> I say a great Charles Adams exhibit at the New York Public > Library. I also must say that it was one of the most closely > examined exhibits I've ever been to. People were *so* into > it. What is it about humour that makes people become so > engaged. Why do museums never (almost never?) use humour in > their "serious" exhibits to engage people. I mean, > particularly kid's exhibits would benefit from the a bit of > levity. > > There's a great new consultancy for you! Get yourself hired > as the part of the exhibit team responsible for injecting > some *humor* into the exhibit. Talk about an invaluable > member of the planning team... > > > Eric Siegel > [log in to unmask] Eric, Like That. In comparison to literature and the performing arts, the fine arts have suffered from a lack of scholarly work done on the role of humor/comedy. There are some who would argue, in fact, that until the 20th century humor has played a relatively insignificant role in the fine arts -- that it has not really reached the level of genre. Perhaps a reason for the dearth of humor in exhibitions? FYI: Am working with folks here on a visiting artists series that explores the relationship of comedic literary devices and related areas in visual art. Until later, Molly Callender