In a message dated 96-06-12 14:56:51 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Robin Panza)
writes:

>I look at a work for awhile, then glance at the label.  It so rarely has any
>answers to the questions that I've generated that I just get annoyed and
>frustrated, and dismiss the label altogether.  There's no reason, from my
>point
>of view, to waste time on the label.

Aren't you talking about art museum labels? I agree with whoever said this
was not an easily determined subject, and one of the first things we have to
look at is the difference (and I am sure I will be starting a flame war with
this one!) between art museums and museums which strive for interpretation.
It seems to me that anyone looking for interpretive labels in an art museum
(not all, but most) will be disappointed. Art is, after all, for art's sake.
I would ask Catherine Lewis if she is distinguishing between these two
extremes, and add that if a natural science or history museum (my areas of
exhibit development experience) label only inspires 6-10 seconds of reading
(except for you, Chrissie, of course :-), then it is not a well written
label. On the other hand, it could be a well written label that is only
twenty words long. Are we discussing a particular length of text here? Just
some fuel to the fire. I, too, am following this thread in the hopes that
there are some sources that someone knows about. Zahava Deering (sp?) at SI
is an expert in evaluations. Anybody know her personally to ask?

- Adrienne