Hi Janelle,

We keep going in circles, having written the same idea in numerous ways:

* You write there is nothing specific to "get" about art, so visitors should
see what they see and be satisfied.

* I write that some artists had/have specific intentions, and an art museum
ought to be responsible to make this information easily available to the
public in the form of labels and signage.

As I and others have agreed, the visitor has the OPTION to read labels and
signage.  This is not required reading for visitors.  Your view, that visitors
should look and see what they can, is an unsatisfying experience for some
vistiors who often want more substance.  They understanding their limitations
- including a lack of familiaity with the elements of art, the principles of
design, the historical context, the specifics about the artist's life and
work, etc.

So, why don't people believe their reaction?  Well, some visitors understand
that art is not universal, but is specific to its time.  So, they hope for
further information that helps explain what makes this object museum-worthy,
good/great, or unique.  They seek information about the artist and his/her
time as a means of placing the work in context.  I'm sure a psychologist could
provide reasons.  I'm no psychologist, so I go with the flow of museum
educational principles, and I certainly hope other museum profesionals share
similar views.  It my duty and pleasure to educate those who wish to be
educated.  I will encourage and reinforce an individual's perceptions and
visual acuity, bu will not hesitate to explain the historical context and - if
known, the artist's intentions (expressed by the artist via essays,
interviews, and other modes).

Best wishes, sincerely,

Jay Heuman
Assistant Curator of Education
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
Utah State University (Logan)



>===== Original Message From Museum discussion list
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>Jay,
>Maybe it wouldn't be elitist if people knew there wasn't any certain thing
>to get, that whatever their reaction was, was "right", that it was ok to
>think "I don't understand this, but it makes me feel (fill in the blank)".
>The one thing art should not do is make people feel stupid.  My whole
>argument is that you don't need any interpretation etc. to have a reaction,
>an experience.  But obviously people feel it is necessary to "know what the
>artist was thinking" to be able to experience art.  Why don't they believe
>in their own reaction?  Where did this idea come from?
>Janelle

Jay Heuman
Assistant Curator of Education
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
t   435 797 0165
f   435 797 3423
e  [log in to unmask]
www.artmuseum.usu.edu

Education costs money, but then so does ignorance.
Sir Claus Moser (b. 1922)

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).