In article: <[log in to unmask]>  [log in to unmask] (Kevin W. Tucker)
writes:

> In article <[log in to unmask]>,
>    Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >It sounds to me from your description that the artist created a
> >kinesthetic work and that the students merely experienced as it was meant
> >to be experienced.
>
> Perhaps, but it is just as possible that the work was not intended as such.
> It does raise the issue of the artist's intended intended level of
interaction
> between the work and the visitor, but this assumption completely neglects a
> variety of primary collections care issues that cannot be discarded if one
> intends to maintain art objects for any length of time.
>
> Learning theory shows that many people learn by
> >touching- why can't someone feel the texture of a VanGogh (He asked
> >rhetorically, so as not to upset the conservators)?  I have stated
> >repeatedly that museums have to come into line with educational research
> >if their mission is to serve the public and not simply warehouse loot.
>
> I don't think that theory would apply in all cases - in another arena, would
> touching the spines of a lionfish serve to demonstrate the poisonous
qualities
> of its defense?  Just as someone would not want to touch such a creature for
> fear of harm (to themself, that is), one of roles of the museum professional
> must be to serve as a "voice of protection" for these many silent objects
that
> will be damaged by such seemingly harmless - however educational - touches.
>
> >The science museums that you disparage are reading and understanding the
> >research.  Art and History museums may have to be creative- castings,
> >reconstructions, and copies for example.
>
> Give some credit where it is due - art museums have used "hands-on" learning
> techniques with these types of objects for decades.  Unfortunately, many have
> not introduced this material into the gallery for a variety of reasons, and
> have instead limited its use to educational tours and special galleries or
> exhibitions.  Even so, many visitors seem to be attracted to the lure of the
> original - "I touched a Van Gogh!!" - rather than "I touched the impasto of a
> simulated Van Gogh!!"  The thrill is not there - the connection to the
> world-famous, often long-dead hero/artist is denied.

I have to confess, in my youth, about... oh... 4 or 5 years ago,
I did the unspeakable thing and touched a Monet in the British
Museum, London. However I gained know thrill, and nor was it to
boost to anyone "I touched a Monet". I was simply intrigued by
the rough textures of the painting. Those glossy art history books
make the paintings out to look so smoothed and polished, but they
are not so.

Also, as an artist I'd never thought of paint as being applied so
thickly (mainly perhaps because I simply couldn't afford it!!)

OK, so when I was 16-17, I was ignorant of things such as museology,
curatorship, art history and conservation. Perhaps now in my old
age I have learned a greater respect for works, but I actually think
that as an artist I could have easily learned what I did from touching
a replica, it was not thrills I was after, I don't and didn't find
Monet very inspiring at all, and couldn't work out what all the fuss
was about.

> Kevin
> [log in to unmask]

Anthony Channing