On Sun, 16 Jul 1995, Deborah Baroff wrote:

> I've always thought that history and science museums should interpret the
> exhibits they display.  Without interpretation, the gallery becomes a room
> full of antiques (minerals, etc.) gathered in one place.  I can see how art
> in museums can stand on their own, though it's always nice to learn about the
> artists. Or historic homes and arboritums can be appreciated just by being
> there.  But with the Air and Space Museum - just a gathering of old aircraft
> without any explanation?  How DO others feel about this?
>
        I think that even art museums should make interpretative
materials available for those who want them.  Sometimes art curators, and
artists themselves, take
the view that interpretation gets in the way of the aesthetic experience.
But they're forgetting how much background experience, information and
past reading on the subject knowledgeable people like themselves bring to
looking at art.  Sometimes I wonder if the indifference or hostility to
contemporary art which has been very evident in the congressional battles
over the NEA is, at least in part, a byproduct of the attitude that artists
and art museums don't need to (or shouldn't!) provide materials to help
visitors interpret the art on view.

--Helen Glazer, Exhibitions Director, Goucher College, Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]