The dialogue in this thread sort of blows my mind.  In
some ways, it seems that those in art take potshots at
science centers because science centers (since when is
it fashionable to demean the concept of teaching
children science?) get visitors and art museums don't.
 The theory offered is that Americans value science
and don't value art.

There is a corrollary to this in the MuseNews lists I
run.  This particular group has a 3-1 (plus) ratio of
those interested in getting art materials v. those who
want to get news about science.  If the ratio of those
interested in art to those in science is indicative of
the job market base, in an informal survey kind of
way, that may explain why there are so many out of
work and/or underpaid museum folk.

I personally love science, but I very much like art, I
adore history, and I certainly find joy in the general
types of museums.  So it's not a question of finding
value.  Rather, it's a question of the institutions
finding ways to value and lure in their patrons in a
changing society.

Since the 70s (and conceivably, it could be argued the
50s when television was introduced in American homes),
we have become an instant gratification, lights,
bells, and whistles kind of society.  It has been my
experience that science museums do a better job of
drawing in the videogame generation.  They offer
things to do, and they engage the children who grow up
to take their children.

History museums often have interactive activites. 
Demonstrations and reenactments help to bring the
history to life.

But what of art museums?  Unfortunately, in most
instances, the art just lies there and the mindset is
do not touch.  There are not the activities that are
offered in the other types of institutions to draw in
the population.  This is the ADHD generation.  Short
soundbytes.  If you don't give them something to
stimulate them, they're not going to come.

By the same token, there's a lot of elitism in art. 
The concept is "What's the matter with you, dummy,
that you cannot see that this bowl of fruit really
means . . . " and there is no overt attempt in many
instances to bring the audience base in on the secret
of what the art truly represents.  One can stare at
the pictures of a book for only so long before it gets
put down.  If there is no dialogue to draw the person
in, they become disengaged.

If art museums want to thrive and survive in these
times with this type of American culture, they need to
have activities that include interactive
participation.  Docent lead tours that teach the
children and the kids inside big grownup bodies what
the art really means, what the artist did, how he
lived, his personalized life.  Art classes in short
bytes with painting or drawing or clay for the
visitors (10 minute sessions to encourage people to
understand and appreciate art).  

Art museums need to get into the classrooms and work
hand in hand with teachers to draw the students in.  A
picture of a work of art, really explained in a
humanities type class in high school may go quite far.

My now 7-year old granddaughter loves art.  I took her
to the Norton Simon when she was still toddling.  She
wanted to hug the sculptures but soon learned that it
was not allowed.  Security guards looked like they
were going to panic when I would take her and her
18-months older brother.  Oh, my God, kids.  Their
concern soon turned to smiles when they saw these kids
could take Grandma's admonition and stick their hands
in their pockets--or else.  They were encouraged to
find and tell me about their favorite piece of art
each time they visited.  They learned about tryptichs
and plate halos and Van Gogh's sadness and lopped off
ear and Edgar Degas' beautiful ballerinas.  They had
the benefit of my limited knowledge to tell them this
and, perhaps, that's why they love going there.

But if they have no one to tell them, and the museum
doesn't step up, is it little wonder they would not be
valued?

Art institutions can lament all they want.  But the
old school stand there and hang is not going to cut it
in this flippety gibbet, zip here, zap there times. 
Unless they make an effort to bring the art to life,
regrettably, they will be ignored and perhaps have to
close.  I've yet to visit an art museum where the
staff attempts to teach the visitors anything.

Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion.  But here, take
this glass of cold water in your face to wake you up
to the fact that you've got to change your ways and
learn to engage or sacrifice the art we all so dearly
love.



--- Lois Brynes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> MOST, not all, "science" museums have become
> edutainment centers.
> 
> If you go to art museums/galleries in, for example,
> Paris you will see 
> a HUGE cross section of people. You will also see
> youngster and 
> pre-schoolers in groups doing their versions of some
> the "greats."
> 
> Perhaps we should look to HOW our culture values
> what it does. (Also, 
> how are Boards constituted. ...or, rather, where
> does funding come 
> from.)
> 
> Lois
> 
> Lois Brynes, Principal
> 	DeepTime Associates
> 	P.O. Box 58
> 	Rockport, MA 01966
> 	USA
> [log in to unmask]
> land	978 546-8574
> 


Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
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).