Let me just pick one of John Handley's comments to respond to: > > However, I also often see many historical or object focused > exhibits where the labels focus only on casting the various > artifacts (whether works of art or objects) soley in the direct > historical or cultural context. The use of labels here tends to > stay away form artistic or aesethetic interpretation, as if the > object on display requires justification for being presented on a > historical level only. I understand this difference in approach > to some degree (cultural context is important), but I also get > weary of justifying the use of well rounded object labels in > exhibitions, while art exhibitions seem to escape this scrutiny on > a regular basis. > You suggest,John, that all object labels in historical museums discuss all aspects of the object shown? I cannot agree with that. What I see as the beauty of historical objects is their ability to be used in a variety of contexts, for a variety of interpretations. There are truly times in history exhibits when the aesthetics of a piece is simply not relevant. My take on "average" visitors is that you must present a succinct message and every bit of written text must support that message. Extraneous comments about construction techniques, marketing strategies for a particular object, or even its aesthetic merit, can often be con- fusing or irrelevant. Some of these aspects of the object are best re- served for another exhibit on another subject. I believe that docents or gallery interpreters can learn about objects that interest them, or that visitors are likely to be interested in--they can present the extraneous matter, but then have the ability, unlike a label, to bring the discussion back to the main point. An exhibit is more than its labels--design elements, context, and juxtaposition of objects also send messages. Let's not clutter up the issue. Claudia Nicholson Curator of Collections South Dakota State Historical Society, Pierre [log in to unmask]