Jay,
Art does not have one meaning to understand or not understand. I'm talking
about aesthetic experience using your own vocabulary. People don't have to
know that the George Braque they are looking at is a transitional piece
between Analytic and Synthetic Cubism to notice that you can see parts of a
violin, notice that the artist was imitating texture with the paint, notice
that the colors are drab. Maybe the viewer will be reminded of his Uncle
Roger who played violin and the emotions that go along with that memory.
The viewer doesn't need to know about shape, color, form, line etc. to have
an experience. There is not one way to understand art. This idea is why
people who "don't get it", feel put off!
Do you think people feel the same about instrumental music? It is the most
abstract thing I can think of, so why doesn't that need interpretation,
context, etc?
As I keep saying, I am all for labels and education within museums. I just
wish people could feel that they can handle art without them once in a
while.
Janelle
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Heuman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article on labels in art museums [faked-from]
Hi Janelle et al.,
I enjoy this thread, this exchange of ideas. It is, for me, a
challenge
to work words to communicate just the right idea and sentiment. Kind of
like
artists who, one assumes, produces a work of art for some reason . . . to
make
a 'pretty thing', to celebrate spiritual belief, to commemorate an occasion,
etc.
But what if I wrote in a language you didn't understand? What if I
wrote
in French (doable) or Japanese (i wish!) or Swahili (can't a man dream?)?
Would you comprehend the meaning? So, what about an artist who produces a
work of art - like that mangled metal sculpture in the dentist's office -
that
to some viewers appears to be nothing special, something lacking
significance
or meaning? Odds are, they are relying upon different vocabularies.
Children (and adults) learn new words and proper sentence structure as
they have more experience and exposure to spoken and written language. But
it's not an automatic, instinctive process. Semiotic theory: A signifier
("dog") means nothing until the connection is made to the signified (the
four-legged creature that barks, wags its tail and piddles in the corner).
For most children, the connection between signifier and signified is made by
a
parent, peer or teacher.
So, why assume that seeing a canvas covered with blobs of paint or
mangle
metal sculpture carries an automatically understood meaning? (Note: Even
the
statement "It's nothing but a pretty object" is a defined meaning.)
I'm not a fan of "visual culture" theory; however, there is an
interesting notion that children (and adults) learn to process what they see
based on reference to past experience and present environment. Though
people
think in the abstract all the time, comprehending an abstract visual object
("artwork") is not instinct. People have to learn what art is . . . so they
don't mistake a cubist guitar construction by Picasso for an actual guitar;
so
they don't mistake a Brillo Box by Andy Warhol for a foot stool or refuse
destined for the recycling bin; and, so they don't mistake a painting by
Jackson Pollock as a huge mess resulting from a paint-flinging fight!
There is a vocabulary to art-making, art-seeing, art-speaking and
art-understanding. Art museums ought to provide the 'definitions' or
'glossaries' in the form of appropriately written and appropriately placed
didactic labels and signage, and through live/real-time educational programs
including art-making activities/workshops, artist/scholar talks, films, etc.
Now, on to Monticello:
Is visiting Monticello different than standing before Notre-Dame in
Paris? Both are buildings with historic and artistic value, right? How
about
standing in front of Monticello and Spiral Jetty by Robert Smithson (not too
far from where I live). Both are manufactured, both influenced by
historical
sources, both "of their time" - comparable in formal terms. And how about
standing before Monticello and standing in the Rothko Chapel? How Rothko's
large-scale canvases imbue the interior space is aesthetically comparable -
for some folks - to the sacred historicity of being at Monticello, in the
same
"space" as Jefferson.
So, is there no point to visiting Monticello except to read a sign or
plaque about Thomas Jefferson? Maybe it's best for the staff at Monticello
to
remove all signs and present it as just another example of Neoclassical
architecture? Or they could create a new educational resource - along side
(not instead of) their historically-based didactics - which deals with the
aesthetic object in context and comparison with other buildings and works of
art?
Now I have to develop a didactic Powerpoint presentation about the museum .
.
.
Best wishes, sincerely,
Jay Heuman
Assistant Curator of Education
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
Utah State University (Logan)
t 435-797-0165
f 435-797-3423
e [log in to unmask]
www.artmuseum.usu.edu
Education costs money, but then so does ignorance.
Sir Claus Moser (b. 1922)
>===== Original Message From Museum discussion list
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>Jay,
>Jay,
>Historic sites are different. If there is nothing to communicate
>Monticello's importance, there is no point (other than being a nice example
>of Neoclassical architecture).
>But art is expressive; the experience can be aesthetic, rather than solely
>didactic, as in your history example. I'm not advocating for the doing
away
>with labels or other educational devices. I believe they are very
>important. But what if someone is confronted with a totally
>non-representational sculpture on the street? Or in a sales gallery or in
>their dentist's office? Why does it have to be a frustrating, head-shaking
>experience? What is so threatening? I think work like this is rejected by
>the general public because they feel like they need to have some inside
>knowledge, some interpretive gene or something that they don't have and
thus
>they feel dumb. Where does this feeling that they lack some knowledge or
>talent that is necessary to look at, see and experience art come from? I
>think that we, as art professionals, surely don't help.
>I'm obviously not providing any answers to this problem. I'm sure a
greater
>commitment to art throughout education and would help. I guess I'm
>idealistic.
>Just by coincidence, yesterday evening I found a section on the San Jose
>Museum of Art's website which is an introduction on how to look at art. Go
>SJMA!
>Janelle Aieta
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
