I agree with you, Sheryl. I don't work in art museums, but I visit them frequently. As a material culture person, I'm usually frustrated by the lack of context for artworks. I appreciate the aesthetics from a non-specialist's viewpoint - and I often make a point of consciously giving myself time to react to how something looks, and what its appearance makes me think and feel, before taking in information from a label. Once I turn to the label, though, I'm full of questions that rarely get answered.
What I really want to know is how it was made, why it's different or special, what the artist thought and what his/her peers thought. Is that weird bright yellow bit in the corner supposed to be there or has the pigment changed over time? Was she originally painted wearing a different necklace? What inspired the artist at the moment of creation in that particular way? Did he move that rock a little to the right from its position in his original sketch - why? Technical information about balance and brushstrokes usually fascinates me. I enjoyed the recent MFA Gainsborough exhibit in part because there was a lot of context provided - musical instruments like the ones he often painted, lots of landscapes which he apparently favored (although I think there's a reason he's known for his portraits), pointers about how his technique changed over time, and bits of his family history.
I like to know about the history of the artwork as an object, not just as an aesthetic experience. I saw an exhibit of Brassai's black-and-white photos of 1930s Paris at the Hayward a few years ago - it was so irritating to see a framed photo that had obviously been folded and creased at some point and not know if that was important. Had he used it as a bookmark? Was it the cause of a fight with a friend? What did he write on the back? And there was a series of photos taken from an apartment window showing the collapse of a man on the street, the gathering of a crowd, the arrival of an ambulance, the clearing of the scene - it was a very dramatic visual story told in about 5 frames, but there wasn't even one line of commentary from his letters or diaries, quote from a conversation, reaction from an irritable critic - nothing.
And I like to know about an artwork's social and economic context: Did the work/artist fall out of favor at a particular time or inspire innovation in others? Was it a gift between big honcho types? Was it ever lost and found again? If it's 200 years old and the museum acquired it 45 years ago, where was it before then? Does its economic trajectory illuminate any historical trends or disprove them? Were there any major scandals attached to its commission or changes of ownership?
As you can tell, I've never lost my toddler's infinity of questions! I can appreciate the art world's desire to focus on the aesthetic experience. Artists may create with aesthetic goals in mind but they work and I react to their work in a social context, not an aesthetic vacuum. My two cents: art without context has less meaning, less impact and far less likelihood of being remembered than art with a story.
Lindsey Richardson
Collections Manager
The Children's Museum
300 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
Tel. 617 426 6500 x366
Fax 617 426 1944
www.bostonkids.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheryl Woodruff
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003
11:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article on labels in
art museums
This is a great thread!! I am an historian, not an artist, or art historian, but I am a museum person. So I have a good background on museums and a horrible background in art. I do like going to art museums, but I often come away with nothing, or sometimes even annoyed at the experience. I rarely feel completely satisfied by a trip to an art museum.
I recently went to the MoMA Queens exhibit "Ansel Adams at 100" and I really did enjoy the photographs, but then I also think that Ansel Adams is an artist for the masses -- very easy to enjoy visually. I did find myself frustrated at the lack of labels though. There were concept panels throughout -- some interesting ones about his life and state of his career, but I as I went through, I got annoyed because I wasn't told how the photos were created. How were they developed and when? What print was this? Etc. Now, I don't even know if these are good questions to ask about a photograph, but that is my point. I certainly enjoyed the exhibit, but I felt I came away with no more knowledge than I had before. Did I enjoy the photos, yes. But I have always liked Adams.
But what about an artist such as El Greco? I don't enjoy his work aesthetically -- normally I just pass by what I don't like. But is there something that might make me understand why he uses such ugly colors and his forms are always so twisted and unlife-like to me? Maybe, but I don't know that answer. Maybe an art curator does. Would I pass by if there was a panel explaining his form and color? No, I would read it and probably feel much more satisified and maybe not like his paintings, but feel as if I understand them better. Isn't art supposed to be both the idea and the technique? How can I appreciate it if I do not understand the technique?
And there seems to be two ideas floating on the list -- the aesthetic vs. understanding. Is this an idea that is debated within the art community? Maybe another idea that an art museum could explore and shed some light on for the uninformed like me.
I don't have any answers here, obviously, but I thought the voice of an oftentimes frustrated art museum visitor might be a good thing to add to this dicussion.
Sheryl Woodruff
Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!