I have to agree with Helen Glazer on providing interpretation.  Often I
don't think visitors understand some of the issues or ideas behind
contemporary art; or why what is assembled is important.  I think, from
listening to some of the congressional debate, that many congresspersons
are ignorant of those issues or ideas.  I have always assumed that there
was a degree of sophistication in all people in congress, but that has
been dashed again and again.  While we can't know everything about
everything, we can at least know what to tell others about what we know.

Dave Wells

On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Helen Glazer wrote:
>         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.