This has been a really fascinating thread, thank you. As someone who once
worked in a combined Museum & Art Gallery, and was ignorant about much of
the art that I was interested in working with, I remember some of my most
rewarding moments as those when the curator took time with me to stand in
front of painting and talk about how he saw it and what it meant to him.
Sometimes those discussions focused on the historical, sometimes the
aesthetic, sometimes the purely personal, generally all 3. I also had some
wonderful experiences with art education staff at the National Gallery of
Australia and now some of the paintings that I most disliked/didn't
understand are some of my favourites. I would always prefer this personal
interaction to a label, but a label is better than nothing. It needs to be
the right label of course, not boring old 'School of . . .' but something
that captures the curator's interest and passion.
It seems to me that those opposed to interpretation are imposing a double
standard. They come from a background of rich learning and interaction with
a wide range of works. They go to conferences, talk to colleagues, read and
write, and generally devote their lives to talking about, reading about as
well as looking at art. Much of this is often at public expense, at least
here in Australia. That is, the visitor's taxes have contributed to this
understanding. But the visitor is told 'Nah, just look at it, that is what
it is about.' That seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous. What do others
think?
Julia Clark
Manager, Interpretation & Collections
Port Arthur Historic Site
Port Arthur 7182
Ph: 03 6251 2334
Fax: 03 6251 2322
Mobile: 0419 412246
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Heuman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 3 October 2003 9:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article on labels in art museums [faked-from]
Hi Janelle et al.:
Do you share this same view about historic sites? At Monticello: No point
having signageabout who lived there, right? At the Vietnam War Memorial in
Washington: No point having a directory so that visitors can find a specific
name buried amongst the thousands? At Gettysburg: Just a big open field . .
.
no need for a sign, so people might just drive on by without knowing to
stop?
This notion of 'intuitive learning' is a grand fantasy, as if the AVERAGE
art
museum visitor experiences something more profound than utter frustration
when
looking at much art without 'educational' devices. Yes, one can enjoy a
Realist landscape (circa 1850s) without additional educational devices . . .
but what about multi-hued, abstract Tahitian landscapes by Gauguin (circa
1890s)? Yes, portraits by Piero della Francesca are beautiful, luxurious
things . . . but isn't it nice to know who you're looking at? And isn't it
nice to have an explanation of why Cubist portraits by Goerges Braque or
abstract portraits by Pablo Picasso feature misplaced eyes and noses? Just
watch an audience with starry expressions when looking at glass by Dale
Chihuly, but total confusion when looking at minimal sculpture by Robert
Morris, and absolute disgust when looking at sculpture by Damian Hirst.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that people - adults and chilren
alike - expect instant gratification . . . that the AVERAGE art museum
visitor
looks at a painting or sculpture about 5 seconds? (Is this the latest
statistic?) The only way to get people to LOOK longer - so taht they do
learn
something - is to provide MORE information, which is to say something
comprehensible to aid deeper understanding.
Educational devices can, for those who choose to read them, add to the
experience. After all, it's not like curators and museum educators hold
guns
to the visitors' heads and make them read labels and signs! LOL!
Sincerely,
Jay Heuman
Assistant Curator of Education
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
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)
>I'm not poo-pooing educational devices, but maybe we should also be
>teaching/showing our patrons how to have an aesthetic experience without
>needing to have a label. My theory is that anyone can have an experience
>with any art, even if they have no background information: how does the
work
>make them feel, does it remind them of something, what thoughts are they
>thinking while looking and why? I sometimes feel that art makes them feel
>stupid because they "don't get it". What's to get? Can't it just be a
>personal experience? Who says there is something to get? Us? I realize
>background info can give a deeper learning experience, but sometimes we
>forget about the simpler experiences we can have with art.
>Janelle Aieta
>Admin. Asst.
>Collections Management
>LACMA
=========================================================
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).
|
