled by the frequency with which I find
errors of fact (never mind grammar and spelling) in principal exhibitions
mounted by many of the country's leading museums and art galleries.

These are anecdotal observations, but they span more than 20 years.


     Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC | USA